Sand Canyon Wind Nop

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Lorelei H.
Oviatt, AICP, Director

2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 100 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2323 Phone: (661) 862-8600 FAX: (661) 862-8601 TTY Relay 1-800-735-2929
E-Mail: planning@co.kern.ca.us Web Address: www.co.kern.ca.us/planning
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGENCY Ted James, AICP, DSA DIRECTOR

Planning and Community Development Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services Roads Department
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
DATE: October 28, 2010 To: See Attached Mailing List FROM: Kern County Planning and Community Development Department Attn: Michael D. Hollier 2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661) 862-8739
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The Kern County Planning and Community Development Department as Lead Agency (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15052) has required that an Environmental Impact Report (per CEQA Guidelines Section 15161) be prepared for the project identified below. The Planning and Community Development Department solicits the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agencys statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval of projects. Due to the limits mandated by State law, your response must be received by November 29, 2010 at 5pm. In addition, comments can be submitted at a scoping meeting that will be held at the Kern County Planning and Community Development Department on November 18, 2010 at 1:30pm at the address shown above. PROJECT TITLE: MDH 14-10; Sand Canyon Wind Projects; Zone Change Case No. 28, Map 167 and Zone Change Case No. 29, Map 167 (PP11218 and PP11224). PROJECT LOCATION: East and west side of Sand Canyon Road; north side of Tehachapi Boulevard; 300 feet north of State Route 58; 3/4 miles south of the unincorporated community of Sand Canyon; approximately 4 miles east of the City of Tehachapi; in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area of eastern Kern County; Portions of Sections 27 and 28, T32S, R34E, MDBM. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicants are requesting a change in zone classification on approximately 300 acres in order to allow for the construction of up to 17 wind turbine generators which would generate up to 40 megawatts (MW) of energy. Additionally, the project proposes the incorporation of the Floodplain (FP) Combining District on about 100 acres located along Cache Creek. Implementation of the request would also entail construction of three meteorological towers, seventeen crane pads, on and off-site access roads, control cables, and subsurface feeder line corridors and collector system lines necessary to serve the project.
Signature: Name: Title:
/S/ Michael Hollier Planner II
ZCC #28, Map #167 ZCC #29, Map #167 14-10mbh.nop
City of Tehachapi 115 South Robinson Street Tehachapi, CA 93561-1722
U.S. Bureau of Land Management Caliente/Bakersfield 3801 Pegasus Drive Bakersfield, CA 93308-6837
China Lake Naval Weapons Center Tim Fox, RLA - Comm Plans & Liaison 429 E Bowen, Building 979 Mail Stop 4003 China Lake, CA 93555-6108
Edwards Air Force Base AFFTC/XRX Bldg 0001, Room 110 #1 South Rosamond Blvd. Edwards AFB, CA 93524-1936
Federal Aviation Administration Western Reg Office/Airport Div - AWP 600 P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009
Federal Communications Comm 18000 Studebaker Road, #550 Cerritos, CA 90701
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Ventura, CA 93003
Tehachapi Resource Cons Dist 321 West "C" Street Tehachapi, CA 93561-2011
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX Office 75 Hawthorn Street San Francisco, CA 94105
U.S. Dept of Agriculture/NRCS 5000 California Avenue, Ste 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309-0711
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Attention Planning Division 1325 "J" Street Sacramento, CA 95814
So. San Joaquin Valley Arch Info Ctr California State University of Bkfd 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93311
Caltrans/Dist 6 Planning/Land Bank Bldg. P.O. Box 12616 Fresno, CA 93778
Caltrans/Dist 9 Planning Department 500 South Main Street Bishop, CA 93514
Caltrans/ Division of Aeronautics, MS #40 P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001
State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 CERTIFIED MAIL
State Dept of Conservation Director's Office 801 "K" Street, MS 24-01 Sacramento, CA 95814-3528
State Dept of Conservation Division of Oil & Gas 4800 Stockdale Highway, Ste 417 Bakersfield, CA 93309
California Energy Commission James W. Reed, Jr. 1516 Ninth Street Mail Stop 17 Sacramento, CA 95814
State Dept of Fish & Game 1234 East Shaw Avenue Fresno, CA 93710
California Highway Patrol Planning & Analysis Division P.O. Box 942898 Sacramento, CA 94298-0001
Public Utilities Comm Energy Div 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102
California Regional Water Quality Control Board/Lahontan Region 14440 Civic Drive, Suite 200 Victorville, CA 92392-2306
Kern County Airports Department
Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Svs/Floodplain
Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Svs/Survey
Kern County Env Health Services Department
Kern County Fire Dept Brian Marshall
Kern County Fire Dept Dave Goodell
Kern County Library/Beale Local History Room
Kern County Library/Beale Diane Duquette
Kern County Library Tehachapi Branch 1001 West Tehachapi Blvd - Suite 400 Tehachapi, CA 93561
Kern County Parks & Recreation
Kern County Sheriff's Dept Administration
Kern County Roads Department
Kern County Waste Management Department
Tehachapi Unified School Dist 400 South Snyder Tehachapi, CA 93561
Kern County Superintendent of Schools Attention Mary Baker 1300 17th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301
Golden Hills Community Serv Dist P.O. Box 637 Tehachapi, CA 93581
Tehachapi-Cummings Co Water Dist P.O. Box 326 Tehachapi, CA 93561
Kern County Water Agency P.O. Box 58 Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058
Tehachapi Valley Rec & Parks Dist P.O. Box 373 Tehachapi, CA 93561
East Kern Air Pollution Control District
Mojave Airport 1434 Flightline Mojave, CA 93501
East Kern Airport Dist Attention Stuart Witt 1434 Flightline Mojave, CA 93501
East Kern Airport Dist Engineer 3900 Ridgemoor Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93306
Northcutt and Associates P.O. Box 2893 Lake Isabella, CA 93240
Mountain Valley Airport P.O. Box 100 Tehachapi, CA 93581
Tehachapi City Hall/Airport 115 South Robinson Street Tehachapi, CA 93561
Adams, Broadwell, Joseph & Cardozo Attention: Janet M. Laurain 601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 1000 South San Francisco, CA 94080
U.S. Air Force Western Regional Environmental Officer 50 Fremont Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94105-2230
U.S. Army Dir of Public Works/Master Plan Div P.O. Box 105097 Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5097
U.S. Army Peter Rubin B7905th Street Parks RFTA Dublin, CA 94568
U.S. Navy Steve Chung 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 92132
U.S. Marine Corps Patrick Christman Building 1164/Box 555246 Camp Pendleton, CA 92055
AT & T 5555 E. Olive Avenue, Cubicle 450F Fresno, CA 93727
Kern Audubon Society P.O. Box 3581 Bakersfield, CA 93385
Los Angeles Audubon 926 Citrus Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90036-4929
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environmental 47 Kearny Street, Suite 804 San Francisco, CA 94108-5528
Center on Race, Poverty & the Environmental/ CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation 1302 Jefferson Street, Suite 2 Delano, CA 93215
Defenders of Wildlife/ Cynthia Wilkerson, M.S. California Representative 1303 "J" Street, Suite 270 Sacramento, CA 95814
Mojave Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 999 Mojave, CA 93502
Native American Heritage Council of Kern County/Fay Van Horn P.O. Box 1507 Bakersfield, CA 93302
Beth Boyst Pacific Crest Trail Program Manager 1323 Club Drive Vallejo, CA 94592
Eric Mason Pacific Crest Trail Association P.O. Box 3398 Idyllwild, CA 92549
Suzanne Wilson Pacific Crest Trail Association 26121-A Hemstreet Place Idyllwild, CA 92549
Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter Arthur Unger ***PUT IN BUCKET***
Smart Growth Coalition/Bkfd 302 S Mojave Street Tehachapi, CA 93561-1826
Southern California Edison Planning Dept. 421 West "J" Street Tehachapi, CA 93561
Chumash Council of Bakersfield P.O. Box 902 Bakersfield, CA 93302
David Laughing Horse Robinson P.O. Box 1547 Kernville, CA 93238
Santa Rosa Rancheria Clarence Atwell, Chairperson P.O. Box 8 Lemoore, CA 93245
Tejon Indian Tribe Kathy Morgan, Chairperson 2234 4th Street Wasco, CA 93280
Kitanemuk & Yowlumne Tejon Indians Delia Dominguez 981 North Virginia Covina, CA 91722
Tubatulabals of Kern County P.O. Box 226 Lake Isabella, CA 93240
Tule River Indian Tribe Neal Peyron, Chairperson P.O. Box 589 Porterville, CA 93258
Cuddy Valley Statistical 11667 Steinhoff Road Frazier Park, CA 93222
Eight Bar Ranch Jon and Helen Lantz 11300 Cameron Canyon Road Mojave, CA 93501
Janice Armstrong 25101 Bear Valley Boulevard PMB 20 Tehachapi, CA 93561
Northcutt and Associates P.O. Box 2893 Lake Isabella, CA 93240
Steve Yatsko Terra-Gen 11512 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130
URS Corporation 30 River Park Place West, Suite 180 Fresno, CA 93720
Vestas Sarah Adams 1881 Southwest Naito Parkway Portland, OR 97201
Kern Wind Energy Association c/o Linda Parker 5617 Spring Blossom Street Bakersfield, CA 93313
Appendix C
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal

Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613 For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Project Title: Sand Canyon Wind Projects Lead Agency: Kern County Mailing Address: 2700 M Street, Suite 100 City: Bakersfield
SCH #
Zip: 93301
Contact Person: Michael Hollier Phone: (661) 862-8787 County: Kern
Project Location: County: Kern City/Nearest Community: Tehachapi/Sand Canyon Sand Canyon Road and Tehachapi Boulevard Cross Streets: Zip Code: 93561 Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): 35 q 7 c 10 s N / 118 q 19 c 17 s W Total Acres: 300 Assessor's Parcel No.: 224-111-01 & -16, 224-120-17 & -18 Section: 27 & 28 Twp.: 32 S Range: 34 E Base: MDBM Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: 58 Waterways: Cache Creek Airports: N/A Railways: Union Pacific Schools: N/A Document Type:
CEQA:
NOP Early Cons Neg Dec Mit Neg Dec
Draft EIR Supplement/Subsequent EIR (Prior SCH No.) Other:
NEPA:
NOI EA Draft EIS FONSI
Other:
Joint Document Final Document Other:
Local Action Type:
General Plan Update General Plan Amendment General Plan Element Community Plan
Development Type:
Specific Plan Master Plan Planned Unit Development Site Plan
Rezone Prezone Use Permit Land Division (Subdivision, etc.)
Annexation Redevelopment Coastal Permit Other:
Residential: Units Office: Sq.ft. Commercial:Sq.ft. Industrial: Sq.ft. Educational: Recreational: Water Facilities:Type
Acres Acres Acres Acres
Employees Employees Employees
MGD
Transportation: Type Mining: Mineral Power: Type Wind Waste Treatment:Type Hazardous Waste:Type Other:
MW 40 MGD
Project Issues Discussed in Document:

Aesthetic/Visual Agricultural Land Air Quality Archeological/Historical Biological Resources Coastal Zone Drainage/Absorption Economic/Jobs
Fiscal Flood Plain/Flooding Forest Land/Fire Hazard Geologic/Seismic Minerals Noise Population/Housing Balance Public Services/Facilities
Recreation/Parks Schools/Universities Septic Systems Sewer Capacity Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Solid Waste Toxic/Hazardous Traffic/Circulation
Vegetation Water Quality Water Supply/Groundwater Wetland/Riparian Growth Inducement Land Use Cumulative Effects Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
SEE ATTACHED
Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary)
SEE ATTACHED
Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or previous draft document) please fill in. Revised 2008
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal (Appendix C) Additional Project Information for: ZCC #28, Map 167 ZCC #29, Map 167 (Sand Canyon Wind Projects) Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Description: Undeveloped / A-1 (Limited Agriculture) / 8.2 Resource (Resource Agriculture), 8.3 (Extensive Agriculture), 8.3/2.4 (Extensive Agriculture and Steep Slopes Physical Constraint), and 8.5 (Resource Management).
Project Description: The applicants are requesting a change in zone classification on approximately 300 acres in order to allow for the construction of up to 17 wind turbine generators which would generate up to 40 megawatts (MW) of energy. Additionally, the project proposes the incorporation of the Floodplain (FP) Combining District on about 100 acres located along Cache Creek. Implementation of the request would also entail construction of three meteorological towers, seventeen crane pads, on and off-site access roads, control cables, and subsurface feeder line corridors and collector system lines necessary to serve the project.
Reviewing Agencies Checklist

Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X". If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S". Air Resources Board Boating & Waterways, Department of California Highway Patrol Caltrans District # 6 & 9 Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Caltrans Planning Central Valley Flood Protection Board Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy Coastal Commission Colorado River Board Conservation, Department of Corrections, Department of Delta Protection Commission Education, Department of Energy Commission Fish & Game Region # Fres Food & Agriculture, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of General Services, Department of Health Services, Department of Housing & Community Development Integrated Waste Management Board Native American Heritage Commission
S S
S S S
Office of Emergency Services Office of Historic Preservation Office of Public School Construction Parks & Recreation, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Department of Public Utilities Commission Regional WQCB # Lah Resources Agency S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm. San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy San Joaquin River Conservancy Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy State Lands Commission SWRCB: Clean Water Grants SWRCB: Water Quality SWRCB: Water Rights Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Toxic Substances Control, Department of Water Resources, Department of Other: Other:
S S
Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)
Starting Date October 28, 2010
Ending Date November 29, 2010
Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):
Consulting Firm: Address: City/State/Zip: Contact: Phone:
Applicant: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone:
Signature of Lead Agency Representative:
/S/
Date: 10/27/10
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.
Revised 2008
Notice of Preparation/Initial Study for the Sand Canyon Wind Projects

ZCC #28, Map 167 ZCC #29, Map 167
Prepared by: Kern County Planning and Community Development Department 2700 M Street, Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370 (661) 862-8600
October 2010
Table of Contents
1. Project Description 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 2. Location ................................................................................................................................. 1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................ 1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................... 6 Project Facilities and Operations ........................................................................................... 6 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................. 7 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals ........................................................... 8
Environmental Determination 2.1 2.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .......................................................................... 9 Determination......................................................................................................................... 9
3.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................. 11 Agriculture and Forest Resources ........................................................................................ 12 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 14 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................ 17 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 19 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................ 20 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................. 22 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................ 24 Hydrology and Water Quality .............................................................................................. 27 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................ 30 Mineral Resources................................................................................................................ 31 Noise .................................................................................................................................... 32 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................... 35 Public Services ..................................................................................................................... 37 Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 39 Transportation/Traffic .......................................................................................................... 40 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................... 43 Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................... 45
1. 1.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location
The Sand Canyon Wind Energy Project by Sand Canyon of Tehachapi, LLC, and the Sand Canyon Creek Wind Energy Project by Sand Canyon Creek, LLC will be collectively addressed in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as the "project" and will be referenced individually as Site 1 and Site 2, respectively. The project would be located in the eastern part of Kern County. Figures 1 and 2 show the regional location and vicinity of the project area, respectively. The proposed project site is located immediately north of Tehachapi Boulevard and State Route (SR) 58 in the Greater Tehachapi area of eastern Kern County (Figure 1). The project sites are generally bounded north and east by the Tehachapi Mountains, to the south by Tehachapi Boulevard and SR 58, and to the west by the Tehachapi Valley. Cache Creek traverses portions of Site 2 flowing from north to south. Offsite access is from Sand Canyon Road. The Union Pacific railroad line is located approximately 150 feet south of Site 1. The Calaveras Cement Company is situated directly west of the Project while the Tehachapi Airport is located approximately 6 miles to the west, and the Mountain Valley Airport is situated approximately 5 miles to the southwest. The unincorporated community of Sand Canyon is located approximately 3/4 miles to the north, and the City of Tehachapi is about 4 miles to the west. The project is located entirely on the U.S. Geological Service 7.5 minute Monolith Topographic Quadrangle. In Township 32 South, Range 34 East, M.D.B.&M., Site 1 spans portions of Section 28, and Site 2 spans portions of Section 27.
1.3 Environmental Setting

The project sites (defined as the area within the project boundaries shown on Figure 2) consists of approximately 300 acres divided into 4 privately owned parcels of undeveloped land located in the Tehachapi Valley at the base of Sand Canyon. Site 1 is within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Kern County General Plan (KCGP), and Site 2 is located within the Sand Canyon Specific Plan (SCSP). Site 1 lands are designated Map Codes 8.2 (Resource Reserve), 8.3/2.4 (Extensive Agriculture Steep Slope Physical Constraints), and 8.5 (Resource Management) according to the KCGP. Site 2 lands, within the SCSP, are designated Map Code 8.5 (Figure 2). The both sites are zoned Limited Agriculture (A-1) District (Figure 3). Project topography is described as a double-peaked hill that steeply slopes to the east from about 4,210 ft. above Mean Sea Level (MSL) into a small alluvial plain at about 3,910 ft. above MSL. Several small mountain washes traverse the area draining into Cache Creek. Portions of Site 2 along Cache Creek are located within an A Zone (100-year) Flood Hazard Area as delineated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM). Site vegetation is comprised of native and nonnative species typical of the upper reaches of the Tehachapi Valley. Vegetation on the southeastern half of the project is described as juniper woodland, while the northeast half is primarily described as pinyon-juniper woodland. Wetlands may be present along Cache Creek and some of the washes traversing the project site. Site soils are primarily classified as Steuber series. No structures are located on the project site. Two existing water wells are situated on the project sites, but the applicant plans to abandon these wells after construction of the project.
31 S 32 E
W
31 S 33 E
31 S 34 E
31 S 35 E
31 S 36 E
Lo sA
32 S 32 E
202
32 S 33 E
Steuber Rd
32 S 34 E
58 } |
} |
Valley Blvd
T eh a cha
PROJECT SITES
l vd
ng ele
sA
qu
ed uc
12 N 16 W
11 N 16 W
11 N 15 W
11 N 14 W
T eh
ac h
11 N 13 W
re ak C
Holt St
ZCC No. 28 & ZCC No. 29, Map No. 167 Figure 1 Vicinity Map
S ie r
Sand Canyon Wind Projects

r a Hw
Township/Range City Limits Sec. 27 & 28 - T. 32/R. 34
United St
10 N 16 W
oo
fo
rd
Te
ha c
ha
pi
Rd
pi B
S an
an dC
Highline Rd
De nn
_ ^
Rd
yo
32 S 35 E
eC C ach
32 S 36 E
d
14 } |
Bl v re e k
California City Blvd
i so
12 N 15 W
nR
12 N 14 W
Ca
n ro
12 N 13 W
12 N 12 W
12 N 11 W
ek R
14 } |
11 N 12 W
58 } |
11 N 11 W
10 N 15 W
10 N 14 W
ap
iW
i ll
ow
Sp r in gs Rd
10 N 13 W
Kern County
10 N 12 W
Development Department
0.5 0 0.5 1
10 N 11 W
10/27/2010
1.5 2
Backus Rd Planning & Community
2.5 Miles
20.92 ac.
20.87 ac.
20.82 ac.
19.96 ac.
Ferncuko St
163.79 ac.
80.8 ac.
136.29 ac.
39.74 ac.
39.81 ac.
Century Ct
29.91 ac.
82.31 ac.
161.95 ac.
Zephyp Ct
80.34 ac.
Cannon Rd
120.76 ac. 196.45 ac. 37.8 ac.
Sand Canyon Rd
113.43 ac.
29.97 ac.
165.8 ac.
623.31 ac.
451.7 ac.
403.7 ac.
195.96 ac.
308.18 ac.
Te h
195.34 ac.
ac
ha
pi
Bl 38.06 ac. vd
57.76 ac. 86.26 ac. 194.63 ac. 313.25 ac.
53.26 ac.
26. 87
ac.
} } | |
58 58
13 .2 2
ac .
23 .4 7
ac .
158.76 ZCC No. 28 & ZCC No. 29, Map ac. 167 No. 99.61 ac. Assessor's Parcelization Figure 4 SITE 1

APN: 224-111-01; 224-111-16 224-120-14; 224-120-18
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Feet
643.75 ac.
81.21 ac.
12 .11
SITE 2
ac .
Sec. 27 & 28 - T. 32/R. 34 157.51 ac.
Parcel Boundaries
161.83 ac.
12 7.8
1a
c.
Kern County Planning & Community Development Department
149.45 ac. 10/27/2010
y o n Rd
Ju
n iper Wy
ail Rd D eer T
Maggie Rd
Basalt Rd
Guyon Ln
1 7
Rd
Pin
Rd
eC
an
1 6
1 5
t W ater R d S w ee r v D E(2 1/2) e4 MH ro1 RS Pin e G
ZCC No. 28 & ZCC No. 29, Map No. 167

1 3
Existing Zoning
E(20) RS A A
KERN COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATIONS A - Exclusive agriculture A-1 - Limited agriculture C-1 - Neighborhood commercial C-2 - General commercial CH - Highway commercial CO - Commercial office DI - Drilling island E(2 1/2) - Estate (2 1/2 acres) M-1 - Light manufacturing M-2 - Medium industrial M-3 - Heavy industrial MP - Mobilehome park PL - Platted lands R-1 - Low density residential R-2 - Medium density residential R-3 - High density residential RF - Recreation forestry FP - Floodplain combining FPS - Floodplain secondary combining GH - Geologic hazard combining MH - Mobilehome combining PD - Precise development combining RS - Residential suburban combining WE - Wind energy combining
SITE 1
Rabitisha Av
Scusnitsa St
Sa
nd
yo an C
Ferncuko St
2 0
Century Ct
2 1 A
Ol dW
ell
2 2
2 3
2 4
A
Cannon Rd
A-1
A WE 32 S 34 E A-1
A-1
2 9
A-1
Te h
ac
ha
2 8
pi Bl vd
A-1
2 7
2 6
A
2 5
A
A-1
} |
58
A-1
A-1 A WE A
1
SITE 2 Township/Range Sections Zoning Boundaries
} |
58
3 2
3 3
A WE
3 4
3 5
3 6

Sec. 27 & 28 - T. 32/R. 34
Figure 3
12 N 14 W
A GH
o er
Rd
Kern County Planning & Community Development Department E(20) 10/27/2010

0
12 N 13 W
4,000 Feet
Ca
1 7
1 8
Scusnitsa St
Rabitisha Av
Sa
nd
y an
on 1 6
6 5.
1 5
8.5
ZCC No. 28 & ZCC No. 29, Map No. 167 Existing General & Specific Plan Map Codes
2 0
8.2/2.2
2 1
Ferncuko St
8.2/2.4
SAND CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN

2 2 2 3
8.5
8.2/2.4
Century Ct
3.4.1/2.4
3.4.1/2.2
3.4.1
32S 34E
Cannon Rd
8.5
3.7
KERN COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

8.2 8.2
2 9
8.2/2.5
8.3/2.4 8.3/2.4
Te 2 8 ha ch 8.3/2.4 ap iB lv d
32 S 34 E
2 7
8.5
2 6
KERN COUNTY GENERAL/ SAND CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATIONS 1.1 State and federal land 2.1 Seismic Hazard 2.2 Landslide 2.4 Steep slope 2.5 Flood hazard 3.3 Other facilities 3.4 Solid waste disposal facility 3.4.1 Solid waste disposal facility buffer 5.6 Minimum 2.5 gross acres/unit 8.1 Intensive agriculture (20 acre parcel) 8.2 Resource reserve (20/80 acre parcel) 8.3 Extensive agriculture (20/80 acre parcel) 8.4 Mineral and petroleum (5 acre parcel) 8.5 Resource mgnt (20/80 acre parcel)
3.4
8.5
SITE 1 SITE 2
8.5/2.5
8.3/2.4
8.2
}} ||
58 58
Township/Range
1
Sections General Plan Boundaries
8.3
Sand Canyon Wind Project

Sec. 27 & 28 - T. 32/R. 34
3 2
3 3
8.5/2.4
3 4
8.3/2.5
3 5
Kern County Planning & Community Development Department
Figure 2
8.5/2.4 8.2
10/07/2010
8.5/2.1
d on R me r 3.3/2.5 Ca 3.3/2.1
1,880 Feet
KERN COUNTY SAND CANYON WIND PROJECTS
PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
1.3 Proposed Project

The applicants are requesting a zone change from A-1 (Limited Agriculture) Zone District to A WE (Exclusive Agriculture - Wind Energy Combining) and A FP WE (Exclusive Agriculture Floodplain Combining Wind Energy Combining) District. The project sites existing base zone districts require the incorporation of the Wind Energy (WE) Combining District for development of the proposed wind energy facility. Since the current zoning of A-1 is not consistent with the 8.3 and 8.5 Map Codes, the project requires a zone change to the A District to become consistent and allow for the incorporation of the WE Combining District. The purpose of the WE Combining District is to promote the use of an alternative to fossil fuel-generated electrical power in areas of the County that are identified to have suitable wind resources for production of commercial quantities of wind-generated electrical power. The WE Combining District contains specific development standards that apply to all construction and siting of wind turbines and accessory facilities in this zone without further discretionary review. Since a 100-acre portion of the project lies within a DFIRM Zone A, the Floodplain (FP) Combining District is necessary to protect public health and safety and minimize property damage by designating areas that are potentially subject to flooding by establishing reasonable restrictions on land use.
1.4 Project Facilities and Operations

The proposed project facilities would include wind turbine generators (WTG), service roads, a power collection system, communication cables, overhead and underground transmission lines, electrical switchyards, project substations, and meteorological towers. The proposed projects temporary facilities would include construction access roads and lay-down areas. Project elements include: Up to a maximum of 17 WTG (proposed 8 WTG on Site 1 and 9 WTG on Site 2) not to exceed 500 feet in height with associated towers, foundations, and pad mounted transformers (each turbine could range from 1 MW to 3 MW) for a total generation capacity not to exceed 40 MW of electricity; One (1) meteorological tower on Site 1, and up to two (2) meteorological towers on Site 2; On-site and off-site project access roads, control cables, and power collection cables (transmission lines) necessary to serve the project and connect to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) grid; A project substation or switchyard for each site to step up the voltage generated by the turbines to meet the electrical transmission systems 56-kilovolt (kV) (Monolith line) or 230-kV (High Wind line) voltage;
The turbines would be a three-blade, up-wind design, placed strategically on the sloping topography in turbine rows to maximize output. Several lay-out options within the proposed WE zoned areas are being considered. Due to military air traffic restrictions, the turbines would also need to conform to the military height requirements at the time of proposed project permitting, as defined by Section 19.64 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance and Figure 19.08.160 of that same document. Presently, the maximum allowed height within the proposed project area is 500 feet. The project is designed in conformance with Section 19.08.160 (Height of Structures) of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance to avoid military flight test airspace for Joint Service Restricted R-2508 Complex. Project construction would last between three and six months for each site. Both sites could be constructed concurrently or sequentially. After the project is constructed, the turbines would generate electricity using wind power. A staff of about one to two workers would be present to mange ongoing operations and conduct mechanical and electrical maintenance activities for each site. Each of the two proposed substations or switchyards would cover less than 2 acres and would consist of a control house, electrical breakers, transformers, and associated equipment. Each substation or switchyard
site would be graded to provide for storm water drainage, graveled, and enclosed within a security fence. Each substation or switchyard would be built to Kern County building code requirements and would include a suitable grounding grid to protect against lightning and shorts. The proposed project entails installation of a small step-up transformer in or near the base of each wind turbine to increase the output voltage of the power generated by the wind turbine to a level suitable for local power collection within the property. For the proposed project, the power collection system voltage has not been determined. Underground cables would be installed throughout the majority of the proposed project and would connect to and between each turbine, connecting each turbine to a feeder circuit; each feeder circuit would in turn be connected to the project substation. Overhead circuits could be used to avoid environmentally sensitive areas, or other constraints inherent to the site. The different turbine circuits would gather at the project substations or switchyards and then be sent to the overhead electricity lines leading to a grid interconnection point. There are two options under consideration for routing of overhead and underground electrical lines to final utility interconnection points. Option A would begin at the project substations or switchyards and go west along the north side of Tehachapi Boulevard to the existing Monolith Substation. Option B would begin at the project substations or switchyards and go south to the High Wind Substation. Fiber-optic communication wires would also be laid down using the same underground trenching channels, and overhead, in conjunction with the Supervisory Control and Data System (SCADA) cabinet to the substations or switchyards.
1.5 Project Objectives

The applicant's objectives for the project are: Provide an approximately 40-MW project generating over 113,800 megawatt hours (MWh) per year of electricity, in California, through optimization of renewable energy sources. Utilize approximately 100 acres within Kern County, California, for the placement of up to 17 wind turbines. Supply renewable energy that will help the State of California meet its goals by reducing green house gas (GHG) emissions by displacing up to 37,404 metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually. Provide property tax revenues to Kern County. Provide green jobs to Kern County and the State of California Meet obligations under the project's Power Purchase Agreement to assist California it in reaching its California Renewable Portfolio Standard mandate. Realize the full potential of the wind resource on the lands under lease. Result in an economically feasible renewable energy project that would be developed through commercially available financing. Displace 37,404 tons of carbon dioxide (a GHG) emissions per year that would otherwise be required to generate the same amount of electricity as this 20 MW project. Displace 27.2 metric tons of sulfur dioxide emissions per year. Displace 32 metric tons of nitrogen oxide emissions per year. Supply clean, safe, renewable energy for approximately 10,544 homes. Support Californias aggressive goal of 33 percent renewable energy generation by 2020.
1.6 Proposed Discretionary Actions/Required Approvals

Construction and operation of the proposed project may require the following discretionary actions and approvals: Federal Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation Wind Turbine Generator Lighting Plan State California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Section 1600 et seq. permits (Streambed Alteration Agreements) Section 2081 Permit (state-listed endangered species) Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit General Construction Stormwater Permit (Preparation of a SWPPP) Regional Water Quality Certification (401 Permit) Local Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District Fugitive Dust Control Plan Authority to Construct Permit to Operate Kern County Engineering, Surveying and Permit Services Department Plan for the Disposal of Drainage Waters Grading and Building Plans Kern County Environmental Health Services Department Hazardous Materials Business Plan Septic and Water System Permits Kern County Fire Department Fire Safety Plan Kern County Board of Supervisors Amendment of Zone Maps Kern County Roads Department Proposed Access Road Design and Encroachment Permit
2.
Environmental Determination
2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact as indicated by the Kern County Environmental Checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Cultural Resources Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities and Service Systems Air Quality
Biological Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Geology and Soils Hydrology and Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance
Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Transportation and Traffic
2.2 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect (a) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (b) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
/S/
Signature
October 28, 2010

Date
Michael D. Hollier
Printed Name
Kern County
For
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No Impact answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated@ applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than Significant Impact. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measure and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist where within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less Than Significant With Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
3.
Probable Environmental Effects
The following discussion addresses impacts to various environmental resources per adopted Kern County Environmental Checklist Form as modeled by Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
3.1 Aesthetics
Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
No Impact
Would the project: (a) (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Placement of wind turbines that are up to 500 feet high in the Tehachapi Valley would alter the views of the project area. Persons traveling in passenger vehicles on nearby roads would observe alterations to the scenic vista. The project could potentially result in significant alteration to existing scenic vistas; therefore, this potential impact will be further evaluated in the EIR. Site 1 terrain is dominated by a double-peaked hill with rocky outcroppings, while Site 2 terrain is dominated by Cache Creek. Both sites are visible by motorists along Tehachapi Boulevard, State Route (SR) 58, and Sand Canyon Road. This area is currently not developed with wind turbines or other tall structures, such as cell towers. This project could significantly change the view shed and scenic resources from public roads. This impact will be evaluated in the EIR. Most of the project area supports native mountain plant communities that are partially degraded by past and current grazing activities and a network of paved and dirt roads. No existing land uses exist on the project site. The undeveloped character of the area may be adversely affected by the project, and therefore the projects potential to substantially degrade its existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings will be further evaluated in the EIR. The only existing source of light and glare in project site area from passing cars, the Calaveras Cement Company, and scattered residences located in the unincorporated area of Sand Canyon to the north. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is expected to require nighttime lighting on some metrological towers and on top of some of the wind turbine generators, which could adversely affect nighttime views of the area. The type of lighting that the FAA would require has not yet been determined. Further analysis of the specific lighting required and the effects of nighttime light are warranted and this potentially significant impact will therefore be evaluated in the EIR.
3.2 Agricultural Resources

Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the states inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in the Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning agricultural use, or Williamson contract? for Act
(b)
(c)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or
d) e)
f)
Farmland Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Section 15206(b)(3) Public Resources Code?
a)
There is no designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance within the proposed project area. The proposed project area is comprised primarily of land classified as grazing land according to the California Division of Land Resource Protection Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland maps. Lands immediately adjacent to the proposed site are similarly classified as grazing land. Therefore, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the conversion of designated Farmland to a nonagricultural use. No impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted. The Kern County base zoning district for the project area is Limited Agriculture (A-1). The project applicants are requesting that the County adopt the Exclusive Agriculture (A) District and incorporate the Wind Energy (WE) Combining District overlays to the A District to facilitate project development. None of the project parcels are subject to Williamson Act land use contracts. This impact to agricultural lands is considered negligible since construction and operation of the wind energy facility will remove only a small amount of land from agricultural use. No impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted.
(b)
(c)/(d) The project sites or surrounding properties do not contain any forest land. No impacts resulting in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use are expected to occur; therefore, the EIR will not discuss this issue. (e) The proposed project does not involve any changes to the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, due the lack of such uses occurring on site. No impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted. No portion of the project is subject to an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone Contract. Result in the cancellation of an open space contract made pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or Farmland Security Zone Contract for any parcel of 100 or more acres (Section 15206(b)(3) Public Resources Code. No impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted.
(f)
3.3 Air Quality

No Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: (a) (b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard as adopted in (c)i, (c)ii, or as established by EPA or air district or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Specifically, would implementation of the project exceed any of the following adopted thresholds: i. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District: Operational and Area Sources Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 10 tons per year. Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 10 tons per year. Particulate Matter (PM10) 15 tons per year. Stationary Sources - as determined by District Rules Severe Nonattainment 25 tons per year. Extreme Nonattainment 10 tons per year. ii. Kern County Air Pollution Control District. Operational and Area Sources Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 25 tons per year.
(c)
Potentially Significant Impact
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 25 tons per year. Particulate Matter (PM10) 15 tons per year. Stationary Sources - determined by District Rules 25 tons per year. (d) (e) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors substantial number of people? affecting a
(a)
The project would be located entirely within the jurisdiction of the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) in the Mojave Desert Air Basin (MDAB). The MDAB is designated non-attainment for both the State and federal ozone standards, and the State particulate matter of less than 10 microns in size (PM10) standard. Project construction would generate emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and PM10 that could result in significant impacts to air quality in the area. Equipment usage and activities during construction of the proposed project would result in emissions of PM10 and ozone precursors, including NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOC), which could result in significant impacts to air quality in the area. The sources of emissions include heavy equipment used to excavate and grade the turbine pads and roads, cranes, and onroad motor vehicles for equipment and material deliveries and workers commuting to the site. Activity on unpaved roads and lay-down areas and grading would contribute to PM10 emissions. This impact is potentially significant. Further analysis of air quality impacts is warranted to determine whether the project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable plans for attainment and if so, to determine the reasonable and feasible mitigation measures that could be imposed. These issues will be evaluated in the EIR. Short-term construction emissions and temporary facilities could significantly contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation of PM10 or ozone standards, requiring the consideration of mitigation measures. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR. The EKAPCD is a nonattainment area for the State and federal ozone standards, and the State PM10 standard, and the EKAPCD rules and regulations apply to all project activities. No project activities would occur within the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. Cumulative contributions to the MDAB could be potentially significant. Construction and operational emissions will be analyzed in the EIR Land uses determined to be sensitive to air quality include residential areas, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project are two residences. One residence is located about 1/2 mile to southeast of the nearest proposed wind turbine generator. The other residence is located
(b)
(c)
(d)
about 1/2 mile to the north of the nearest proposed wind turbine on an adjacent property. Additional residences are located in the unincorporated community of Sand Canyon, situated about 3/4 miles to the north. Project activities would not occur near any other type of sensitive receptors listed above. Construction-related activity and temporary facilities would result in diesel exhaust emissions and dust that could adversely affect air quality for the nearest sensitive receptors. Mitigation measures for diesel equipment and dust control that are recommended by the EKAPCD will be evaluated as part of the EIR to avoid or reduce the impacts to construction workers and occupants of nearby residences. (e) Aside from odors associated with vehicle exhaust and fueling, no other odors would result from the proposed project. Because there are only a few potential residences in the vicinity, fueling odors during project construction would not impact a substantial number of people. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant impacts to air quality related to objectionable odors, and no further analysis is warranted.
3.4 Biological Resources

No Impact
Would the project: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
Field surveys for special status plant and animal species, and species listed as either threatened or endangered by either the State or federal government are currently being conducted and will be included in the EIR. No field studies have been completed to date; therefore potential impacts to biological resources have not been fully identified. In conclusion, impacts to biological resources, including avian species, are potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR. Field surveys for riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities are currently being conducted and will be included in the EIR. No field studies have been completed to date; therefore potential impacts to riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities have not been fully identified. In addition, project related access roads and transmission lines may cross streams and washes that require evaluation for riparian habitat and may also require Streambed Alteration permits from
(b)
the California Department of Fish and Game. In conclusion, impacts are potentially significant and will be analyzed in the EIR. (c) (d) Wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, may be present on the project site. The projects impacts on potential wetlands will therefore be evaluated in the EIR. The project site and surrounding area may be used for migration or dispersal by some avian species. Birds and bats would also likely be subject to mortality during wind turbine operation if they collide with the towers or turbine blades. Project construction and operation would also remove foraging habitat. This impact is potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR. Oak woodland plant communities may be located within the project boundaries. The Kern County General Plan includes oak tree conservation policies (Section 1.10.10, pages 74-75). The project site will be constructed as to be consistent with these policies; therefore, no further analysis is warranted. The proposed project does not occur within any area covered by the proposed an adopted conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the any adopted conservation plan. No further analysis is warranted.
(e)
(f)
3.5 Cultural Resources

Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
Would the project: (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
A cultural resources survey is currently being conducted for the project site and will be included within the EIR. Further evaluation is warranted to identify potential impacts and formulate avoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable. An archaeological survey of the site is being completed and will be included within the EIR. Further evaluation is necessary to identify potential impacts and to formulate avoidance or mitigation measures, if applicable. A paleontological records search within the proposed project area is currently being conducted and will be included within the EIR. A known fossil locality exists nearby to the project area. Potential impacts to paleontological resources and proposed mitigation measures will therefore, be evaluated in the EIR. If human burial grounds are identified in any part of the project area, the project would be redesigned to avoid them. Given the sensitivity of the project area the potential for locating human remains is reasonably foreseeable, and therefore, potentially significant. The EIR will evaluate this potential impact and identify measures to be implemented if any are unexpectedly uncovered during the course of development.
(b)
(c)
(d)
3.6 Geology and Soils

No Impact
Would the project: (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic groundshaking? failure,
ii.
iii. Seismic-related ground including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? (b) (c)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
(d)
(e)
(a)
(i)
Construction of the proposed project would be subject to all applicable ordinances of the Kern County Building Code (Chapter 17.08). Kern County has adopted the California Building Standards Code, 2007 Edition (CCR Title 24), which imposes substantially the same requirements as the Internation Building Code (IBC), 2006 Edition, with some modifications and amendments. The entire County is located in a seismic Zone 4, a designation previously used in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (the predecessor to the
IBC) to denote the areas of highest risk to earthquake ground motion. Adherence to all applicable regulations would mitigate any potential impacts associated with the proposed project The project is not crossed by an Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zone. However, the north branch of the Garlock Fault is located approximately one mile to the southwest of the proposed project. The north branch of the Garlock fault is considered an active fault (known to have been active during Holocene time, in the past 10,000 years). The Garlock fault is a high-angle shear zone with predominant strike-slip movement to the west (left lateral). Significant seismic activity in the area could adversely affect structures and workers on the site. This issue will be evaluated in the EIR. (ii) Strong seismic ground shaking could occur at the project site, resulting in damage to structures that are not properly designed to withstand strong ground shaking. The proposed project is located within the Tehachapi Valley, on the edge of the Tehachapi Mountains, a geologically young and seismically active area. The project would potentially be subject to moderate to strong ground shaking from local and regional earthquakes. This potential impact will be evaluated in the EIR.
(iii) The potential for substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, will be examined in the geotechnical report being prepared for the project site and related potential impacts will be analyzed in the EIR. (iv) Although the project site is not considered to be at high risk area for landslides, the potential for substantial adverse effects due to landslides will nevertheless be analyzed in the EIR.
(b)
Grading would be required for access roads throughout the project site. Grading and excavation would be required for foundations for each WTG tower. Construction activities could result in substantial soil erosion if the improved access roads and/or turbine sites are not properly designed. Careful design of access road gradients and WTG sites would prevent substantial erosion within the project area. Nevertheless, these impacts are potentially significant and the potential for increased erosion will be evaluated in the EIR. The proposed project would be designed such that it would not degrade the stability of the underlying soils. The geotechnical report currently being prepared will examine the current baseline stability of the soils that underlie the project area and the findings of that report will be evaluated in the EIR. While potential impacts are expected to be less than significant they will be evaluated in the EIR and mitigation measures will be presented, if necessary, to protect both structures and people from adverse effects due to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse Expansive soils generally result from specific clay minerals that expand when saturated and shrink in volume when dry. The geotechnical report currently being prepared for the project will confirm the presence or absence of expansive soils within the project area, and those results will be evaluated in the EIR. No septic systems or leach lines are being proposed as part of the project. Nevertheless, the ability of soils within the project area to support a septic tank will be examined in the geotechnical report, and the results of that report will be evaluated in the EIR.
(c)
(d)
(e)
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

No Impact
Would the project:

(a)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
(b)
(a)
Neither the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, nor any other federal, State, or local agency has adopted a threshold to measure a projects impact on global climate change. Global climate change is an international phenomenon, and the regulatory background and scientific data are changing rapidly. In 2006, the California state legislature adopted AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Assembly Bill (AB) 32 describes how global climate change would affect the environment in California. The impacts described in AB 32 include changing sea levels, changes in snow pack and availability of potable water, changes in storm flows and flood inundation zones, and other impacts. As required by AB 32, California Air Resources Board (CARB) determined what the statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions level was in 1990 and then approved a statewide GHG emissions limit that is equivalent to that level, which is to be achieved by 2020. CARB approved the 2020 limit on December 6, 2007. CARBs GHG inventory estimated the 1990 emissions level in California to be 427 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). In 2004, the emissions were estimated to be 480 MMTCO2e. The primary source of GHG emissions from the proposed project during operation would be mobile sources. Not all GHGs exhibit the same ability to induce climate change; therefore, GHG contributions are commonly quantified in carbon dioxide equivalencies. The carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) portion of GHGs from the proposed project is being estimated in an air quality impact analysis using the URBEMIS program and California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) General Reporting Protocol (see Table 4.71). These emissions would be short term in duration and would not have a continual impact on the environment. The proposed projects operational emissions are expected to be low. Regardless, since this project would replace the creation of energy through other methods, such use of a natural gasfired turbine, the operational GHG emissions would actually have a reduction in GHG emission. Impacts related to GHGs and climate stemming from the proposed project, as an alternative to fossil fuel electric generation facilities, would be offset; therefore, it can be expected that the proposed project would have a lessthansignificant impact. Nevertheless, this issue will be evaluated in the EIR.
(b)
Recommended Action E3, Renewable Portfolio Standard, of CARBs Climate Change Scoping Plan enforces the Governors call for a statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) of 33%. The proposed project would help the State meet this goal by adding a wind farm designed to generate up to 20 MW of power to Californias current renewable portfolio. Therefore, in this regard, the proposed project would help the state meet its goals under AB32. A number of Recommended Actions targeted at the transportation sector would be applicable to construction equipment and maintenance vehicles associated with the proposed project. However,
given that these Recommended Actions are based on CARB enforced standards, it can be assumed that the proposed project would not conflict with implementation of such standards. The proposed project would also be consistent with the Countys policy to encourage wind energy development to conserve fossil fuels and improve air quality. The California Attorney General has suggested measures that could be undertaken or funded by a diverse range of projects (e.g., measures related to energy efficiency, renewable energy, water conservation and efficiency, solid waste, land use, transportation and motor vehicles, and carbon offsets). Operation of the proposed project would provide electric power, with negligible GHG emissions over the long term when compared with traditional fossilfueled generation technologies. GHG emissions from the operational powergeneration portion of the proposed project (non-maintenance) is expected to be zero; therefore, the projectspecific generated GHGs would be less than significant because the proposed project would meet the required offset reduction of 29% below business as usual, thereby achieving the mandated emissionreduction targets established by AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project is already in compliance and will not implement the mitigation measures outlined by the attorney general. Impacts are expected to be less than significant; nevertheless, this issue will be further evaluated in the EIR.
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

No Impact
Would the project: (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 1/4 mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within the adopted Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Would implementation of the project generate vectors (flies, mosquitoes, rodents, etc.) or have a component that includes agricultural waste? Specifically, would the project exceed the following qualitative threshold:
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
No Impact
Would the project: The presence of domestic flies, mosquitoes, cockroaches, rodents, and/or any other vectors associated with the project is significant when the applicable enforcement agency determines that any of the vectors: i. Occur as immature stages and adults in numbers considerably in excess of those found in the surrounding environment; and ii. Are associated with design, layout, and management of project operations; and iii. Disseminate widely from the property; and iv. Cause detrimental effects on the public health or well being of the majority of the surrounding population.
(a)
The proposed project is not expected to result in impacts from hazards and hazardous materials with respect to creating a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. This is because the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials as defined by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. The only hazardous materials expected to be transported to and from the site include transformer oil (which is used in electrical transformers for the turbines), vehicle fuel, carburetor fluid, and various types and grades of lubrication oil, all of which are expected to be used in small quantities and for daily maintenance. There are no designated routes for the transport of hazardous materials located on or immediately adjacent to the proposed project; the closest route is State Route (SR) 14, located fifteen miles to the east of the project site. The applicant does not anticipate the need for blasting to prepare foundations. However, in the unlikely event that blasting is required it will be evaluated in the EIR. Potential impacts that may result from construction and operation of the proposed project may include the accidental release of storage materials such as transformer oil, which is used in electrical transformers for turbines, vehicle fuel, carburetor fluid, and various types and grades of lubricants, solvents, and oils. The toxicity and potential release of these materials will depend on the quantity, the type of storage container, safety protocols used on the site, the location and/or proximity to schools and residences, the frequency and duration of spills or storage leaks, and the reactivity of hazardous substances with other materials. Therefore, a complete list of all materials used on site, how the materials will be transported, and in what form they will be used should be recorded to maintain safety and prevent possible environmental contamination or worker exposure. If regulations and standard protocols are followed during the storage, transportation, and usage of any hazardous materials no substantial impacts should occur. Nevertheless, these issues will be evaluated in the EIR. The nearest school to the project site is the Monroe Continuation High School, located about 2 1/2 miles to the west of the project site. The proposed project is a wind energy generation facility that involves using turbines to generate electricity. Project-related infrastructure would not emit hazardous materials or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
(b)
(c)
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impacts would occur and further analysis is not warranted. (d) Staff has reviewed the lists of projects relating to hazardous wastes pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code and concluded the project site is not on the list. Therefore, no impacts would occur and further analysis is not warranted. The project area is not located within two miles of a public or public use airport or within an area covered by the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Therefore, there are no anticipated safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area with respect to the projects proximity to a public or public use airport. The military aviation section of the ALUCP will be reviewed for the projects compliance with policies. The total turbine height including turbine, tower and blade would not exceed 500 feet at its highest point. The project is designed to in conformance with Section 19.08.160 (Height of Structures) of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance to avoid military flight test airspace for Edwards Air Force Base. Therefore, no impacts would occur and further analysis is not warranted. The proposed project is located approximately 5 miles to the east of the Mountain Valley Airport private airstrip. Although impacts are expected to be less than significant, the EIR will evaluate potential impacts related to safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area with respect to the projects proximity to this private airstrip After construction the proposed project development will not physically impede the existing emergency response plans, emergency vehicle access, or personnel access to the site. The site is located in a rural area with several alternative access roads allowing easy access to the site in the event of an emergency. Therefore, no impacts related to impairment of the implementation of or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is anticipated. Nevertheless, the potential for project construction-related traffic to impair or interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans will be evaluated in the EIR. The proposed project sites are under the jurisdiction of the Kern County Wildland Fire Management Plan. This plan documents the wildland fire situation within the county. The project sites are within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) implements wildfire planning and protection for the SRA. The proposed project sites are located in an area highly susceptible to wildfires; vegetation consists of juniper and pinyon woodland, with areas of introduced annual grasses, native needle grass grassland, and pine oak woodlands along wetland areas. The potential for construction and operation of the proposed project to result in increased risk of wildfires in the project area will be evaluated in the EIR. The evaluation will include a review of the 2004 Kern County Fire Department Wildland Fire Management Plan and CAL FIREs and Kern County Fire Departments prevention measures for wildland fires. With implementation of mitigation to reduce wildfire ignitions and prevent the spread of wildfires, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant impacts to the exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The proposed project is two wind energy generation facilities that would result in construction of wind turbine generator towers, substations, and operations and maintenance facilities. Projectrelated infrastructure is not expected to result in features or conditions (such as standing water, agricultural products, agricultural waste, or human waste) that would provide habitat for vectors such as mosquitoes, flies, cockroaches or rodents. Workers would generate small quantities of solid waste (i.e. trash) that would be appropriately stored for permanent disposal. Therefore, impacts would be negligible and no further analysis is warranted.
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

No Impact
Would the project: (a) (b) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on site or off site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on site or off site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f) (g)
(h)
(i)

No Impact
Would the project: (j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(a)
It is anticipated that appropriate best management practices and compliance with applicable regulations would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. However, this potential impact will be evaluated fully in the EIR. The proposed project will not include the construction of any water wells in order to supply water to the proposed project during construction. If the project proponent is unable to secure the use of one of the two existing wells within the project boundary then water would be imported to the sites. The proposed project is located in the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. Based on available data for groundwater resources in the vicinity of the proposed project area, domestic water sources are both groundwater extracted from local wells and imported water from the Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District. The proposed project would not require a large quantity of water for construction or operation of the turbines. Because the proposed project would not include the substantial increase in impervious surfaces, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in significant impacts to hydrology and water quality. Project topography is described as a double-peaked hill that steeply slopes to the east from about 4,210 ft. above Mean Sea Level (MSL) into a small alluvial plain at about 3,910 ft. above MSL. Several small mountain washes traverse the area draining into Cache Creek. The turbines would require the construction of concrete pads and fencing and would be strategically placed on the sloping topography in turbine rows. The construction of the concrete pads for installation of the turbines would potentially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. However, incorporation of mitigation measures would reduce impacts to below the level of significance through the incorporation of design techniques and best management practices. Nevertheless, these impacts are potentially significant. Evaluation of impacts to drainage patterns of the site, as well as the potential for increased erosion and/or siltation will be evaluated in the EIR. The turbine foundations would not be placed within the existing drainage pattern because they would be strategically placed on the sloping topography. An area of approximately 2,500 square feet and approximately 32 to 50 feet below ground surface would be excavated for the placement of each concrete pad; therefore the cumulative increase in impervious surfaces is relatively small in comparison with the entire project area. An increase in impervious surfaces could increase storm water run-off. However by incorporating mitigation measures into the project design, the potential for flooding would be avoided. Nevertheless, these impacts are potentially significant. Evaluation of impacts to the projects potential alteration of drainage patterns of the site will be evaluated in the EIR. The project would increase impervious surfaces which could substantially increase storm water run-off. However, with appropriate design measures, the project would mitigate adverse storm water run-off impacts. Further analysis is required to identify appropriate mitigation/design measures and evaluate their effectiveness. Project construction activities (such as grading of access roads) could potentially degrade water quality through erosion and subsequent sedimentation of streams. Additionally, accidental release of potentially harmful materials, such as engine oil, diesel fuel, turbine lubricant, and cement slurry could degrade the water quality of nearby streams. Implementation of best management
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
practices would likely reduce the impact of project activities on surrounding water quality. However, this potential impact will be further evaluated in the EIR. (g) (h) The proposed project does not include housing. Therefore no impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted. Approximately 100 acres of Site 2 are located within an A Zone (100-year) Flood Hazard Area as delineated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM). The applicant is requesting the overlay of the Floodplain (FP) Combining District over portions of the project located within the A Zone. The purpose of the FP Combining District is to protect public health and safety and minimize property damage by designating areas that are potentially subject to flooding by establishing reasonable restrictions on land use. However, the placement of structures within a 100-year flood hazard zone is a potentially significant impact. The potential for project structures to redirect or impede flood flows will be evaluated in the EIR. The project is not located within an area that is subject to flooding due to failure of a levee or dam. Additionally, as stated above, the project would not increase the amount of flood flow across the project site. Therefore, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death due to flooding. No impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted. The project is not located near an ocean or enclosed body of water, and would not be subject to inundation by seiche or tsunami. Mudflows are a type of mass wasting or landslide, where earth and surface materials are rapidly transported downhill under the force of gravity. Mudflow events are caused by a combination of factors, including soil type, precipitation, and slope. Mudflow may be triggered by heavy rainfall that the soil is not able to sufficiently drain or absorb. As a result of this super-saturation, soil and rock materials become unstable and eventually slide away from their existing location. The potential for project structures to be inundated by mudflow will be further evaluated in the EIR.
(i)
(j)
3.10 Land Use and Planning

No Impact
Would the project: (a) (b) Physically community? divide an established
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
(c)
(a)
The project would be developed on vacant land and the surrounding area is also vacant. No established communities are located within or adjacent to the proposed project. Therefore no impact would occur and no further analysis is warranted. A portion of Site 1 is designated with the 2.4 (Steep Slopes) Physical Constraint Map Code per the Kern County General Plan (KCGP). The KCGP contains an implementation measure requiring that development proposed in areas with steep slopes be reviewed to ensure that appropriate soil stability and drainage will result. As noted in answer (3.6 Geology and Soils) a geotechnical study for the proposed project is currently being conducted. Further evaluation is warranted to identify potential impacts and formulate avoidance or mitigation measures. The entirety of the project sites has been requested to be changed from the existing zone classification to include the Wind Energy (WE) Combining District. The purpose of the WE Combining District is to promote the use of an alternative to fossil fuel-generated electrical power in areas of Kern County that are identified to have suitable wind resources. The WE Combining District contains specific development standards and conditions that apply to all construction and siting of wind turbines in this zone. The appropriateness of the project with regard to its consistency with the policies of the Kern County General Plan adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect will be evaluated in the EIR.
(b)
(c)
There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that apply to the area. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic will be conducted in the EIR.
3.11 Mineral Resources

No Impact
Would the project: (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
(b)
(a)
Based on a review of California Geological Survey publications, there are no known mineral resources of statewide or regional importance located within the proposed project site. According to the table of the Mines and Mineral Resources of Kern County California publication there are no mining districts located in or around the vicinity of the proposed project area. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic will be conducted in the EIR Based on a review of California Geological Survey publications, parts of Kern County are rich in mineral deposits. There are established sand and gravel mines 3 1/2 miles to the northwest of the Site 1 boundary. The proposed project has a lifespan of 20 years after which the turbines could be removed; therefore, installation of the turbines would not preclude future onsite mineral resource development. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic will be conducted in the EIR.
(b)
3.12 Noise
No Impact
Would the project: (a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of, excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(a)
Land uses determined to be sensitive to noise as defined by the Kern County General Plan include residential areas, schools, convalescent and acute care hospitals, parks and recreational areas, and churches. The nearest sensitive receptors to the proposed project are two residences. One residence is located about 1/2 mile to southeast of the nearest proposed wind turbine generator. The other residence is located about 1/2 mile to the north of the nearest proposed wind turbine on an adjacent property. Additional residences are located in the unincorporated community of Sand Canyon, situated about 3/4 miles to the north. Project activities would not occur near any other type of sensitive receptors listed above. Implementation of the project would result in a change in the zone classification on various properties to include the WE Combining District. This classification requires that noise levels associated with turbine operations not exceed 45 dBA (A-weighted decibels) for more than five minutes out of any one hour time period or 50 dBA for any period of time if the turbine is within 50 feet of any existing residence, school, hospital, church, or public library (Kern County Ordinance 19.64.140 (J)). A noise analysis will be included in the EIR to determine the projects consistency with the applicable provisions of the Kern County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A noise study for the project is currently being conducted. Noise related impacts to sensitive receptors are expected to be significant; therefore this issue will be evaluated in the EIR
(b)
Ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise could originate from earth movement during the construction phase of the proposed project as well as from the operation and maintenance of the facilities. The project would be expected to comply with all applicable requirements for long-term operation, as well as with measures to reduce excessive ground-borne vibration and noise to ensure that the project would not expose persons or structures to excessive ground-borne vibration. Further analysis of ground-borne vibration and ground-borne noise will be included in the EIR. The project would introduce permanent noise sources from turbine operation, increased traffic, and general maintenance. Construction activity would also increase ambient noise levels above existing levels for up to two years if the sites are developed sequentially and not simultaneously. Further analysis of ambient noise levels and the projects potential impact on those levels will be included in the EIR. Heavy equipment use during construction would cause a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. Temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels caused by construction activities could be reduced with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Projectrelated construction noise levels will be quantified and evaluated in the EIR. The proposed project is not located within the Kern County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The nearest public airstrips are the Tehachapi Airport, located approximately 6 miles to the west. Because the nearest public airport/public use airport is located approximately 6 miles to the west, the proposed project is not expected to expose individuals working in the project area to excessive noise levels resulting from any airports located within the ALUCP; therefore, no further analysis related to public airports is warranted. The Mountain Valley Airport private airstrip is located about 5 miles to the southwest of the Site 1 western boundary. Implementation of the request is not expected to expose individuals working in the project area to excessive noise levels generated from private airstrips; therefore, no further analysis related to private airstrips is required.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
3.13 Population and Housing

No Impact
Would the project: (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
(b)
(c)
(a)
Although the proposed project would provide new employment consistent with adopted County of Kern goals, plans, and policies, the employment would be minimal. The project is expected to require fewer than 50 workers, which would be a minimal increase in employment over the threeto-six month construction period given the project areas existing population. Construction workers are expected to travel to the site from various locations throughout southern California, and the number of workers expected to relocate to the surrounding area is not expected to be substantial. Therefore, the proposed project would not directly or indirectly induce the development of any new housing or businesses. Operation of the proposed project would also require approximately one to two full-time or part-time staff for each site. Typical established local thresholds of significance for housing and population growth pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.7 include effects that would induce substantial growth or concentration of a population beyond County projections, alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the population beyond that projected in the Housing Element, result in a substantial increase in demand for additional housing, or create a development that significantly reduces the ability of the County to meet housing objectives set forth in the General Plan Housing element. The effects of the proposed project in relation to these local thresholds are minimal. Although the project would produce additional electricity, it is intended to meet the demand for energy that is already projected based on growth in communities around California. While, the projects electricity would replace electricity generated by fossil fuels, thereby contributing to Californias renewable energy goals, the production of additional electricity may indirectly be growth inducing. However, additional energy availability alone would not drive population growth. Additional factors that would be necessary for population growth in Kern County would include access to public utilities, housing, sufficient transportation capacity, and employment opportunities. The production of additional energy would not automatically cause an increase in jobs. Further local governments can minimize the potential growth-inducing effects of proposed projects through regulatory authority in relation to land use. In addition, the project does not propose the extension of roads or the development of other infrastructures, such as utilities, beyond the project site that would indirectly induce population growth. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic will be conducted in the EIR.
(b) (c)
No residential structures are located within the project boundaries; consequently no housing will be displaced. Impacts to the housing will not be further analyzed in the EIR. The project will not displace any people; therefore, impacts necessitating the construction of replacement housing will not be discussed in the EIR.
3.14 Public Services

No Impact
(a)
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or to other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police Protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public Facilities?
(a)
The Kern County Fire Department provides fire suppression and medical emergency services to the project area. The primary fire station that would serve the project area is Station No. 12 (Tehachapi), located at 800 South Curry Street, Tehachapi, California, approximately 7 miles west of the proposed project area. The proposed project site is within a State Responsibility Area (SRA), and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) implements wildfire planning and protection for the SRA. The proposed project site is located in an area highly susceptible to wildfires and onsite vegetation consists of juniper woodland and pinyon tree woodland, with areas of introduced annual grasses, native needle grass grassland, and pine oak woodlands along wetlands. Construction and operation activities may result in increased risk of wildfire, which could impact fire fighting capacity in the area. The potential impact on fire services from construction in a SRA area and operation of the wind turbines is therefore potentially significant and will be evaluated in the EIR. Police protection services in the proposed project area are provided by the Kern County Sheriffs Department. The Tehachapi Substation, located at 129 East F Street, Tehachapi, California, approximately 7 miles west of the proposed project area, would be the primary substation to service the proposed project area. Although the potential is low, the project may attract vandals or other security risks, and construction activities could result in increases in traffic volumes along State Route (SR) 58 that could increase demand on law enforcement services. Onsite security would be provided and access would be limited to the areas surrounding the project site during construction and operation thereby minimizing the need for police surveillance and response. The projects impacts on sheriff services are considered less than significant, but will be evaluated in the EIR.
During project construction, a relatively small number of construction workers would be required. However, it is expected that most of these workers would commute to the project site from surrounding communities. Therefore substantial temporary increases in population that would adversely affect local school populations are not expected. Likewise, the operation workforce is not expected to generate a permanent increase in population that would impact school populations. To confirm this, the EIR will provide an estimate of the number of school-aged children that could possibly be added to local schools. The population increase that would be experienced during the construction phase of the proposed project would be temporary and would not result in additional demand for park facilities. The proposed project is expected to result in less than significant impacts on public services, such as post office and library services. Nevertheless, all impacts on public services will be evaluated in the EIR.
3.15 Recreation
No Impact
(a)
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
(b)
(a)
The temporary increase of population during construction that might be caused by an influx of workers would be minimal. As a result, there would not be a detectable increase in the use of parks. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic will be conducted in the EIR. The project does not include new recreational facilities. Therefore, the EIR will not further evaluate this issue.
(b)
3.15 Transportation and Traffic

Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.
Would the project:
(a)
Exceed the capacity of the existing circulation system, based on applicable measure of effectiveness (as designated in a general plan policy, ordinance, etc.), taking into account all relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency or adopted County threshold for designated roads or highways? Specifically, would implementation of the project cause the Level of Service (LOS) for roadways and/or intersections to decline below the following thresholds or further degrade already degraded segment(s): i. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan LOS "C"?
(b)
ii. Kern County General Plan LOS "D"?
(c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(d)
(e) (f)
(a)
During construction, regional access to the project site would be provided by State Route (SR) 58 and SR 14 (Figure 1). Project-related traffic would use Tehachapi Boulevard and Sand Canyon Road, which are both designated as arterial (major highway) alignments, by the Circulation Element of the Kern County General Plan. Construction of the proposed project may occur simultaneously or sequentially, lasting approximately three to six months per site. In addition to
vehicle trips generated by construction workers traveling to the site, construction of the project would add vehicle trips to the area roadway system through delivery of construction equipment and materials. Delivery of construction materials would require a number of oversize vehicle trips that may travel at slower speeds than existing traffic and, due to their size, may intrude into adjacent travel lanes. These oversize trips may decrease the existing level of service (LOS) on area freeways, roadways and intersections. Additionally, the total number of vehicle trips associated with all construction-related traffic (including construction workers) could temporarily increase daily traffic volumes traveling on local roadways and intersections. Furthermore, stringing activities required for transmission line infrastructure may require temporary lane closures that may result in temporary traffic delays on affected roadways. These potential impacts on the local roadway system from construction related vehicle trips will be evaluated in the EIR. Once constructed, wind operations typically employee a relatively small number of staff, including wind turbine technicians, operations personnel, administrative personnel and managers, would be employed to operate and maintain the project. The potential impact of project operational traffic on the area roadway system will be evaluated in the EIR. (b) (i) The proposed project site is not located in or near the metropolitan Bakersfield area. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic will be conducted in the EIR. (ii) As detailed in the response to Question 3.15(a), construction of the project would generate construction trips and may require roadway lane closures, which could temporarily increase the daily traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections. Operation of the project would also generate trips on local roadways. The potential impacts of these conditions on LOS of area roadways will be evaluated in the EIR. (c) The project is located approximately 6 miles east of the Tehachapi Airport, 5 miles northeast of the Mountain Valley Airport and approximately 27 miles northwest of Edwards Air Force Base. The proposed project is subject to Section 19.08.160 (Height of Structures) of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance and the Military Aviation section of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The ALUCP requires findings that the project will not significantly impact the military mission in protected airspace. Due to military air traffic restrictions, the turbines will need to conform to the military height requirements as defined by Section 19.64 of the Kern County Zoning Ordinance and Figure 19.08.160 of that same document. Additionally, the project must comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards for determining physical obstructions to navigable airspace and lighting of the turbines and meteorological towers. The proposed project site has been designed within the appropriate height limits compatible with continued military airspace operations. While the proposed project is not expected to result in changes in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks, a complete review and discussion will be included in the EIR and reviewed by the appropriate military and federal contacts. (d) A number of existing dirt roads within the project site would be graded, widened, and compacted to provide adequate construction and maintenance access to project facilities. New access roads would be constructed where required. Because all site access roadways would be private and gated to restrict public use, all modifications to existing on-site access roads and any new access roads created are not expected to result in an increase to public transportation hazards due to design or incompatible use. Access to the project sites may also require improvements to any highway off ramps and local roadways that provide access to the site. Since all project access roads would require Access Road Design and Encroachment Permits from both Kern County and the California Department of Transportation, the projects compliance with regulations pertaining to access road modifications and construction for both sites will be evaluated in the EIR. As described in the response to Question 3.15(a), construction of the project would generate construction trips and potential roadway lane closures that could temporarily increase the daily
(e)
traffic volumes on local roadways and intersections, thereby impeding emergency access. The potential for project-related traffic to result in inadequate emergency access will be evaluated in the EIR. (f) As described in the response to Question 3.15(a), construction of the project would generate construction trips and potential roadway lane closures that could temporarily disrupt any bicycle traffic on local roadways. However, due to the rural nature of the project site area, no bus stops or designated bicycle lanes exist on the roadways likely to be used during construction and operation. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic will be conducted in the EIR.
3.16 Utilities and Service Systems

No Impact
Would the project: (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a)
The proposed project would generate a minimal volume of wastewater. During construction and operation, wastewater would be contained within portable toilet facilities and disposed of at an approved site. During operation, the proposed project would not generate substantial volumes of wastewater as there would only be up to one to two full-time or part-time employees per site that would primarily work from a nearby off-site location. Impacts exceeding wastewater treatment requirement are expected to be less than significant; however, the EIR will considered these issues more thoroughly. The proposed project would not require the construction of any septic systems or leach lines. Wastewater generation during construction and operation is expected to be limited. As noted previously, generated wastewater would be contained within portable toilet facilities and disposed of at an approved disposal site. Water would be provided by a well or other water service (to serve non-potable demands) and by bottled drinking water (to serve potable needs). Water that is
(b)
needed for construction, such as for dust suppression and concrete mixing, would either be supplied from existing wells on the project sites or be trucked in from nearby municipalities, such as Mojave or Tehachapi. Since the proposed project would provide its own water source, it would not impact existing water supply systems. However, the proposed project would still require construction of the facilities listed above. All applicable local, State, and federal requirements and best management practices would be incorporated into construction of the project. The EIR will evaluate proposed measures and their effectiveness. (c) Although the project would create a small amount of additional impervious surface and may require a small amount of imported water for dust suppression during construction, these changes would not substantially increase the amount of stormwater runoff. The project area is drained by natural stream channels and does not rely on constructed stormwater drainage systems. As stated above, the pattern and concentration of runoff could be altered by project activities, such as grading of access roads; however, the amount of runoff across the project site would not be substantially altered. Therefore, the project is not expected to overwhelm existing stormwater drainage systems nor create substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Nevertheless further analysis is required to determine the need for appropriate stormwater mitigation/design measures. Drinking water would be provided by bottled water. However, water that is needed for construction, such as for dust suppression and concrete mixing, would either be supplied from the existing onsite wells or be trucked in from nearby municipalities, such as Mojave or Tehachapi, or come from one of the two on-site wells. Since the proposed project would provide its own water source, it would not impact existing water supply systems. However, the issue of new or expanded entitlements will be evaluated in the EIR. The project, as proposed, would not require construction of any septic systems or leach lines. There is no wastewater treatment provider and no impacts to existing wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic will be conducted in the EIR. The proposed project is not expected to generate a significant amount of waste that would exceed the capacity of local landfills. Materials brought to the proposed project site would be used to construct facilities and few residual materials are expected. Non-hazardous construction refuse and solid waste would be disposed of at a local landfill, while any hazardous waste generated during proposed project construction would be disposed of at an approved location. It is not anticipated that the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed project site would exceed the capacity of local landfills needed to accommodate the waste. Therefore, no further analysis of this topic will be conducted in the EIR. The proposed project would generate solid waste during construction and operation of the project, thus requiring the consideration of waste reduction and recycling measures. The 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) requires Kern County to attain specific waste diversion goals. In addition, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended, requires expanded or new development projects to incorporate storage areas for recycling bins into the proposed project design. The need for mitigation measures to confirm that the project will comply with the 1989 California Integrated Waste Management Act and the 1991 California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, as amended will be evaluated in the EIR.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
3.17 Mandatory Findings of Significance

MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Less Than Significant Potentially With Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact
(a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Does the project have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
(b)
(c)
(a)
Impacts to biological resources are currently unknown. Biota studies for the project are currently being conducted. The EIRs biological resources section will discuss specific project impacts on plants and wildlife including avian species. The document will also evaluate the projects contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts and propose mitigation that will reduce the impacts. The project has the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, and hazards and hazardous materials. The EIR will evaluate the projects contribution to cumulative impacts in these and other areas as further impacts are identified. Although there may be significant air quality impacts during construction, the long term air quality impacts could be beneficial if fossil fuel use is reduced. However, the health impacts from the short term cumulative contribution to air quality impacts will be evaluated in the EIR.
(b)
(c)

Sand Canyon Wind Nop

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Sand Canyon Wind Nop

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Lorelei H.

Oviatt, AICP, Director

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGENCY Ted James, AICP, DSA DIRECTOR

NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Signature: Name: Title:

/S/ Michael Hollier Planner II

ZCC #28, Map #167 ZCC #29, Map #167 14-10mbh.nop

City of Tehachapi 115 South Robinson Street Tehachapi, CA 93561-1722

Federal Communications Comm 18000 Studebaker Road, #550 Cerritos, CA 90701

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

Caltrans/Dist 9 Planning Department 500 South Main Street Bishop, CA 93514

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

Kern County Airports Department

Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Svs/Floodplain

Kern County Engineering, Surveying, and Permit Svs/Survey

Kern County Env Health Services Department

Kern County Fire Dept Brian Marshall

Kern County Fire Dept Dave Goodell

Kern County Library/Beale Local History Room

Kern County Library/Beale Diane Duquette

Kern County Parks & Recreation

Kern County Sheriff's Dept Administration

Kern County Roads Department

Kern County Waste Management Department

Tehachapi Unified School Dist 400 South Snyder Tehachapi, CA 93561

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

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

East Kern Air Pollution Control District

Mojave Airport 1434 Flightline Mojave, CA 93501

Northcutt and Associates P.O. Box 2893 Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Mountain Valley Airport P.O. Box 100 Tehachapi, CA 93581

Tehachapi City Hall/Airport 115 South Robinson Street Tehachapi, CA 93561

AT & T 5555 E. Olive Avenue, Cubicle 450F Fresno, CA 93727

Kern Audubon Society P.O. Box 3581 Bakersfield, CA 93385

Los Angeles Audubon 926 Citrus Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90036-4929

Mojave Chamber of Commerce P.O. Box 999 Mojave, CA 93502

Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter Arthur Unger ***PUT IN BUCKET***

Smart Growth Coalition/Bkfd 302 S Mojave Street Tehachapi, CA 93561-1826

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

David Laughing Horse Robinson P.O. Box 1547 Kernville, CA 93238

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

Cuddy Valley Statistical 11667 Steinhoff Road Frazier Park, CA 93222

Janice Armstrong 25101 Bear Valley Boulevard PMB 20 Tehachapi, CA 93561

Northcutt and Associates P.O. Box 2893 Lake Isabella, CA 93240

Vestas Sarah Adams 1881 Southwest Naito Parkway Portland, OR 97201

Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal

Contact Person: Michael Hollier Phone: (661) 862-8787 County: Kern

NOP Early Cons Neg Dec Mit Neg Dec

Draft EIR Supplement/Subsequent EIR (Prior SCH No.) Other:

NOI EA Draft EIS FONSI

Joint Document Final Document Other:

Local Action Type:

Specific Plan Master Plan Planned Unit Development Site Plan

Rezone Prezone Use Permit Land Division (Subdivision, etc.)

Annexation Redevelopment Coastal Permit Other:

Acres Acres Acres Acres

Employees Employees Employees

Project Issues Discussed in Document:

Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:

Reviewing Agencies Checklist

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

Starting Date October 28, 2010

Ending Date November 29, 2010

Sierra Club/Kern Kaweah Chapter Arthur Unger PUT IN BUCKET