Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final Environmental Impact Report

Prepared for Solano County Department of Resource Management Prepared by Point Impact Analysis, LLC 2555 Park Boulevard, Suite 10 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: 650.856.2800 Fax: 650.856.2801 Email: [email protected]

November 30, 2011 This page intentionally left blank

November 30, 2011 This page intentionally left blank

TABLE OF CONTENTS

This page intentionally left blank

Table of Contents

SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT FINAL EIR

TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 -1 1.1 Changes Since Preparation of the Draft EIR ...... 1-2 1.2 Organization of the Final EIR...... 1-3 2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ...... 2-1 2.1 Expansion of Proposed O&M Building Addition and Septic System ...... 2-1 2.2 Optional Collection Line to Shiloh III Project Area ...... 2-2 2.3 Montezuma Zephyr Project ...... 2-3 2.4 HDD Review and Notification Requirements ...... 2-3 2.5 Reported Swainson’s Hawk Fatality ...... 2-4 2.6 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines ...... 2-4 2.7 Solano County Airport Land Use Commission Resolution ...... 2-4 3 ERRATA AND REVISIONS...... 3-1 3.1 Chapter 1, Introduction ...... 3-1 3.2 Chapter 2, Summary ...... 3-2 3.3 Chapter 3, Project Description ...... 3-10 3.4 Chapter 5, Aesthetic/Visual Resources ...... 3-15 3.5 Chapter 6, Agricultural Resources ...... 3-16 3.6 Chapter 7, Air Quality ...... 3-18 3.7 Chapter 8, Biological Resources ...... 3-19 3.8 Chapter 9, Cultural Resources ...... 3-32 3.9 Chapter 10, Geologic Resources ...... 3-33 3.10 Chapter 11, Greenhouse Gases ...... 3-34 3.11 Chapter 12, Hazardous Materials ...... 3-34 3.12 Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3-35 3.13 Chapter 14, Land Use and Population ...... 3-39 3.14 Chapter 16, Public Services and Utilities ...... 3-39 3.15 Chapter 19, Transportation ...... 3-40 3.16 Chapter 20, Alternatives ...... 3-41 3.17 Chapter 21, Cumulative Impacts ...... 3-41 4 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ...... 4-1 1 Responses to Comments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch (August 31, 2011, and September 13, 2011) ...... 4-10 1.1 Current Effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) ...... 4-10 1.2 Construction in a Riverine Floodplain, Regulated Floodway, or Special Flood Hazard Areas ...... 4-10 1.3 Local Floodplain Management Building Requirements ...... 4-11 2A Response to Comments from Roberto Valdez (September 15, 2011) ...... 4-13 2A.1 Comments during the Notice of Preparation Public Review Period ...... 4-13 November 30, 2011 i Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

Table of Contents

2A.2 Impacts to Wildlife ...... 4-13 2A.3 Supplemental Comments ...... 4-14 2A.4 Coordinate with Friends of Swainson’s Hawk and Napa-Solano Audubon Society ...... 4-14 2B Response to Comments from Roberto Valdez (October 11, 2011) ...... 4-16 2B.1 Concurrence with Friends of Swainson’s Hawk Comments ...... 4-16 2B.2 Need for Adequate Scientific Data and Follow-up Monitoring ...... 4-16 2B.3 Cumulative Impacts to Bats, Canada Geese, and American Pelicans ...... 4-16 2B.4 Solano County Water Agency Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan ...... 4-17 3 Response to Comments from the City of Rio Vista (September 27, 2011 ...... 4-19 3.1 Correction to Description of Rio Vista Municipal Airport ...... 4-19 4 Response to Comments from Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk (October 10, 2011) ...... 4-30 4.1 Proposed Turbine Model Characteristics ...... 4-30 4.2 Impact on Swainson’s Hawk Range ...... 4-30 4.3 Cumulative Habitat and Raptor Nesting Impacts ...... 4-31 4.4 Raptor Mortality Estimates and Loss of State Protected Species ...... 4-32 4.5 Turbine Siting and Land Conservation ...... 4-32 4.6 Solano County Avian Technical Advisory Committee...... 4-33 4.7 Not All Feasible Mitigation for Avian Mortality and Habitat Loss...... 4-33 4.8 Permanent Habitat Loss Mitigation is Undercounted and Inadequate ...... 4-33 4.9 Timing of Off-Site Mitigation Requirement ...... 4-34 4.10 Role of the Solano County Avian Technical Advisory Committee ...... 4-35 4.11 Swainson’s Hawk and Other Incidental Mortalities ...... 4-36 4.12 Clarifications Regarding Referenced Monitoring Data ...... 4-37 4.13 Swainson’s Hawk Mitigation Plan and Incidental Take Permit ...... 4-38 4.14 Increase in Raptor Mortality ...... 4-40 4.15 Mitigation Measures Do Not Reduce Impacts to Bats ...... 4-40 4.16 Three Years Monitoring for All Turbines and Carcass Search Interval ...... 4-41 4.17 Incidental Take Permits and Incidental Swainson’s Hawk Mortalities ...... 4-42 4.18 Personnel Training ...... 4-42 4.19 Duration of Post-Construction Monitoring ...... 4-43 4.20 Avian Abundance and Behavior Survey Observations ...... 4-43 4.21 In-Transit Avian Observations ...... 4-44 4.22 Percent of Turbines Searched ...... 4-44 4.23 Reduction in Golden Eagle Range ...... 4-44 4.24 Comparison of Bat Mortality Rates ...... 4-44 4.25 High Winds Mortality Monitoring ...... 4-45 4.26 Carcass Removal Interval and Correction Factor ...... 4-45 4.27 Impacts to Nocturnal Migrants ...... 4-46 5 Response to Comments from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (October 11, 2011) ...... 4-53 5.1 Consistency with Basin Plans ...... 4-53 5.2 Policy Statement of Maintaining High Quality Waters in California ...... 4-54

November 30, 2011 ii Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

Table of Contents

5.3 List of Impaired Water Bodies ...... 4-54 5.4 Permitting Requirements ...... 4-55 5.5 Comply with General Requirements for Issuing 401 Water Quality Certifications or Waste Discharge Requirements ...... 4-55 6 Response to Comments from the Solano County Planning Commission Meeting (September 15, 2011) ...... 4-59 6.1 Mr. Jim Jacobs: Job Creation ...... 4-59 6.2 Mr. Dan Broadwater: Job Creation ...... 4-59 6.3 Mr. Roberto Valdez: Biology ...... 4-59 References ...... 4-59 5 PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ...... 5-1 5.1 Roles and Responsibilities ...... 5-1 5.2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...... 5-1

November 30, 2011 iii Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

Table of Contents

LIST OF REVISED FIGURES

Figure Page Figure 3.5-1 (Revised): Proposed Project Features ...... 3-55 Figure 8.1-1. Biological Resources of the Project Area – Overview ...... 3-57 Figure 8.1-4. Biological Resources of the Project Area – Optional Collection Line Detail ...... 3-59 Figure 21.1-1 (Revised): Wind Energy Projects in the Montezuma Hills ...... 3-61

LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table 3.3-1 (Revised). Existing and Planned Commercial Wind Facilities in the Montezuma Hills ...... 3-11 Table 3.4-1 (Revised). Parcels and Parcel Owners Comprising the Project Area ...... 3-12 Table 3.4-2. Ancillary Parcels with Underground Collection Lines ...... 3-13 Table 3.6-1 (Revised). Estimated Shiloh IV Wind Project Land Requirements (Acres) ...... 3-15 Table 6.4-1 (Revised). Williamson Act Parcels in the Shiloh IV Project Area ...... 3-16 Table 7.4-2 (Revised). Estimated Total Construction Emissions ...... 3-18 Table 8.4-1 (Revised). Shiloh IV Project Temporary Habitat Disturbance and Permanent Habitat Loss..... 3-21 Table 8.4-2 (Revised). Aquatic Resources Potentially Impacted by Project Components...... 3-22 Table 11.4-1 (Revised). Net Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Proposed Project ...... 3-34 Table 13.1-1. Impaired or Threatened Water Bodies and Pollutants Downstream of the Project Area ...... 3-35 Table 13.1-2. Beneficial Uses of Water Bodies Downstream of the Project Area ...... 3-36 Table 13.2-1. Categories of Water Quality Objectives in the SFBRWQCB and CVRWQCB Basin Plans ... 3-37 Table 21.2-1 (Revised). Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis ...... 3-43 Table 4-1. Summary of Comments ...... 4-1 Table 13.1-2. Beneficial Uses of Water Bodies Downstream of the Project Area ...... 4-53 Table 13.2-1. Categories of Water Quality Objectives in the SFBRWQCB and CVRWQCB Basin Plans ... 4-54 Table 13.1-1. Impaired or Threatened Water Bodies and Pollutants Downstream of the Project Area ...... 4-55 Table 23.2-1 (Revised). Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ...... 5-2

APPENDICES

APPENDIX K: Distribution List for the Draft EIR APPENDIX L: Second Addendum to the Final Biological Resources Report and Evaluation APPENDIX M: Addendum to the Cultural Resources Inventory Report APPENDIX N: Solano County Airport Land Use Commission Resolution No. 11-06 APPENDIX O: Travis AFB Letter Concerning Radar Analysis, May 30, 2011

November 30, 2011 iv Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic AB Assembly Bill AFB Air Force Base AFFSA U.S. Air Force Flight Standards Agency ALUC Airport Land Use Commission ALUCPs Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans amsl above mean sea level ANSI American National Standards Institute APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee APN Assessor’s Parcel Number BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BLM Bureau of Land Management BMPs Best Management Practices BP before present BPA Bonneville Power Administration CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAC Citizen’s Advisory Committee’s CAISO California Independent System Operator Corporation CAL-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Uniform Building Code CCR Code of California Regulations CDC California Department of Conservation CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CDFF California Department of Fire and Forestry CFR Code of Federal Regulations CGS California Geological Survey CHRIS California Historical Resources Inventory System November 30, 2011 v Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

Table of Contents

CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide CPRC California Public Resources Code CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement CRHP California Register of Historic Places CSSC CDFG Species of Special Concern CTS California tiger salamander CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A-Weighted Sound Level dBC C-Weighted Sound Level DOGGR California Department of Conservation’s Division of Gas, Oil, and Geothermal Resources D-SLR digital single lens reflex E & E Ecology and Environment, Inc. EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMI Electromagnetic interference EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act F Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCC Federal Communications Commission FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps FRAP Fire and Resource Assessment Program GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographic information system GMF Government Master File GPS global positioning system November 30, 2011 vi Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

Table of Contents

H2S hydrogen sulfide HAWT horizontal axis wind turbines HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HDD horizontal directional drilling HSG hydrological soil groups Hz Hertz I-680 Interstate 680 I-80 Interstate 80 IRAC Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee km kilometers kV kilovolt

Ldn Day/Night Noise Level

Leq Equivalent Noise Level LOS Level of Service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act Met meteorological

MMCO2e metric tons CO2-equivalent MW megawatt NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEMA National Electric Manufacturers Association NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation

NOx oxides of nitrogen NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NTIA National Telecommunications Information Administration NWIC Northwest Information Center O3 Ozone O&M Operations & Maintenance OES Office of Emergency Services OHP California Office of Historic Preservation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OWG Operations Working Group Pb Lead November 30, 2011 vii Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

Table of Contents

PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric

PM10 particulate matter with diameters less than or equal to 10 microns

PM2.5 particulate matter with diameters less than or equal to 2.5 microns PPA power purchase agreements Qa Quaternary Alluvium Qmz Quaternary Montezuma Formation Qpf Quaternary alluvial fan deposits RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RMP Raptor Mitigation Plan ROG reactive organic gases RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard RWG Radar Working Group RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCADA site control and data acquisition SEMSC Solano Emergency Medical Services Cooperative SIP State Implementation Plan SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utilities District

SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan SR State Route SRCD Suisun Resource Conservation District STARS Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SFBRWQCB San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC Solano County Avian Technical Advisory Committee UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey VAWT vertical axis wind turbines VOR very high frequency omni-directional range VRM Visual Resource Management WCFZ Worst Case Fresnel Zone November 30, 2011 viii Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

Table of Contents

WEG wind erodibility groups WTG wind turbine generator YSAQMD Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

November 30, 2011 ix Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

This page intentionally left blank

1 INTRODUCTION

This page intentionally left blank

1 Introduction

1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project has been prepared for the Solano County Department of Resource Management (the County) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 21092.5 of the Public Resources Code, and Sections 15088, 15089, 15132, and 15362 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project is a commercial wind development consisting of construction and operation of up to 50 wind turbines and associated facilities, with a total generation capacity of up to 100 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The Project would be constructed on approximately 3,012 acres of land in the Montezuma Hills in Solano County.

Shiloh Wind Partners, LLC, wholly owned and managed by enXco, Inc. (the Applicant) applied to the County for a Use Permit (U-10-10) for the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project in November 2010 and subsequently revised the application in January 2011. The County solicited comments regarding application completeness from several regulatory agencies and, as a result, received comments from four agencies. The County determined that the Project has the potential to have a significant impact on environmental resources and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As a result, the County issued a combined Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Public Scoping Meeting invitation for the Draft EIR on March 30, 2011. The County hosted the public scoping meeting on April 20, 2011, in Fairfield, near the project area. Two oral comments were made at the meeting, and nine letters were received in response to the NOP.

Preparation of the Draft EIR involved addressing comments received on the NOP, reviewing technical reports prepared by the Applicant and its consultants, conducting additional research, and identifying and evaluating potentially significant adverse impacts pursuant to CEQA. The Draft EIR includes an analysis of alternatives and cumulative impacts and development of a Proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Applicant revised its layout and technical reports in response to issues raised during preparation of the Draft EIR.

Solano County issued a combined Notice of Completion, Availability, and Public Hearing for the Draft EIR for the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project on August 23, 2011. The Draft EIR was distributed through the State Clearinghouse (#SCH 2011032062) and was also sent directly to selected agencies, interested individuals, public locations (e.g., libraries), and others. Appendix K of this Final EIR includes the distribution list for the Notice of Completion, Availability, and Public Hearing. The County also held a public hearing before the Planning Commission on September 15, 2011 to present the project and receive public comments on the Draft EIR. The 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR was from August 25, 2011 to October 11, 2011.

Solano County received written comments on the Draft EIR from the following parties:

• Federal Emergency Management Agency • Roberto Valdez, Solano County Resident • City of Rio Vista • Friends of Swainson’s Hawk • Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

November 30, 2011 1-1 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 1 Introduction

The County also heard public comments regarding the proposed Project from Jim Jacobs, Dan Broadwater, and Roberto Valdez, at the September 15, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Chapter 4 of this Final EIR includes all referenced comments and responses.

1.1 CHANGES SINCE PREPARATION OF THE DRAFT EIR Since the Draft EIR was prepared, Solano County has received the following information related to the potential environmental impacts of the Project:

• The Applicant proposed to expand the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) warehouse building addition constructed as part of the Project from 5,000 square feet to 8,000 square feet, add interior office space for 6 to 12 O&M personnel, expand the existing septic system and/or install a new system, if necessary, and add a water well, if necessary.

• The Applicant proposed to include an optional collection line running from two approved, but unbuilt, Shiloh III turbines to the project area.

• The County received a partial land use permit application for the proposed development of the Montezuma Zephyr Wind Project west of Collinsville Road. The application was determined incomplete.

• The County changed its review procedures for horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and updated state and federal agency notification requirements in the event one or more frac- outs occur during drilling.

• NextEra Energy discovered the mortality of an immature, scavenged Swainson’s hawk, a state threatened species, on September 7, 2011 at its Montezuma I facility on Birds Landing Road and reported the mortality as turbine-related.

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released its third iteration of the Draft Land- Based Wind Energy Guidelines on September 13, 2011.

• The Solano County Airport Land Use Commission adopted a resolution at its October 27, 2011 meeting in support of the Shiloh IV Project, subject to conditions.

None of these changes result in new significant impacts or require significant modification to the Draft EIR.

November 30, 2011 1-2 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 1 Introduction

1.2 ORGANIZATION OF THE FINAL EIR The Final EIR is organized into the following sections:

• Section 1: Introduction • Section 2: Additional Information • Section 3: Errata and Revisions • Section 4: Comment Letters and Responses to Comments • Section 5: Proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Appendix K: Distribution List for the Draft EIR • Appendix L: Second Addendum to the Final Biological Resources Report and Evaluation • Appendix M: Addendum to the Cultural Resources Inventory Report • Appendix N: Solano County Airport Land Use Commission Resolution NO. 11-06 • Appendix O: Travis AFB Letter Concerning Radar Analysis, May 30, 2011

Chapter 2 describes and summarizes the changes to the physical and regulatory environment since the Draft EIR was prepared and considers the effect of these changes on the discussions of project and cumulative impacts in the Draft EIR.

Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, includes the changes to the Draft EIR needed to address the changes to the Project and physical and regulatory setting, respond to comments, and amplify the evaluation of impacts provided in the Draft EIR

Chapter 4 includes the written comments received on the Draft EIR as well as the draft minutes of the Planning Commission public hearing of September 15, 2011. The Chapter provides responses to all comments relevant to the preparation of the EIR.

Amended Draft EIR text and revised figures are included in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4. New text is underlined and deleted text is marked as strikethrough. The revised text in this document supersedes and replaces that in the Draft EIR.

In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR for the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project consists of this document and the August 23, 2011 Draft EIR, Volumes I and II.

November 30, 2011 1-3 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

This page intentionally left blank

2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This page intentionally left blank

2 Additional Information

2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION This chapter presents the additional information relevant to the environmental analysis of the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project as provided in the Draft EIR. The additional information includes minor modifications to existing and proposed operations and maintenance (O&M) facilities, the addition of an optional collection line to two unbuilt turbines in the Shiloh III project area, changes in the County’s review of horizontal directional drilling (HDD) and notification requirements if a frac-out occurs, the potential addition of the Montezuma Zephyr Wind Project west of the project area, new information pertaining to Swainson’s hawk mortality, and recent changes in US Fish and Wildlife Service draft guidelines concerning avian impacts.

As discussed below, the new information clarifies and amplifies the information provided in the Draft EIR. None of the changes to the project or new information concerning the physical and regulatory environment would result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of the environmental impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR. The Applicant has agreed to implement all of the recommended mitigation measures. As a result, the project changes and new information are not “significant” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15088.5 and do not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.

2.1 EXPANSION OF PROPOSED O&M BUILDING ADDITION AND SEPTIC SYSTEM Since the publication of the Draft EIR in August of 2011, the Applicant has modified plans for the proposed warehouse building addition at the existing enXco Operations and Maintenance (O&M) facility. The building would be 8,000 square feet in size rather than the 5,000 square feet presented in the Draft EIR and would provide office space for approximately 6 to 12 O&M personnel in addition to warehouse space. The new O&M building may require expansion of the existing septic system and/or installation of a new septic system and water well. Expansion of the existing septic system and/or installation of a new septic system would be subject to County requirements to be determined prior to building permit issuance and would cause less than 0.1 acres of additional temporary disturbance.

As noted in the Draft EIR, the additional O&M building would be constructed in an already disturbed area. Increasing the square footage of the additional building would not result in any additional temporary or permanent disturbance outside the boundaries of the existing facility and a new or expanded septic system would cause only minor disturbance and would not substantially increase project’s land disturbance. Other potential impacts of septic systems are discussed in the following Draft EIR chapters, as amended in this Final EIR: Chapter 10, Geologic Resources, discusses the ability of local soils to support expansion or addition of septic systems at the O&M facility; Chapter 13, Hydrology and Water Quality, addresses potential impacts from use, expansion, or addition of septic systems under Impact HYD-2, Water Quality Degradation; and Chapter 16, Public Services and Utilities, addresses potential impacts to sewage systems under Impact PSU-2, Public Utilities. The changes to the proposed additional O&M building would not result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of the environmental impacts evaluated in the Draft EIR.

November 30, 2011 2-1 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 2 Additional Information

2.2 OPTIONAL COLLECTION LINE TO SHILOH III PROJECT AREA Since the Draft EIR was published, the Applicant has proposed the option of providing an additional underground electrical collection line between two previously approved but unbuilt turbine locations in the Shiloh III wind energy project area and the proposed Shiloh IV collection system and substation. The optional collection line would extend from the two unbuilt Shiloh III turbine sites, A12 and A14, located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 0048-050-070, south across two Shiloh I parcels (APNs 0048-060-230 and 0048-060-240) with existing wind turbines, and connect into the northern most collection line proposed for the Shiloh IV project, as depicted in Figure 3.5-1 (Revised) in this Final EIR. The total distance for this optional collection line would be approximately 1.9 miles.

In 2010, Solano County certified the EIR and approved the use permit for the Shiloh III wind energy project, comprising 59 wind turbines, but in 2011, the owner enXco constructed only 50 of these turbines. If the optional collection line were installed and connected to the two to-be-built Shiloh III turbines, the power from the two Shiloh III turbines would be delivered through the Shiloh IV substation, but the Shiloh IV Project would still consist of up to 50 turbines, pursuant to the Applicant’s requested use permit.

Installation of the underground collection line would temporarily disturb an additional estimated 4.5 acres of land, as described further below, but would not increase the permanent disturbance associated with the Project, given that all such disturbed areas will be restored. Revised Figure 3.5-1 shows the collection line option in relation to existing and proposed wind energy facilities.

The area where the proposed optional collection line would be located was studied for the Shiloh I and Shiloh III projects, was recently assessed again by the Applicant’s consultants, and has been field-verified by the County’s EIR consultant. The alignment for the collection line is mostly agricultural land, but would cross through grasslands, under two alkali meadows that contain seasonal wetlands, and near special-status plants. Draft EIR mitigation measures BIO-2A, BIO-2B, BIO-3, and BIO-4, and BIO-5 already require the Applicant to implement measures to avoid impacts to aquatic resources, which includes alkali meadows, and special status species habitat through the use of resource setbacks, horizontal directional drilling (HDD), pre-construction surveys, and purchase of conservation credits for California tiger salamander (CTS). Chapter 3 of this Final EIR provides the minor additions to the Biological Resources setting description and minor changes to mitigation measure BIO-3 to clarify its implementation to the special-status plants potentially affected by the optional collection line. The application of these mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to biological resources along the optional collection line alignment to less than significance.

The collection line alignment would be approximately 450 feet from a well identified as an eligible historical archaeological site, but the Applicant would be subject to the requirements of the cultural resource mitigation measures in the EIR and, thus, would avoid significant impacts to this resource.

Appendices L and M contain the addendums to the biological and cultural resource assessments for the Shiloh IV project. Figure 8.1-4 has been added to the EIR and shows the proposed optional collection line and nearby biological resources in detail. Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, includes minor revisions related to the proposed additional collection line to the Draft EIR chapters on

November 30, 2011 2-2 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 2 Additional Information

agricultural resources, air quality, biology, greenhouse gas, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and public services and utilities, alternatives, and cumulative impacts. The proposed additional collection line would not result in new significant impacts or require significant modifications to the Draft EIR.

2.3 MONTEZUMA ZEPHYR PROJECT The landowner of the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project has submitted a partial land use permit application for the development of its Montezuma Zephyr Wind Project west of Collinsville Road, between Birds Landing and Collinsville. As originally proposed, the Zephyr project included the construction of 43 commercial wind turbines on approximately 3,180 acres, but the design of the project was incomplete, and the application did not include many of the necessary technical studies. The County determined the application incomplete and expects revisions to the project, including fewer turbines due to site constraints and other factors. As such, insufficient project details are available to assess fully in this EIR. When the County receives a completed application, the Zephyr project will undergo a separate environmental review that would evaluate the site-specific and cumulative impacts of that project as revised. While full analysis of the Zephyr project is not possible at this time, given the conceptual information submitted to the County, potential expansion of wind energy development in the Montezuma Hills west of Collinsville Road is foreseeable.

Most of the impacts of the Zephyr project would be confined to the area within and immediately adjacent to the conceptual Zephyr project boundary shown in Figure 21.1-1 (Revised) and would not contribute to Shiloh IV cumulative impacts. If approved, the Zephyr project would contribute to the cumulative aesthetic, agricultural, air quality, biological resources, radar, and water supply impacts discussed in the Draft EIR. The cumulative impacts from the Zephyr project would be similar to the cumulative impacts of existing wind projects in the Montezuma Hills already considered in the Draft EIR. The contribution from the Zephyr project would not result in a new significant cumulative impact to agriculture or water supply and would not substantially increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to aesthetics, air quality, and biological resources. The county would not approve the Zephyr project unless it found that the cumulative impacts to Travis Air Force Base radar operation were not significant. See Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, for additional consideration of the cumulative impacts of the Montezuma Zephyr project.

2.4 HDD REVIEW AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Draft EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-2B (Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling under Aquatic Resources) requires the Applicant to implement measures to reduce potential impacts to aquatic resources from horizontal directional drilling (HDD) activities. Mitigation Measure BIO-2B also requires the Applicant to notify Solano County and the appropriate agency in the event of a frac-out in sensitive areas [i.e., California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE)]. Solano County has revised Mitigation Measure BIO-2B to reflect procedures that the Applicant, applicable regulatory agencies, and the County implemented during recent frac-outs associated with Shiloh III HDD activities. These revisions include, but are not limited to, a County requirement for recommendations from a California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer on the appropriate drilling depth and pressure for proposed HDD activities, and clarified

November 30, 2011 2-3 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 2 Additional Information

notification procedures in the event of a frac-out in sensitive areas. Also, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) prepares Streambed Alteration Agreements with applicants on a case-by- case basis and, based on the recent Agreement for HDD activities at the Shiloh III project, CDFG may have reduced notification requirements for frac-outs occurring outside of an aquatic feature.

2.5 REPORTED SWAINSON’S HAWK FATALITY Since the publication of the Draft EIR in August of 2011, new information regarding Swainson’s hawk mortality in the Montezuma Hills has been reported to the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Swainson’s hawk is a listed species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). NextEra Energy discovered an immature, scavenged Swainson’s hawk on September 7, 2011 at its Montezuma I facility off Birds Landing Road. The newly discovered September 2011 fatality is not a new significant impact. The Draft EIR described the presence of Swainson’s hawks in the area, two earlier reported “incidental” Swainson’s hawk fatalities in the Shiloh I project area, and the species’ regulatory status and concludes that the Project has the potential to cause significant and unavoidable impacts to Swainson’s hawk through collision with turbines. Compensatory mitigation is also already being required for the Project, for instance, Mitigation Measure BIO-8C requires the Applicant to acquire and preserve in perpetuity up to 84 acres of land to mitigate for the project’s on-going impacts to birds and bats.

2.6 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DRAFT LAND-BASED WIND ENERGY GUIDELINES The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released its third iteration of the Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines on September 13, 2011. The public comment period for the third version of the voluntary, draft guidelines closed on September 23, 2011. This third iteration of the draft, voluntary guidelines incorporated recommendations made by the Wind Turbine Advisory Committee and the public submitted on the second iteration of the guidelines (dated July 12, 2011). The Applicant’s Avian Use Study and Risk Assessment remains consistent with this latest version of the Draft Land- Based Wind Energy Guidelines (see also Page 8-29 of the Draft EIR). The draft guidelines are not expected to be finalized until late 2011. USFWS anticipates that the guidelines, once adopted, will remain voluntary.

2.7 SOLANO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RESOLUTION On October 27, 2011, the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project and adopted Resolution No. 11-06 (see Appendix N), determining the Project consistent with appropriate Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. The determination of consistency is subject to three conditions discussed in Appendix N of this Final EIR. Existing mitigation as amended in this Final EIR and in-house procedures are already in place, which address the conditions. For instance, Mitigation Measure TRA-5A, Prohibit Hazards to Air Navigation, as discussed in Chapters 4 of this Final EIR, requires the Applicant to comply with all FAA conditions. TRA-5A.part c. also already requires the Applicant to furnish a copy of all FAA No Hazard determinations prior to installation of any wind turbine and met tower, each of which contains the structure coordinates and height information referenced by the ALUC. In addition, it is the policy of the Department of Resource Management to transmit a copy of the No Hazard determinations received by the Department to ALUC staff, and all wind project mitigation measures are routinely incorporated as conditions of use permit approval.

November 30, 2011 2-4 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 2 Additional Information

In determining consistency with the Travis Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Solano County ALUC considered the May 30, 2011 letter from Colonel James C. Vechery (see Appendix O). The letter from Travis Air Force Base found that the Shiloh IV project in combination with existing, approved, and foreseeable projects would not reduce minimum probability of detection (Pd) below the baseline levels set to maintain aviation safety and efficiency of flight operations. Colonel Vechery’s letter was based on the Westslope Consulting April 22, 2011 report and the then-current turbine layout. An update letter from Westslope Consulting on June 3, 2011 found that the revised turbine layout in the Draft and Final EIRs showed improvement in Pd from the April 22, 2011 Westslope report.

November 30, 2011 2-5 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR This page intentionally left blank

3 ERRATA AND REVISIONS

This page intentionally left blank

3 Errata and Revisions

3 ERRATA AND REVISIONS This section provides amended text and graphics for the Shiloh IV Wind Project Draft EIR. Text revisions are organized by Draft EIR chapter. Additions to the Draft EIR text are shown with underlining and text removed from the Draft EIR is shown with strikethrough.

Revised and additional figures are provided at the end of this chapter. Figures 3.5-1 and 8.1-1 have been revised to include the proposed optional collection line. Figure 8.1-4 shows the biological resources near the proposed optional collection line in detail. Figure 21.1-1, Wind Energy Projects in the Montezuma Hills, has been revised to update the status of other wind projects in the Montezuma Hills, including the addition of the reasonably foreseeable Zephyr project.

Chapter 4 provides amended text for Chapter 23, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, separately.

3.1 CHAPTER 1, INTRODUCTION On page 1-1, Section 1.1, Project Overview, the first paragraph, starting on the second sentence, has been revised to state:

The Applicant has obtained is seeking to obtain landowner authorization to install these turbines within the 22 parcels in the 3,012-acre project area, and has already obtained lease or easement rights from most landowners. The proposed project components include turbine pads and access roads, underground power collection lines, a substation and interconnection transmission lines, a 5,000 8,000-square foot warehouse building addition at the existing enXco operations and maintenance (O&M) facility currently shared by other enXco wind projects, a temporary laydown area;, and three permanent meteorological towers, as identified in Chapter 3, Project Description. These proposed components would temporarily disturb 9.5 percent of the total project area during construction but permanently occupy only 1.2 percent of the area. Collection lines would temporarily disturb an additional 4.6 acres in adjoining ancillary parcels. The Project would be installed on land developed with existing enXco V project turbines, which are in the process of being decommissioned, increasing the land used in the project area for wind development by less than 0.5 percent.

On page 1-1, Section 1.1, Project Overview, a new paragraph has been added following the first paragraph:

The Project also includes the option, at the discretion of the applicant, of installing approximately 1.9 miles of underground collection line to connect two previously approved but unbuilt Shiloh III turbine locations to the Shiloh IV collection system and substation. The optional collection line would run through portions of the existing Shiloh I and Shiloh III project areas and the proposed Shiloh IV project area. This optional collection line would result in additional construction on 4.5 acres, increasing the temporary disturbance within the project area by 0.6 acres to approximately 286.9 acres and the temporary disturbance on ancillary parcels by 3.9 acres to 4.6 acres. The optional collection line would not increase permanent disturbance because the Applicant would restore the disturbed areas after construction.

November 30, 2011 3-1 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

3.2 CHAPTER 2, SUMMARY In section 2.1, page 2-1, under the heading “Project Description,” the third paragraph has been revised to state:

The Applicant has applied for 50 proposed turbine locations. To support construction and operation of the turbines, the Project also includes construction of 50 pads; approximately 16 miles of new access roads; a power collection system including an optional collection line to two previously approved but unbuilt turbine locations in the Shiloh III project area; a new substation with interconnection lines; an addition of a new warehouse building at the existing enXco O&M facility; a temporary laydown area, and three meteorological towers. The Pproject would connect the new Shiloh IV substation to the adjacent existing PG&E 230-kV gen-tie line and switchyard, where the electricity generated by the Project would be conveyed to the PG&E grid.

On pages 2-4 and 2-5, Mitigation Measure AES-7 part b and c have been revised to state:

b. Obtain a No Hazard Determination from the FAA for each turbine or meteorological tower that would be installed as part of the Project, as required in Mitigation Measure TRA-5: Notifications and Revised Turbine Siting. The Applicant shall submit an FAA Form 7460-1 for each tower location. Prior to construction issuance of building permits for each turbine and meteorological tower, the Applicant shall submit the necessary FAA determination to Solano County.

c. If the Applicant modifies the Project after obtaining the FAA determinations, the Applicant shall submit a new FAA Form 7460-1 for each new or modified turbine and meteorological tower taller than 200 feet. The Applicant shall submit the new FAA determinations to Solano County prior to construction of issuance of building permits for any affected turbines and meteorological towers.

On page 2-15, Mitigation Measure BIO-2B has been revised to state:

Mitigation Measure BIO-2B: Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling under Aquatic Resources (Wetlands, Vernal Pools, Streams, and Other Potential Waters of the U.S.). The Applicant shall comply with the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential effects of HDD:

a. To the extent practicable, HDD drilling shall occur only during the dry season (i.e., typically April through October).

i. Should it be necessary to conduct HDD operations outside the dry season, the operations shall be monitored by a qualified environmental monitor (i.e., a biologist having previous HDD monitoring experience), who shall:

a) Be Either be the Applicant’s biologist or a third-party individual who shall work on behalf of Solano County at the expense of the Applicant; and

November 30, 2011 3-2 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

b) Have knowledge of the environmental sensitivities of the project area, an understanding of the design process and construction practices and shall understand the conditions of the site and provide feedback to the construction staff regarding environmental sensitivities, regulatory concerns, and physical limitations of the field conditions.

ii. The environmental monitor, as required in paragraph a.i., above, shall visually inspect the aquatic resource and surrounding area for evidence of drilling fluids surfacing from the operation. The environmental monitor shall monitor the drilling fluid circulation at the HDD site and be aware of the status of the operation.

iii. If the environmental monitor suspects a potential drilling fluid leak (frac-out) that is not yet observed at the surface (e.g., loss of drilling mud in the pit but no frac-out at the surface), the Applicant shall cease HDD activities immediately and the HDD contractor shall implement measures to reduce the potential for a frac-out (e.g., increase the density of the drilling mud or reduce the pressure of the drill). The Applicant shall then be allowed to continue HDD activities. If a frac-out occurs, the Applicant shall implement paragraph e, below.

b. HDD under ponds and vernal pools that provide CTS habitat is prohibited. The Applicant shall ensure HDD bore entry and exit pits are located at least 250 feet from ponds and vernal pools that provide CTS habitat and 100 feet from all other aquatic resources and shall conduct suitable evaluations prior to HDD activity to identify the appropriate depth to be maintained underneath aquatic resources to avoid and minimize potential impacts from frac-outs.

c. The Applicant shall obtain a well/boring permit from the Solano County Department of Resource Management Environmental Health Division under Solano County Code Chapter 13.10 prior to initiating any HDD of which the depth of the HDD is greater than or equal to 15 feet below ground surface or if groundwater is anticipated to be encountered at any depth, unless otherwise determined unnecessary by the Solano County Environmental Health Division. The Applicant shall also obtain an encroachment permit from Solano County Public Works Engineering prior to initiating any HDD within or below any County road right-of-way. Said permit applications shall be accompanied by site plans presented to scale on aerial and topographical maps and which illustrate at a minimum the locations of all borings used for geologic review as may be required in paragraph d, below, entrance and exit HDD boring locations, setbacks from sensitive areas, water supply wells, septic systems, buildings, and existing utilities, public roads and right-of-way, private access roads, and existing reference points (structures, turbines, etc…).

November 30, 2011 3-3 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

avoid and minimize potential impacts to aquatic resources from frac-outs. The evaluation shall be presented in writing and stamped by a California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer along with the boring permit application, where required, to the Solano County Environmental Health Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a boring permit. If such permit is not required per paragraph c, above, then the evaluation together with the site plans required in paragraph c, above, shall be submitted to the Solano County Planning Division for review and approval prior to the start of HDD activities at the aquatic resources location. The Applicant’s evaluation may, at the sole discretion of Solano County, be subject to peer review by a third party qualified professional expert hired by the County at the expense of the applicant.

e. The Applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Avoidance and Contingency Plan that describes the procedures required to reduce the potential for discharges, the response equipment (e.g. vacuum truck) including containment and clean-up supplies (e.g., straw bales, sedimentation fences, etc.) to be kept on-site, the measures to be implemented in the event of a frac-out, including the notification requirements listed in paragraph h.iii below, and restoration requirements. The Frac-Out Avoidance and Contingency Plan shall be submitted to the Solano County Department of Resource Management for review and approval prior to commencement of HDD activities at aquatic resource locations. The Frac-Out Avoidance and Contingency Plan shall be kept on-site at drilling locations during HDD activities.

f. If the Applicant provides Section 1600 notification to the CDFG of the proposed HDD drilling activity, the Applicant shall concurrently provide a copy of the notice to Solano County. In addition, the Applicant shall provide the County with a copy of any written determination by CDFG that the activity may commence without an agreement, or a copy of any final Section 1600 agreement for the proposed HDD activity, as may be applicable, within 5 days of receipt of said determination or agreement.

f. Prior to HDD activities, the Applicant’s biologist shall conduct on-site briefings for all HDD workers to ensure all field personnel understand the location of aquatic resources and their responsibility for timely reporting of frac-outs.

g. Barriers (e.g., straw bales, sedimentation fences, etc.) shall be erected between the bore site and required (protective) setback boundary for any nearby aquatic resources prior to drilling, as appropriate, to prevent any material from reaching aquatic resource areas.

h. The necessary response equipment and supplies (e.g., vacuum truck, straw bales, sediment fencing) shall be kept on-site by the contractor during HDD operations so that they are readily available in the event of a frac-out.

g. If the Applicant suspects a potential drilling fluid leak (frac-out) that is not yet observed at the surface (e.g., loss of drilling mud in the pit but no frac-out at the

November 30, 2011 3-4 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

surface), the Applicant shall cease HDD activities immediately and the HDD contractor shall implement measures to reduce the potential for a frac-out (e.g., increase the density of the drilling mud or reduce the pressure of the drill). The Applicant shall then be allowed to continue HDD activities. If a frac-out occurs, the Applicant shall implement paragraph h, below.

h. In the event a frac-out is detected, the Applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce or minimize effects on the affected aquatic resource:

i. All work shall stop until the frac-out has been contained and cleaned up;.

ii. The frac-out area shall be isolated with straw bales, sand bags, or silt fencing to surround and contain the drilling mud and clean-up shall be performed using a vacuum truck, where appropriate, supported by construction workers on foot using hand tools, as necessary (mechanized equipment shall not be used to scoop or scrape up frac-out materials to prevent impacting the wetland or streambanks); and.

iii. When a If the frac-out has occurred within where it flows or may flow into an aquatic resource, the Applicant shall notify the appropriate jurisdictional agency (USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFG) and the :

a) The Solano County Public Works – Engineering Department of Resource Management by telephone and email within 24 hours of the frac-out. This notification shall provide the date and time, location, and depth of the bore and the drill head pressure at the time of the frac-out, estimated quantity (gallons) of release, the extent and type of biological habitat affected, and the containment and clean-up measures implemented by the Applicant. The frac-out shall be documented via photographs, description, and illustration on a scaled topographic site plan illustrating the sensitive habitat location, extent of frac-out and location of all borings. All mitigation work shall also be documented with photographs, site plans and description of mitigation work conducted.

b) The following agencies in writing (email acceptable) within 24 hours. If a, providing the information in paragraph h.iii.a) above:

1) CDFG, if the frac-out is within or may flow into the bank of a stream or wetland.

2) RWQCB, if the frac-out is within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or waters of the State.

3) USACOE, if the frac-out is within potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

November 30, 2011 3-5 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

c) If the Applicant has obtained approval from CDFG, RWQCB, and/or USACOE for its HDD activities under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, or Section 401 or 404 of the Clean Water Act, if applicable, the Applicant shall follow the notification requirements of the agency approvals instead of the notification requirements in paragraph h.iii.b), above.

d) The Applicant shall provide Solano County with a copy of all written notifications to and any agreements, orders, or permits issued by, jurisdictional agencies concerning HDD activities and frac-outs.

iv. If the frac-out occurs outside of an aquatic resource but within a required aquatic resource setback zone and/or upland of an aquatic resource, and has setback, the potential to affect said Applicant shall:

a) If the frac-out is 50 feet or less from an aquatic resource, as determined by, requires agency notification, or releases more than 42 gallons, notify the Solano County Department of Resource Management, providing the information per paragraph h.iii.a), above. If the Applicant has not notified CDFG or RWQCB, the County’s biological monitor, the same shall determine if additional agency notification shall be required; however, per paragraph h.iii.b) above.

b) iIf the potential effect frac-out is not immediate more than 50 feet from the aquatic resource, the notification may be extended to within 48 hours. The required notification shall include a description of the frac-out and clean-up measures implemented only the date, location, volume, and size of the affected area. For the purpose of this mitigation, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFG are considered potentially jurisdictional agencies requiring notification for a frac-out affecting a stream feature and the RWQCB and USACE are considered potentially jurisdictional agencies requiring notification for a frac- out affecting all other aquatic resources.

v. If a frac-out occurs and is considered to have negatively impacted the associated aquatic resource, based on consultation with the Solano County biological monitor, an appropriate restoration plan for that aquatic resource shall be designed as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO-2A. h. the Frac-Out Avoidance and Contingency Plan as described in paragraph e above and appropriately implemented.

November 30, 2011 3-6 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

stamped by the Applicant’s California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer. Said review may, at the sole discretion of Solano County, be subject to peer review by a third party qualified professional expert hired by the County at the expense of the applicant and must be approved by Solano County before boring may resume.

On page 2-17, Mitigation Measure BIO-3, part a.ii.a) has been revised as follows:

a.) Under the aquatic botanical resource using the HDD method in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-2B (Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling). HDD entry and exit pits shall be located at least 100 feet away from the special-status plant populations.

On page 2-18, Mitigation Measure BIO-3, part e. has been revised as follows:

e. If construction activities require or otherwise take pappose tarplant or heartscale, then the Applicant shall have a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of native plant restoration, mitigation, and management plans develop and submit to Solano County and CDFG for approval a salvage and recovery plan prior to the start of construction activities.

On page 2-27, Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, part b, has been revised to state:

b. The monitor shall collect sufficient information to allow evaluation of turbine design characteristics and location effects that contribute to mortality. The species, number, location and distance of dead birds relative to turbine location, availability of raptor prey species, and cause of bird and bat mortalities shall be noted. All results shall be provided to the Wildlife Response and Reporting System database, as maintained by the Altamont Infrastructure Company (AIC), 6185 Industrial Way, Livermore, CA 94550, or other repository approved by Solano County.

On page 2-28, subparts iii. and iv. have been added to Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, part c, as follows:

iii. A minimum of approximately 50 percent of the Project’s wind turbines shall be surveyed each year of required monitoring.

iv. Carcass searches for birds and bats shall occur weekly. In addition, the Applicant shall conduct daily carcass searches for a subset of the Project’s turbines (minimum ten percent) for one week during each season of the first year of post-construction monitoring (i.e., one week each during the spring, summer, fall and winter for a total of four weeks) instead of the normal weekly searches during those weeks. The Applicant shall include the results of these intensive survey periods in its first annual report to the TAC in order to allow the TAC to compare and/or validate the results of the Applicant’s scavenger removal trials that were conducted prior to the start of post-construction monitoring.

November 30, 2011 3-7 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 2-30, Mitigation Measure BIO-8B.d.iii. has been revised as follows:

iii. The Applicant shall conduct bird and bat mortality monitoring in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A (Bird and Bat Morality Monitoring). In addition, the Applicant shall prepare and post a data sheet in the Project’s Operations and Maintenance facility that describes how project personnel can recognize an injured or dead bat and bird and the procedures project personnel shall take in the event an injured or dead bat and bird are discovered on-site, including whom to notify and what actions shall be taken. Bird/bat injuries and fatalities, and the responses thereto, shall be reported at least once annually to the Wildlife Response and Reporting System database, as maintained by the Altamont Infrastructure Company (AIC), 6185 Industrial Way, Livermore, CA 94550, or other repository approved by Solano County. The Applicant shall also train project personnel in these procedures.

On page 2-35, Mitigation Measure BIO-8C.c.iii.a) has been revised to state:

a) The size of conservation land and/or easement shall be up to 68 84 acres in size, and shall be located within Solano County but outside the wind resource area. The location shall require County approval in consultation with the CDFG, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, prior to acquisition.

On page 2-38, Mitigation Measure BIO-8C.d. has been revised to state:

d. Mitigation bank credits: As an alternate to the off-site conservation requirements described in sections b and c, above, the Applicant may purchase Swainson’s hawk or other mitigation credits approved by Solano County, in consultation with CDFG for the benefit of the species of raptors impacted by the Project, equivalent to a total of up to 68 84 acres, based on total rotor swept area for the 34 50 project turbines, of established conservation land from a conservation bank with appropriate raptor habitat in Solano County, as approved by Solano County in consultation with the CDFG. The purchase of conservation easement credits shall comply with the following:

On page 2-38, Mitigation Measure BIO-8C.d.ii. has been revised to state:

ii. The credits shall be equivalent to the protection of up to 68 84 acres of similar habitat as the project area, dominated by natural vegetation, agricultural lands or a combination of both. The conserved land shall further provide, to the maximum extent feasible, foraging and breeding opportunities for the avian species most affected by the Project, including red-tailed hawk and American kestrel. Habitat for other species such as ground-nesting songbirds is also appropriate.

On page 2-40, Mitigation Measure BIO-8E has been added as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-8E: Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk. The Applicant shall minimize potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk associated with operation of the Project as follows:

November 30, 2011 3-8 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

a. A minimum of approximately 50 percent of the Project's wind turbines shall be surveyed each year of required monitoring in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.c.

b. Increased carcass searches shall be provided and reported in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.c.iv.

c. During Project operations, the training of personnel, establishment of procedures, and actions taken regarding the recording and reporting of injured or dead Swainson’s hawks discovered on-site by Project personnel shall comply with the requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-8B.d.iii.

d. All off-site compensatory mitigation lands required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8C (i.e., up to 84 acres of land, based on the total rotor swept area for 50 proposed turbines), shall be CDFG-certified for mitigating impacts to Swainson’s hawk.

e. All off-site compensatory mitigation lands required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8C shall include current or future breeding opportunities (suitable nesting trees) for Swainson’s hawk. If the site does not already contain a sufficient number of suitable nesting trees or other breeding opportunities for Swainson’s Hawk, as determined by Solano County after reviewing an assessment of these breeding opportunities by Applicant’s biologist, enhancements shall be required in addition to any enhancements required pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-8C b.ii.c), b.iv., c.iv.d, and d.iii, and shall be subject to the following requirements, which shall be specified in the purchase documents for the conservation easement, in-lieu fee, or mitigation bank credits as applicable:

November 30, 2011 3-9 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

f. For any period the required nest tree monitoring in paragraph e.vi., above, occurs during the post-construction avian/bat monitoring required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, the results of the nest tree monitoring, including a description of any breeding activities observed by the operator of the conserved land in the nest trees, shall be included in the annual avian/bat monitoring report required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.

On page 2-57, the table heading “15 Public Services and Utilities” has been revised to state:

15 16 Public Services and Utilities

On page 2-57, Mitigation Measure PSU-3, part a. has been revised to state:

a. If the Applicant revises turbine locations to place a turbine within 328 feet (100 meters) of a microwave path, c Conduct a revised study and prepare a report on the effect upon nearby FCC licensed microwave and fixed station radio frequency facilities due to the construction of the Project. The report shall describe the results of the study and analysis to determine the locations of FCC microwave and fixed station radio frequency facilities that may be adversely impacted as a result of the construction of wind turbines in the project area.

On page 2-58, Mitigation Measure PSU-3, part b. has been removed because it is redundant. The subsequent numbering in the mitigation measure changes accordingly.

b. Less than six months before construction begins, a qualified professional technology design firm with experience evaluating impacts on microwave transmissions and radio frequencies shall conduct an updated FCC database search and, if new microwave paths in or near the project area have been added to the FCC database, the firm shall update the microwave study as needed.

3.3 CHAPTER 3, PROJECT DESCRIPTION On page 3-1, the first paragraph, from the third sentence onward, has been revised to state:

The Pproject area would be located in a 3,012-acre area, comprising is comprised of 22 parcels, totaling 3,012 acres, leased to the Applicant to construct and operate the proposed wind turbines and associated facilities. For the purposes of this EIR, the term “project area” refers to this 3,012-acre area within the project boundaries where the applicant would locate

November 30, 2011 3-10 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

the predominant proposed facilities. In addition to the project area, underground collection lines would be installed on up to seven ancillary parcels that are developed with other existing wind projects.

On page 3-5, the second paragraph under Section 3.3.1, Other Existing and Planned Wind Facilities in the Wind Resource Area, has been revised to state:

More wind energy projects are planned for the Montezuma Hills. PG&E is in the planning stages for a 13-turbine wind energy project east of Collinsville. PG&E is a regulated public utility, and the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) would be the lead agency for the environmental review for the PG&E project. The owner of the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project is considering has submitted a conceptual proposal for a wind project, Montezuma Zephyr, in the area of the Montezuma Wetlands, within portions of the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan area, west of Collinsville Road. No details have been furnished to the County and, given the speculative nature of this project, it is being mentioned by reference only.

On page 3-5 and 3-6, Table 3.3-1, Existing and Planned Commercial Wind Facilities in the Montezuma Hills, has been revised as follows:

Table 3.3-1 (Revised) EXISTING AND PLANNED COMMERCIAL WIND FACILITIES IN THE MONTEZUMA HILLS Number of Project Name Turbine Model Status Turbines Existing Projects Solano Wind Phase 1 Vestas V-47 23 Constructed in 2004 and in operation (SMUD) Solano Wind Phase 2A Vestas V-90 8 Constructed in 2006 and in operation (SMUD) Solano Wind Phase 2B Vestas V-90 21 Constructed in 2007 and in operation (SMUD) enXco V1 (enXco) Kenetech KCS- 59 Constructed in 1989/1990 and in 56-100 operation, partial decommissioning in 2011 and 2012 enXco V (enXco) GE 1.5 6 Constructed in 2006 and in operation repowered High Winds (NextEra) Vestas V-80 90 Constructed in 2003 and in operation Shiloh I (Iberdrola GE 1.5 100 Constructed in 2006 and in operation Renewables) Shiloh II (enXco) REpower MM92 75 Constructed in 2008 and in operation Montezuma I (NextEra) Siemens 2.3 16 Constructed in 2010 and in operation

November 30, 2011 3-11 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Projects Under Construction Solano Wind Phase 3 Vestas V-90 55 Construction commenced May 2011; (SMUD) completion planned Spring 2012 Shiloh III (enXco)2 REpower MM92 59 50 Construction commenced June 2011; completion planned early 2012 Montezuma Wind II Siemens 2.3 34 Proposed project – EIR preparation (NextEra) underway Construction commenced August 2011; completion planned late 2011 – early 2012 Future Foreseeable Projects Proposed Planned Shiloh III (enXco)2 REpower MM92 2 Approved project turbines available for future construction Shiloh IV3 (enXco) REpower MM92 50 Proposed project – EIR preparation or Vestas V90 underway Foreseeable Projects Speculative (reasonably) Montezuma Zephyr Siemens 2.3 Up to 43 Partial use permit application submitted. (speculative) Determined incomplete. PG&E Collinsville Not Available 13 Not Available 1 The use permits for older enXco V turbines expire in 2014 and 2015 and require removal of all older turbines and related features. 2 Shiloh III approved for 59 turbines, construction grading plans for 50 52 turbines submitted, 50 turbines constructed in 2011. 3 Portions of Shiloh IV would be located on parcels presently containing approximately 255 older enXco V turbines to be removed.

On page 3-14, Table 3.4-1 has been revised as follows:

Table 3.4-1 (Revised) PARCELS AND PARCEL OWNERS COMPRISING THE PROJECT SITE AREA Acres within Total Parcel Project Landowner's Name APN Acres Boundary Anderson Edward A Jr Trust 0090-070-310 252.79 252.79 Anderson Edward A Jr Trust 0090-090-350 231.67 231.67 Anderson Eric Ian12 0090-090-230 161.27 161.27 Anderson, Jeanie12 0090-090-3001 22.27 22.27 Anderson, Jeanie12 0090-090-3101 25.12 25.12 Anderson, Jeanie12 0090-100-0201 100.6 100.6 Engel Bros, et al1,2 2,3 0048-060-100 194.71 80 Coco Properties LLC12 0048-060-090 24.29 24.29 Coco Properties LLC1,2 2,3 0090-090-220 154.73 80 Coco Properties LLC1,2 2,3 0090-090-260 280.29 245 Coco Properties LLC12 0090-090-270 27.71 27.71 Coco Properties LLC1,2 2,3 0090-090-280 326.55 280

November 30, 2011 3-12 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Table 3.4-1 (Revised) PARCELS AND PARCEL OWNERS COMPRISING THE PROJECT SITE AREA Acres within Total Parcel Project Landowner's Name APN Acres Boundary Coco Properties LLC12 0090-090-290 52.2 52.2 Coco Properties LLC12 0090-100-040 20 20 Hale Trust 0090-090-240 23.01 23.01 Hale Trust2 3 0090-090-250 242.99 113 Hale Trust 0090-090-180 131.43 131.43 Stewart Thomas W, et al12 0048-060-180 612.58 612.58 Stewart Thomas W, et al 0048-070-340 106.78 106.78 Stewart Thomas W, et al 0090-070-070 131.5 131.5 Stewart Thomas W, et al 0090-090-010 190.35 190.35 Zadwick Kenneth A & Dolores E 0048-070-240 100.64 100.64 Total 3,012.21 1 Applicant is currently an authorized agent on behalf of the referenced parcel owner. Parcel owner will retain development rights under the requested use permit if approved unless Applicant has secured a wind farm lease or easement for the term of the approved use permit. 1 2 Currently part of Phase I or II of the enXco V project 2 3 Only partially occupied by proposed project

The following final sentence has been added to the second paragraph on page 3-14:

In addition, the parcel owned by Eric Ian Anderson (APN 0090-090-230) contains two noncommercial wind turbines.

At the end of page 3-14, a new paragraph and a table, Table 3.4-2, have been inserted following the paragraph after Table 3.4-1:

Table 3.4-2 identifies the parcel number, landowner’s name, and existing wind projects for the parcels that would have collection lines on ancillary parcels.

Table 3.4-2 ANCILLARY PARCELS WITH UNDERGROUND COLLECTION LINES Existing Landowner's Name APN Project Feature Wind Project Judith L. Elliott et al. 0048-050-070 Optional collection line to Shiloh III Shiloh III Ian & Margaret Anderson 0048-060-230 Optional collection line to Shiloh III Shiloh I Ian & Margaret Anderson 0048-060-240 Optional collection line to Shiloh III Shiloh I Stewart, Guy 0048-070-200 Collection line to turbine E1 Shiloh I Stewart, Thomas 0090-070-260 Collection line to turbine E1 Shiloh I Zadwick Kenneth A & Shiloh I Dolores E 0090-070-380 Collection line to turbine E1 Stewart, Thomas 0090-070-400 Collection line to turbine E1 Shiloh I

November 30, 2011 3-13 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 3-25, the sixth and seventh sentences of the third paragraph under the subheading “New Access Roads” in Section 3.5.2, Access Roads, have been revised to state:

During construction, access roads would disturb an estimated 93.1 116.7 acres. During operation, the permanent roads for the Project would occupy 24.6 31.6 acres.

On page 3-27, the first paragraph under the heading “Underground Power Collection Lines,” from the sixth sentence onward, has been revised to state:

Based on the preliminary site design in Figure 3.5-1 (Revised), Proposed Project Features, including the optional collection line to Shiloh III, the Project would require approximately 18.6 20.1 miles of underground collector collection lines, 0.3 of which 1.9 miles would run on ancillary parcels outside the project area in order to connect turbine E1 and, potentially, two Shiloh III turbines with the remainder of the Project. The trenching operation for the underground collection lines would have a disturbance area up to 20 feet wide for storage of soils. In the final 500 feet leading into the substation, the trenching operation would disturb an area as much as 50 feet wide to accommodate the joining of several collection lines in a corridor. A total maximum of approximately 43.5 48.8 acres of land, including 0.8 4.6 acres on ancillary parcels outside the project area, would be temporarily disturbed during installation of the collector collection lines. The cables would be installed primarily on private land occupied by the proposed project, typically within easements, and within public right-of-way, as necessary, to cross public roads. The power collection and feeder lines would typically be located underground along the entire route to the Shiloh IV substation. Where wetlands occur and avoidance is infeasible, the power collection lines would be installed deep beneath the aquatic features using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) to avoid potential impacts. HDD will also be used at public road crossings.

Starting with the sixth sentence, the paragraph under Section 3.5.5, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Facility – Building Addition, on page 3-29, has been revised to state:

The Project would include the addition of a 5,000 8,000-square foot detached warehouse building with office space for approximately 6 to 12 O&M personnel within at this facility. Figure 3.5-6, Existing and Proposed O&M Buildings and Electrical Facilities in the Project Area, shows the position of this building at the existing facility. Building construction The new building would be within an already disturbed area for outside storage of materials and would not result in any additional temporary or permanent disturbance outside the boundaries of the existing facility. Construction of the new building would take place within a 0.3-acre area within these boundaries. When construction of the proposed Project is complete, the enXco O&M facility would serve 262 turbines, and, based on the number of turbines being maintained, the Project’s share of this operation would be approximately 0.4 acres. The new O&M building could require expansion of the existing septic system and/or installation of a new septic system, subject to County requirements (including, if required, submission of a percolation test) to be determined prior to building permit issuance. This would create a minor new permanently disturbed area less than 0.1 acres. The new building could also require an additional on-site water well, which would be built in compliance with state and local regulations.

November 30, 2011 3-14 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

The fifth sentence of the first paragraph under Section 3.6, Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Land Requirements, on page 3-30, has been revised as follows:

The project construction activities and facilities would require approximately 286.2 291.6 acres, including 4.5 acres for an optional collection line to two approved, but unbuilt, Shiloh III turbine locations. Of the approximately 291.6 acres, 4.6 acres would be on ancillary parcels.

Table 3.6-1 on page 3-31 has been revised as follows: Table 3.6-1 (Revised) ESTIMATED SHILOH IV WIND PROJECT LAND REQUIREMENTS (ACRES) Permanent Facility Construction Operation Tower footprint 111.9 3.7 Access roads 116.7 31.6 Power collection 43.5 48.82 0 Substation 1.0 0.7 Interconnection Lines O&M building addition, 0.5 0.4 parking, and storage 1 Temporary staging and 11.8 0 storage area/laydown areas Meteorological towers 0.9 0.8 Septic system 0.1 0 Total 286.2 291.62 37.2 1 Shiloh IV O&M building and storage would be within the existing O&M facility area that would also serve Shiloh II, Shiloh III, and enXco V projects. Project requirements allocated by number of turbines. 2 Includes 4.5 acres for an optional collection line to two approved, but unbuilt, Shiloh III turbines.

3.4 CHAPTER 5, AESTHETIC/VISUAL RESOURCES On page 5-31, Mitigation Measure AES-7 part b and c have been revised to state:

c. If the Applicant modifies the Project after obtaining the FAA determinations, the Applicant shall submit a new FAA Form 7460-1 for each new or modified turbine and

November 30, 2011 3-15 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

meteorological tower taller than 200 feet. The Applicant shall submit the new FAA determinations to Solano County prior to construction of issuance of building permits for any affected turbines and meteorological towers.

3.5 CHAPTER 6, AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES On page 6-6, Table 6.4-1, Williamson Act Parcels in the Shiloh IV Project Area, has been revised as follows:

Table 6.4-1 (Revised) WILLIAMSON ACT PARCELS IN THE SHILOH IV PROJECT AREA Williamson Landowner APN Proposed Project Features Act Contract Anderson, Edward 0090-070-310 Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, A Jr Trust meteorological tower 0090-090-350 Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, project entrance Anderson, Eric Ian 0090-090-230* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, laydown yard Anderson, Jeanie 0090-090-300* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines 0090-090-310* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, meteorological tower 0090-100-020* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines Engel Bros, et al 0048-060-100* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines Coco Properties 0048-060-090* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, LLC temporary laydown yard 0090-090-220* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, project entrance 0090-090-260* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, project entrance, substation, O&M warehouse building addition 0090-090-270* Yes Collection lines 0090-090-280* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, project entrance 0090-090-290* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines 0090-100-040* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines Hale Trust 0090-090-240 Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines 0090-090-250 Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines 0090-090-180 Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines Stewart, Thomas W, 0048-060-180* Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, project et al entrance 0048-070-340 Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines,

November 30, 2011 3-16 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Table 6.4-1 (Revised) WILLIAMSON ACT PARCELS IN THE SHILOH IV PROJECT AREA meteorological tower 0090-070-070 Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines 0090-070-010 Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines Zadwick Kenneth A 0048-070-240 Yes Turbines, roads, collection lines, project and Dolores E entrance

Ancillary Parcels with Underground Collection Lines Anderson, Ian & 0048-060-230 Yes Optional collection lines Margaret 0048-060-240 Yes Optional collection lines Elliott, Judith L. et 0048-050-070 No Optional collection lines al. Stewart, Guy 0048-070-200 Yes Collection lines Stewart, Thomas 0090-070-260 Yes Collection lines 0090-070-400 Yes Collection lines Zadwick Kenneth A 0090-070-380 Yes Collection lines and Dolores E Source: enXco 2011. * Denotes parcel is part of existing enXco V project.

On page 6-7, the third paragraph under Impact AG-2, Permanent Conversion of Lands to Non- Agricultural Use in the Project Area, has been revised to state:

As described in Table 3.6-1 of the Project Description, the Shiloh IV Project’s turbines, access roads, meteorological towers, and other features would permanently occupy approximately 37 acres of agricultural lands in the project area. The Applicant proposes to install approximately 18 20 miles of power collection lines underground, including an optional collection line to two approved, but unbuilt, Shiloh III turbines, and would restore these lands to preconstruction conditions after installation of the power collection lines, enabling agricultural activities to resume in these areas.

On page 6-8, the first and second paragraphs under Impact AG-3, Temporary Disturbance of Agricultural Lands during Construction, have been revised to state:

As described in Table 3.6-1 of the Project Description, the Shiloh IV Project’s turbines, access roads, meteorological towers, and other features would temporarily disturb up to approximately 286 292 acres of agricultural lands, representing 9.5 percent of the 3,012-acre Shiloh IV project area as well as 4.6 acres for collection lines on ancillary parcels. The total includes 4.5 acres of temporary disturbance from the optional collection line, as discussed in the revised project description. The Project’s temporary agricultural disturbance would exceed the Project’s permanent agricultural conversion since the Applicant must initially prepare and construct the Project’s access roads, turbine pads, and other areas large enough to support large equipment used to deliver infrastructure, excavate turbine and November 30, 2011 3-17 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

meteorological tower foundations, and assemble and install the Project’s infrastructure. For example, access roads and turbine pads must be graded large enough to accommodate delivery and installation of turbine towers by over-sized trucks and cranes. Once infrastructure is installed, the Applicant would reduce the size of access roads, turbine pads, the substation’s construction footprint, etc. since routine operations and maintenance would not require use of over-sized vehicles and equipment and graded and cut and fill areas could be restored. The grading and excavation for the installation of the power collection lines would disturb a maximum of 43.5 48.8 acres of land, but the Applicant would restore these lands to preconstruction conditions.

The Applicant would restore a maximum of approximately 249 254 acres of the disturbed lands, representing approximately 87 percent of the temporarily disturbed areas, to pre- construction conditions, enabling landowners to resume agricultural activities. Given the limited area of disturbance and that the fact that the area is not Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, this impact is considered less than significant.

3.6 CHAPTER 7, AIR QUALITY On page 7-11, first paragraph has been revised to state:

The maximum area to be disturbed during construction, including construction of foundations, access roads, underground electrical trenches, substation, and other facilities, would be approximately 286 292 acres. The estimates of maximum daily emissions assume that 31 acres would be disturbed on any given day (more than two pads and three miles of access road construction).

On page 7-13, the first half of Table 7.4-2 concerning BAAQMD emissions has been revised as follows:

Table 7.4-1 (Revised) ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Total Emissions (Tons) Project Pollutant Construction Threshold Significant? BAAQMD Emissionsa ROG 0.85 0.87 - n/a

NOx 6.66 6.78 - n/a CO 11.63 11.90 - n/a

PM10 (total) 8.38 9.28 - n/a

PM10 (exhaust) 0.29 0.30 - n/a

PM10 (fugitive dust) 8.09 8.98 - n/a

PM2.5 (total) 1.96 2.15 - n/a

November 30, 2011 3-18 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Table 7.4-1 (Revised) ESTIMATED TOTAL CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Total Emissions (Tons) Project Pollutant Construction Threshold Significant?

PM2.5 (exhaust) 0.26 0.27 - n/a

PM2.5 (fugitive dust) 1.70 1.89 - n/a - Indicates no threshold a Total emissions scaled by 0% for Phase 1, 4% for Phase 2, and 68% for Phases 3-6. Mitigated emissions assume NOx emissions reduced by 20%, PM dust reduced by 53%, and PM exhaust reduced by 45%. Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding

3.7 CHAPTER 8, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The following sentence has been added to the end of the seventh paragraph on page 8-2 as follows:

In addition, agricultural land use makes up approximately 4.2 of the 4.6 total acres of land that would be temporarily disturbed for installation of collection lines on ancillary parcels.

The following sentence has been added to the end of the third paragraph on page 8-3 as follows:

In addition, annual grassland makes up approximately 0.4 of the 4.6 total acres of land that would be temporarily disturbed for installation of collection lines on ancillary parcels .

The second paragraph, third sentence of Page 8-4 has been revised as follows:

The project area contains five ponds and several wetlands and seasonal stream features. In addition, there are two vernal pools, 23 27 additional ponds, and numerous other wetland and seasonal stream features located within 1.24 miles of the project boundary and the optional collection line on ancillary parcels. Figures 8.1-1 through 8.1-3 8.1-4, Biological Resources of the Project Area, depict the aquatic resources in and near the project area and additional collection lines on ancillary parcels.

A description of the alkali meadow biological community has been added after the second paragraph on Page 8-4 of the Draft EIR as follows:

Alkali Meadow

Alkali meadow habitat is found across the alignment of the optional collection line to Shiloh III. Alkali meadows support halophytic herbaceous plants tolerant of inundation and high salts. The Applicant’s biologist observed positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology (ICF 2011c) within the area of study around the collection line alignment. The dominant hydrophytic vegetation in the alkali meadow areas consisted of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), fiddle dock, and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum); primary indicators of wetland hydrology in the wetland areas were water marks, sediment deposits, and a wrack line. The Applicant’s biologist also observed positive indicators for

November 30, 2011 3-19 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

hydrophytic vegetation in some adjacent upland locations, but not indicators of hydric soils or wetland hydrology. Alkali meadows may provide foraging habitat for many bird species, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and other migrant species.

On page 8-11, the fourth sentence in the first paragraph under the heading “Ponds” has been revised as follows:

There are 23 27 additional ponds within 1.24 miles of the project boundary and the optional collection line.

On page 8-12, the first paragraph has been revised to state:

The Applicant has located all proposed project activities and components at least 575 feet from the 5 ponds in the project area and the 23 27 additional ponds within 1.24 miles of the project boundary and the optional collection line.

Beginning with the last sentence of the first paragraph, Page 8-14 of the Draft EIR has been revised as follows:

Two Three special-status plant species are known to occur within the project area and the optional collection line alignment and are discussed below.

Heartscale

CDFG and CNPS consider heartscale (Atriplex cordulata) to be rare or endangered in California qualifying it for CRPR 1B.2. The Applicant’s biologist, ICF International, observed approximately 100 heartscale plants in the eastern half of the southernmost alkali meadow wetland in the area of study around the collection line alignment to Shiloh III locations within alkali scalds that were otherwise void of vegetation (see Figure 8.1-4). Heartscale occurs in alkali meadows, chenopod scrub, playas, annual grasslands, and alkali grasslands in the west Central Valley and valleys of adjacent foothills, below approximately 660 feet in elevation. It is known to occur elsewhere in the Montezuma Hills and in the surrounding region. On page 8-16, the third sentence of the first full paragraph has been revised to state:

A larva was also observed in a pond near Highway 12 in 2009 approximately 0.75 mile north of the Shiloh IV project boundary and approximately 0.5 miles from the optional collection line.

On page 8-16, the sixth sentence of the second full paragraph has been revised to state:

23 Twenty-seven other ponds within 1.24 miles of the project area and the optional collection line provide potential CTS breeding habitat.

On page 8-25, an additional sentence has been added to the end of the third paragraph as follows:

November 30, 2011 3-20 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

In addition, NextEra Energy discovered an immature, scavenged Swainson’s hawk on September 7, 2011 at its Montezuma I facility off Birds Landing Road.

On page 8-34, Table 8.4 has been revised as follows:

Table 8.4-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV PROJECT TEMPORARY HABITAT DISTURBANCE AND PERMANENT HABITAT LOSS Temporary Habitat Disruption Permanent Habitat Loss Project Feature (Acres) (Acres) Ag Land Grassland Total Ag Land Grassland Total Turbines 111.9 -- 111.9 3.7 -- 3.7 Access Roads 116.2 0.5 116.7 31.5 0.1 31.6 Power Collection Lines 43.2 43.84 0.3 0.5 4 43.5 44.34 0 -- -- 0 Optional Power Collection Line 4.3 0.2 4.5 -- -- 0 Substation Facilities1 1.0 -- 1.0 0.7 -- 0.7 O&M Facilities2 ------Temporary Staging Area 11.8 -- 11.8 0.0 -- 0.0 Meteorological Towers 0.9 -- 0.9 0.8 -- 0.8 Septic System 0.1 -- 0.1 0.0 -- 0.0 Shiloh IV Total 285 290.0 0.8 1.2 285.8 36.7 0.1 36.8 291.2

Existing Facilities Impact3 12.3 -- 12.3 21.2 -- 21.2

Net Project Impact 272.7 0.8 273.5 15.6 0.1 15.7 277.7 1.2 278.9 1 Includes substation, switchyard, and interconnection lines. 2 Includes building, parking, and storage. O&M facilities would be located on lands already disturbed and supporting O&M facilities for the enXco V and Shiloh II projects. 3 Refer to Table 6.4-2. Under proposed conditions, other wind energy project lands in the Shiloh IV project area would be reduced from 28.5 acres to 16.2 acres. 4 Includes a total of approximately 0.6 acres of temporary agricultural land disturbance and 0.2 acres of grassland disturbance that would occur due to the collection line leading from turbine E1 to turbine A16.

On page 8-34, the first sentence of the third paragraph has been revised as follows:

As Table 8.4-1 (Revised) shows, Project construction would temporarily disturb a total of approximately 286 290 acres of terrestrial agricultural and grassland habitat, the vast majority of which would be agricultural lands (99.7 percent of the total temporary disturbance).

On page 8-34, the last sentence has been revised as follows:

Project construction would occur over a six to nine month period and the Applicant would restore approximately 249 254 acres of disturbed lands to pre-construction conditions once construction has ceased. Mitigation Measure BIO-1A and 1B require the Applicant to minimize habitat disturbance and restore disturbed lands.

November 30, 2011 3-21 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Table 8.4-2 on pages 8-37, has been revised as follows:

Table 8.4-2 (Revised) AQUATIC RESOURCES POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY PROJECT COMPONENTS

Project Aquatic Resource Potentially Project Component Location Component Impacted Access Roads 1) Subarea D and E access road 1) Bulrush/Cattail Wetland, entrances along Montezuma Hills Seasonal Wetland Road and Shiloh Road 2) USGS-mapped seasonal 2) Access road from turbine B8 to stream that was not turbine B9 observed during 2011 field surveys Underground 12 kV 1) Line from turbine E1 to A16 1) Seasonal stream Collection Lines 2) Line from turbine A24 to C2 2) Seasonal stream/wetland 3) Line from turbine B8 to B9 3) USGS-mapped seasonal 4) Line from turbine C5 to D1 stream that was not observed during 2011 field surveys 5) Optional collection line from turbine A1 to Shiloh III area 4) Seasonal stream/bulrush- cattail wetland 5) Alkali meadow/seasonal wetland

On page 8-38, the second paragraph has been revised as follows:

The proposed power collection lines would cross several aquatic resources: the collection line from turbine E1 to A16 would cross Hopkins Ravine and Collinsville Road (See Figure 8.1-2, Biological Resources of the Project Area – Northern); the collection line from turbine A24 to C2 would cross Lucol Hollow and adjacent seasonal wetlands; and the collection line from turbine C5 to D1 would cross bulrush-cattail wetlands adjacent to Montezuma Hills Road. In addition, the proposed optional collection line leading from turbine A1 to Shiloh III locations would cross under two alkali meadows and one seasonal wetland.

On page 8-42 through 8-44, Mitigation Measure BIO-2B, Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling under Aquatic Habitats, has been revised as follows:

a. To the extent practicable, HDD drilling shall occur only during the dry season (i.e., typically April through October).

November 30, 2011 3-22 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

a) Be Either be the Applicant’s biologist or a third-party individual who shall work on behalf of Solano County at the expense of the Applicant; and

November 30, 2011 3-23 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

systems, buildings, and existing utilities, public roads and right-of-way, private access roads, and existing reference points (structures, turbines, etc…).

d. The Applicant shall provide recommendations from a California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer, who shall review the drilling plans, site specific geologic and other conditions and factors, and determine whether the boring depth, drilling pressure, and boring and setback locations are appropriate to avoid and minimize potential impacts to aquatic resources from frac-outs. The evaluation shall be presented in writing and stamped by a California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer along with the boring permit application, where required, to the Solano County Environmental Health Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a boring permit. If such permit is not required per paragraph c, above, then the evaluation together with the site plans required in paragraph c, above, shall be submitted to the Solano County Planning Division for review and approval prior to the start of HDD activities at the aquatic resources location. The Applicant’s evaluation may, at the sole discretion of Solano County, be subject to peer review by a third party qualified professional expert hired by the County at the expense of the applicant.

November 30, 2011 3-24 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

g. If the Applicant suspects a potential drilling fluid leak (frac-out) that is not yet observed at the surface (e.g., loss of drilling mud in the pit but no frac-out at the surface), the Applicant shall cease HDD activities immediately and the HDD contractor shall implement measures to reduce the potential for a frac-out (e.g., increase the density of the drilling mud or reduce the pressure of the drill). The Applicant shall then be allowed to continue HDD activities. If a frac-out occurs, the Applicant shall implement paragraph h, below.

h. In the event a frac-out is detected, the Applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce or minimize effects on the affected aquatic resource:

i. All work shall stop until the frac-out has been contained and cleaned up;.

b) The following agencies in writing (email acceptable) within 24 hours. If a, providing the information in paragraph h.iii.a) above:

1) CDFG, if the frac-out is within or may flow into the bank of a stream or wetland.

November 30, 2011 3-25 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

2) RWQCB, if the frac-out is within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or waters of the State.

3) USACOE, if the frac-out is within potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S.

November 30, 2011 3-26 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

i. If frac-outs occur during boring at one location and the frac-outs release a combined total of more than 42 gallons, the Applicant shall stop work and not proceed with the boring at that location until the Applicant’s California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer has reviewed the drilling plans and determined whether changes in the boring depth, drilling pressure, or location are appropriate. The review shall be presented to Solano County in writing and be stamped by the Applicant’s California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer. Said review may, at the sole discretion of Solano County, be subject to peer review by a third party qualified professional expert hired by the County at the expense of the applicant and must be approved by Solano County before boring may resume.

The discussion under Impact BIO-3, Potential Impacts to Special-Status Plants on page 8-44, has been revised as follows:

As described in Section 8.1.3, there are two special-status plants in project subarea A:, Gairdner’s yampah and pappose tarplant, as well as two special status plants in the vicinity of the optional collection line to Shiloh III, heartscale and pappose tarplant. The Applicant has located all proposed project activities and components more than 800 feet from the occurrence of Gairdner’s yampah and approximately 200 feet from the occurrence of heartscale, but has located a proposed access road within 25 feet and a collector collection line within 10 feet of the occurrence of pappose tarplant within project subarea A and within 20 feet of the occurrence of pappose tarplant in the vicinity of the optional collection line to Shiloh III.

In the proposed configuration, the project’s construction and operation is not expected to result in the loss of the Gairdner’s yampah or heartscale populations or cause a trend toward federal or state listing or a loss of viability, but if the project design changes project construction could result in temporary impacts from inadvertent trampling and fuel spills. However, Gairdner’s yampah is a CRPR List 4 species, indicating a limited distribution and does not represent a unique or rare population. Impacts to this species would be considered adverse, but not significant; however, Mitigation Measure BIO-23, Avoid Impacts to Special- status Plants, would promote avoidance of this plant population to the extent possible. Any impacts to heartscale, a CRPR 1B.2 species (rare, threatened, or endangered) would be considered significant.

As tThe current configuration of the project includes an access road within 25 feet and a collector collection line within 10 feet of the pappose tarplant population within the project boundaries,. Pappose tarplant is also found within 20 feet of the optional collection line to the Shiloh III area. Pproject construction and operation could significantly impact this CRPR 1B.2 (rare, threatened, or endangered) species through trampling, fuel spills, grading, and other project activities. Any impact to this species’ occurrence would be considered significant.

November 30, 2011 3-27 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 8-45, Mitigation Measure BIO-3, part a.ii.a) has been revised as follows:

b.) Under the aquatic botanical resource using the HDD method in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-2B (Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling). HDD entry and exit pits shall be located at least 100 feet away from the special-status plant populations.

On page 8-46, Mitigation Measure BIO-3, part e. has been revised as follows:

f. If construction activities require or otherwise take pappose tarplant or heartscale, then the Applicant shall have a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of native plant restoration, mitigation, and management plans develop and submit to Solano County and CDFG for approval a salvage and recovery plan prior to the start of construction activities.

On page 8-46, the first sentence of the paragraph under the heading “Special-Status Crustaceans” has been revised as follows:

The five 5 seasonal ponds within the Shiloh IV project area, as and the 23 27 ponds and 2 vernal pools outside of but within 1.24 miles of the project boundary and the optional collection line, are potential habitat for vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

On pages 8-46 and 8-47, the seventh, eighth, and ninth sentences of the first paragraph under the heading “Special Status Amphibians” has been revised to state:

In addition, a larval CTS was observed approximately 0.75 mile north of the project area boundary and approximately 0.5 miles from the optional collection line, during aquatic surveys conducted by ICF biologists in 2009. Within the project area, five 5 ponds provide suitable breeding habitat, but probably only in average to above-average rainfall years. 23 Twenty-seven other ponds and 2 vernal pools within 1.24 miles of the project area and the optional collection line provide potential CTS breeding habitat.

The last paragraph on page 8-53 (continuing onto page 8-54) has been revised as follows:

The Shiloh IV project area also contains approximately 38 acres of aquatic resources habitat, including bulrush cattail wetlands with willow riparian scrub inclusions (approximately 11 acres), seasonal wetlands (approximately 26 acres), and ponds and vernal pools (<1 acre). In addition, approximately 2.6 acres of alkali meadows are present within the studied area 300 feet on each side of the optional collection line to the Shiloh III area. These areas could provide suitable nesting habitat for ground-nesting birds as well as waterbirds and water fowl, including but not limited to the special-status long-billed curlew and tri-colored blackbird. With the exception of the proposed project components identified in Table 8.4-2 (Revised), the Applicant has located all construction activities at least 420 feet from any aquatic resource habitat.

November 30, 2011 3-28 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 8-47, the third sentence has been revised as follows:

In addition, a larval CTS was observed approximately 0.75 mile north of the project area boundary and approximately 0.5 miles from the optional collection line during aquatic surveys conducted by ICF biologists in 2009.

On page 8-60, the first sentence of the second paragraph of Impact BIO-8 has been revised as follows:

The proposed Project would replace approximately 255 240 older, smaller wind turbines, approximately 240 of which are currently operational, with 50 newer, larger wind turbines.

On page 8-63, the first sentence of the second paragraph under the heading “Potential Project Benefits from Replacing Older Technology Turbines with Newer Technology Turbines” has been revised as follows:

The proposed Shiloh IV project also involves replacing approximately 240 operational, older enXco V, Kenetech model 56-100 wind turbines with 32 newer technology turbines.

On page 8-65, the last sentence of the second paragraph has been revised as follows:

Table 8.4-5 compares the power output, rotor swept area, and estimated adjusted avian mortality rates for the approximately 240 existing, operational enXco V turbines that the Applicant proposes to replace with up to 32 REpower MM92 turbines.

On page 8-66, the first sentence of the first paragraph has been revised as follows:

Table 8.4-5 compares the estimated mortality in the 1,734-acre area that currently contains approximately 240 operational enXco V turbines with the mortality in the same area with the Shiloh IV turbines.

On page 8-66, the last sentence of the first paragraph has been revised as follows:

Raptor mortalities for the portion of the Shiloh IV project located on existing enXco V lands are estimated to be approximately 1.1 times higher than the enXco V estimate despite the fact that the proposed 32 Shiloh IV turbines would have approximately 4.4 times more rotor swept area than the approximately 240 operational enXco V project turbines they would replace and would produce approximately 4.8 times more electrical generation.

On page 8-66, the second sentence of the second paragraph has been revised as follows:

Using these unadjusted enXco V mortality rates, the approximately 240 existing, operational enXco V turbines in the Shiloh IV project area are estimated to currently result in approximately 10.1 raptor fatalities and 16.0 total bird fatalities per year, which could lower the Applicant’s estimate of Project-related avian mortalities presented in Table 8.4-3.

November 30, 2011 3-29 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 8-67, Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, part b, has been revised to state:

On page 8-68, subparts iii. and iv. have been added to Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, part c, as follows:

iii. A minimum of approximately 50 percent of the Project’s wind turbines shall be surveyed each year of required monitoring.

On page 8-70, Mitigation Measure BIO-8B.d.iii. has been revised as follows:

On page 8-75, Mitigation Measure BIO-8E has been added as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-8E: Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk. The Applicant shall minimize potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk associated with operation of the Project as follows:

November 30, 2011 3-30 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

a. A minimum of approximately 50 percent of the Project's wind turbines shall be surveyed each year of required monitoring in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.c.

b. Increased carcass searches shall be provided and reported in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.c.iv.

November 30, 2011 3-31 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

necessary to ensure survival of the plantings shall be determined by the operator of the conserved land based on site specific conditions and previous requirements, if applicable. vi. Nest trees shall be inspected and monitored at least once a year by the operator of the conserved land for a period of three years following planting. The plantings shall be considered successful if 67 percent of the trees survive at the end of three years. The results of monitoring, including a description of any breeding activities observed by the operator of the conserved land in the nest trees, shall be reported annually by the operator to the regulating agencies (i.e., USFWS, DFG, etc.) and Solano County. f. For any period the required nest tree monitoring in paragraph e.vi., above, occurs during the post-construction avian/bat monitoring required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, the results of the nest tree monitoring, including a description of any breeding activities observed by the operator of the conserved land in the nest trees, shall be included in the annual avian/bat monitoring report required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.

On page 8-78, the following corrections have been made to listed references:

ICF International 2011a. Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the Proposed Shiloh IV Wind Project, Solano County, California. Prepared for Next Era enXco. Sacramento San Ramon, CA. August 2010 May 2011.

On page 8-79, the following corrections have been made to listed references:

ICF International 2011b. Addendum to the Final Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the Proposed Shiloh IV Wind Project, Solano County, California. Prepared for Next Era enXco. Sacramento San Ramon, CA. October 2010 June 2011.

On page 8-79, the following references have been added to the EIR as follows:

ICF 2011c. Second Addendum to the Final Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the Shiloh IV Wind Project, Solano County, California. Prepared for enXco. San Ramon, CA. October 2011.

Jackman 2011a. Jackman, Ron. Wildlife Biologist, Garcia and Associates. “Re: Meins Landing Nest.” Email message to Chris Dugan, TRA Environmental Sciences. October 21, 2011.

3.8 CHAPTER 9, CULTURAL RESOURCES On page 9-1, the first sentence of the third paragraph has been revised to state:

The cultural resources impact analysis is based on the cultural resources inventory conducted by ICF International on behalf of the Applicant and discussed in its April 2011 report revised in June 2011, Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Shiloh IV Project, Solano County, California (ICF International 2011a) and the October 2011 Addendum to the Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Shiloh IV Windfarm Project (See Appendix M).

November 30, 2011 3-32 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 9-6, the first sentence under Section 9.3, Methods and Results of the Cultural Resources Inventory, has been revised to state:

The cultural resources inventory conducted for the Montezuma II Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project consisted of a literature review, Native American consultation, consultation with historic societies, and a pedestrian survey, as discussed below.

On page 9-8, the second paragraph under the heading “Field Survey” has been revised as follows:

The cultural resources inventory identified 6 parcels containing 22 architectural resources 50 years old or older within the proposed project area. The ICF International report in Appendix E1 provides descriptions of these buildings and structures. Table 9.3-1 describes the archaeological and architectural resources in the project area. An additional potential resource, an historic well, would be near the optional collection line on parcel 0048-060-230 and is potentially eligible for listing in the national register (See Appendix M, Addendum to the Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Shiloh IV Windfarm Project Report).

On page 9-10, the second paragraph has been revised as follows:

Sites located outside of the project area of impact include P-48-000130, Parcels 0090-070- 070, 0090-070-310, 0090-090-210, 0090-090-250, 0090-090-350, and Donald Ranch (Parcel 0090-090-230). The historic well on parcel 0048-060-230 is approximately 450 feet from the proposed optional collection line alignment, and is also outside the area of potential effect and would not be impacted by the project construction. The Project would not cause significant impacts to these sites’ potential cultural resources because they will not be exposed to project activity.

On page 9-10, the second paragraph of Impact CUL-1 has been revised as follows:

The historic architectural resource survey identified 22 historic structures in the project area, of which 10 are potentially eligible for listing in the NRHR or CRHR. A subsequent survey identified an additional resource outside the project area in parcel 0048-060-230. These structures, however, are not within the project area of impact, and the Project would have no potential to impact them.

3.9 CHAPTER 10, GEOLOGIC RESOURCES On page 10-10, the first paragraph under Section 10.5, Geologic Resources Impact Analysis and Mitigation, has been revised as follows:

The Shiloh IV project would not result in impacts to mineral resources since the Project is not located in a mineral resource zone and would not result in the loss of availability of a known or important mineral resource. Although there is potential that the Project would require expansion of the O&M facility septic system and/or installation of a new septic system, Tthe Shiloh IV project would not result in impacts to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks as no septic tanks are proposed as part of this Project.

November 30, 2011 3-33 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Any new or expanded septic system would be subject to County regulations, including submission of a percolation test if required.

3.10 CHAPTER 11, GREENHOUSE GASES On page 11-6, the third sentence of the paragraph under the heading “Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions” has been revised as follows:

According to the ICF International Air Quality Study and the EIR consultant adjustments, construction of the Project, including the optional collection line, would result in

approximately 2,926 2,960 MT of CO2e emissions.

On page 11-8, Table 11.4-1 has been revised as follows:

Table 11.4-1 (Revised) NET IMPACT ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM PROPOSED PROJECT Low Estimate¹ High Estimate²

Project Activity MT CO2e MT CO2e Existing enXco V Operational Emissions5 79 79 Project³ Displaced Emissions from Generation 10,253 15,760 Annual Emissions Emissions Benefit 10,174 15,681 Construction Emissions4 2,926 2,960 2,926 2,960 Operational Emissions4 154 154 Proposed Project Annual Emissions Displaced Emissions from Generation 75,094 115,429 Emissions Benefit 74,940 115,275 Existing Project Emissions Benefit 40,697 47,042 2011-2015 Proposed Project Proposed Project Lifetime Emissions 2,245,274 3,455,332 Compared to Existing Benefit 2,245,240 3,455,298 Project1 Proposed Project Lifetime Emissions 2,204,577 3,408,290 Benefit Compared to Baseline4 2,204,543 3,408,256 1 Estimated displacement of greenhouse gases using PG&E grid-wide average emissions factor (540 lbs CO2e per MWh) 2 Estimated displacement of greenhouse gases using CARB emissions factor for marginal electricity (830 lbs CO2e per MWh) 3 Approximately 235 enXco V turbines in the Shiloh IV project area, assumed operational until January 2012 with proposed project or until December 2014 without the proposed project 4 From ICF International May 31, 2011 Revised Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Study for the Shiloh IV Wind Project, with 34 MT CO2e added to account for emissions from optional collection line construction. 5 From ICF International May 4, 2011 Final Air Quality and Climate Change Technical Study for the Shiloh IV Wind Project

3.11 CHAPTER 12, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS On pages 12-3 and 12-4, the following sentence has been added to the paragraph under the heading “Underground Utilities”:

Two additional natural gas pipelines, operated by CPN Pipeline Company and Lodi Gas Storage, LLC, cross the proposed optional collection line alignment on ancillary parcels (PHMSA 2010).

November 30, 2011 3-34 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 12-14, under the heading “References,” the following new citation has been added:

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 2010. National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) Public Map Viewer. http://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/ publicviewer/composit.jsf. Accessed November 1, 2011.

3.12 CHAPTER 13, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY On page 13-2, the second paragraph under Section 13.1.3, Flood Hazards and Levees, has been revised to state:

No project turbines would be within any flood zones, however, construction of two access road entrances from Birds Landing Road and placement of collector collection lines via HDD in two three locations, one below Collinsville Road and Hopkins Ravine and the other two beneath Birds Landing Road and Lucol Hollow, may occur within the 100-year flood plain. The access roads and collector collection lines would not change base flood elevations and would comply with applicable state and federal building standards.

On page 13-5, the first paragraph under Section 13.1.4, Water Quality, has been revised as follows:

The SFBRWQCB and the CVRWQCB State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) maintain lists of water bodies they consider impaired or threatened according to the criteria noted in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. A water body is considered impaired if it does not attain water quality standards adopted by the RWQCB and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Standards may be violated by an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, thermal pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. A water body is considered threatened if it currently attains water quality standards but is predicted to violate standards by the time the next Section 303(d) list is submitted to the EPA. The 303(d) lists are a comprehensive public accounting of all impaired or threatened water bodies, regardless of the cause or source of the impairment or threat. The project area does not contain any streams that either the SWFRWQCB or the CVRWQCB the SWRCB lists as water quality impaired or threatened. Table 13.1-1 lists quality impaired and threatened water bodies downstream of the project area, along with the pollutants affecting these water bodies.

On page 13-5, the second paragraph under Section 13.1.4, Water Quality, has been removed and replaced with the following table:

November 30, 2011 3-35 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

(DDT), Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Selenium Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, PCBs, Selenium Carquinez Strait Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, PCBs, Selenium San Pablo Bay Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, PCBs, Selenium Central San Francisco Bay Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, PCBs, Selenium Source: SWRCB 2010.

On page 13-5, the third paragraph under Section 13.1.4, Water Quality, has been revised as follows:

The Basin Plans for the San Francisco Bay region and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers both designate water bodies with beneficial water uses (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board 2007). The Sacramento River, Montezuma Slough, and Suisun Marsh have several beneficial uses, including: Table 13.1-2 lists beneficial uses associated with the water bodies downstream of the project area.

On page 13-5, the list after the third paragraph under Section 13.1.4, Water Quality, has been removed and replaced with the following table:

November 30, 2011 3-36 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Commercial and Sport Fishing, Wildlife Habitat, Water Recreation, Navigation San Pablo Bay Industrial Service Supply, Fish Spawning, Fish Migration, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, Estuarine Habitat, Commercial and Sport Fishing, Wildlife Habitat, Water Recreation, Navigation, Shellfish Harvesting Central San Francisco Bay Industrial Service Supply, Industrial Process Supply, Fish Spawning, Fish Migration, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, Estuarine Habitat, Commercial and Sport Fishing, Wildlife Habitat, Water Recreation, Navigation, Shellfish Harvesting Sources: SFBRWQCB 2010 and CVRWQCB 2009.

On page 13-8, the paragraph under the heading, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, has been revised as follows:

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code sections 13000 et seq.) requires protection of water quality by appropriate designing, sizing, and construction of erosion and sediment controls. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, regional boards must develop, adopt, and implement Water Quality Control Plans, or Basin Plans. The A Basin Plan describes the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality regulation in the region. The SFRWQCB SFBRWQCB and the CVRWQCB have both adopted basin plans; the SFRWQCB SFBRWQCB Basin Plan was first adopted in 1968 and was most recently revised in 2010, and the CVRWQCB Basin Plan was first adopted in 1975 and most recently revised in 2009. Under these Plans, the regional boards designate water bodies with beneficial water uses, set water quality objectives needed to protect the designated beneficial water uses, and implement plans for achieving the water quality objectives through its regulatory programs (SFBRWQCB 2007 2010, CVRWQCB 2004 2009). Specifically, the Basin Plans set water quality objectives for several aspects of water quality, referred to as categories. Table 13.2-1 identifies the categories of water quality objectives included in the both basin plans for both groundwater and inland surface water.

On page 13-8, the following table has been added beneath the paragraph under the heading, Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act:

November 30, 2011 3-37 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Turbidity, Un-Ionized Ammonia, Chemical Constituents, Constituents of Concern for Municipal and Agricultural Water Supplies Sacramento River Bacteria, Chemical Bacteria, Biostimulatory Substances, Chemical Basin and the San Constituents, Constituents, Color, Dissolved Oxygen, Floating Joaquin River Basin Radioactivity, Tastes Material, Mercury, Methylmercury, Oil and Grease, (Central Valley) and Odors, And Ph, Pesticides, Radioactivity, Salinity, Sediment, Toxicity Settleable Material, Suspended Material, Taste and Odor, Temperature, Toxicity, Turbidity Sources: SFRWQCB 2010 and CVRWQCB 2009.

On page 13-14, the second paragraph under Impact HYD-1, Impacts on Wetlands, Streams, and Waters of the United States, has been revised to state:

The construction of the project facilities could result in indirect impacts to waters of the United States. Construction would start with clearing and grading of the laydown area and new access roads, and temporary widening of existing roads. Gravel would be trucked in from an existing source and compacted to form a stable road surface. As proposed, construction of the Project (including preparing the 50 turbine pads) would result in temporary disturbance of up to approximately 286 292 acres. Approximately 249 255 acres would be restored to preconstruction conditions. If the Applicant is able to reuse the enXco V roads, the Project could reduce these impacts to up to 275 281 acres of temporary disturbance. The Applicant would prepare a SWPPP and a REAP and adhere to appropriate NALs and NELs in compliance with the RWQCB Construction General Permit requirements.

On page 13-17, the following paragraph has been added below the second paragraph following the Level of Significance heading for Impact HYD-2: Impacts on Water Quality:

By implementing the above mitigation measures, the Project would be consistent with the CVRWQCB and SFBRWQCB Basin Plans and would minimize potential impacts to nearby and downstream surface water quality from erosion and sedimentation, to nearby and downstream ground water quality from potential hazards, and to beneficial uses of water bodies within either basin. As a result of mitigation measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, HYD-2, AIR-2, GEO-3, HAZ-1A and HAZ-1B, the Project would have less than significant impacts from erosion and hazards, and would have a less than significant impact on water quality generally.

On page 13-20, the fourth citation, for Central Valley Basin Plan, has been revised as follows:

Central Valley Regional California Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region (CVRWQCB). 2004 2009. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Fourth Edition, the Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin (Region 5) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). September 10, 2004. September 2009.

November 30, 2011 3-38 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 13-20, the seventh citation, for San Francisco Bay Basin Plan, has been revised as follows:

San Francisco Bay Regional California Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region (SFBRWQB). 20072010. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). January 18, 2007 December 31, 2010.

On page 13-21, the fifth citation, for the State Water Quality Control Board, has been revised as follows:

State Water Quality Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2006 2010. 2006 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/ 305(b) Report). Available online at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/ epa/state_usepa_combined.pdfintegrated2010.shtml. Accessed on December 10, 2010.

3.13 CHAPTER 14, LAND USE AND POPULATION On page 14-11, the sixth sentence of the paragraph under the heading “Travis AFB Land Use Compatibility Plan” has been revised to state:

According to Figures 2a and 2c of the Travis AFB LUCP, a large portion in the north of the project area and approximately 24 23 proposed project turbines would be within Travis AFB compatibility zone C and the Travis AFB area of influence.

3.14 CHAPTER 16, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES On page 16-3, the paragraph under the heading “Gas and Electricity” has been modified as follows:

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) supplies electricity to Solano County, including the project area; electrical use in the project area is mainly residential. One natural gas transmission pipeline, operated by PG&E, crosses east-west through the northern portion of the project area. Two additional natural gas pipelines, operated by CPN Pipeline Company and Lodi Gas Storage, LLC, cross the proposed optional collection line alignment on ancillary parcels (PHMSA 2010). The project area contains other electrical facilities, including 255 small wind turbines that are part of the enXco V project, the Shiloh I substation, the PG&E Birds Landing Switchyard, and the Solano Wind substation. Nearby existing facilities include the PG&E 230- kV Gen-Tie line, the PG&E 230- and 500-kV transmission lines, and the Montezuma I and High Winds substations. To the north, the Montezuma II switchyard and substation are expected to be constructed and in operation before the end of 2011.

The third sentence of the first full paragraph on page 16-12, also the sixth paragraph under Impact PSU-2: Public Utilities, has been revised to state:

Prior to issuing a building permit, the County will evaluate the capacity of the well and sewage system in order to determine whether the demands of the project, including the proposed 5,000 8,000-square-foot warehouse building addition at this location, require expansion of the existing facilities and/or the development of a new well or septic system.

November 30, 2011 3-39 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 16-13, Mitigation Measure PSU-3, part a. has been revised to state:

c. If the Applicant revises turbine locations to place a turbine within 328 feet (100 meters) of a microwave path, c Conduct a revised study and prepare a report on the effect upon nearby FCC licensed microwave and fixed station radio frequency facilities due to the construction of the Project. The report shall describe the results of the study and analysis to determine the locations of FCC microwave and fixed station radio frequency facilities that may be adversely impacted as a result of the construction of wind turbines in the project area.

On page 16-13, Mitigation Measure PSU-3, part b. has been removed because it is redundant. The subsequent numbering in the mitigation measure changes accordingly.

d. Less than six months before construction begins, a qualified professional technology design firm with experience evaluating impacts on microwave transmissions and radio frequencies shall conduct an updated FCC database search and, if new microwave paths in or near the project area have been added to the FCC database, the firm shall update the microwave study as needed.

On page 16-16, under the heading “References,” the following new citation has been added after the seventh citation.

3.15 CHAPTER 19, TRANSPORTATION In response to the comment made by the City of Rio Vista on September 17, 2011, on page 19-6, the second sentence of the first paragraph under the heading “Rio Vista Municipal Airport” has been revised to state:

The City of Rio Vista owns and manages the airport although the airport is located on unincorporated Solano County lands, which is on land incorporated by the city in 1996.

On page 19-28, the third sentence of the paragraph under the subheading “Travis Air Force Base” has been revised to state:

The current project layout would place 24 23 turbines within the Travis AFB area of influence and land use compatibility zone C and 2 turbines within the Travis AFB outer horizontal surface, the elevation of which is fixed at 562 feet above mean sea level.

On page 19-30, the second sentence of the first paragraph under Impact TRA-6 has been revised as follows:

November 30, 2011 3-40 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Approximately 32 of the proposed turbines would be located on lands currently occupied by approximately 240 smaller, operational turbines associated with the enXco V project.

On page 19-29, a final paragraph was added above the level of significance heading:

On October 27, 2011, the Solano County ALUC reviewed the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project and adopted Resolution No. 11-06 (see Appendix N), determining the Project consistent with appropriate Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans. The determination is subject to three conditions, which are discussed in Appendix N. Existing mitigation as amended in the Final EIR and in-house procedures are already in place, which address these conditions. For example, Mitigation Measure TRA-5, as amended in the Final EIR requires the Applicant to comply with all FAA conditions and requires the Applicant to furnish a copy of all FAA No Hazard determinations prior to installation of any wind turbine and met tower, each of which contains the structure coordinates and height information referenced by the ALUC. In addition, it is the policy of the Department of Resources Management to transmit a copy of the No Hazard determinations received by the Department to ALUC staff, and all wind project mitigation measures are routinely incorporated as conditions of use permit approval.

3.16 CHAPTER 20, ALTERNATIVES On page 20-6, the first paragraph under the heading “No Project Alternative 2: enXco V Operations Continue” has been revised to state:

If the No Project Alternative resulted in the enXco V turbines remaining on the site under an extension of the enXco V use permits from Solano County, significant short term and long term environmental impacts would be avoided. All of the short-term impacts associated with the decommissioning of the enXco V turbines and the construction of the proposed Project in the project area would not occur. The No Project Alternative of continuing

enXco V operations would avoid up to 7.6 tons of NOx emissions, 0.1 tons from the demotion of the enXco V project and 7.5 tons from the construction of the proposed Project, a significant level of short-term emissions. The alternative would also avoid less than significant emissions of criteria pollutants from construction equipment and vehicle exhaust. The alternative of continuing enXco V operations would avoid the erosion impacts and risks of spills associated with ground disturbing activities from the decommissioning of enXco V facilities on approximately 17 acres and construction the proposed Project on up to 286 292 acres in the project area. This alternative would also avoid the noise and potential impacts to biological and cultural resources from these construction activities.

3.17 CHAPTER 21, CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The second paragraph under Section 21.1, Cumulative Development Scenarios, on page 21-1 has been revised to state:

The cumulative analysis is based on a list of past, present, and probable future projects in the Montezuma Hills. These projects have resulted or would result in similar impacts as the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project and have the potential to contribute collectively to significant cumulative impacts. The cumulative list of wind projects existing, or planned, or

November 30, 2011 3-41 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

foreseeable in the Montezuma Hills area reflects publicly available data from past and ongoing applications with Solano County as well as consultation with Solano County. Projects that have not submitted applications to Solano County for use permits or have not otherwise released publicly available information are not analyzed in the cumulative analysis because they are considered speculative. If all approved and proposed projects are constructed, wind development in the Montezuma Hills would occupy approximately 35,000 acres. The cumulative analysis also includes impacts from the decommissioning of enXco V turbines for this project and future foreseeable projects. Figure 21.12-1 (Revised) depicts their locations of the projects considered in this analysis. Existing, smaller noncommercial wind turbines on project parcels are not considered in this cumulative analysis.

The second paragraph under Section 21.1.3, Future Foreseeable Projects within the Montezuma Hills Region, on page 21-2 has been revised to state:

PG&E has indicated that it is planning a small wind project east of Collinsville, comprising approximately 13 wind turbines. At this time, PG&E is performing preliminary environmental studies and has provided preliminary turbine locations to Travis Air Force Base, but has not submitted an application to the Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) or informed the County of its specific plans for the project. Another lesser-known, speculative wind project is being contemplated by t The landowner of the Montezuma Wetlands Restoration Project, west of Collinsville Road, has submitted a partial land use application for the Montezuma Zephyr Wind Project. As originally proposed, the Zephyr Project would consist of the construction of 43 large wind turbines. Solano County has not accepted the application as complete, and the applicant is performing revisions to the project to address County requirements and Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission regulations based on comments made by a representative at the Shiloh IV EIR scoping meeting and according to at least one local newspaper article (Eberling 2011). At this time, no plans have been submitted to the County.

The fifth paragraph under Section 21.1.3, Future Foreseeable Projects within the Montezuma Hills Region, on page 21-5 has been revised to state:

Table 21.12-1 summarizes the current development status of individual existing, currently proposed, and reasonably speculative, foreseeable wind energy projects within the wind resource area. The PG&E and Montezuma Wetlands Zephyr wind projects is are not included in this table because it is currently more speculative than the PG&E project in terms of information furnished to the County but many project details are not known or are uncertain. Although detailed site-specific analyses of both projects cannot be performed at this time, most of their impacts would be similar to the impacts of other wind projects in the Montezuma Hills, and similar mitigation measures would be able to limit the extent of these effects. Thus, the similarity between the foreseeable projects to the existing and proposed projects provides a reasonable basis for assessing the severity of their potential cumulative impacts. While this table represents the current estimate of wind turbines expected within the wind resource area based on the best available information, this number is expected to change as new wind energy projects are proposed in the area. Projects without an application on file with the County or the CPUC, such as the PG&E Collinsville Project, are not

November 30, 2011 3-42 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

considered in the cumulative impacts analysis, because this type of potential future development is speculative.

On page 21-5, the second sentence of the first paragraph under Section 21.1.4, Cumulative Scenario Summary has been revised to state:

Subsequently, with the removal of 191 older enXco V turbines in the Montezuma II project area, and the addition of 141 new wind turbines which are either currently under construction (Solano Wind – Phase I 3 and Shiloh III) or expected to be under construction soon (Montezuma II), it is reasonable to assume there will be 794 commercial wind turbines in the Montezuma Hills by early 2012.

On page 21-5, the second and third paragraphs under Section 21.1.4, Cumulative Scenario Summary have been revised to state:

Table 21.12-2, Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis, describes the future foreseeable projects considered in this chapter’s analysis.

Construction in 2012 would include up to 50 Shiloh IV turbines and, potentially, two approved, unbuilt Shiloh III turbines. Upon completion of the proposed project in 2012, the County anticipates that there would be up to 528 530 modern large turbines and 59 older small enXco V turbines operating in the Montezuma Hills. The County does not currently anticipate the construction of any other wind energy projects in the Montezuma Hills in 2012. Concurrent construction of the Project and either the Zephyr or PG&E projects during 2012 is unlikely because environmental review has not begun for either project. The Zephyr project has submitted a partial application to the County which was deemed incomplete and PG&E has not submitted an application to the PUC. The cumulative analysis does not include several existing, smaller noncommercial wind turbines in the area.

On page 21-6, Table 21.2-1, Projects Considered in the Cumulative Analysis, has been revised as follows:

Table 21.2-1 (Revised) PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN THE CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS Number of Project Name Turbine Model Status Turbines Existing Projects Solano Wind Phase 1 Vestas V-47 23 Constructed in 2004 and in operation (SMUD) Solano Wind Phase 2A Vestas V-90 8 Constructed in 2006 and in operation (SMUD) Solano Wind Phase 2B Vestas V-90 21 Constructed in 2007 and in operation (SMUD) enXco V1 (enXco) Kenetech KCS- 59 Constructed in 1989/1990 and in 56-100 operation, partial decommissioning in 2011 and 2012

November 30, 2011 3-43 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

enXco V (enXco) GE 1.5 6 Constructed in 2006 and in operation repowered High Winds (NextEra) Vestas V-80 90 Constructed in 2003 and in operation Shiloh I (Iberdrola GE 1.5 100 Constructed in 2006 and in operation Renewables) Shiloh II (enXco) REpower MM92 75 Constructed in 2008 and in operation Montezuma I (NextEra) Siemens 2.3 16 Constructed in 2010 and in operation Projects Under Construction Solano Wind Phase 3 Vestas V-90 55 Construction commenced May 2011; (SMUD) completion planned Spring 2012 Shiloh III (enXco)2 REpower MM92 50 Construction commenced June 2011; completion planned early 2012 Montezuma Wind II Siemens 2.3 34 EIR certified July 2011 and c (NextEra) Construction commenced August 2011; completion planned late 2011 or early 2012 Future Foreseeable Projects Proposed Planned Shiloh III (enXco)2 REpower MM92 2 Approved project turbines available for future construction Shiloh IV3 (enXco) Repower MM92 50 Proposed project – EIR preparation or Vestas V90 underway Foreseeable Projects Speculative (reasonably) Montezuma Zephyr Siemens 2.3 Up to 43 Partial use permit application submitted. (speculative) Determined incomplete. PG&E Collinsville Not Available 13 Not Available 1 The use permits for older enXco V turbines expire in 2014 and 2015 and require removal of all older turbines and related features. 2 Shiloh III approved for 59 turbines, construction grading plans for 52 turbines submitted, 50 turbines constructed in 2011. 3 Portions of Shiloh IV would be located on parcels presently containing approximately 255 older enXco V turbines to be removed. The second and third paragraphs under Section 21.2.1, Aesthetics, on page 21-8 have been revised to state:

The approved and proposed projects in the Montezuma Hills would contribute to the cumulative impact on visual resources. Completion of the Solano Wind Phase 3, Shiloh III, and Montezuma II projects, all currently or soon-to-be under construction in 2011, would introduce new dominant structures into views and would further detract from the rural, agricultural character of the area. and t The Shiloh IV project would introduce large turbine models, replacing 255 of the KCV 56-100 turbines now in the area, and the Zephyr and PG&E projects, if approved, would add additional turbines to the area.

Existing, proposed, and planned projects all site turbines in the foreground distance zone from County roads and rural residences. Although they conform to the Solano County

November 30, 2011 3-44 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

setback, siting, and design standards, the visibility of projects throughout the Montezuma Hills has a significant impact on aesthetic/visual resources in the area. The cumulative impact consists of continuous, landscape-defining, views for residents and travelers in the majority of the 42,972-acre region. The proposed project would contribute to and extend the cumulative visual impact of wind development in the Montezuma Hills are by adding turbines in areas where they were not located previously, particularly near Birds Landing and along Collinsville Road. Figure 21.2-1 and Figure 21.2-2 demonstrate the cumulative impact of wind projects on views in the Montezuma Hills. See Chapter 5, Aesthetics, for the location of viewpoints and discussion of the methodology used to produce the simulations. The Zephyr project is not included in the simulations because turbine locations are uncertain, but the potential addition of large turbines west of Collinsville Road would not substantially change the conclusion that the cumulative visual impacts to the communities of Collinsville and Birds Landing would be significant and unavoidable.

The fifth paragraph under Section 21.2.1, Aesthetics, on page 21-8 and 21-13 has been revised to state:

Viewers traveling County Scenic Roadways SR 12 and SR 113 have significant foreground and background views of Shiloh I, Shiloh II, High Winds, and Montezuma I projects, and the Montezuma II and Shiloh III projects and the Zephyr and PG&E projects, if approved, would add additional turbines to existing views. Turbines to the south of SR 12 dominate the landscape, and the existing cumulative impacts are significant and unavoidable. As shown in Figure 21.2-1, some portions of the Shiloh IV project turbine blades would be visible in occasional background views along SR 12 and SR 113, but at such a distance that the contribution to the cumulative impact would not be substantial.

On page 21-13, the seventh paragraph under Section 21.2.1, Aesthetics, has been revised to state:

Wind projects are also visible across the San Joaquin River in Antioch and Pittsburg. Antioch has identified views of the river to the north, with Montezuma Hills in the background, as an important view corridor. Shiloh I, Solano Wind Phase 1 and 2, and the High Winds, Montezuma II, and Shiloh III turbines are currently visible in the distance, and the Montezuma II and Shiloh IV PG&E and Zephyr turbines would also be visible if constructed. The existing turbines do not detract from foreground views of the San Joaquin River, but are a clearly visible grouping of turbines in the background. The proposed Project would add to these impacts, but the cumulative impact would not be significant.

On page 21-14, the fourth paragraph under Section 21.2.2, Agricultural Resources, has been revised to state:

The Project would temporarily disturb approximately 274 278 acres of agricultural lands in the project area, and the decommissioning of the enXco V project could result in an additional 19.6 acres of disturbance. The combined impacts, however, would still be approximately 10 percent of the project area and would occur in only one growing season. No other wind projects are expected to be in construction in 2012.

November 30, 2011 3-45 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

On page 21-14, a sixth and final paragraph has been added to the end of Section 21.2.2, Agricultural Resources:

Most of the Montezuma Zephyr and PG&E Projects would be within the Montezuma Hills agricultural region, and, if approved, would result in a similar small percentage of permanent and temporary conversion of agricultural land in the county. Given the small size of the impacts to agricultural land from recent wind development in the area and the compatibility of wind development with on-going agricultural uses, the additional cumulative impacts to agriculture would not be significant.

On page 21-15, a fourth and final paragraph has been added to the end of Section 21.2.3, Air Quality:

Construction of the Zephyr Project and the Shiloh IV Project is unlikely to occur concurrently, but if it were to occur, it could result in additional temporary emissions from construction equipment and grading and additional temporary water requirements. The Zephyr Project would be within the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which evaluates cumulative impacts on a project-by project basis, based on the project’s average

daily construction emissions. Although construction emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx ) and other pollutant would contribute to existing pollutant levels, the cumulative impacts would be temporary and comparable to the cumulative air quality impacts of the construction of previous wind projects in the Montezuma Hills. Moreover, the approved wind projects in the area would produce in long-term air quality benefits that help reduce the short-term emissions of the construction of additional projects.

On page 21-15, the first paragraph under Section 21.2.4, Biological Resources, has been revised to state:

This assessment of cumulative impacts on biological resources considers the impacts presented in the EIRs for the High Winds project, the Shiloh I, II, and III projects, the Solano Wind Phase 1, 2 and 3 projects, and the Montezuma I and II projects, as well as the reasonably foreseeable but unquantified impacts of the Zephyr and PG&E projects, in conjunction with impacts of the proposed Project on habitat, water bodies, sensitive plant species, non-avian wildlife, birds, and bats.

On page 21-15, the second paragraph under the heading “Habitat Impacts” in Section 21.2.4, Biological Resources, has been revised to state:

The temporary disturbance of approximately 274 278 acres of habitat for the Pproject is not a significant impact. More than 99 percent of the disturbance would be agricultural lands and the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1A, Minimize Habitat Disturbance, and BIO-1B, Restore Disturbed Habitats, reduces the impact to a less than significant levels. There is no The potential for cumulative, temporary disturbance impacts as no other wind energy projects would be under construction at the same time as Shiloh IV associated with

November 30, 2011 3-46 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

concurrent Zephyr project construction is considered less than significant since it is highly improbable that the construction schedules for Shiloh IV and Zephyr would overlap and Zephyr would likely be subject to requirements similar to that of mitigation measures BIO-1A, Minimize Habitat Disturbance, and BIO-1B, Restore Disturbed Habitats.

On page 21-16, a final paragraph has been added under the heading “Habitat Impacts” in Section 21.2.4, Biological Resources:

The Montezuma Zephyr project, if approved, would result in additional loss of habitat in the area and could potentially result in loss of non-agricultural habitat. The environmental analysis of the Zephyr project would evaluate the site-specific habitat impacts from the project and identify mitigation, if significant habitat loss occurred. The cumulative loss of agricultural habitat from addition of up to 43 turbines to the 530-turbines considered under this cumulative development scenario would not result in a significant, cumulative permanent habitat loss impacts within the Montezuma Hills agricultural region.

On page 21-16, the second paragraph under the heading “Water Bodies” in Section 21.2.4, Biological Resources, has been revised to state:

The existing projects in the Montezuma Hills adhere to similar mitigation designed to avoid impacts on wetlands and Waters of the U.S.; t The approved and foreseeable projects considered in this cumulative analysis are subject to the same regulations and permitting requirements as the proposed Project and are required to adopt similar mitigation. If future projects are unable to avoid impacts, additional permit requirements would include reducing or minimizing the impacts to less than significant. Given these requirements, the combined effect of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would not result in significant cumulative impacts on wetlands or Waters of the U.S and/or State, within the Montezuma Hills region.

On page 21-16, the second paragraph under the heading “Vegetation and Special Status Plant Species” in Section 21.2.4, Biological Resources, has been revised to state:

The project area contains two three special-status plant species (heartscale, Gairdnder’s yampah, and pappose tarplant), however, Mitigation Measure BIO-3, Avoid Impacts to Special-Status Plants) requires the Applicant to reduce, avoid, and/or regenerate lost plant specimens, reducing the project’s impacts on special-status plants to less than significance. The other wind energy projects considered in this analysis have been or are likely to be subject to similar avoidance and minimization measures and cumulative impacts to special status plants are considered to be less than significant.

On page 21-16 and 21-17, the paragraph under the heading “Non-Avian Sensitive Wildlife Species” in Section 21.2.4, Biological Resources, has been revised to state:

Four special-status invertebrate and amphibian species, including the California Tiger Salamander (CTS), have the potential to occur in the project area; however, the Project is not expected to result in direct or indirect impacts to these species or their potential habitat. The

November 30, 2011 3-47 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Applicant is assuming presence of CTS in the project area and has begun consultation with the USFWS and CDFG regarding authorization for potential take of CTS, including preparation of a federal Habitat Conservation Plan and a mitigation plan in accordance with state take permit requirements. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2A, Avoid Impacts to Aquatic Resources, BIO-2B, Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling under Aquatic Resources, and BIO-4, Habitat Avoidance – California Tiger Salamander, would reduce the Project’s potential direct and indirect cumulative impacts on non-avian sensitive wildlife species and their habitat to less than significant levels. The other wind energy projects considered in this cumulative analysis would not result in concurrent construction activities and therefore this no Zephyr project would be subject to similar or more restrictive mitigation requirements than the Shiloh IV project and therefore the potential for cumulative construction-related impacts to non-avian sensitive wildlife species is considered less than significant.

On page 21-17, the first paragraph under the heading “Birds and Bats” in Section 21.2.4, Biological Resources, has been revised to state:

Birds and bats using or migrating through the Montezuma Hills region would be subject to cumulative impacts from the existing, approved (all under construction in 2011), and planned, and foreseeable commercial wind energy facilities listed in Table 21.12-1 (Revised). The level of biologically significant fatalities would depend on local migration patterns and population sizes for specific species globally, regionally, and locally. In order to determine the level of significance of impacts, estimated avian population abundances (local, regional, or global) were used where available, depending upon the species origination. Best professional judgment, input from avian experts, and published literature was also used to assess the cumulative bird and bat impacts discussed below.

On page 21-17 and 21-18, the third and fourth paragraphs under the heading “Birds and Bats” in Section 21.2.4, Biological Resources, have been revised to state:

Approval and construction of the Shiloh IV project would result in a cumulative total of up to 528 530 existing and approved newer technology turbines (over 1,015 approximately 1,020 MW of installed generating capacity) and 59 existing older technology turbines (approximately 5.9 MW of installed generating capacity) in the Montezuma Hills. Using the weighted average mortality rates contained in Table 8.4-5, these 59 older technology turbines and 528 530 newer technology turbines in the Montezuma Hills area would result in an estimated 345 346 raptor and 3,800 total avian fatalities (including raptors) per year. Since the Project-specific impact would be significant, and since raptors and other special-status species in the area would be subject to cumulative impacts, the Project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to raptors and other special-status birds. Mitigation measures BIO-8A, BIO-8B, and BIO-8C require the Applicant to conduct three years of post- construction bird and bat mortality monitoring in the project area, provide on-site pre- construction siting and design, construction risk and reduction, and operation and management measures, and provide off-site mitigation to replace up to 84 acres of aerial habitat that the project would disturb. These measures would reduce the Project’s incremental contribution to potential avian mortality, but impacts to special-status birds and

November 30, 2011 3-48 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

raptors would remain significant and unavoidable at both the Project and cumulative level. No additional mitigation is feasible for cumulative impacts to special-status birds and raptors. The proposed project would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts on other bird species in the Montezuma Hills region. Mortality monitoring data from surrounding wind farms (Kerlinger et al. 2006; Kerlinger et al. 2009; Burleson Consulting 2010) indicates that impacts on waterfowl, water birds, game birds, and passerine birds are less than significant and not cumulatively considerable.

The proposed project could result approximately 9.6 western red bat and 309 total bat fatalities (including western red bat) per year, based on regional, weighted average bat mortality rates derived from monitoring at the nearby High Winds, Shiloh I, Shiloh II, and Solano Wind Phase 1 and 2 projects. This project mortality rate is considered less than significant on a local and regional level given the global populations of potentially impacted species. Potential bat fatalities for the wind resource area can be calculated based on the existing bat mortality rates within the Montezuma Hills region. The weighted average annual recorded bat mortality rate in the Montezuma Hills is 0.1 western red bats and 3.09 total bats per MW per year. The existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable projects considered approved (under construction in 2011), and planned Shiloh IV project quantified in this cumulative impact analysis (see Table 21.12-1) are expected to result in approximately 1,021.3 1,025 MW of wind energy power production, resulting in approximately 103 western red bats and 3,156 3,168 total bats per year. Considering that these are all common bat species that probably come from populations that number in the hundreds of thousands or even tens of millions in the case of some species, these numbers may not be biologically significant at the regional level. However, due to a lack of data on bat usage in the wind resource area in the Montezuma Hills, these impacts are likely to be cumulatively significant on local populations and are unavoidable. Mitigation Measure BIO-8A and BIO-8B require the Applicant to conduct three years of bird and bat mortality monitoring and provide on- site pre-construction siting and design, construction risk and reduction, and operation and management measures. These measures would reduce the Project’s cumulative contribution to potential bat mortality, but the impact would remain cumulatively significant and, since no additional mitigation is feasible for impacts to bats, unavoidable.

On page 21-18, a final paragraph has been added under the heading “Birds and Bats” in Section 21.2.4, Biological Resources:

The PG&E Collinsville and Montezuma Zephyr projects have the potential to contribute to cumulative bird and bat impacts in the Montezuma Hills. While the turbine types for the planned projects would likely be similar to that of Shiloh IV, there are differences in habitat and terrain for these projects and potential differences in species affected. For example, the Montezuma Zephyr project would be on relatively flat agricultural and marsh lands that are different from the rolling agricultural hills of the Shiloh IV project area, and both the PG&E Collinsville and Montezuma Zephyr projects would be closer to the Suisun Marsh and Sacramento River than most existing and approved (all under construction in 2011) wind energy projects in the Montezuma Hills, including the proposed Shiloh IV project. The potential addition of up to 43 Zephyr and 13 PG&E turbines would be approximately 10 percent of the number of large turbines already analyzed. While it is reasonable to assume

November 30, 2011 3-49 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

that the PG&E Collinsville and Montezuma Zephyr projects would result in additional bird and bat mortality that would contribute to cumulative bird and bat impacts in the Montezuma Hills, the Applicants for these projects have not provided the site-specific studies necessary to quantify this contribution, nor have they identified any mitigation suitable for these potential impacts. If these analyses show new or substantially more severe impacts for the foreseeable projects because of the differences in surrounding habitat, the PG&E Collinsville and Montezuma Zephyr projects may be subject to additional mitigation measures as a result of their site specific analyses. For the purposes of this EIR, however, the above discussion identifies the cumulative impacts to birds and bats for the 528 existing and proposed turbines as significant and unavoidable, and the potential additional turbines, after mitigation, would not change substantially the severity of the Shiloh IV project’s contribution to this impact.

On page 21-18, the second paragraph under Section 21.2.5, Cultural Resources, has been revised to state:

Project construction would involve ground disturbance and has the potential to uncover or damage unknown subsurface resources. Other projects constructed in the area would have a similar potential to impact unknown subsurface resources, and these potential impacts would be cumulative. This cumulative however, these potential impacts would be less than significant due to mitigation requiring applicants to survey areas of project impact for cultural resources and to adhere to protocols to protect resources in the event of an accidental discovery, and due to the low sensitivity of the region and lack of significant finds. Although the addition of the Shiloh IV project and the construction of other foreseeable projects in the area have the potential to impact subsurface resources, these impacts would be site-specific and would not accumulate.

On page 21-19, the first and second paragraphs under Section 21.2.7, Greenhouse Gases, have been revised to state:

The Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project would result in greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation. According to proposed construction schedules for the Shiloh IV Project and other proposed projects, construction of the Shiloh IV Project would is not anticipated to overlap with any other wind development construction activity in the Montezuma Hills. Although Shiloh IV would contribute to temporary cumulative impacts to greenhouse gases from construction, N no significance threshold applies for greenhouse gas emissions from construction, so the impact would be less than significant. and the e Emissions from operation of the Project would be below the BAAQMD significance threshold for operation and less than significant.

In addition, operation of the Project would more than offset project-related emissions by displacing power generation and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. The proposed Project, like other wind energy facilities in Solano County, would therefore result in a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, a beneficial impact. The Project would also result in a net reduction of greenhouse gases when compared to the greenhouse gas emissions the existing enXco V facility already displaces. Additionally, the Project and the other wind

November 30, 2011 3-50 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

energy projects in the Montezuma Hills, including reasonably foreseeable projects, would not conflict with and, in fact, would support the County’s General Plan policies regarding climate change. Specifically, operation of the Project could help achieve the Climate Action Plan’s objective of reducing total greenhouse gas emissions in the County to 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and it would realize the General Plan’s policy to protect and facilitate renewable energy generation within the County. The Project would therefore not contribute to cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gases and would, in fact, help reduce these impacts.

On page 21-20, the last two sentences of the third paragraph under Section 21.2.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, have been revised to state:

The cumulative operational demand of the existing and proposed projects on local groundwater sources in the Montezuma Hills would be approximately 6,830 gallons per day, equivalent to the water demand of approximately 14 15 houses. The PG&E and Zephyr projects can be expected to have similar water demands and would not result in a substantial new impact. This The cumulative impact of operational water use would be less than significant.

On page 21-21, the second paragraph under Section 21.2.10, Land Use and Population, has been revised to state:

The projects considered in this cumulative impact analysis are or would be subject to substantially the same requirements as the Shiloh IV project. The High Winds project mitigated potential land use conflicts, and no impacts on adjacent residences were identified for Shiloh I, Shiloh II, Shiloh III (proposed under construction in 2011), Solano Wind Phase 1, 2, and 3 (proposed under construction in 2011), or the Montezuma I or II (under construction in 2011) projects. Similarly, the PG&E and Zephyr projects would be able to avoid or mitigate potential conflicts with residential areas. Thus, with the application of county setback criteria, there are would be no anticipated cumulative adverse impacts on land uses.

On page 21-21, the first paragraph under Section 21.2.11, Noise, has been revised to state:

There are five residences within the project area and another 11 residences within 2,180 feet of the project boundary that are considered sensitive receptors. Construction activities within 1,260 feet would cause noise above Solano County’s 50 dBA noise criteria. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, Reduce Construction Noise, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. The other wind energy projects considered in this analysis do not have the potential to result in construction noise impacts that would combine with the Shiloh IV project. The PG&E and Zephyr projects, if approved, would be located approximately one mile south and one mile west, respectively, of the Shiloh IV project and would therefore not result in cumulative construction noise impacts. Portions of the Shiloh IV project are located within or immediately adjacent to the existing enXco V project area. Decommissioning of the portion of the enXco V project within the Shiloh IV project area

November 30, 2011 3-51 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

would start and finish before the Applicant commences with construction of the Shiloh IV project and, therefore, would not have the potential to result in cumulative noise impacts.

On page 21-22, the second paragraph under Section 21.2.12, Public Services and Utilities, has been revised to state:

The proposed and existing wind farms would place few demands on public utilities such as water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and electrical services. Water and sewer services do not serve the wind projects, so wind generation facilities would have separate on-site wells and septic systems, or truck in water and portable toilets. The Shiloh IV Project would, however, obtain water from nearby metered hydrants for use during construction. Assuming a worst- case scenario of a compressed six-month construction period, the Project would consume up to 264,019 cubic feet of water per month. The amount consumed by the Project would be equivalent to up to 131 residences, or 2.3 percent of the Rio Vista water system residential service connections (City of Rio Vista 2008). This impact would be temporary. , and, since c Construction of Shiloh IV is not expected to overlap with construction of other wind projects in the area, the Zephyr project, for which the County has not received a complete use permit application or analyzed potential construction water use. Based on the fact that water use estimates for the concurrent construction of three comparably-sized wind projects in the summer of 2011 did not exceed significance thresholds, the County anticipates that the impact of water use from highly unlikely concurrent construction of the Shiloh IV and Zephyr projects in the summer of 2012 would not contribute to a cumulative impact. be less than significant.

On page 21-23, the second paragraph under Section 21.2.14, Safety, has been revised to state:

The proposed Project would, along with other existing, approved (under construction in 2011), and foreseeable winder turbines in the Montezuma Hills, contribute to cumulative impacts from shadow flicker to nearby residents. Shadow flicker may annoy some individuals but there is no evidence that short-term exposure shadow flicker causes significant health effects. Given the lack of strong evidence of health impacts and the absence of public input regarding shadow flicker, the County has not adopted a significance threshold for this impact. Landowners have not complained about shadow flicker from existing turbines, and furthermore, many of the affected landowners are participants in one or more wind projects and have agreed to the presence of the turbines. Although the p Project would contribute to the cumulative impact of shadow flicker on residences in and near the project area, this impact would be less than significant.

On page 21-23, the second paragraph under Section 21.2.15, Transportation, has been revised to state:

Peak construction periods and trip rates for the Shiloh IV project (six to nine months starting in spring 2012) are not expected to overlap given the proposed construction schedules for the Shiloh III project (six to nine months, from June 2011 commencement), Solano Wind (18 months commencing from May 2011 commencement), the Montezuma II project (five months starting in mid- to late-2011). Overlap with the construction of the

November 30, 2011 3-52 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3 Errata and Revisions

Zephyr or PG&E projects is also very unlikely. Each project would be subject to traffic control measures similar to that required by Mitigation Measures TRA-1, Develop and Traffic Control Plan and Transportation Plan for the Project, and TRA-2, Minimize Lane Closures and Provide Alternative Access for the Project. Each project would be required to obtain necessary transportation permits and be subject to road damage minimization and repair measures similar to that required by TRA-3, Minimize Road Damage and Repair Roads. The implementation of similar traffic control measures at all projects would mitigate cumulative impacts to traffic to less than significance. Operations and maintenance workers for the Project would be minimal. When considered in conjunction with commute traffic from existing wind farms, the cumulative impact on traffic and transportation would not be significant.

On page 21-24, the first paragraph under the heading “Consistency with Travis Air Force Base Radar Operations” in Section 21.2.15, Transportation, has been revised to state:

The Project is located approximately eight miles southeast of the Travis Air Force Base (AFB) military airport; however, the northwestern portion of the project area lies within the Travis AFB area of influence, land use compatibility zone C, and outer horizontal surface area. The Project would place 24 23 turbines within the Travis AFB area of influence and land use compatibility zone C and 2 turbines within the Travis AFB outer horizontal surface, the elevation of which is fixed at 562 feet above mean sea level.

A final paragraph has been added to the end of Section 21.2.15, Transportation, on page 21-24:

Construction of the Zephyr project is expected to contribute to potential cumulative impacts to the ATC radar at Travis AFB. The County will review the impacts of the Zephyr project on Travis Air Force Base radar operations as part of its detailed environmental review of that project’s impacts and will consider the potential for the project to exceed the 5 percent drop in probability of detection (Pd) established by the CRADA as a significance threshold. Implementation Regulation RS.1-50 of the Resources Element of the County’s General Plan provides that “Wind turbine generators shall not be located in areas that conflict with the mission of Travis Air Force Base or other air operation facilities.” Accordingly, the County would only approve the Zephyr project if it concludes that it would not result in a significant impact related to air traffic operations, as this would be in conflict with the mission of Travis AFB. As a result, there is no potential for the Shiloh IV project to have a significant cumulative impact on Travis AFB radar operations.

November 30, 2011 3-53 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR This page intentionally left blank

! !

! ! !

! !!!!

! ! !

! !!!!!

! ! !

! !

! !!!!!!!!!

! ! !

! !

!!!!!! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

!! Legend

! ! !

)" ! !

! ! Proposed Shiloh IV Turbine*

! ! !

! ! ! !

! Optional Collection Line Approved Shiloh III Turbine

! !

A1 !

! (Built and Unbuilt)† !

! !

! A12 (unbuilt)

! !

! ! ! !

! 4 ! Proposed Met Tower* !

SHILOH III ! ! ! !

! A13

PROJECT )" ! ! Proposed Entrance* !

A2 ! (built) !

See Inset ! ! AREA ! !

! Proposed Entrance

! )" !

A3 ! A14 ! (Operation Only)*

! !

! ! !

A4 ! (unbuilt)

! ! A15 ! ! !

A5 ! Proposed New Access Road*

! !

(built) ! ! ! !

A6 !

! Reused Existing Access Road* ! ! ! )" A7 ! !

! ! ! !

! Reused Existing Road !

! A8 !

! A14 ! (Operation Only)*

! A9 A13 ! ! ! !

E1 ! ! ! !

! ! A11 A15 ! 4 !

! ! Proposed Collection Line*

! ! A10 ! !

! ! !

! A12 !

! Optional Collection Line* A20 ! ! !

! ! !

A17 ! ! SHILOH I

! A18 ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! PROJECT AREA Shiloh IV Wind Project Area

A22 A21 !

A16 A19 ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

)" ! ! Shiloh III Wind Project Area !

A23 ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

A24 )" ! Existing enXco O&M Bldg.

! !

)" ! ! ! !

! Proposed Shiloh IV

! !

! A1 ! ! ! ! !

B1 ! O&M Bldg. Addition* ! ! !

! C1 ! B2 !

! C2 ! !

! ! ! B6 ! !

! SHILOH IV PG&E Switchyard

! ! ! ! B3 C3 ! B5 !

! ! ! PROJECT AREA ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

B9 ! ! 0 0.25 0.5 Solano Wind Substation

4 ! ! ! ! B4 !

B8 C4 A2 ! ! ! Miles

! ! ! !

! ! ! Shiloh I O&M Building

! C5 ! ! B7 ! ! !

! !

" ! ! ! ! ) ! A3 ! )" ! Shiloh I Substation

B10 ! ! ! ! ! !

!B11 D2 ! A4 ! !

! ! ! ! D1 A5 ! ! Proposed Shiloh IV Substation*

! D3 ! !

! !

! ! ! !

Temporary Laydown Yard* ! ! ! A6

! ! ! D4 ! ! ! !!!

! PG&E Gen-Tie Line 230 kV Line ! !

! ! !

D5 ! ! ! ! !

! !

! !!! D6 ! PG&E 230 kV Transmission Line !

4 ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! !!! PG&E 500 kV Transmission Line ! ! ! ! ! ! ! D8 D9 !

D7 !

! ! ! ! ! !

County Road !

! ! ! !

* All Proposed Locations Preliminary ! !

! ! ! ! !

† EIR certified and Use Permit (U-09-06) !

! ! ! ! ! approved by County 11-04-10 !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! N ! !

! !

! ! Figure 3.5-1 (Revised)

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! Sources : ICF International and TRA Environmental Sciences ! ! ! ! ! ! ! PROPOSED PROJECT !!

! ! !

Figure! 3.5-1 (Revised)

! ! ! FEATURES ! ! !

PROPOSED! PROJECT ! !

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 !Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project

! ! ! !

! Solano County, California

! FEATURES 0 0.5 1 1.5 Miles 2 ! ! ! Miles ! ! ! ! Shiloh IV ! Wind Project !

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! Solano County, California !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! 3 Errata and Revisions

Figure 3.5-1 (revised): PAGE 2 of 2

November 30, 2011 3-56 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR   Legend Pond 32  Annual Grassland

 12     Bulrush-Cattail Wetland Pond 31  with Willow Riparian Scrub A12  

Eucalyptus/Tree Grove  

A14  Ponds and Vernal Pools  

 Pond 9 Pond 30 Seasonal Wetland

 Pond 29 Alkali Meadow



   Pond 33 Pappose Tarplant  Gairdner's Yampah  Pond 7 Pond  6 Heartscale  Olsen Rd Pond 8

   USGS Mapped Seasonal Stream Pond 1

A1  - not present when surveyed Pond 4 

Pond 5  USGS Mapped Seasonal Stream 

Pond 3   Proposed Turbine*  Pond 2  

Pond 26 A2   Approved Unbuilt Shiloh III Turbine^

Pond 27 A3 

  Pond 11  Pond 28 Pond 10 Proposed Met Tower*

A5   

  A4  Shiloh Rd A6  Proposed Project Entrance*

 A7  

  

A8 Proposed Access Road* E1  A9  A14 Vernal Pool d Pond 13  A13 R 

   g  in Proposed Operations Only Road*

 d A15 n   

A11   a

  L  s Proposed Collection Line* e A20 d

A10 A12 ir    n  B

vi   Proposed Optional Collection Line* a A17 

A18  R

 A21 

s    n A22  Proposed Laydown Yard* ki 

A16 A19  p A23 

o A24   Existing enXco O&M Bldg. Lucol H Ho 

llow  Pond 12  B1 C2  Proposed Shiloh IV O&M Addition*   B2 C1  

 B6  

Pond 25 Pond 24 B3 B5 Proposed Shiloh IV Substation*

C3   

 B4  Vernal pool   PG&E Switchyard

  Pond 23  

      Pond 22 B8 C4     

 B9      Solano Wind Substation  

Pond 21 C5    B7 w   ollo  Montezuma Hills Rd   Pond 20 B11 H   Shiloh I O&M Building

k   Pond 19 B10  an  Cl D2 

D1   Shiloh I Substation  D3    D4  

  Shiloh IV Wind Project Area    

  D5   PG&E 230 kV Transmission Line 

D6     C  PG&E 500 kV Transmission Line 

o   l  li   ns D8 D9 SMUD Transmission Line 

D7   v  il

le County Road



  R

 



 *All Proposed Locations Preliminary



 



  ^Approved Shiloh III Turbine Locations:

  EIR Certified & Use Permit (U-09-06)

     Pond 15          Approved by County 11-4-2010   

 

  Source: ICF International 2011; Pond 16  

Pond 17 TRA Environmental Sciences 2011;   Pond 18     N USGS 2010

  



   Sources : ICF International 2011; TRA Environmental Sciences 2011; USGS 2010  Figure 8.1-1 (Revised) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 001234 0.5 1 OF THE PROJECT AREA – Mile Miles OVERVIEW Shiloh IV Wind Project Solano County, California 3 Errata and Revisions

Figure 8.1-1 (Revised): PAGE 2 of 2

November 30, 2011 3-58 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

 

 Legend A12 

   Proposed Shiloh IV Turbine* 

  Approved Unbuilt Shiloh III Turbine^    Proposed Project Entrance*

    PG&E 230 kV Transmission Line

 PG&E 500 kV Transmission Line

 Proposed Access Road* 

 Proposed Operations Only Road*

  Proposed Collection Line*

A14    Optional Collection Line*

  County Road 

Pond  

Pond 30 Alkali Meadow  

Annual Grassland  

Pond 9 Bulrush-Cattail Wetland  

Seasonal Wetland  

Pond 29 Heartscale 

  Pappose tarplant 

Shiloh III Wind Project Area 

 Shiloh IV Wind Project Area 

 

  

 *All Proposed Locations Preliminary

   ^Approved Shiloh III Turbine Locations:

 EIR Certified & Use Permit (U-09-06) 

Approved by County 11-4-2010 



 Source: ICF International 2011; 

TRA Environmental Sciences 2011; 

  USGS 2010

 

 Pond 7 



Pond 6 



Pond 8  

 

 



Pond 1 



 

A1   

 N

  Sources : ICF International 2011; TRA Environmental Sciences 2011; USGS 2010 Figure 8.1-4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 .25 Miles OF THE PROJECT AREA – Mile OPTIONAL COLLECTION LINE DETAIL Shiloh IV Wind Project Solano County, California 3 Errata and Revisions

Figure 8.1-4 (Added): PAGE 2 of 2

November 30, 2011 3-60 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR Legend 4 Proposed Met Tower UV113 ! Proposed Turbine Proposed Access Road UV12 Proposed Collection Line Proposed O&M Site Proposed Substation UV12 Proposed Laydown Area Wind Project Boundaries Existing High Winds Montezuma I Rio Solano Wind Phase 1 & 2 ! Vista Shiloh I ! ! Shiloh II ! Shiloh Road ! ! ! enXco V ! ! ! ! ! Approved (Construction in 2011) !4 ! ! ! ! Birds Landing Road ! ! ! Solano Wind Phase 3 ! ! ! ! Birds ! Shiloh III Landing ! ! ! ! Montezuma II ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Planned 4! ! ! ! Shiloh IV ! ! ! ! ! Foreseeable ! ! PG&E Collinsville* !4 ! ! Montezuma Wetlands Zephyr*

*Conceptual project area

Talbert Lane Yolo Napa Sacramento River Solano Sonoma Sacramento ^_ Marin

Contra Costa

San Francisco

¯ San Mateo Alameda N

SourcesSource: : ICF ICF International International and and TRA TRA Environmental Environmental Sciences Sciences FigureFigure 21.1-1 21.1-1 (Revised) (Revised) WIND ENERGY PROJECTS 00 0.5 0.5 1 1 1.5 1.5 2 2 WIND ENERGY PROJECTS Miles Miles ININ THE THE MONTEZUMA MONTEZUMA HILLS HILLS ShilohShiloh IV Wind IV WindEnergy Project Project SolanoSolano County, County, California California 3 Errata and Revisions

Figure 21.1-1: Wind Energy Projects in the Montezuma Hills PAGE 2 of 2

November 30, 2011 3-62 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

4 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

This page intentionally left blank

4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

4 COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS This section provides a response to the agency and community comments received in writing or orally regarding the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The County thanks the commenters for contributing their efforts to improve the Project. Table 4-1, Summary of Comments, provides a list of these comments received by the County.

Table 4-1 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Comment Letters Received in Response to the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Draft EIR Letter Agency/ Comment Topic Page Name Date Comment Summary No. Association No. No. Gregor Floodplain FEMA summarized the National Flood Insurance Program 1.1 FIRM 4-10 Blackburn, Management and Aug. 31, (NFIP) floodplain management building requirements and 1A 1.2 Flood Plain 4-10 CFM, Branch Insurance 2011 reminded the Applicant to review the May 4, 2009 Flood Building Req.’s Chief Branch, FEMA Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). 1.3 4-11 Gregor Floodplain FEMA summarized the National Flood Insurance Program 1.1 FIRM 4-10 Blackburn, Management and Sep. 13, (NFIP) floodplain management building requirements and 1B 1.2 Flood Plain 4-10 CFM, Branch Insurance 2011 reminded the Applicant to review the May 4, 2009 Flood Building Req.’s Chief Branch, FEMA Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). 1.3 4-11 2A.1 NOP Public 4-13 Review Period Impacts to 2A.2 4-13 Roberto Wildlife Valdez, Solano Sep. 15, Mr. Valdez commented regarding wildlife and habitats in Supplemental 2A NA 2A.3 4-14 County 2011 the Montezuma Hills. Comments Resident Coordination with Friends of 2A.4 4-14 Swainson’s Hawk Concurrence 2B.1 with FOSH 4-16

Roberto Comments Mr. Valdez supplemented his September 15, 2011 Valdez, Solano Oct. 11, Need for 2B NA comments regarding wildlife and habitats in the 2B.2 4-16 County 2011 Scientific Data Montezuma Hills. Resident Cumulative 2B.3 4-16 Impacts 2B.4 Solano County 4-17 November 30, 2011 4-1 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Rio Vista Jennifer T.C. The City of Rio Vista noted a correction on the Municipal 4-19 Armer, Sep. 27, 3.1 3 City of Rio Vista incorporation of the lands on which the Rio Vista Airport Associate 2011 Municipal Airport sits. Planner 4.1 Turbine Model 4-30 Swainson’s 4.2 4-30 Hawk Range Cumulative Habitat and 4.3 4-31 Nesting Impacts Raptor 4.4 Mortality 4-32 Estimates 4.5 Turbine Siting 4-32 Technical Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk (FOSH) asked that the Friends of the Advisory Judith Lamare, Oct. 10, EIR consider additional factors in evaluating avian 4.6 4-33 4 Swainson’s Committee President 2011 mortality and habitat loss and additional mitigation Hawk (TAC) measures for these impacts. Feasible Mitigation for 4.7 4-33 Mortality and Habitat Loss Permanent 4.8 Habitat Loss 4-33 from Roads Timing of Off- 4.9 4-34 Site Mitigation 4.10 Role of TAC 4-35 Incidental 4.11 Mortalities 4-36 Finds

November 30, 2011 4-2 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

Monitoring 4.12 Data 4-37 Clarifications Swainson’s Hawk 4.13 Mitigation and 4-37 Incidental Take Permit Increase in 4.14 Raptor 4-39 Mortality Impacts to 4.15 4-39 Bats Monitoring Scope and 4.16 4-40 Carcass Search Intervals Take Permits 4.17 4-41 and Mortalities Personnel 4.18 4-41 Training Duration of 4.19 4-42 Monitoring Avian Abundance 4.20 4-42 and Behavior In-Transit 4.21 Avian 4-43 Observations Percent 4.22 Turbines 4-43 Searched Golden Eagle 4.23 4-43 Range Bat Mortality 4.24 4-43 Rates

November 30, 2011 4-3 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

High Winds 4.25 4-43 Monitoring Scavenger 4.26 Removal 4-44 Factors Nocturnal 4-27 4-44 Migrants Policy 5.1 4-52 Statement 5.2 Avian 4-53 5.3 Impaired 4-53 The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Genevieve Central Valley 5.4 Water Bodies 4-54 Central Valley Region, commented on Basin Plan Sparks, Regional Water Oct. 11, 5 requirements, Polity Statements, List of Impaired Water 5.5 402 Permitting 4-54 Environmental Quality Control 2011 Bodies, and Section 401 Water Quality certification Scientist Board application Requirements

Comments Regarding the September 15, 2011 Planning Commission Hearing Agency/ Comment Page No. Source Commenter Comment Summary Topic Association No. No.

Mr. Jacobs stated that the project would put Jim Jacobs, Operating many people to work and that it is 6.1 Jobs 4-62 Draft Minutes of member Engineers the Solano environmentally sound. County Planning Dan IBEW, International Mr. Broadwater stated that the project could 6 Commission Broadwater, Brotherhood of create many jobs and urged the commission to 6.2 Jobs 4-62 Meeting of Business Electrical Workers, move the approval process along as fast as September 15, Manager Local Union 180 possible. 2011 Roberto Valdez, 6.3 Biology 4-62 Solano NA Read written comments on the project County Resident

November 30, 2011 4-4 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR U,S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region IX I I I I Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland. C A. 94607 -4052 ;FEMA

August 37,201I

Ken M. Solomon Solano County Department of Resource Management 675 Texas Street, Suite 5500 Fairfield, California 94533

Dear Mr. Solomon:

This is in response to your request for comments on the Notice of Completion, Availability, and Public Hearing - Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Please review the current effective countywide Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the County of Solano (Community Number 060631), Maps dated May 4,2009. Please note that the County of Solano, California is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program OIFIP). The minimum, basic NFIP floodplain management building requirements are described in Vol. 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR), Sections 59 through 65.

A summary of these NFIP floodplain management building requirements are as follows:

All buildings constructed within a riverine floodplain, (i.e., Flood Zones A, AO, AH, AE, and A1 through A30 as delineated on the FIRM), must be elevated so that the lowest floor is at or above the Base Flood Elevation level in accordance with the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map.

If the area of construction is located within a Regulatory Floodway as delineated on the FIRM, arry development must not increase base flood elevation levels. The term developmenl means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings, other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, and storage of equipment or materials. A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis must be performed ptiptto the start of development, and must demonstrate that the development would not cause any rise in base flood levels. No rise is permitted within regulatory floodways.

www.fema.gov Ken M. Solomon Page2 August 3I,20ll

All buildings constructed within a coastal high hazard area, (any of the "V" Flood Zones as delineated on the FIRM), must be elevated on pilings and columns, so that the lowest horizontal structural member, (excluding the pilings and columns), is elevated to or above the base flood elevation level. In addition, the posts and pilings foundation and the structure attached thereto, is anchored to resist flotation, collapse and lateral movement due to the effects of wind and water loads acting simultaneously on all building components.

Upon completion of any development that changes existing Special Flood Hazard Areas, the NFIP directs all participating communities to submit the appropriate hydrologic and hydraulic data to FEMA for a FIRM revision. In accordance with 44 CFR, Section 65.3, as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after such data becomes available, a community shall noti$ FEMA of the changes by submitting technical data for a flood map revision. To obtain copies of FEMA's Flood Map Revision Application Packages, please refer to the FEMA website at http://www.f-ema.gov/business/nfip/fbnns.shtm.

Please Note:

Many NFIP participating communities have adopted floodplain management building requirements which are more restrictive than the minimum federal standards described in 44 CFR. Please contact the local community's floodplain manager for more information on local floodplain management building requirements. The Solano County floodplain manager can be reached by calling David W. Clich6, Building Official, at(707)784-4705.

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call Jane Hopkins of the Mitigation staff at (510) 627-7183.

Sincerely, $'^-lr f.2<\s^Jox Gresor Blasldburn. CFM.M Chief Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch

cc: David W. Clich6, Building Official, Solano County Ray Lee, WREA, State of California, Department of Water Resources, North Central Region Office Jane Hopkins, Floodplanner, DHS/EEMA Region IX Alessandro Amaglio, Environmental Officer, DHS/FEMA Region IX

www.fema.gov 1.1

1.2 1.2

1.3

4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA), FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND INSURANCE BRANCH (AUGUST 31, 2011 AND SEPTEMBER 13, 2011) The FEMA Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch submitted similar comment letters on the Shiloh IV Project Draft EIR on August 31, 2011 and on September 13, 2011. The letters differ in three ways:

• The beginning of the September 13, 2011, letter includes a phrase “in various cities of Solano County” at the end of the first paragraph. • The September 13, 2011, letter notes that Fairfield, Rio Vista, and Suisun City are participants in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) • The September 13, 2011, letter lists the contact information for the City of Fairfield, City of Rio Vista, and City of Suisun City floodplain managers in addition to the Solano County floodplain manager.

The responses below address the FEMA Floodplain Management and Insurance Branch comments on the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project and are based on the more comprehensive September 13, 2011 letter.

1.1 Current Effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) The Solano County Department of Resource Management, Building Division consulted the May 4, 2009 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FRIM) and issued a FIRM Determination for the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project on December 7, 2010. The FIRM Determination is included in the Draft EIR Appendix A. The building division consulted the currently effective map panels 500, 525, and 705, suffix E. The FIRM determination showed that most of the project area is within Flood Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain. Small areas of Lucol Hollow along Birds Landing Road and of Clank Hollow are within Flood Zone A, determined to be within the 100-year floodplain, and portions of parcels 0090-090-180 and 0090-060-180 are within Flood Zone X*, determined to be within the area of 0.2 percent annual chance flood. Figure 13.1-1 in the Draft EIR shows designated 100-year flood zones in and near the project area.

1.2 Construction in a Riverine Floodplain, Regulated Floodway, or Special Flood Hazard Areas As discussed in the Draft EIR Chapter 13, Hydrology, although a small portion of the Shiloh IV project area along Birds Landing road is within a riverine floodplain and regulatory floodway, Flood Zone A, no turbines or buildings would be constructed within the floodplain. Turbines and buildings associated with the Shiloh IV project would be located in Flood Zone X, which is outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance floodplain and outside of any regulated floodway, and the only facilities within Special Flood Areas would be roads and underground collector lines. Impact HYD-5, Impeded or Redirected Flood Flows discusses the potential impact of development of other permanent project features, access roads and collector lines. The analysis found that the Project would not increase base flood elevations, and no buildings or structures would need to be elevated.

The project will not change existing Special Flood Areas; therefore, no hydrologic and hydraulic data need to be submitted to FEMA. November 30, 2011 4-10 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

1.3 Local Floodplain Management Building Requirements The Solano County Building Division has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with floodplain management requirements. Prior to construction, the Applicant would have to obtain a building permit from the Solano County Department of Resource Management. At that time, the Building Division will confirm that proposed facilities are either sited outside of designated flood zones or, if not, are constructed to meet the Solano County’s floodplain management building requirements as well as the minimum federal standards described in 44 Code of Federal Regulations.

The County does not need to contact the City of Fairfield, City of Rio Vista, or City of Suisun City floodplain managers regarding the Shiloh IV project because the project area is located entirely within unincorporated Solano County and is subject exclusively to Solano County regulations.

November 30, 2011 4-11 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 2A.1

2A.2

2A.3

2A.4 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

2A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ROBERTO VALDEZ (SEPTEMBER 15, 2011)

The responses below address Roberto Valdez’s September 15, 2011 comments that are relevant to the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project. In addition to submitting these letters to the County, Roberto Valdez presented his written comments during the Planning Commission Meeting also on September 15, 2011.

2A.1 Comments during the Notice of Preparation Public Review Period Comment noted. The County appreciates comments that help guide the environmental review of proposed projects.

2A.2 Impacts to Wildlife The commenter expresses concern about the environmental impacts to migratory species known to exist at the project site, including vernal pool fairy shrimp, California tiger salamander (CTS), California red-legged frog, giant garter snake, burrowing owl, California clapper rail, California black rail, Swainson’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, and Loggerhead shrike. The commenter, however, raises no specific issues or questions related to the Project’s potential effects on these species.

The Draft EIR considers the impacts to these and other special-status species, as follows:

• The Draft EIR describes the biological communities and potential special-status species occurring in the project area in Sections 8.1.2 and 8.1.3. • Draft EIR Impact BIO-4, Temporary and Permanent Impacts to Special-Status Crustaceans, Amphibians, and Reptiles concludes that the project is unlikely to result in impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp, California red-legged frog, and giant garter snake because the project either lies outside the current known range for these species or there is no suitable habitat on-site for these species. • Draft EIR Impact BIO-4 also concludes that impacts to CTS are potentially significant, and Mitigation Measure BIO-4, Habitat Avoidance – California Tiger Salamander and Special- Status Invertebrate Species, requires the Applicant to implement measures designed to minimize or avoid impacts to CTS, including habitat setback zones, pre-construction surveys, construction management practices, and compensation for loss of upland CTS habitat. • Draft EIR Impact BIO-5, Temporary Impacts on Nesting Birds, BIO-6, Displacement of Waterfowl and Other Water Birds Using the Project Area or Moving to and from the Suisun Marsh; BIO-7, Impacts on Raptors, Other Avian Species, and Bats from Overhead Wires; and BIO-8, Direct Mortality of Raptors, Other Avian Species, and Bats all address potential impacts to birds. Draft EIR mitigation measures BIO-5a, Avoid Avian Nests, BIO-5B, Habitat Avoidance – Western Burrowing Owl, BIO-7, Design Specifications for Overhead Power Lines, and BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring,, BIO-8B, On-site Mitigation, and BIO-8C, Off-site Mitigation and Replacement of Disturbed Aerial Habitat require the Applicant to implement measures to reduce potential impacts to birds, including pre- construction nesting bird surveys, on-site project siting and design considerations, post- construction bird and bat mortality monitoring, and off-site mitigation for up to 84 acres of disturbed aerial habitat and bird and bat mortality. November 30, 2011 4-13 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

The Solano County Water Agency's (SCWA) Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was required as part of the SCWA’s renewal of its water supply contract from the Solano Project (Lake Berryessa). Entities participating in the HCP (Plan Participants) intend to secure incidental take authorization from the CDFG for state listed species. Solano County elected not to participate in the Solano HCP. As the County is not a Plan Participant, the Shiloh IV Project, which is not located within the SCWA’s service area, is not required to participate in the HCP. The Final Administrative Draft of the HCP was released in 2009. USFWS has yet to approve a final HCP.

While the SCWA HCP includes the Montezuma Hills and the Shiloh IV area in its assessment, the plan does so for purposes of evaluating the area for potential mitigation and conservation opportunities, not as a part of the HCP service area. The SCWA HCP identifies portions of the Shiloh IV area as potential vernal pool conservation areas with high preservation and restoration potential for purposes of mitigation of impacts in the HCP service area. In general, these areas are low-lying areas along Olsen and Collinsville Roads. The conservation measures outlined in the HCP’s Conservation Strategy include restoration to mitigate for impacts to vernal pool habitat by the Plan Participants. Despite that the HCP, for the reasons previously explained, does not affect the construction, maintenance, or operation of the Shiloh IV project, the Draft EIR is consistent with HCP’s conservation strategies by mitigating for potential impacts to wetlands, vernal pools, habitat, and sensitive species.

2A.3 Supplemental Comments Comment noted. The commenter submitted an October 11, 2011 addendum to these September 15, 2011 comments that addresses impacts to biological resources and the proposed mitigation measures. The County’s responses to this addendum are presented in Section 2B below.

2A.4 Coordinate with Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk and Napa-Solano Audubon Society Comment noted. The County included Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk (FOSH) and the Napa- Solano Audubon Society on all CEQA notices for the Shiloh IV project. The County received comments on the Draft EIR from FOSH, but not the Napa-Solano Audubon Society. The County’s responses to comments from FOSH are contained in Section 4 below.

November 30, 2011 4-14 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR From: Roberto Valdez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tue 10/11/2011 4:23 PM To: Solomon, Kenneth M. Subject: Addendum (October 11, 2011) re: Individual Comments to Shiloh IV Draft Environmental Impact Report( August 23th, 20011 to Oct 11, 2011).

October 11, 2011

Ken Solomon Solano County Department of Resource Management 675 Texas Street, Suite 5500 Fairfield, CA 94533

Subject: Addendum to Individual Comments (September 15th) re: DEIR for Shiloh IV Wind Turbines Project.

Dear Mr. Solomon:

Agreeing with the Friends of Swaison's Hawk (FOSS) Letter of Recommendations (October 10, 2011), I wish to reiterate that this significant project needs to be in legal compliance with regards to the 2B.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Migratory Bird laws before the beginning of any energy-saving operations within the project site.

Also, responding to economic benefits resulting from the implementation of this 50-wind turbines project in the Montezuma Hills area, this project needs to respond with adequate scientific data and 2B.2 follow-up monitoring surveys to ascertain the irreversible impacts to wildlife species and habitats within the project site, including, but not limited to, 370-plus migratory bird fatalities resulting from wind turbine operations.

In addition, as mentioned during my verbal comments on during the public hearing( September 15th), I am very concerned about the inevitable loss of Bat populations as well as Canada Geese, and American Pelicans within this project site, due to the cumulative impacts from the escalating operations of this as 2B.3 well as previously-approved wind-turbine projects in the Montezuma Hills region within southeastern Solano County. Has the Department of Resource Management forgotten that Bats as well as other waterfowl are needed to control mosquitoes with regards to recurring presence of West Nile Virus in Solano County?

Furthermore, referring to Figures 4-1 to Figures 4-13 in the Final Administrative Draft of the proposed Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan of Solano County, I am very dismayed that these 50-wind turbines are being built on the large tracts of natural grasslands and vernal pools as well known 2B.4 watershed marshlands among the Montezuma Hills region which are used by wildlife species to migrate across Solano County. Worst, the proposed wind turbines will be situated near the Montezuma Slough which leads to the Montezuma Wetland (Restoration) Project (MWP) near Collinsville, CA.

Thank you very much.

Roberto Valdez, Solano County Resident. 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

2B RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM ROBERTO VALDEZ (OCTOBER 11, 2011)

The responses below address Roberto Valdez’s supplemental October 11, 2011 comments on the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project.

2B.1 Concurrence with Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk (FOSH) Comments Comment noted. The County must comply with CEQA prior to project approval and has prepared a Draft and Final EIR for the Project that adequately complies with CEQA. Section 8.2 of the Draft EIR addresses the regulations that govern biological resources, including, the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code.

The commenter refers to the October 10, 2011 comments submitted by FOSH. The County’s detailed responses to FOSH comments are in Section 4 below.

2B.2 Need for Adequate Scientific Data and Follow-Up Monitoring The commenter notes the need for adequate scientific data and follow-up monitoring to ascertain the impacts to wildlife species and habitats within the project site, including impacts to migratory birds.

The Biological Resources analyses in Chapter 8 of the Draft EIR are based on comprehensive regional and site-specific scientific data collected by qualified personnel in accordance with prevailing practices and standards. Page 8-1 of summarizes the scientific information used to develop these analyses, including literature and database searches, field surveys, and wildlife and habitat assessments, including aquatic resource assessment and avian abundance and bird use count surveys. Specifically in regards to birds, the Applicant evaluated a combined seven years of bird and bat mortality monitoring studies from operating commercial wind projects in the Montezuma Hills. The monitoring methodology and data for these projects, with the exception of the 1990s enXco V project, was performed and collected in a manner that was consistent with current CEC guidelines and was subject to review by the County, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) through the Solano County Avian Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) process. Draft EIR Impact BIO-8, Direct Mortality of Raptor, Other Avian Species, and Bats, concludes that impacts to special-status raptors and birds would be a significant impact and requires three years of post-construction monitoring. This duration of post-construction monitoring is appropriate for the Project. See also response to Comments 4.6, 4.10, 4.11, 4.16, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, and 4.26.

2B.3 Cumulative Impacts to Bats, Canada Geese, and American Pelicans Comment noted. The post-construction mortality monitoring reports for the High Winds, Shiloh I, Shiloh II, and Solano Wind Phase 1 and 2 projects indicate that despite more than 1,000 observations of Canada goose during pre-construction surveys, only one identifiable Canada goose mortality has been observed in seven years of mortality monitoring – an incidental mortality associated with the High Winds project. Similarly, despite more than 500 observations of American white pelican during pre-construction surveys, no identifiable American white pelican mortalities have been observed in the Montezuma Hills. These data indicate the project poses little or no risk to these species.

November 30, 2011 4-16 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

The Draft EIR addresses cumulative impacts to bats and birds in Section 21.2.4. The majority of cumulative bird and bat mortalities would be to common species that have populations that are unlikely to be affected by the expected low level of mortality from individual project and cumulative wind energy development in the Montezuma Hills and would not have a significant effect on the control of mosquitoes and other pest insects in Solano County.

2B.4 Solano County Water Agency Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan

The commenter refers to Figures 4-1 to 4-13 in the Final Administrative Draft of the SCWA’s proposed HCP. As previously explained, Solano County elected not to participate in the HCP. As such, the Shiloh IV project, which is not in the HCP’s service area, is independent of the HCP. See also response to Comment 2A.2 above.

November 30, 2011 4-17 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 3.1 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

3 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE CITY OF RIO VISTA (SEPTEMBER 27, 2011) The responses below address the City of Rio Vista comments that are pertinent to the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project.

3.1 Correction to Description of Rio Vista Municipal Airport Comment noted. On page 19-6, the second sentence of the first paragraph under the heading “Rio Vista Municipal Airport” has been corrected as follows (See Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, of this Final EIR):

The City of Rio Vista owns and manages the airport although the airport is located on unincorporated Solano County lands, which is on land incorporated by the city in 1996.

November 30, 2011 4-19 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

915 L St., C-425 Sacramento, Ca. 95814 916-447-4956 www.swainsonshawk.org [email protected]

October 10, 2011

Mr. Ken Solomon Solano County Department of Resource Management 675 Texas Street, Suite 5500 Fairfield, CA 94533 [email protected]

Dear Mr. Solomon:

Friends of the Swainson’s Hawk (FOSH) is a non-profit charitable organization concerned with the conservation of wildlife, and particularly raptors, in California. Below are our comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project. Our comments were informed by biological consultant Melinda Dorin Bradbury and our legal counsel, James P. Pachl.

Shiloh Wind Partners LLC/enXco, Inc. has proposed the Shiloh IV Wind Energy project on 3,012 acres of private property in the Montezuma Hills area for a generation capacity of 100 MW of electricity. The project includes construction of 50 wind turbines, with generators, towers, foundations and pad mounted transformers. The project includes pads, roads, control cables, a power collection system, and other facilities to support the project. The Project requires a Use Permit (U-10-10) from Solano County.

The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) analyzes the environmental effects of the 4.1 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project - which includes the following elements: • Construction of 50 wind turbines, with associated generators, towers, foundations, and pad mounted transformers; • One turbine model, the Siemens 2.3 MW, with a 263-foot hub height and two possible turbine blade lengths: either a 331-foot or 305-foot diameter rotor; • A total generation capacity of 100 Megawatts (MW) of electricity; and • Project pads and access roads, control cables, power collection system, a transmission line, two meteorological towers, a temporary laydown area, a new substation, and a new 5,000 square foot warehouse building.

There are nine existing and approved wind projects near the project area (3.3.1 DEIR).

Raptor presence in the Montezuma Hills is well documented. A 2007 raptor nesting survey performed throughout the Montezuma Hills region (including a five-mile buffer) observed 137 nesting pairs of raptors comprised of eight species. Thirty-three (33) special-status nests were observed including 11 Swainson’s hawk, 10 northern harrier, three white-tailed kite, and two

golden eagle nests. Both golden eagle and Swainson’s hawk nesting activity were observed within or adjacent to the Shiloh IV project. (P. 8-18-19).

Over time, the project could have a significant impact on the range of the Swainson’s hawk in California through higher than natural mortality rates and loss of foraging habitat used by nesting Swainson’s Hawks to feed their young. In combination with other wind energy projects in the area, the project has a significant cumulative impact on several protected species: the Swainson’s hawk, listed as threatened under CESA, and golden eagle and white-tailed kite, which are fully protected species under state law.

Federal and State laws for protection of wildlife, CEQA, and NEPA require that the wind power industry accurately assess both the immediate and cumulative impacts of wind energy projects upon wildlife, and develop, implement, and assess measures to (1) avoid the taking of wildlife incidental to operation of wind energy projects, to the extent feasible, and; (2) effectively 4.2 mitigate for taking (loss) and other project impacts which cannot be avoided, including the cumulative effects. CEQA requires that impacts on raptors be mitigated to less than significant, or, if not feasible, then to the extent feasible.

In this DEIR, measures to reduce take, mitigation for loss of habitat and for take, and monitoring measures that would provide solid data to make these determinations about Shiloh IV, are insufficient and therefore do not comply with NEPA or CEQA. There are significant impacts to wildlife from the Shiloh IV project that are not mitigated to less than significant.

Of particularly concern are the cumulative impacts of this project, considered in combination with the effects of other wind energy facilities in this corridor, which is heavily used by raptors, including protected species. The quality and amount of foraging habitat is decreasing. Habitat fragmentation is occurring which is lowering the value of the foraging area and requiring nesting pairs to travel greater distances to accomplish the same nest provisioning. This DEIR contains little analysis of what energy development in the corridor is doing to raptor nest productivity. However, it does note that two golden eagle nests identified in 2007 have not been productive 4.3 since (Appendix C, Table 16 and pp 33-34). The biological consultants dismiss this impact as insignificant because the habitat is not highly attractive to golden eagles for various reasons (low prey density, flat terrain, lack of terrain-induced updrafts). There is no significant impact: there has been a reduction of golden eagle nesting activity, a fully protected state species. No study has been done of the history of Swainson’s Hawk nesting activity over time. This needs to be included in avian use and risk assessment studies prior to permitting.

Mortality may well be underestimated (p. 8-24) due to methodology used to document mortality (see our specific comments below). Raptor mortality is estimated at .35 individuals per year per megawatt from existing wind energy projects in the corridor. This represents 219 individuals per year lost due to operations of the wind energy projects. Recent reported findings of two Swainson’s Hawk mortalities (2009, 2010) are not included in the estimate (8-25). Mortality of 4.4 even one individual state listed or fully protected species is a significant impact. Project applicants have not sought a “take” permit from California Fish and Game which is required when mortality can be expected. Specific mitigation to offset the loss of state protected species is not included in the DEIR.

Page 2

FOSH supports wind power projects that are well designed and mitigate their project impacts to less than significant. This DEIR dismisses significant impacts and fails to address how these impacts could be mitigated. We don’t see a lot of new and improved mitigation measures. The turbine siting plan avoids the ridge where the most red tailed hawks have been found soaring. Siting facilities to avoid conflicts with wildlife is a high priority for avoiding impacts. But siting to avoid mortality is largely ignored as a mitigation measure. Our review of the avian risk assessment (Appendix C) shows some serious flaws in assessment that affect the ability to understand how siting adjustments could reduce risk of mortality. The Risk Assessment data 4.5 gathering and reporting avoid the detail needed to assess potential siting alternatives to reduce risk.

We are also concerned that impacts be mitigated with land conservation so that in the long run, raptor species, and particularly the Swainson’s Hawk, do not have cumulative loss of numbers and range due to wind energy projects. The DEIR is weak in providing land conservation mitigation and in offsetting cumulative loss. Land conservation to mitigate for impacts has consistently been less than needed on projects like this. The cumulative effects are significant.

We also find that the DEIR relies on the work of the County’s technical advisory committee — Wind Resource Area Technical Advisory Committee— in mitigation measures. However, the Committee lacks funding, independence and authority to carry out duties related to mitigation. In prior project review, we have asked that the TAC be strengthened in order to review, assess 4.6 and make recommendations on mitigation measures in the corridor. But these recommendations were rejected. More public interest and independent scientific representatives should be appointed to this committee, and funded as necessary, through monitoring costs assessed by the County for the project. The Committee needs to be funded to meet regularly and must have a charge to assess and improve mitigation. At present it simply meets annually to look at monitoring reports, and it performs no function to improve mitigation even though numerous EIRS provide for TAC involvement in mitigation measures.

As explained below the project does not comply with CEQA because avian loss and loss of 4.7 habitat are not mitigated to less than significant and not all feasible mitigation measures have been employed.

Page Specific Comments 1. Permanent disturbance area requiring habitat mitigation undercounted; mitigation measure inadequate for reducing significant impacts to less than significant.

Page 3-25 During construction, access roads would disturb an estimated 93.1 acres. During operation, the permanent roads for the Project would occupy 24.6 acres. 4.8 The 24.6 acres of permanent roadway should be added to the habitat compensation requirements for rotor swept area with the habitat compensation equaling the entire permanent disturbance plus the rotor swept area. The roadway is a permanent change in the land use that reduces the habitat value of that portion of the project area.

Page 8-70 mitigation measure 8c b. Off-site conservation land or easement: Within two years following the first delivery of power, the Applicant shall purchase and record up to 4.9 84 acres of off-site conservation. Page 3

Mitigation should be implemented prior to the impact. Otherwise there will be an unmitigated loss of airspace for two years prior to mitigation. The mitigation measure should read “prior to 4.9 the delivery of power, the Applicant shall purchase 108.6 acres of off-site conservation.”

2. Role of the Wind Resource Technical Advisory Committee to the County as a mitigation measure. Page 8-23 and all other references to the Solano County Technical Advisory Committee process and post construction methodology review.

The EIR fails to acknowledge that the existing Committee does not have any authority to require project proponents to seek Committee approval on methods and metrics, or mitigation measures. Although some members of the Committee (agencies) may have some authority through their regulatory process the Committee does not. The EIR gives too much authority to the Committee and does not disclose that it only meets once a year, and only serves as a forum for entities to present their survey results and take some comments. The Committee does not develop survey design criteria or mitigation measures for the Wind Resource Area. References to the Committee having influence on a project proponent’s process and mitigation should be removed or the Committee given the authority suggested by the DEIR. The Committee should meet more often, for longer, and have a charter adopted by the County Board and the parties which outlines the roles and responsibilities as well as the commitment of the parties to participate and implement suggestions by the TAC. It should not include representatives of project owners and proponents, and should include independent scientific advisors, compensated for by the County through funds provided to mitigate the impacts of the project. 4.10 Page 8-68 mitigation measures 8a-d. The Applicant shall contribute and participate in the efforts of the Solano County Avian TAC to develop mitigation measures to lessen potential impacts on raptors as a result of wind turbine generator operation. The TAC is an advisory committee to the County, composed of biologists from the CDFG, the USFWS, Solano County, representatives from local wind facility developers, a local landowner/farmer, a conservation organization and or golden eagle expert, and others. The Applicant shall prepare and submit annual reports from monitoring efforts to the USFWS, CDFG, Solano County and the Solano County Avian TAC within 90 days after the end of each calendar year, unless additional time has been justified by the Applicant and is acceptable to the Solano County Department of Resource Management. Data collected during the monitoring program shall be submitted to the Biogeographic Information and Observation System Program, in accordance with California Energy Commission Guidelines.

The only thing this mitigation measure requires the applicant to do is submit its annual report to the TAC. To have any mitigation value, this mitigation measure should include a statement about applicant being willing to implement any mitigation measures the TAC develops within a reasonable financial framework, participate in third party research, and allow access to the site for studies. Also, ‘contribute’ should be specified in detail and include specific monetary contributions to the TAC. As written, “contribute and participate” could mean monetarily contribute, contribute the project proponent’s time or any other contribution in very general terms.

Page 4

3. Final EIR should account for Swainson’s Hawk mortalities and other incidental mortality finds and adapt monitoring protocols and reporting to improve monitoring success and reporting. Page 8-25 mentions other fatalities including the two Swainson Hawk mortalities found by HT Harvey personnel.

Swainson’s Hawk mortalities and the other incidental finds are not included in the Table 8.1-1 comparing average adjusted bird and bat mortality rates in the Montezuma Hills ( since they were not found as part of a turbine operator post construction study), but they should be included 4.11 in the list of species impacted and should be acknowledged as potentially changing the assessment of mortality rates. Just because birds/bats are found incidentally when power is not being generated does not mean that their death is not attributable to wind turbine mortality. They are unlikely to have died from other causes, especially at the location found. All incidental finds should be added in a table (or added to the existing tables as appropriate). Injured birds can travel some distance before death. The EIR should also clarify whether turbine blades are free spinning when power is not being generated. If a clearance survey was not conducted, there could be carcasses remaining on site from when power was being generated that scavengers did not find.

Page 8-63 In addition to raptor and other special-status species collisions, waterfowl and shorebirds could potentially collide with turbine structures. In general, these species rarely suffer mortality at modern wind plants in the west, including wind plants in the Montezuma Hills. At the High Winds project site, single fatalities occurred to American coot, common moorhen, Virginia rail, and sora. In three years of surveys at Shiloh I [emphasis added], 4.12 there were six waterfowl mortalities (mallards and one unknown goose species) and 19 waterbird mortalities (American coots, sora, Virginia rails, killdeer, and black crowned night heron). In addition, two California black rail carcasses were found during mortality surveys at Shiloh II. Based on fatalities recorded at surrounding wind facilities, it is probable that the proposed project would result in very few fatalities to waterbird species.

The EIR should clarify whether all the turbines were searched every year in the Shiloh I monitoring program and whether those are numbers are uncorrected or corrected for scavenger rates and searcher bias.

4. Inadequate monitoring and reporting for new turbines; need for take permit. Page 8-64 species, including golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, and Swainson’s hawk were observed to fly less frequently within the rotor swept zone of the existing enXco V turbines and more frequently within the rotor swept zone of the proposed REpower MM92 turbines.

It concerns FOSH that the potential for collisions with Swainson’s Hawks might increase with the new turbines. A mitigation measure should be developed requiring a Swainson’s Hawk mitigation plan and incidental take permit. The plan should be approved by CDFG and would be triggered if Swainson’s Hawks are found injured or if there are mortalities found incidentally or as part of a survey. Additional mitigation measures to offset the loss of Swainson’s Hawks 4.13 should be developed such as tree planting, additional habitat compensation, and seasonal shut down of turbines where Swainson’s Hawks are most impacted. Turbines should not be sited in areas where Swainson’s Hawks were observed using the site in preconstruction surveys. This is not the same as mitigation measure 8a-g as that is only triggered if mortality is found. What we want is a plan in place, and developed prior to generation of power which would be used when Page 5

necessary. CEQA expects mitigation to be known, not speculative. The public is entitled to 4.13 know what mitigation measures will be taken when mortality of Swainson’s Hawk occurs.

Page 8-66 Table 8.4-5 compares the estimated mortality in the 1,734-acre area that currently contains approximately 240 enXco V turbines with the mortality in the same area with the Shiloh IV turbines. As Table 8.4-5 shows, the proposed Shiloh IV turbines could result in higher total reported mortality levels than the enXco V project even after adjusting for potential searcher and scavenger efficiencies not considered in the enXco V data. The higher reported mortality rates for recent projects is likely due to better methodologies and increased success regarding post-construction monitoring of potential small- and medium- 4.14 sized bird fatalities. Raptor mortalities for the portion of the Shiloh IV project located on existing enXco V lands are estimated to be approximately 1.1 times higher than the enXco V estimate despite the fact that the proposed 32 Shiloh IV turbines would have approximately 4.4 times more rotor swept area than the 240 enXco V project turbines they would replace and would produce approximately 4.8 times more electrical generation.

Since more power is being generated, this paragraph is disclosing that there will likely be an increase in raptor mortalities based on the number of kills/megawatt. On page 8-64 certain raptors were seen to fly more often in the new rotor swept zone, instead of the old rotor swept zone. This suggests an increase in mortality to be expected not simply from increased power generation.

Page 8-67 Documented average annual bat mortality rates in the Montezuma Hills have ranged from 1.65 to 3.92 bats/MW/yr. The weighted average for all four projects, representing a combined seven years of mortality monitoring, is 0.10 western red bats/MW/Yr and 3.09 total bats/MW/Yr. At these rates, the Shiloh IV project could result in up to 9.6 western red bat and 309 total bat fatalities per year. Thus, it has been determined that the Shiloh IV project’s individual impacts on the local bat population would be less 4.15 than significant with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A (Post-Construction Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring) –

The mitigation measure does not reduce impacts to less than significant. Monitoring does not mitigate for fatalities, it just identifies them. Monitoring must be part of an adaptive management commitment which implements mitigation measures based on monitoring results to reduce fatalities identified by monitoring. Additional mitigation which can be implemented as part of an adaptive management plan should be identified in the EIR to reduce bat mortality.

Bio 8A (Page 8-67) Post construction monitoring requirements should be strengthened to require 3 years of monitoring of all turbines based on best available methodology. We recommend the 4.16 survey methodology for the project include a much shorter search interval and adjustments to the scavenger removal correction factor to reflect the new data. (See page 9 below).

Page 8-68 g. If unauthorized take of a federal or state threatened or endangered avian or bat species occurs during project operation, the Applicant shall immediately notify the appropriate agency (CDFG and/or USFWS) by phone. The Applicant shall then submit a 4.17 written finding to the appropriate agency and the County within two calendar days that describes the date, time, location, species and, if possible, cause of unauthorized take. The Page 6

Applicant shall notify the County within three calendar days of the receipt of any USFWS and/or CDFG required or recommended actions resulting from the unauthorized take, including whether an incidental take permit and/or additional requirements is deemed necessary by either agency.

There are several problems with this mitigation measure. First, incidental take permits should be 4.17 obtained prior to “take” and specify the mitigation that will be provided for “take.” CEQA mitigation measures should not be speculative. Secondly, the EIR should state unequivocally that whenever a mortality is found, the measure applies. The DEIR discounts the two Swainson’s Hawk mortalities that were found by another party as arguably not incidental to wind power operations. Any mortality found within a specific distance of a wind facility should trigger reporting and mitigating for “take.”

Thirdly, with only three years of surveys required for the project, as written this mitigation measure - since it is based on mortalities discovered during monitoring - will be used only in the first three years. There is no rationale for limiting the mitigation measure to just three years, or only for mortalities found through monitoring. There should be a statement that the measure applies to all mortalities, whether found incidentally or as part of a study.

Fourth, a mitigation measure should be added that includes a requirement to develop training for personnel who conduct maintenance on the turbines so if they find a carcass they have a 4.18 datasheet and know who to call and what to do. Training programs are well developed through APLIC as well as other examples.

Finally, with 218 raptors killed each year in the corridor based on today’s inadequate monitoring protocols, and take of listed species at stake, there is little rationale to limit monitoring to the first 4.19 three years of project life.

Avian Use Study and Risk Assessment, Appendix C Quotations from Appendix C in italics; our comments follow for each quotation. P. 14 Generally, observations started between 0800 hours and 1200 hours and continued until about 1200 hours to 1600 hours, corresponding to the time raptors and birds are most active during their daily cycle.

Depending on the time of year those are the wrong times to conduct observations. Raptors are usually foraging at sunrise during the hotter months – and are sitting on eggs/shading young or soaring in the hottest part of the day. They would be active again in the evening. The same is true for small birds which would be most active before the middle of the day. Observations during the 4.20 day might be fine during the cooler months. The other variable is windy times of the year. As the wind picks up during the day raptors will take to soaring or staying put on a structure/in a tree. See the following comment too.

Page 16. A total of 19,888 observations of 27 avian species were recorded at the two observation points (Table 2) during the 2007-2008 study. The majority (42.14%) of the flight observations were of soaring (N=59), followed by flapping flights 31.42%, (N=44), Of 17 Swainson’s Hawk observations, 17.6% were below the RSZ , 53.0% were within the RSZ and 29.4% of time above the RSZ.

Page 7

The reason why a majority of the flight observations were of soaring could be due to the time of day being surveyed. Surveys should have also been conducted in the early morning and late afternoon so foraging habits could be observed on a regular basis and those areas avoided for turbine siting. Information on the location on the landscape of Swainson’s Hawk and other 4.20 concentrations of raptors/birds would be helpful. The figures of the observation points are helpful, but the sightings should also be plotted on an aerial photo and included in the EIR so they can be taken into account with turbine siting.

There were almost as many in-transit, i.e. incidental, sightings of raptors as there were sightings during the point counts. You state that you kept track of observed raptors when surveyors were in transit between sites. The total seen in transit was 199 and if the 40 shrike observations are subtracted there were 159 (table 13). There were 175 in your point count observations. This suggests that applicant and his biological team are ignoring half the relevant data in assessing risks. Since the methods seem to be consistent when researchers traveled between sites, the in- 4.21 transit data could be considered driving surveys, and the information included in some of the tables. Although heights and all activities may not have been recorded the presence of those birds should be included as appropriate in the analysis. Also providing information on how long it took to get between sites and the route taken would be useful information since birds seem to have been observed in higher numbers during that time, compared to the course of the observation point surveys that were 4 hours long each.

Table 17

We are encouraged that the search interval between High Winds (15 days) and Shiloh I (7 days) was cut in half and would expect that a short search interval would give more accurate survey results for Shiloh IV too. Another row in the table should be added to show what percent of 4.22 turbines were surveyed each year, if not all of them.

Hunt et al. (2007) and Curry & Kerlinger, found only four nest sites within the MHWRAS12 during raptor nesting surveys conducted in 2004-2005 and 2007. Subsequent and ongoing nesting surveys include specific visitation to historical golden eagle nest sites to determine use. There has been no activity at these sites since 2007. 4.23

Even if the cause is not fatalities from wind turbines, this could show a reduction in range of the golden eagle. The changing landscape in the wind resource area could make the area less desirable and the wind area could be having an indirect effect on golden eagles.

The rate of fatalities of bats ranges from 0.2 bats/MW/year to 53.3 bats/MW/year (Arnett et al. 2008). The higher rates have always been from sites east of the Mississippi River such as in the Appalachian Mountains, where there are extensive forests. The fatality rates of bats at the Shiloh I project adjacent to the Shiloh IV site specifically, and in the MHWRAS12 generally, are much lower than at eastern and Midwestern sites and are at the low end of this range. Fatalities for Solano County projects range from 1.65-3.92 per 4.24 megawatt per year (Tables 19a and 19b), which is very close to the low end of fatalities for these animals at wind plants and rates this low, are not likely to be biologically significant.

Page 8

The rate of fatalities may be low compared to national and east coast averages, but the rate of kills in the Montezuma Wind Resource Area may be higher than what has been reported at any other wind resource areas in California. What is the bat mortality rate in the Montezuma Wind 4.24 Resource Area compared with other wind resource areas in California? With the information known about bat behavior, populations and impacts to bats there is lack of substantial evidence to claim that the kills are not biologically significant.

In the recent bird observation counts (Jan – Apr 2011 surveys) there were more incidental sightings - 35 incidental vs 26 as part of point counts. Disclosing methods, driving times, distances and route would help the reader understand where birds were incidentally observed.

It would be informative to go back and conduct mortality surveys at High Winds with the shorter search interval and see how the numbers change 10 years after the original survey was done. This might highlight how much more accurate surveys have become and also help address 4.25 questions about whether fatalities are constant over time. This could contribute to information the Solano TAC can use to inform future projects.

Carcass Removal Interval and Correction Factor There is reason to believe that the carcass removal interval in the methodology used is too long. New information that should be included in the EIR includes preliminary findings from the study entitled Bird and Bat Movement Patterns and Mortality at the Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area is the interim report for the Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area Bat and Bird Mortality Study project grant number AWARD # PIR-08-027 conducted by H. T. Harvey & Associates. In that interim report section 3.2.4 Carcass Removal Rates they found the following:

The mean carcass removal time for nocturnal migratory birds and bats was 3.71 days (range = 1 to 18). Sixtyseven percent (n = 4) of nocturnal migrant carcasses were removed within one day. Fourteen percent (n = 1) persisted for three days, and 14% (n = 1) persisted for five days. Fifty percent (n = 5) of hoary bats were removed within one day, 30% (n = 3) were removed within 2 days, and 20% (n = 2) persisted for 3 days. Fortytwo percent (n = 5) of Brazilian freetailed bats were removed within one day, 25% (n = 3) were removed within 2 days, and 33% (n = 4) persisted into subsequent 4.26 survey periods (15-18 days).

The study did find many more days of no collisions then there were collisions; more days of no kills. That distribution was clumped and it seemed that more mortality occurred on nights when more birds and bats were observed.

If the post construction monitoring for Shiloh IV search interval is 7 days like the one conducted for the Shiloh I project a large amount of bat and bird carcasses may be removed prior to being found by surveyors. According to the PIER study 95% of nocturnal migrant carcasses were removed within 5 days. All the hoary bats and most of the Mexican free-tailed bats were removed within a few days. Even with a scavenger removal correction factor the post construction monitoring would be more accurate with a shorter search interval. Since mortalities seem to be clumped the search interval could be shortened for the times of year of the most impact and correction factors and survey results weighted accordingly. We recommend the survey methodology for the project include a much shorter search interval and adjustments to the scavenger removal correction factor to reflect the new data. Page 9

Noctural Migrant Impact Rates Higher H.T. Harvey and Associates (op cit) also found that nocturnal migrants were passing through their study area at the same height as the new turbine rotor swept area height (Table 2 in the interim report). This information should be included in the EIR. The mean nocturnal flight 4.27 altitude for High Winds was 467 ± 4 m above ground level and for Shiloh I it was 397 ± 3 m above ground level. The new turbines are likely to increase impacts to nocturnal migrants. Mitigation measures are needed to address this added risk to noctural migrants.

Again, failure to consider and include feasible mitigation measures to reduce project impacts to wildlife as recommended in this letter would violate CEQA’s mandate that all impacts be reduced to the extent feasible.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Please formally review our comments and notify us of the availability of the FEIR and future public hearings on the project.

Sincerely,

Judith Lamare, Ph.D., President

C: Jordan Wellwood, California Audubon Society, Corky Quirk, NorCal Bats. Brenda Blinn, DFG, Lisa Belenky, Center for Biological Diversity, Michael Lynes, Golden Gate Audubon.

Page 10

4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM FRIENDS OF THE SWAINSON’S HAWK (OCTOBER 10, 2011) The responses below address the FOSH comments on the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project. The FOSH comment letter introduces several general comments on Pages 1 – 3, supported by more specific remarks on Pages 3 – 10 of the letter. Accordingly, where appropriate, the County has responded to FOSH’s relevant, general comments from Pages 1 – 3 of their letter and directed the reader to the detailed responses to FOSH’s specific comments from Pages 3 – 10 of their letter.

4.1 Proposed Turbine Model Characteristics The commenter states that the Draft EIR analyzes the environmental effects of the Shiloh IV project, including effects associated with potential Siemens, 2.3-megawatt (MW) turbine models with a 263-foot hub height and two possible turbine blade lengths: either a 331-foot or a 305-foot diameter rotor. This MW, hub height, and rotor diameter information is incorrect. As noted in Section 3.5.1 of the Draft EIR, the Shiloh IV Project applicant has proposed the use of either REpower MM92, 2.0 MW or Vestas V90 1.8/2.0 MW turbine types. In addition, as described in Table 3.5-1 of the Draft EIR, both the REpower MM92 and Vestas V90 turbine models would have a maximum hub height of 262 feet above ground surface; the REpower MM92 and the Vestas V90 would have a rotor diameter of 331 feet and 295 feet respectively.

4.2 Impact on Swainson’s Hawk Range The commenter suggests that the cumulative impact of the Project on the range of the Swainson’s hawk could be significant due to mortality and loss of foraging habitat and that mitigation is insufficient.

To date, only one occurrence of Swainson’s hawk mortality in the Montezuma Hills has been identified as turbine-related, although two other mortalities in the area have been reported. As discussed in Section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2, Additional Information, of this Final EIR, since publication of the Draft EIR, the one occurrence of turbine-related Swainson’s hawk mortality in the Montezuma Hills has been reported to CDFG. This new information is provided in the Final EIR as an update, but does not change the level of significance in the Draft EIR because the Draft EIR already identifies the potential impacts to Swainson’s hawks in the area as significant.

The Draft EIR addresses Swainson’s hawk mortality in Impact BIO-8, Direct Mortality of Raptors, Other Avian Species, and Bats, and concludes that the Project’s impacts to special-status birds and raptors, including Swainson’s hawk, are significant. In addition, Draft EIR section 21.2.4 also concludes that the Project would contribute to a cumulatively significant impact to special-status birds and bats. Accordingly, the Draft EIR requires the Applicant to implement feasible mitigation measures to reduce potential avian mortalities, including mitigation measures BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, BIO-8B, On-Site Mitigation, BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation, and new Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (see response to Comment 4.13). Please see also response to Comments 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19, 4.22, and 4.26.

The Draft EIR addresses temporary and permanent impacts to terrestrial habitat, including foraging habitat, under Impact BIO-1, Impacts to Terrestrial Habitat, and concludes that this impact would be less than significant because the Project would not result in the loss of substantial amounts of

November 30, 2011 4-30 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments terrestrial habitat nor fragment the project area and the Applicant would implement mitigation measures to reduce this impact. See also response to Comments 4.3, 4.8, 4.13, and 4.23.

4.3 Cumulative Habitat and Raptor Nesting Impacts The commenter suggests that cumulative wind energy development and habitat fragmentation lower the quality and amount of foraging habitat in the Montezuma Hills, potentially affecting raptor nest productivity, specifically golden eagle and Swainson’s hawk nest productivity.

The Draft EIR addresses cumulative habitat loss and fragment impacts in Chapter 21, Page 21-15. The total area of permanently displaced terrestrial habitat, including the Shiloh IV project, would constitute approximately 1.1 percent of the land within the 42,972-acre Montezuma Hills agricultural region, as it is identified by County’s General Plan. Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, Minimize Habitat Disturbance, and BIO-1B, Restore Disturbed Habitats within Project Area, require the Applicant to minimize habitat loss and restore disturbed lands to pre-construction conditions. Much of the land in the Montezuma Hills is already disturbed by ongoing agricultural practices, and the small amount of vegetation cover permanently lost to the wind facilities, including the Shiloh IV project, would not result in significant immediate or cumulative impacts from habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, or non special-status wildlife injuries and mortality. See also response to Comment 4.8, 4.13, and 4.23.

Draft EIR Sections 8.1.3 and 8.1.4 describe the bird species occurring in the project area and the existing impact that Montezuma Hills wind energy development has on birds and bats. Systematic bird abundance and use surveys have occurred regularly in the Montezuma Hills since 2000, including a 2007 raptor nesting survey. Draft EIR Impact BIO-5, Temporary Impacts on Nesting Birds, addresses impacts to nesting birds during construction and concludes these impacts, including nest abandonment and reproductive failure, would be less than significant with implementation of Draft EIR mitigation measures BIO-5A, Avoidance of Avian Nests, and BIO-5B, Habitat Avoidance – Western Burrowing Owl, which require the Applicant to conduct pre-construction surveys and establish no-disturbance buffer zones around nesting birds.

In addition, Appendix C, pages 32 – 33 and Table 16, document the reproductive activity of the historical golden eagle nest sites in the Montezuma Hills from 2001 - 2011. This table indicates that historic golden eagle nesting success has been mixed, with Swainson’s hawk occasionally colonizing historical golden eagle nest sites. Page 8-19 of the Draft EIR indicates that both golden eagles and Swainson’s hawks nests were observed during this survey, but not within the Shiloh IV project area. In addition, pages 8-21 and 8-62 of the Draft EIR indicate that surveys conducted by PG&E in May 2011 found a new, active golden eagle nesting territory in Meins Landing, two miles west of the Shiloh IV project. Subsequent investigations by the County have discovered that this nest contained two young that were approximately seven weeks at the time of survey, old enough to be considered to have probably fledged (Jackman 2011). Draft EIR Impact BIO-8, Direct Mortality of Raptors, Other Avian Species, and Bats, identifies that both golden eagles and Swainson’s hawks are documented in the Montezuma Hills and concludes impacts to special-status birds and raptors, including golden eagles and Swainson’s hawks, are significant and require implementation of feasible mitigation measures, including BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, BIO-8B, On-Site Mitigation, BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation, and new Mitigation Measure BIO-8E (see response to Comment 4.13). Please see also response to Comments 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.13, 4.16, 4.18, 4.19, 4.22, 4.23, and 4.26.

November 30, 2011 4-31 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

The following reference has been added to the EIR relating to golden eagle Mein’s Landing nesting activity:

Jackman 2011a. Jackman, Ron. Wildlife Biologist, Garcia and Associates. “Re: Meins Landing Nest.” Email message to Chris Dugan, TRA Environmental Sciences. October 21, 2011.

4.4 Raptor Mortality Estimates and Loss of State Protected Species The commenter suggests that wind-energy related bird mortality data may be underestimated and that specific information on state-protected species is required.

The County notes that the Draft EIR estimates a cumulative rate of 345 raptors and 3,800 total avian mortalities (including raptors) for the Montezuma Hills (page 21-17). This estimate is based on seven years of bird and bat mortality data in the Montezuma Hills that has been collected according to industry standards and reviewed by the County, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Draft EIR Section 8.2.2 addresses the state regulations that govern biological resources, including the California Endangered Species Act and Fish and Game Code provisions related to fully-protected species. Page 8-22 of the Draft EIR identifies that Swainson’s hawk is a state threatened species, and Appendix D1 contains a list of special-status species, including their federal and state listing status. The Draft EIR concludes impacts to special-status birds, including Swainson’s hawk and fully-protected species, is a significant impact and requires the Applicant to implement feasible mitigation measures, including BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, BIO-8B, On-Site Mitigation, BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation, and new Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (see response to Comment 4.13). See also response to Comments 4.6, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11, 4.12, 4.16, 4.18, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, and 4.26.

4.5 Turbine Siting and Land Conservation The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR ignores turbine siting as a mitigation measure for wildlife and avian mortality.

The Draft EIR does not ignore the importance of turbine siting as mitigation, but these measures are not as important for the Montezuma Hills as in other areas. As described on page 8-2 of the Draft EIR, the Montezuma Hills are “characterized by relatively uniform treeless rolling hills with a relatively constant crest elevation between 150 and 280 feet above mean sea level.” Although there are narrow valleys and drainages that separate the hills, these valleys are shallow and the hill crests are relatively flat. Thus, the Montezuma Hills does not contain cliffs, rim edges, notches or other breaks in hillsides that have been identified as collision hazard areas in other wind resource areas. In addition, post-construction monitoring to date in the Montezuma Hills has not indicated any disproportionate mortality for any particular wind energy project, specific turbine location, or associated topographic features.

As noted on Page 1 of Draft EIR Appendix C, the Applicant’s Avian Use Study and Risk Assessment is intended to evaluate project risks and support micro-siting of project turbines. The Applicant performed a total of 114 hours of bird abundance and use surveys at nine observation points for the project. The Applicant compiled this and other avian occurrence data from surveys throughout the Montezuma Hills area in order to assess avian use in the project area. Using this data available, the Applicant designed the project to avoid water and other areas of high prey that could November 30, 2011 4-32 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

be associated with bird and bat use. The Draft EIR documents that the Applicant has located project turbines at least 800 feet from tree groves (page 8-53) and 450 feet from aquatic resource habitat (page 8-57), and Mitigation Measure BIO-8B, On-site Mitigation, requires turbine locations to avoid features of the landscape known to attract raptors and bats and provide a 500-foot setback from historical golden eagle nest sites. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-2A, Avoid Impacts to Aquatic Resources requires the Applicant to maintain a 100-foot setback from aquatic resources where possible.

The Draft EIR addresses cumulative habitat loss and fragment impacts in Chapter 21, Page 21-15. See also response to Comment 4.3, 4.8, 4.13, and 4.23.

4.6 Solano County Avian Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Comment noted. The Solano County Avian Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is a voluntary advisory committee to the County that currently meets annually. FOSH, as requested earlier, has been invited to these meetings since 2010. The County would be receptive to considering any additional prospective attendees suggested by the commenter. Please see also response to Comment 4.10.

4.7 Feasible Mitigation for Avian Mortality and Habitat Loss Comment noted. The EIR requires the Applicant to implement mitigation measures for reducing potential habitat loss and indirect and direct impacts to birds and bats, including: Mitigation Measure AG-4, Confine Construction Activities to Necessary Work Areas; Mitigation Measure AG-5, Restore and Decompact Temporarily Disturbed Agricultural Areas; Mitigation Measure BIO-1A, Minimize Habitat Disturbance; Mitigation Measure BIO-1B, Restore Disturbed Habitats within Project Area; Mitigation Measure BIO-2A, Avoid Impacts to Aquatic Resources; Mitigation Measure BIO-2B, Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling under Aquatic Resources; Mitigation Measure BIO-5a, Avoidance of Nests; Mitigation Measure BIO-5b, Habitat Avoidance – Burrowing Owl; Mitigation Measure BIO-7, Design Specifications for Overhear Power Lines; Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring; Mitigation Measure BIO-8B, On-site Mitigation; and Mitigation Measure BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation. The Draft EIR concludes that the Project would not remove large, continuous tracts of terrestrial habitat, would not fragment the project area, and would result in terrestrial habitat loss, both temporary and permanent, that would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1A and BIO-1B. The Draft EIR concludes, however, that impacts from loss of aerial habitat and direct mortality of specials status birds and raptors would remain significant and unavoidable even within implementation of mitigation measures BIO-8A, BIO-8B, BIO-8C, and new Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (see response to Comment 4.13). See below for responses to other specific comments made by the commenter.

4.8 Permanent Habitat Loss Mitigation Undercounted and Inadequate The commenter suggests that the County require an additional 24.6 acres of off-site mitigation to compensate for permanent foraging habitat loss associated with the Project’s access roads because the roads are a permanent change that reduces the habitat value of the project area.

The commenter refers to an amount of habitat loss on page 3-25 that is in error and has been corrected to be consistent with the permanent loss for roads in the other sections of the Draft EIR.

November 30, 2011 4-33 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

Page 3-25 of the Draft EIR states: “During operation, the permanent roads for the Project would occupy 24.6 acres.” However, as noted in Tables 6.4-2 and 8.4-1 of the Draft EIR, permanent roads for the Project would occupy 31.6 acres of land. This correction does not change the nature of the commenter’s suggestion for additional mitigation for terrestrial habitat loss associated with permanent project features.

Draft EIR Impact BIO-1, Impacts to Terrestrial Habitat, evaluates the Project incremental loss of 15.7 acres of land, or 0.52 percent of the 3,012-acre project area and concludes that this impact would be less than significant. The Project would not result in the loss of substantial, continuous tracts of terrestrial habitat that would fragment the project area and interfere with foraging opportunities for wildlife, including Swainson’s hawk, as evidenced by the fact that Swainson’s hawk and other wildlife continue to be observed in the Montezuma Hills. In addition, the Applicant would implement mitigation measures BIO-1A, Minimize Habitat Disturbance, and BIO-1B, Minimize Temporary Habitat Disturbance, which requires which requires disturbed areas to be minimized and limited to defined construction areas only, biological monitoring during construction, and revegetation of impacted areas.

The existing agricultural regime in the project area has introduced many private roads, and, as noted in Draft EIR section 19.2, the Applicant has located two project access roads in the same location as existing private landowner roads. The Shiloh IV project would also remove old enXco V access roads and turbines and replace them with new turbines that are more efficient. For example, the Applicant intends to upgrade and re-use approximately seven miles of existing enXco V access roads, reducing the project’s potential incremental habitat loss. As described in Draft EIR Table 8.4- 1, the project would occupy approximately 37 acres of lands in the project area but only result in the incremental conversion of approximately 16 acres of land in the project area. This replacement, or repowering, effort reduces the Shiloh IV project’s incremental habitat loss, but substantially increases the rotor swept area. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation, focuses on the loss of aerial habitat and requires the Applicant to mitigate for the project’s aerial habitat loss at a 1:1 ratio. Both the USFWS and the CDFG have expressed support for the County’s long-standing compensatory mitigation program based on rotor swept area. This mitigation program exceeds the mitigation required by other lead agencies for wind energy projects. Foraging habitat mitigation and revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-1A, BIO-1B, or BIO-8C are therefore not required for the Project. The County, however, has added new Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk, which specifies that off-site mitigation lands required per Mitigation Measure BIO-8C be CDFG-approved for mitigating impacts to Swainson’s hawk. See response to Comment 4.13.

4.9 Timing of Off-Site Mitigation Requirements The commenter suggests that off-site mitigation be implemented prior to the delivery of power from the project instead of within two years of the first delivery of power from the project as currently required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8C, part a, requires the Applicant to establish an irrevocable letter of credit or bond in favor of Solano County, and in an amount determined by the County, in order to ensure compliance with the conservation easement, in-lieu fee, or mitigation bank provisions of Mitigation Measure BIO-8C. This financial assurance is required prior to construction, unless any one of the three optional mitigation provisions are fully implemented beforehand, in which case the financial November 30, 2011 4-34 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

assurance would not be required. If exercised, the financial assurance would allow the applicant two years after the project becomes operational to implement one of three optional mitigation provisions. In practice, all built wind projects subject to this requirement have purchased conservation easement/credits at resource agency-approved mitigation banks prior to construction. The County has a proven track record of ensuring that all wind project-related mitigation measures are adopted as conditions of approval for the respective use permits, which are monitored and enforced as a matter of common practice and public record. Building permits are not issued for wind projects in Solano County until all the required pre-construction conditions are implemented to the County’s satisfaction. Conditions of approval are also provided for performance monitoring of Project conditions annually by the County for three years following Project completion. The last five County-approved wind projects built or under construction in the Montezuma Hills (Shiloh I, Shiloh II, Shiloh III (under construction), Montezuma Wind I, and Montezuma Wind II (under construction) have all implemented this mitigation strategy successfully. Mitigation Measure BIO-8C requires that off-site mitigation lands be preserved in perpetuity, and Mitigation Measure BIO-8E.d further requires that the lands be CDFG-certified to mitigate impacts for Swainson’s hawk, and the long-term benefits associated with these preservation efforts would outweigh the potential short-term drawbacks associated with allowing time to acquire and preserve off-site mitigation lands. Revisions to the timing of Mitigation Measure BIO-8C, therefore, are not necessary.

4.10 Role of the Solano County Avian Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) The commenter makes several comments regarding the role of the Solano County Avian TAC. The Solano County Avian TAC is a voluntary advisory committee to the County, composed of representatives from the CDFG, the USFWS, Solano County, local wind energy developers and their avian experts, a local landowner/farmer, and a conservation organization and/or Golden Eagle expert. In recent years, participation has been expanded to include biologists from Solano County, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the American Wind Wildlife Institute, and a recognized authority and author on wind-energy/wildlife interactions. FOSH, as requested earlier, has been invited to these meetings since 2010. While the County considers the current mix of TAC meeting invitees reasonably balanced in terms of public and private interests, the County is unable to mandate the attendance.

The commenter suggests that the TAC does not have authority to require or approve methods and metrics or mitigation measures. This is inaccurate. Members of the Solano County Avian TAC are given the opportunity to review draft post-construction monitoring reports and provide comments on report methodology, findings, etc. Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, requires the Applicant to participate in the TAC “to develop mitigation measures to lessen potential impacts to raptors as a result of wind turbine generator operations” and enables the TAC to determine appropriate post construction monitoring methodologies.

The commenter notes that the Draft EIR does not mention that the TAC meets only once a year and suggests the TAC should meet more often and have a charter adopted by the County Board and other entities. The commenter is correct that the TAC meetings typically occur once annually. The TAC has thus far have reviewed annual avian monitoring reports and offered recommendations for improved monitoring and/or reporting. TAC participants have not recommended a more frequent meeting schedule or increased scope of review or authority and more frequent meetings, as suggested by the commenter, would not be justified since the mortality monitoring reports are

November 30, 2011 4-35 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments typically submitted to the County annually only, often within a three-month period. Due to their limited resources, attendance by USFWS, CDFG and CEC staff, including other independent experts, has been difficult to arrange even once annually.

In regards to a County Charter, the recent avian monitoring reports submitted to date indicate that pre-project mortality prediction rates as provided in County EIRs are reliable and that disproportionate mortalities or other anomalies are not occurring with respect to particular wind projects or specific turbine locations in the Montezuma Hills. The patterns of mortality for recent projects in the Montezuma Hills are consistent with or less than industry-wide trends at other California locations. While the County supports research to reduce avian mortality in general, the County is not the appropriate entity, nor does it have the resources, to conduct or fund additional research to lessen an impact that is occurring on an industry-wide basis and which can be more appropriately undertaken at the state, regional, or national level.

The commenter suggests that the TAC should not include representatives of local wind developers, however, this suggestion is not equitable. The local wind developers pay for post-construction monitoring and annual reports, they offer the services of avian experts who are most knowledgeable about the project area, and are stakeholders in TAC decisions and therefore should be represented at TAC meetings.

Finally, the commenter suggests Mitigation Measure BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation, needs to be revised to provide greater compliance with any mitigation measures developed by the TAC, to include a provision enabling third party research, and to require monetary contributions by wind energy developers. Mitigation Measure BIO-8C requires the Applicant to follow standardized post construction monitoring guidelines outlined by the CEC or otherwise determined appropriate by the TAC and to consult with the County to evaluate feasible measures that can be implemented at the County’s discretion to reduce or avoid disproportionately high levels of mortalities.

The County notes that the biologists from H.T. Harvey & Associates under contract with the CEC are currently studying movement patterns and mortality at two existing wind farms in the Montezuma Hills (see also response to Comments 4.26 and 4.27). Though not associated with the County or the TAC, H.T. Harvey personnel, who are standing invitees to the TAC meetings, are expected to present their final data when available to the TAC. Thus, third party avian research in the Montezuma Hill is ongoing. Mitigation Measure BIO-8A requires three years of post- construction mortality monitoring and Mitigation Measure BIO-8C requires the Applicant to mitigate up to 84 acres of disturbed aerial habitat. These measures incur significant costs on the Applicant. As noted above, the TAC is a voluntary advisory committee and monetary contributions are not appropriate for a voluntary, scientific advisory committee. Given the proven reliability of pre-construction mortality estimates, continued post construction monitoring requirements, and current off-site compensatory mitigation requirements, the County does not consider a nexus to exist to justify additional mitigation requiring local wind developers to fund additional research.

4.11 Swainson’s Hawk and Other Incidental Mortalities The commenter notes that “incidental” mortality finds should be included in the list of species impacted and acknowledged as potentially changing the assessment of mortality rates.

Page 8-25 of the Draft EIR describes the special-status species incidental mortalities that have occurred since 2003, including two incidental Swainson’s hawk mortalities recorded by H.T. Harvey

November 30, 2011 4-36 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments personnel in August 2009 and September 2010. In addition, the individual High Winds, Shiloh I, Shiloh II, and Solano Winds Phase 1 and 2 post-construction monitoring reports identify the incidental mortalities observed during that project’s post-construction monitoring period. The High Winds and Shiloh I reports may be found on the County’s website at: http://www.co.solano.us/ depts/rm/planning/commercial_wind_turbine_avian_behavior_n_mortality_reports.asp.

In addition, Draft EIR Section 8.1.4 describes the seven years of bird and bat mortality monitoring data that has been collected in the Montezuma Hills since 2003. As noted in the EIR, in general, this post-construction monitoring methodology and data has been performed and collected in a manner consistent with CEC guidelines and was subject to review by the County, CDFG, and USFWS through the Solano County Avian TAC. As part of this methodology, carcasses that are found at times and locations outside of one of the standardized surveys conducted during a post-construction monitoring survey, such as during avian surveys or while driving between sites, are processed and recorded but classified as an “incidental” find that does not factor into estimates of project-related mortality (either unadjusted or adjusted). Thus, “incidental” finds have historically been excluded from post-construction mortality estimates and therefore could not be considered by the Applicant.

The inclusion of incidental finds would not substantially change the Applicant’s overall estimate of project-related bird mortality. A review of post-construction monitoring data since 2003 indicates that only five species, representing a total of five mortalities in seven years, have been recorded as incidental finds only: Canada goose, prairie falcon, snow goose, winter wren, and yellow-rumped warbler. The majority of species incidentally found during post-construction monitoring also are found and recorded as project-related mortalities. In regards to Swainson’s hawks, Page 8-62 of the Draft EIR notes the project has the potential to impact this species.

4.12 Clarifications Regarding Referenced Monitoring Data The commenter requests clarification whether turbine blades are free spinning when power is not being generated, whether all turbines were searched every year in the Shiloh I monitoring program, and whether Shiloh data referenced on Draft EIR page 8-63 is unadjusted or adjusted data.

In general, modern wind turbine blades have the potential to spin even when power is not being generated. This is because there is a small difference between the turbine’s start-up speed, or speed at which the rotor and blade being to rotate, and cut-in speed, or the minimum wind speed at which the turbine generates power. In practice, however, wind turbine operators do not release the braking system until meteorological conditions indicate wind speeds are at or approaching cut-in speed.

The Shiloh I post-construction monitoring program did not search all turbines every year. Rather, the Shiloh I project searched 50 (out of 100) wind turbines from April 2006 to October 2007 and then searched the remaining 50 turbines from October 2007 to April 2009.

The Shiloh I data on Draft EIR Page 8-63 refers to mortalities unadjusted for searcher efficiency and scavenger rates. The Shiloh IV Project’s estimate of annual waterfowl and waterbird mortality rates in Table 8.4-3 of the Draft EIR is based on the average annual adjusted mortality rates presented in Table 8.1.1 of the Draft EIR, which accounts for searcher efficiency and scavenger rates.

November 30, 2011 4-37 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

4.13 Swainson’s Hawk Mitigation Plan and Incidental Take Permit The commenter suggests that the County include a mitigation measure requiring the Applicant to obtain an incidental take permit and develop a Swainson’s hawk mitigation plan that identifies measures to offset potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk, including tree planting, additional habitat compensation, and seasonal shut down of turbines were Swainson’s hawk are most impacted. As described below, the Draft EIR already contains many of the components requested by the commenter. To formalize and specify these components in regards to potential Swainson’s hawk impacts, the County has added new Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk, to the Shiloh IV EIR (see below).

Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), take of listed species is prohibited unless authorized by the CDFG. The Draft EIR identifies Swainson’s hawk as a listed threatened species under the CESA (pg. 8-22), states that the CESA restricts all persons from taking listed species without authorization from the CDFG (pgs. 8-30), and concludes that the Project has the potential to impact Swainson’s hawk through collision with turbines (pg. 8-62). The Applicant is required by law to comply with the CESA and may elect to obtain authorization for incidental take of Swainson’s hawk. To promote compliance with the CESA, the County included mitigation measure BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, part g, requiring consultation with CDFG within 48 hours of unauthorized take of a CESA listed species.

The Draft EIR identified the Project has the potential to impact birds and bats and requires compensatory mitigation for impacts to avian and bat species, including Swainson’s hawk. Mitigation measures BIO-8A and BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation, already require many of the components of the plan specifically requested by the commenter, including:

• Tree planting: Mitigation Measure BIO-8C, Off-site Mitigation, parts, b, c, and d all require the Applicant to implement breeding and habitat enhancement measures at off-site mitigation lands, which may include tree plantings. The County has added Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk, to the Shiloh IV EIR, which includes a specific provision for planting trees to promote Swainson’s hawk breeding activity (see below). • Habitat compensation: Mitigation Measure BIO-8C requires the Applicant to acquire and preserve in perpetuity up to 84 acres of land to mitigate for the project’s on-going impact to birds and bats. Mitigation Measure BIO-8C, part d, allows for the applicant to purchase Swainson’s hawk or other mitigation bank credits approved by the County, in consultation with CDFG for the benefit of the species of raptors impacted by the project, equivalent to a total of up to 84 acres, based on total rotor swept area for the 50 project turbines, of established conservation land from a conservation bank with appropriate raptor habitat in Solano County. Almost all off-site mitigation required by the County for wind projects built to date has been satisfied, with the full concurrence of the CDFG, by the purchase of conservation easement credits specific to Swainson’s hawk breeding and foraging habitat, as well as other wind project-affected raptors. As described in Draft EIR Impact BIO-1, Impacts to Terrestrial Habitats, additional habitat compensation for Swainson’s hawk and other species is not required because the project would not significantly impact terrestrial habitats. • Seasonal shutdown of turbines where Swainson’s hawks are most impacted: Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, requires the County to review post- construction mortality monitoring data to determine which, if any, turbines generate November 30, 2011 4-38 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

disproportionately high levels of avian mortality and identify measures to reduce or avoid mortalities at these turbines. This measure would apply to Swainson’s hawk.

The commenter also suggests that the County require turbines to be sited away from areas where the Applicant observed Swainson’s hawk during pre-construction surveys. This suggestion is not practical. Table 4 in Draft EIR Appendix C indicates that the Applicant recorded 17 Swainson’s hawk observations in the Project Area. The Applicant has compiled data from pre-construction throughout the Montezuma Hills area in order to assess avian use in the project area and designed the project to avoid water and other areas of high prey that could be associated with bird and bat use. The County does not consider it feasible to require the Applicant to avoid areas where Swainson’s hawk, or other special-status species, are merely observed. This requirement would essentially preclude development of a recognized wind resource area.

A plan for mitigating impacts to Swainson’s hawk, therefore, already exists, however, the County has added Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk, to the Shiloh IV EIR to formalize and specify the mitigation components that apply to Swainson’s hawk and address several of the commenter’s other concerns (see response to Comments 4.3, 4.8, 4.16, 4.18, and 4.26). Mitigation Measure BIO-8E is as follows:

Mitigation Measure BIO-8E: Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk. The Applicant shall minimize potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk associated with operation of the Project as follows:

a. A minimum of approximately 50 percent of the Project's wind turbines shall be surveyed each year of required monitoring in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.c.

b. Increased carcass searches shall be provided and reported in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.c.iv.

c. During Project operations, the training of personnel, establishment of procedures, and actions taken regarding the recording and reporting of injured or dead Swainson’s hawks discovered on- site by Project personnel shall comply with the requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-8B.d.iii.

d. All off-site compensatory mitigation lands required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8C (i.e., up to 84 acres of land, based on the total rotor swept area for 50 proposed turbines), shall be CDFG- certified for mitigating impacts to Swainson’s hawk.

November 30, 2011 4-39 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

i. The number and size of trees to be planted, if necessary, shall be determined by Solano County, which may consult with CDFG, and in coordination with the operator of the conserved land, based on the specific conditions of the conserved land, but shall be sufficient to promote additional Swainson’s hawk breeding activity, if such activity has not already been promoted from previous enhancement efforts. ii. The composition of trees shall consist of a mix of species known to be preferred by Swainson’s hawk for use as nest trees, including but not limited to valley oaks (Quercus lobata), Fremont’s cottonwood (Poplus fremontii), willows (Salix spp.), sycamores (Platanus spp.), and walnut (Juglans spp.). This mix shall ensure that nest trees will be available in the short-term (e.g., 5-10 years for cottonwoods and willows) and long term (e.g., valley oak and sycamores). iii. Nest trees, if necessary, shall be planted as close as possible to the highest quality available foraging habitat available at the conserved land. iv. Nest tree locations shall be spaced in a manner that maximizes the number of potential nest sites to the greatest extent feasible given the specific conditions of the conserved land. v. Nest trees shall be planted within one year of the purchase of the conserved easement, in- lieu fee, or mitigation bank credits as applicable. Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first two years to ensure maximum tree survival. The extent of irrigation and protective fencing necessary to ensure survival of the plantings shall be determined by the operator of the conserved land based on site specific conditions and previous requirements, if applicable. vi. Nest trees shall be inspected and monitored at least once a year by the operator of the conserved land for a period of three years following planting. The plantings shall be considered successful if 67 percent of the trees survive at the end of three years. The results of monitoring, including a description of any breeding activities observed by the operator of the conserved land in the nest trees, shall be reported annually by the operator to the regulating agencies (i.e., USFWS, DFG, etc.) and Solano County. f. For any period the required nest tree monitoring in paragraph e.vi., above, occurs during the post-construction avian/bat monitoring required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, the results of the nest tree monitoring, including a description of any breeding activities observed by the operator of the conserved land in the nest trees, shall be included in the annual avian/bat monitoring report required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.

4.14 Increase in Raptor Mortality Comment noted. The Draft EIR addresses direct raptor mortality under Impact BIO-8, Direct Mortality of Raptors, Other Avian Species, and Bats, and concludes the project would result in a significant and unavoidable increase in raptor mortalities. The intent of the discussion on Draft EIR page 8-66 is to demonstrate that the increase in raptor morality is not proportional to the Project’s increase in rotor swept area and power output for the 32 Shiloh IV turbines that would repower approximately 240 operational older-generation Kenetech enXco V turbines. These 32 newer generation turbines would result in an approximately ten percent increase in raptor mortality, but an approximately 400 and 470 percent increase in rotor swept area and power output, when compared to the 240 operational enXco V turbines they would replace.

November 30, 2011 4-40 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

4.15 Mitigation Measures do not Reduce Impacts to Bats The commenter refers to the last sentence of the last paragraph on Draft EIR page 8-67 and suggests that post-construction monitoring does not mitigate for fatalities.

The commenter misquotes the EIR. Page 8-67 states:

“Post-construction monitoring in the Montezuma Hills region appears to indicate that most bats impacted in the Montezuma Hills come from populations that are geographically and numerically very large, suggesting that the fatalities are diluted with respect to local populations. Additionally, those species that have been killed are fairly common, including the listed western red bat. There is no data to support the determination that anticipated kill rates would pose a significant threat to bat populations. Thus, it has been determined that the Shiloh IV project’s individual impacts on the local bat population would be less than significant with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A (Post-Construction Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring) and BIO-8B (On-site Mitigation).”

Mitigation Measure BIO-8B, On-Site Mitigation, requires the Applicant to prepare an Avian and Bat Mitigation Plan that contains pre-construction siting and design, construction risk reduction, and project operation and management measures to reduce or avoid potential bird and bat collision risks. Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, requires the Applicant to monitor bird and bat mortality in the project area, including disproportionate mortality associated with turbines. The implementation of these measures would reduce the Project’s potential impacts to bats to less than significance, and additional mitigation is not required for project-level bat impacts.

The commenter suggests that post-construction mortality monitoring must be part of an adaptive management commitment. The County agrees with this, and mitigation measures BIO-8A and BIO- C are designed to provide the County and the Applicant with an iterative, flexible decision-making process integral to adaptive management. For example, Mitigation Measure BIO-8A requires the Applicant to contribute and participate in the Solano County Avian TAC so that post-construction monitoring methodologies may be reviewed and mitigation measures developed as necessary. Also, Mitigation Measure BIO-8C, Off-site Mitigation, requires the Applicant to acquire and preserve in perpetuity up to 84 acres of land that provide breeding and foraging opportunities in order to mitigate for the project’s on-going impact to birds and bats.

4.16 Three Years Monitoring for All Turbines and Carcass Search Intervals Post-construction monitoring of 100 percent of the project turbines for each of the three years of required monitoring is unnecessary given the acceptability of scientifically justified statistical sampling and the body of reliable data that has already been collected at surrounding wind facilities. All new wind projects built or proposed in the Montezuma Hills since 2004 to date have utilized or will utilize sampling. As recently as May 2011, the USFWS approved an Avian and Bat Protection Plan (ABPP) for the proposed Shiloh III project that allows that project Applicant to determine the most meaningful and scientifically defensible sampling protocols, but also includes a commitment by that project Applicant to monitor the project in a staggered rotation pattern to ensure that every turbine is searched at different times over the course of the survey periods, to determine if there are any fatality hotspots. Such survey staggering is typical for County approved wind projects in the Montezuma Hills.

November 30, 2011 4-41 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

The County requires, at a minimum, post-construction monitoring programs to be consistent with the principal guiding document, the CEC’s California Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats from Wind Energy Development, to wit, Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, part c, requires three years of post- construction bird and bat mortality monitoring for the project in accordance with guidelines recommended by the CEC. The CEC’s guidelines describe techniques for conducting operations monitoring, including techniques for establishing carcass search plots (see Page 74 of the CEC guidelines). The CEC’s guidelines acknowledge that the percentage of turbines searched will vary by project, but suggest establishing search plots at approximately 30 percent of project turbines. According to the CEC’s guidelines, a key factor in determining the amount of turbines to search is the diversity of the habitat within a project area. The greater the habitat diversity the greater the number of turbines that should be searched in order to account for potential mortality differences between habitat types. The Shiloh IV project area, however, is relatively uniform; dryland agricultural land uses account for approximately 97 percent of the Shiloh IV project area, further reinforcing that post-construction monitoring of 100 percent of the project turbines each year is not justified for the project. The Applicant, otherwise, has committed to searching approximately 50 percent of the project turbines per year.

To formalize the stated intention of the Applicant, above, which exceeds the minimum standards of the CEC guidelines, this requirement has been added to new Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (see response to Comment 4.13), and is being added to Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, part c., as subpart iii., as provided below and in Chapters 3 and 5.

iii. A minimum of approximately 50 percent of the Project’s wind turbines shall be surveyed each year of required monitoring.

The County notes that the Applicant’s post-construction monitoring program will be vetted by both the USFWS and the CDFG as well as the Solano County Avian TAC participants through the TAC process after completion of each year of required monitoring and reporting.

4.17 Incidental Take Permits and Incidental Swainson’s Hawk Mortalities The commenter states that incidental take permits should be obtained prior to take and specify the mitigation that will be provided for the take. The County has addressed incidental take permits in Comment 4.13.

The commenter also states that CEQA mitigation measures should not be speculative. The County agrees and notes that the Draft EIR’s mitigation measures are not speculative. Mitigation measures BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, BIO-8B, On-Site Mitigation, and BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation, provide fully enforceable measures that will reduce or avoid impacts to birds and bats.

The commenter also suggests that Mitigation Measure BIO-8A does not unequivocally apply to the project, and should apply for more than three years. The County agrees with both these comments and notes that whereas Draft EIR Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, part c., requires post-construction monitoring for only the project’s first three years of operation, part g. applies during project operation, i.e., throughout the lifetime of the project. Thus, this mitigation measure does unequivocally apply to the Project throughout its lifetime.

November 30, 2011 4-42 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

4.18 Personnel Training Comment noted. The County agrees with the commenter that project personnel who conduct turbine maintenance should be informed and trained regarding whom to call and what to do in the event a carcass is discovered during routine work performance.

This requirement has been added to new Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (see response to Comment 4.13), and is being added to Mitigation Measure BIO- 8B, part d., as subpart iii., as provided below and in Chapters 3 and 5.

iii. The Applicant shall conduct bird and bat mortality monitoring in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A (Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring). In addition, the Applicant shall prepare and post a data sheet in the Project’s Operations and Maintenance facility that describes how project personnel can recognize an injured or dead bat and bird and the procedures project personnel shall take in the event an injured or dead bat and bird are discovered on-site, including whom to notify and what actions shall be taken. Bird/bat injuries and fatalities, and the responses thereto, shall be reported at least once annually to the Wildlife Response and Reporting System database, as maintained by the Altamont Infrastructure Company (AIC), 6185 Industrial Way, Livermore, CA 94550, or other repository approved by Solano County. The Applicant shall also train project personnel in these procedures.

4.19 Duration of Post-Construction Monitoring The commenter’s assertion that there is no basis for limiting post-construction monitoring to three years is incorrect. The CEC’s Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats from Wind Energy Development recommend that operational monitoring should be sufficient to determine whether pre- construction estimates of bird and bat impacts are accurate. The CEC recommends one year of mortality monitoring for project’s located in areas with available wind-wildlife data and two years of mortality monitoring for projects with unknown, little, or high potential for wildlife impacts. In addition, the USFWS’s third iteration of its voluntary, draft Land Based Wind Energy Guidelines recommend three years of morality monitoring only for projects with “high” risks, though the draft guidelines do not define what constitutes “high” risk.

The CEC guidelines state that mortality monitoring beyond two years would be rarely needed if impacts to birds and bats identified during pre-construction studies have been adequately avoided, minimized, and mitigated, which is the case for the Shiloh IV project. The Draft EIR adequately describes the bird and bat species in the Montezuma Hills region and project area, presents project- specific and cumulative estimates of bird and bat mortality, and requires the Applicant implement feasible mitigation measures to avoid and minimize bird and bat impacts, including, including BIO- 8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, BIO-8B, On-Site Mitigation, and BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation. In addition, the County has added Mitigation Measure BIO-8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk, to the project (see response to Comment 4.13).

The County’s requirement for three years of mortality monitoring meets or exceeds the post- construction monitoring recommendations of the CEC and the USFWS and is considered proportional to the project’s risks. Longer-term monitoring is therefore not considered appropriate for the project.

November 30, 2011 4-43 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

4.20 Avian Abundance and Behavior Survey Observations Comment noted. Page 8-19 of the Draft EIR and Table 1 in Appendix C of the Draft EIR indicates that the Applicant conducted 74 hours of pre-construction surveys at five observation points within or near the Shiloh IV project area from April 2007 to 2008 and an additional 40 hours at four observation points within the Shiloh IV project area from January to April 2011. These observations covered a sufficient time period to account for avian abundance and behavior throughout the year.

The commenter suggests individual sightings should be plotted on an aerial photo and included in the EIR. The County notes the Applicant observed nearly 20,000 observations of avian species at multiple observation points spread out a mile or more. Plotting these individual sightings on an aerial photo is not necessary for the County to adequately assess the project’s potential risk to birds and bats.

4.21 In-Transit Avian Observations Comment noted. Pages 8-18 to 8-19 of the Draft EIR discuss the existing body of evidence related to resident and migratory bird foraging and nesting habitat in the Montezuma Hills. This includes more than 1,300 hours of bird use counts and bird perching behavior, flight behavior, and flight height observations. In this context, the 159 raptors the Applicant’s biologist observed while driving from observation point to observation point do not substantially alter the EIR’s analysis. As noted on page 27 of Appendix C, the Applicant has included these incidental, in-transit observations to provide the reader with a better understanding of what types of raptors may be found in the Montezuma Hills.

4.22 Percent of Turbines Searched Comment noted. The High Winds project searched nearly 100 percent of project turbines on a 14- day search interval, but only for two years, while the Shiloh I project searched 50 percent of project turbines on a seven-day search interval for three years. This information is contained in the High Winds and Shiloh I project final post-construction monitoring reports, which are available on the County website at: http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/rm/planning/commercial_wind_turbine_ avian_behavior_n_mortality_reports.asp.

As described in response to Comment 4.16, the CEC’s guidelines acknowledge that the percentage of turbines searched will vary by project, but suggest establishing search plots at approximately 30 percent of project turbines. According to the CEC’s guidelines, a key factor in determining the amount of turbines to search is the diversity of the habitat within a project area. The greater the habitat diversity the greater the number of turbines that should be searched in order to account for potential mortality differences between habitat types. The Shiloh IV project area, however, is relatively uniform; dryland agricultural land uses account for approximately 97 percent of the Shiloh IV project area, so post-construction monitoring of 100 percent of the project turbines each year is not justified for the project. The Applicant, otherwise, has committed to searching approximately 50 percent of the project turbines per year. To formalize the stated intention of the Applicant, which exceeds the minimum standards of the CEC guidelines, this has been added as a project requirement, pursuant to new Mitigation Measure BIO-8E.a, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (see response to Comment 4.13), and to Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, part c., as subpart iii., as provided above in response to Comment 4.16 and in Chapters 3 and 5 of this FEIR.

November 30, 2011 4-44 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

4.23 Reduction in Golden Eagle Range Comment noted. The Draft EIR concludes the Shiloh IV project would not individually or cumulatively contribute to significant terrestrial habitat fragmentation or loss that could reduce the range of golden eagle. In addition, the Applicant’s pre-construction bird use counts recorded 14 observations of Golden Eagles in the Shiloh IV project area (Table 2 in Appendix C). Also, page 8-21 of the Draft EIR notes that surveys conducted by PG&E found a new, active golden eagle nest and territory near Meins Landing, approximately two miles west of the Shiloh IV project area. See also response to Comment 4.3.

4.24 Comparison of Bat Mortality Rates Comment noted. The Draft EIR adequately addresses the Project’s individual and cumulative impacts to bats in Chapters 8, Biological Resources, and 21, Cumulative Impacts. CEQA does not require a comparison of impacts that may occur in other regions. For information purposes, however, a review of recent EIRs prepared by Contra Costa County (Vasco Winds, December 2010 and Tres Vaqueros, May 2011) and Kern County (Pacific Wind, June 2010) did not provide numeric estimates of bat mortality associated with the project. H.T. Harvey and Associates, in its interim Bird and Bat Movement Patterns and Mortality at the Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (Johnson et al. 2010) states that bat mortality rates in Solano County associated with the High Winds and Shiloh I projects are the highest in California, but also cautions that “inconsistencies in search efficiency, mortality search interval and non-randomization of study design contribute to our inability to make inferences or comparisons between studies at the same sites.”

4.25 High Winds Mortality Monitoring Comment noted. The County cannot impose additional conditions on the High Winds project at this time.

4.26 Carcass Removal Interval and Correction Factor The commenter suggests that a seven-day carcass search interval is too long and references the preliminary, interim findings from H.T. Harvey and Associates 2010 study Bird and Bat Movement Patterns and Mortality at the Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (Johnston et al. 2010).

The County notes that the commenter’s reference contains preliminary findings that may change as the report is finalized and does not represent new information - Page 8-67 of the Draft EIR, as well as the Biological Resources chapter in general, includes a reference to this report.

The County also notes that CEC guidelines recommend researchers conduct carcass searches approximately every two weeks (14 days), with searches more or less frequent if pilot scavenging trials indicate high or low levels of carcass removal. As a matter of practice, however, wind developers in Solano County conduct project-specific trials prior to the start of post-construction monitoring in order to identify an appropriate carcass search interval for the project. As noted in response to Comment 4.22, the carcass search frequency for the Shiloh I project was seven days. In addition, the first year of mortality monitoring for the Shiloh II project was based on a seven-day search interval. These carcass search intervals exceed CEC recommendations, and the Applicant intends to conduct carcass search intervals on the same seven-day schedule. The Applicant has also agreed to conduct daily carcass removal surveys for one week in the spring, summer, fall, and winter

November 30, 2011 4-45 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

of the first year of post-construction monitoring in order to provide additional information on potential related to project mortality and carcass removal.

To formalize the stated intention of the Applicant, which exceeds the minimum standards of the CEC guidelines, this intention is included in new Mitigation Measure BIO- 8E, Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk (see response to Comment 4.13), and is being added to Mitigation Measure BIO- 8A, part c., as subpart iv., as provided below and in Chapters 3 and 5.

4.27 Impacts to Nocturnal Migrants Comment noted. The commenter references the preliminary, interim findings from Table 2 of H.T. Harvey and Associates 2010 study Bird and Bat Movement Patterns and Mortality at the Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (Johnston et al. 2010) and asserts that nocturnal migrants will pass through the Shiloh IV project area at the same height as the proposed Shiloh IV turbines. This assertion, however, is inaccurate. Table 2 from the H.T. Harvey and Associates study lists the mean nocturnal flight altitudes for passage observations as 467 + 4 meters above ground level for High Winds and 397 + 3 meters above ground level for Shiloh I. Expressed in terms of feet, these values are approximately 1,530 + 13 feet above ground level for High Winds and approximately 1,300 + 10 feet above ground level for Shiloh I. The tallest of the Shiloh IV project turbines would be approximately 415 feet in height above ground level, as measured at blade tip in the 12 o’clock position, well below the mean nocturnal flight altitudes at both High Winds and Shiloh I as identified by H.T. Harvey and Associates in its interim report.

The County also notes that page 8-67 of the Draft EIR, as well as the Biological Resources chapter in general, includes a reference to H.T. Harvey and Associates interim 2010 study. In addition, Page 8-63 of the Draft EIR identifies that more than 90 percent of the Shiloh IV project’s estimated avian mortalities would be to common non-raptor species, including night-migrating songbirds. The Draft EIR concludes that impacts to special-status birds (including night migrants) and raptors would be a significant impact, and requires the Applicant to implement feasible mitigation measures to reduce the significance of this impact, including mitigation measures BIO-8A, Bird and Bat Mortality Monitoring, BIO-8B, On-Site Mitigation, and BIO-8C, Off-Site Mitigation. In addition, Draft EIR Mitigation Measure AES-7, Limit Marking and Lighting to FAA Requirements, requires the Applicant to limit turbine marking and lighting to FAA requirements. Studies indicate that communication towers and other structures with only flashing lights attract fewer birds than structures with a combination of flashing and steady-burning lights. The FAA has reviewed the Project’s turbines and, to date, has required the Applicant to implement flashing red nighttime lighting on mostly selected perimeter turbines only, reducing the potential for night-migrating birds to be attracted to the Project turbines. November 30, 2011 4-46 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5.1 5.1

5.2

5.3 5.3

5.4 5.4

5.5 5.5 5.5 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

5 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE CENTRAL VALLEY REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (OCTOBER 11, 2011) The responses below address the comments from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board on the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project.

5.1 Consistency with Basin Plans The Hydrology and Water Quality Chapter has been revised to describe better both the SFRWQCB and CVRWQCB basin plans and to evaluate project consistency with these plans. The following table has been added to the Hydrology and Water Quality Setting to clearly identify beneficial uses of downstream water bodies:

Table 13.1-2 BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER BODIES DOWNSTREAM OF THE PROJECT AREA Water Body Existing Beneficial Uses Groundwater Municipal and Domestic Supply, Agricultural Supply, Industrial Service Supply, Industrial Process Supply Suisun Slough Fish Spawning, Warm Freshwater Habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Water Recreation, Navigation Suisun Bay Industrial Service Supply, Industrial Process Supply, Fish Spawning, Fish Migration, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, Estuarine Habitat, Commercial and Sport Fishing, Wildlife Habitat, Water Recreation, Navigation Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Industrial Service Supply, Industrial Process Supply, Fish Spawning, Fish Migration, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, Estuarine Habitat, Commercial and Sport Fishing, Wildlife Habitat, Water Recreation, Navigation Carquinez Strait Industrial Service Supply, Fish Spawning, Fish Migration, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, Estuarine Habitat, Commercial and Sport Fishing, Wildlife Habitat, Water Recreation, Navigation San Pablo Bay Industrial Service Supply, Fish Spawning, Fish Migration, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, Estuarine Habitat, Commercial and Sport Fishing, Wildlife Habitat, Water Recreation, Navigation, Shellfish Harvesting Central San Francisco Bay Industrial Service Supply, Industrial Process Supply, Fish Spawning, Fish Migration, Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species, Estuarine Habitat, Commercial and Sport Fishing, Wildlife Habitat, Water Recreation, Navigation, Shellfish Harvesting Sources: SFBRWQCB 2010 and CVRWQCB 2009.

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act heading of the Regulatory Setting Section, on page 13-8, has been revised to include the following table identifying the categories of water quality objectives for inland surface water and groundwater in the SFBRWQCB and CVRWQCB basin plans:

November 30, 2011 4-53 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

Table 13.2-1 CATEGORIES OF WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES IN THE SFBRWQCB AND CVRWQCB BASIN PLANS Basin Plan Groundwater Inland Surface Water San Francisco Bay Bacteria, Organic and Bacteria, Bioaccumulation, Biostimulatory Basin Inorganic Chemical Substances, Color, Dissolved Oxygen, Floating Constituents, Material, Oil and Grease, Population and Radioactivity, Taste Community Ecology, Ph, Radioactivity, Salinity, and Odor Sediment, Settleable Material, Suspended Material, Sulfide, Taste and Odor, Temperature, Toxicity, Turbidity, Un-Ionized Ammonia, Chemical Constituents, Constituents of Concern for Municipal and Agricultural Water Supplies Sacramento River Bacteria, Chemical Bacteria, Biostimulatory Substances, Chemical Basin and the San Constituents, Constituents, Color, Dissolved Oxygen, Floating Joaquin River Basin Radioactivity, Tastes Material, Mercury, Methylmercury, Oil and Grease, (Central Valley) and Odors, And Ph, Pesticides, Radioactivity, Salinity, Sediment, Toxicity Settleable Material, Suspended Material, Taste and Odor, Temperature, Toxicity, Turbidity Sources: SFRWQCB 2010 and CVRWQCB 2009.

The Impact section of the Hydrology and Water Quality chapter has been revised to include a discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with the Basin Plans. The following paragraph has been added below the second paragraph following the Level of Significance heading for Impact HYD-2: Impacts on Water Quality, on page 13-17:

5.2 Policy Statement on Maintaining High Quality Waters in California Comment noted. The Shiloh IV Project would not significantly degrade water quality within the project area or downstream water bodies.

5.3 List of Impaired Water Bodies The County has reviewed the 2010 Clean Water Act 303(d) list and, under the “Water Quality” heading on page 13-5, added the following table to provide a more comprehensive list of 303(d) affected water bodies within and downstream of the project area (See Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, of this Final EIR).

November 30, 2011 4-54 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

Table 13.1-1 IMPAIRED OR THREATENED WATER BODIES AND POLLUTANTS DOWNSTREAM OF THE PROJECT AREA Water Body Pollutant Suisun Marsh Wetlands Mercury, Nutrients, Organic Enrichment/Low Dissolved Oxygen, Salinity, Total Dissolved Solids, Chlorides Suisun Slough Diazinon Suisun Bay Chlordane, Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Selenium Sacramento San Joaquin Delta Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, PCBs, Selenium Carquinez Strait Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, PCBs, Selenium San Pablo Bay Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, PCBs, Selenium Central San Francisco Bay Chlordane, DDT, Dieldrin, Dioxin Compounds, Furan Compounds, Invasive Species, Mercury, PCBs, Selenium Source: SWRCB 2010.

5.4 Permitting Requirements Both the Project Description and the Hydrology and Water Resources chapter of the Shiloh IV EIR identify all potential permitting requirements associated with water resources and state that the Shiloh IV Project would comply with all necessary permitting requirements. Specifically, the construction of the Project would comply with the Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009 DWQ, and the Applicant would implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and associated best management practices. If the Project would result in impacts to wetlands or waters of the United States, the Applicant would need to meet Section 404 Permit and Section 401 Permit requirements. If the Project would impact non-jurisdictional wetlands, the RWQCB may issue a Waste Discharge Report

5.5 Comply with General Requirements for Issuing 401 Water Quality Certifications or Waste Discharge Requirements Comment noted; the Project would comply with the Clean Water Act. Although the County does not anticipate that the Shiloh IV Project would discharge fluids into water bodies, HDD drilling may result in discharges of drilling fluids into a stream, vernal pool, or wetland. The Applicant would be required, by law, to comply with general requirements for 401 Water Quality Certification if the USACOE determines that a Section 404 permit was required for impacts to waters of the United States and would have to comply with general requirements for a Waste Discharge Report if the RWQCB determines that it would impact non-jurisdictional wetlands. The implementation of mitigation measure BIO-2B as revised in Chapter 3, Errata and Revisions, would reduce potential effects of HDD under aquatic resources.

November 30, 2011 4-55 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR

MINUTES OF THE SOLANO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting of September 15, 2011

The regular meeting of the Solano County Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors' Chambers, Fairfield, California.

PRESENT: Commissioners Boschee, Rhoads-Poston, Karah, Cayler and Chairman Mahoney EXCUSED:

STAFF PRESENT: Bill Emlen, Director; Mike Yankovich, Planning Program Manager; Nedzlene Ferrario, Senior Planner; Ken Solomon, Contract Planner; David Cliché, Building Official; John Silva, Code Enforcement Officer; and Kristine Letterman, Planning Commission Clerk

Items from the floor - none

The Minutes of the regular meeting of August 18, 2011 were approved as prepared.

1. PUBLIC HEARING to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and receive public comments for the proposed development by Shiloh Wind Partners, LLC (enXco) of the Shiloh IV wind energy project, comprising 50 wind turbine generators with the capacity to generate 100 Megawatts (MW) of electricity in the Montezuma Hills wind resource area in Solano County, approximately 1.5 miles south of Highway 12, north and south of the southerly portion of Birds Landing Road. The project is located mostly east of Collinsville Road, except for one isolated parcel that is west of Collinsville Road. The community of Birds Landing is adjacent to the western boundary of the project, Collinsville is approximately 1.5 miles to the south, and Rio Vista (City Limits) is approximately six miles to the east. The project area is characterized by rolling hills used for grazing, farming and wind power, and is designated Agriculture by the General Plan and is zoned Exclusive Agricultural (A-160). (Project Planner: Ken Solomon)

Ken Solomon gave a brief summary of the project. He stated that the purpose of this public meeting is to provide an overview of the project and to accept testimony from the public on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

Chairman Mahoney noted for the record that he has windmills located on his personal property and his family receives revenue from enXco for the placement of those windmills. He stated that this project is located miles from his home and he has no direct financial interest in this project.

Commissioner Cayler stated that she has met with enXco representatives to discuss the project.

Minutes of the Solano County Planning Commission Meeting of September 15, 2011

Stu Russell, Consultant, Point Impact Analysis, gave a detailed PowerPoint presentation which provided an overview of the project including location, existing and planned projects, CEQA process, environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and cumulative impacts alternatives.

Hansen Wood, enXco, 4000 Executive Parkway, San Ramon, also provided a PowerPoint presentation which included the history of the company and their existing wind facilities, and a description of the proposed project.

Since there were no questions or comments, Chairman Mahoney opened the public hearing.

Jim Jacobs, 2540 N. Watney Way, Fairfield, stated that he is a business representative for the Operating Engineers and spoke in support of the project. He stated that the project wins on 6.1 every angle. He said that Shiloh III currently employs 100% of the operating engineers from the Fairfield District office. Mr. Jacobs stated that this project is a winner and is environmentally sound.

Dan Broadwater, 320 Saybrook Avenue, Vacaville, stated that he is the business manager of IBW Local 180. He stated that he represents 700 electricians in Napa and Solano counties. He 6.2 stated that there are approximately 80 electricians working on the three enXco projects that are currently in operation. Mr. Broadwater stated that the financial impacts to the people that are living in this area exceed the negative impacts.

Robert Valdez, 248 Plantation Way, Vacaville, submitted his written comments to the commission. He voiced his concern that the project will impact cumulatively both the wildlife and habitats in the Montezuma Hills area with the additional 50 wind turbines. He stated that he is 6.3 concerned about the environmental impacts to migratory species known to coexist in the natural corridor within this project site. Mr. Valdez noted his intent to comment more specifically on the DEIR prior to the October 11th deadline. Mr. Valdez urged staff to work closely with both the Friends of Swainson Hawk and Napa-Solano Audubon Society with regards to SH & Bird Atlas Survey to avoid minimal impact to known birds within as well as adjacent to the project site.

Since there were no further speakers Chairman Mahoney closed the public hearing.

Ken Solomon summarized the process by explaining that at this point the project is involved in the 45-day review process for the DEIR with the comment period closing on October 11th; after that comments will be reviewed, comments will be provided, and any project revisions will be incorporated into the Final EIR that will be redistributed for a 10-day review period. Staff anticipates the review and certification date being December 15th and depending upon the extent and nature of comments on the DEIR, on that date also presenting the use permit for planning commission approval.

2. PUBLIC HEARING to consider Use Permit Application No. U-06-05 of Fred and Brenda Bray (Color Dot Nursery) to allow a landscape maintenance company located at 7624 Leisure Town Road 1.1 mile north of the City of Vacaville in an "A-40" Exclusive Agricultural Zoning District, APN: 0106-100-110. This project is determined to be categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Project Planner: Nedzlene Ferrario)

2 Minutes of the Solano County Planning Commission Meeting of September 15, 2011

Nedzlene Ferrario gave a brief presentation of staff’s written report. She reviewed the project description, history of the site, General Plan and Zoning consistency, property access issues and code violation issues. Ms. Ferrario stated that since 2004 the Department has been working with the applicant to bring the site into conformance with Zoning and Building Code regulations.

Staff provided a memo to the commission dated September 14, 2011 modifying Condition Nos. 2a with regard to building permits, 2b regarding SID access and Condition No. 8 with regard to company service vehicle parking. Ms. Ferrario stated that staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions including the amended conditions. Ferrario noted that the applicant has asked for more time to resolve the issue with regard to access across the canal. She said that SID staff concurred with extending the time of compliance until March 2012.

Chairman Mahoney opened the public hearing. Since there were no speakers either for or against this matter, Chairman Mahoney closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commissioner Boschee and seconded by Commissioner Rhoads- Poston to approve Use Permit Application No. U-05-06 subject to the recommended conditions of approval including the modified conditions presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously. (Resolution No. 4557)

3. ANNOUNCEMENTS and REPORTS

There were no announcements or reports.

4. Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

3 4 Comment Letters and Responses to Comments

6 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE SOLANO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (SEPTEMBER 15, 2011) The responses below address the comments that are pertinent to the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project.

6.1 Mr. Jim Jacobs: Job Creation Comment noted.

6.2 Mr. Dan Broadwater: Job Creation Comment noted.

6.3 Mr. Roberto Valdez: Biology During the Solano County Planning Commission Meeting, Roberto Valdez presented his written comments, submitted September 15, 2011, on the Shiloh IV project. His comments are addressed in Section 2B of this chapter.

REFERENCES Jackman 2011a. Jackman, Ron. Wildlife Biologist, Garcia and Associates. “Re: Meins Landing Nest.” Email message to Chris Dugan, TRA Environmental Sciences. October 21, 2011.

November 30, 2011 4-59 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR This page intentionally left blank

5 PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

This page intentionally left blank

5 Proposed MMRP

5 REVISED PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM This revised Proposed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which replaces the MMRP (Table 23.2-1) in the DEIR, describes roles and responsibilities in monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures for the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project, pursuant to Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt a reporting and monitoring program to ensure the implementation of measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. This document is a working guide to facilitate not only the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, but also the other monitoring, compliance, and reporting activities associated with the proposed Project.

While a copy of the Proposed MMRP is included as a part of the Shiloh IV EIR, it is a standalone document to be adopted separately by Solano County. The MMRP may also be amended by the County, if determined necessary, subsequent to certification of the Shiloh IV EIR.

5.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES As the lead agency under CEQA, the Solano County Department of Resource Management (County) is required to monitor this project to ensure that the proposed mitigation measures are implemented effectively. The County would appoint one person with responsibility for implementing the Mitigation Monitoring Program and that person would have the authority to halt any activity associated with project construction, if the activity is determined to be a deviation from the proposed Project or mitigation measures. The County would maintain a record of its monitoring activities during construction and operation of the facilities.

5.2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The table attached to this program presents a compilation of the mitigation measures proposed in this Final EIR. This table provides a comprehensive list of mitigation measures, the monitoring/reporting action to be taken, and the party responsible for monitoring the mitigation measures listed. Where mitigation measures have been changed since the publication of the Draft EIR, new text is underlined and deleted text is marked as strikethrough.

November 30, 2011 5-1 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency 5 Aesthetic/Visual Resources Impact AES-1: Degradation of None Feasible N/A N/A N/A Views from Birds Landing Impact AES-2: Alteration of None Required N/A N/A N/A Views for Collinsville, Rio Vista, Pittsburg, and Antioch Impact AES-3: Degradation of None Required N/A N/A N/A the Views from Residences in the Shiloh IV Wind Project Area and Along Local Roads as a Result of the Substation Impact AES-4: Impact on Scenic None Required N/A N/A N/A Vistas from State Route 12, and State Route 113, and Grizzly Island Road Impact AES-5: Degradation of None Feasible N/A N/A N/A the Visual Character of the Landscape from Public (County) Roads and Dispersed Rural Residences Impact AES-6: Alteration of None Required N/A N/A N/A Anticipated Views and Character of the Landscape for Visitors to Recreation and Tourist Destinations including the Western Railway Museum Suisun Marsh Impact AES-7: Additional Light Mitigation Measure AES-7: Limit Marking and Inspect project site Solano County Start of and Glare as a Result of Lighting Lighting to FAA Requirements DRM operations The Applicant shall:

November 30, 2011 5-2 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency a. Only install marking and lighting on turbines in accordance with FAA requirements; the turbines shall not be lighted for other reasons. Strobe lighting shall be prohibited unless specifically required by FAA and no other alternative is available. b. Obtain a No Hazard Determination from the FAA for each turbine or meteorological tower that would be installed as part of the Project, as required in Mitigation Measure TRA-5: Notifications and Revised Turbine Siting. The Applicant shall submit an FAA Form 7460- 1 for each tower location. Prior to construction issuance of building permits for each turbine and meteorological tower, the Applicant shall submit the necessary FAA determination to Solano County. c. If the Applicant modifies the Project after obtaining the FAA determinations, the Applicant shall submit a new FAA Form 7460-1 for each new or modified turbine and meteorological tower taller than 200 feet. The Applicant shall submit the new FAA determinations to Solano County prior to construction of issuance of building permits for any affected turbines and meteorological towers. Impact AES-8: Decommissioning Mitigation Measure AES-8: Remove all Project Inspect project site Solano County After de- of the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Facilities and Restore the Project Area DRM commissioning Project Facilities Could Cause The Applicant shall remove all project facilities upon Aesthetic/Visual Resource Impacts decommissioning. At such time as the Project is decommissioned, the following procedures shall apply: a. All facilities shall be removed to a depth of three feet below grade, and unsalvageable material shall be disposed of at authorized sites; b. The soft surface shall be restored to as close as November 30, 2011 5-3 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency reasonably possible to its original condition; c. Reclamation procedures shall be based on-site-specific requirements and shall include regrading and revegetation of all disturbed areas; d. Decommissioned roads shall be reclaimed or left in place based on landowner preference. 6 Agriculture Impact AG-1: Potential Conflict None required N/A N/A N/A with Williamson Act Contracts in the Project Area Impact AG-2: Permanent None required N/A N/A N/A Conversion of Lands to Non- Agricultural Use in the Project Area Impact AG-3: Temporary None required N/A N/A N/A Disturbance of Agricultural Lands during Construction Impact AG-4: Temporary Impacts Mitigation AG-4: Confine Construction Activities to Inspect site prior to Solano County Prior to and on Agricultural Lands Adjacent to Necessary Work Areas. Prior to commencement of any and periodically DRM periodically Construction Areas construction activities, the Applicant shall fence or flag the during construction during construction area boundaries to limit the construction period to verify construction footprint, avoid intrusion into adjacent agricultural areas, compliance and reduce other potential impacts (e.g., dust, spills, invasives) to adjacent agricultural operations. The construction boundary fencing or flagging shall be in addition to, and distinguished apart from, any other exclusionary fencing or flagging required for the protection of sensitive resources pursuant to mitigation measures BIO-1A (Minimize Habitat Disturbance), BIO-

November 30, 2011 5-4 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency 1B (Restore Disturbed Habitats within Project Area), BIO-2A (Avoid Impacts to Aquatic Resources [Wetlands, Vernal Pools, Streams, and Other Potential Waters of the U.S.]), BIO-2B (Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling under Aquatic Resources [Wetlands, Vernal Pools, Streams, and Other Potential Waters of the U.S.]), and BIO-4 (Habitat Avoidance - California Tiger Salamander).

Mitigation Measures AIR-2, HAZ-1A, and HAZ-1B Impact AG-5: Soil Erosion, Soil Mitigation AG-5: Restore and Decompact Final site Solano County Prior to close- Loss, and Decrease in Soil Temporarily Disturbed Agricultural Areas. The inspection after DRM out of grading Productivity Applicant shall restore all temporarily disturbed completion of permit and/or agricultural areas to preconstruction conditions to the restoration is issuance of extent feasible, including decompaction, restoration of reported by final natural contours, and revegetation where appropriate. Applicant Certificates of Occupancy Mitigation Measures BIO-1A, BIO-1B, GEO-3, HYD 2A, and HYD-2B

Impact AG-6: Impediments to the Mitigation AG-6: Restore Disturbed Areas to Inspect project site Solano County After decom- Resumption of Agricultural Use Previous Conditions after Decommissioning. To DRM missioning and ensure resumption of full agricultural use after prior to release decommissioning, Solano County shall, at its discretion, of decom- compare the project area after decommissioning with the missioning baseline conditions established in this Draft EIR, and, bond or surety based on this assessment, the Applicant shall undertake held by County any additional actions required by Solano County to restore the area to preconstruction conditions.

November 30, 2011 5-5 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

7 Air Quality Impact AIR-1: Short-term Mitigation Measure AIR-1A: BAAQMD Basic Control N/A N/A N/A Increase in Emissions of Criteria Measures to Control Construction-Related NOx Pollutants from Construction Emissions Equipment and Vehicles During construction, the applicant shall reduce NOx emissions by implementing the basic control measures to reduce NOx emissions. • Idling times shall be minimized by shutting off equipment it is not in use or by reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure 13 CCR 2485). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Mitigation Measure AIR-1B: BAAQMD Additional Control Measures to Control Construction-Related NOx Emissions During construction, the applicant shall reduce NOx emissions by implementing the basic control measures to reduce NOx emissions from construction equipment. • Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. • The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off‐road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be

November 30, 2011 5-6 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet‐average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low‐emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after‐treatment products, add‐on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. • Use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). • Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. • Require all contractors use equipment that meets ARB’s most recent certification standard for off‐road heavy-duty diesel engines.

Impact AIR-2: Temporary Mitigation Measure AIR-2: Fugitive Dust Controls 1) Inspect project 1 & 2) Solano 1) Periodically Increase in Fugitive Dust site periodically County DRM during during construction construction. a. During construction, the applicant shall reduce fugitive period to verify dust emissions by implementing the standard compliance mitigation measures outlined in Table 7.4-3. 2) Approval

b. During periods of high wind conditions (i.e., winds of plan at least exceeding 25 miles per hour [mph]), the Applicant shall 2) Review and 5 days prior to reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction approve the construction activities by implementing the mitigation measures Construction Fugitive Dust

November 30, 2011 5-7 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency outlined in Table 7.4-4. Control Plan In addition to the mitigation measures outlined in Tables 7.4-3 and 7.4-4, the Applicant shall reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction activities by implementing the following standard mitigation measures recommended by the BAAQMD and YSAQMD: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) and construction sites not controlled with one of the methods outlined in Table 7.4-3 or Table 7.4-4 shall be watered when there is evidence of wind-driven dust. • Hydroseed or apply nontoxic stabilizers to construction areas that are scheduled to be inactive for more than four consecutive days during all wind conditions. • Haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered or haul trucks shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard during all wind conditions. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto paved access roads, parking areas, staging areas, and adjacent public roads shall be cleaned using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading

November 30, 2011 5-8 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency unless seeding or soil binders are used. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The local air district’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Since construction-related emissions could exceed the applicable thresholds of significance, the following additional construction mitigation measures (recommended by the local air districts) shall be implemented: • Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the Applicant shall prepare a Construction Fugitive Dust Control Plan and submit it to the County for approval. This plan shall describe how to minimize fugitive dust generated by construction activities and shall include the following: • A description of each active operation that may result in the generation of fugitive dust; • Identification of all sources of fugitive dust (e.g., earthmoving, storage piles, and vehicular traffic); • A description of the control measures to be applied to each of the sources of dust emissions identified above. The description will be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the

November 30, 2011 5-9 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency applicable best available control measure(s) will be utilized and/or installed during all periods of active operations; • In the event that there are special technical circumstances (e.g., non-economic), including safety, which prevent the use of at least one of the required mitigation measures for any of the sources identified, a justification statement will be provided to explain the reason(s) why the required control measures cannot be implemented; and • A process for addressing complaints received by sensitive receptors (either directly or through the County) due to dust and alternative strategies to resolve such complaints, such as increased watering and implementation of additional dust control measures. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall restore and stabilize all areas that will only be temporarily disturbed (i.e., areas that will not be covered with surface structures such as buildings and pavement and or gravel) according to Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Impact AIR-3: Long-Term None Required N/A N/A N/A Emissions from Operations and Maintenance Impact AIR-4: Expose Sensitive None Required N/A N/A N/A Receptors to Diesel Particulate Matter 8 Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: Impacts to Mitigation Measure BIO-1A: Minimize Habitat 1) Inspect project 1 & 2) Solano 1 & 2) Prior Terrestrial Habitat Disturbance. To minimize temporary disturbance impacts site prior to and County DRM to and

November 30, 2011 5-10 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency on terrestrial lands the Applicant shall comply with the periodically during periodically following: construction period during and a. Minimize disturbance to habitats and vegetation during to verify after site preparation and construction. The clearing of all compliance. construction vegetation, grading, and other soil disturbance shall be restricted to those areas required for construction and, 2) Inspect project to the extent feasible, shall occur in areas with little or site after no vegetation. This mitigation is in addition to construction to Mitigation Measure AG-4 (Confine construction evaluate activities to necessary work areas) requiring fencing or revegetation and flagging of the construction area boundaries to limit restoration efforts. the construction footprint, avoid intrusion into adjacent agricultural areas, and reduce other potential impacts (e.g., dust, spills, spread of invasive species) to adjacent agricultural operations. b. Assign a qualified biologist as an on-site point of contact for the Solano County biological monitor (or other County designee). The County monitor shall be allowed access to the site during the construction and post-restoration period to ensure compliance with County policies and procedures and shall have the authority to halt construction activities in consultation with the assigned point of contact. Mitigation Measure BIO-1B: Restore Disturbed Habitats within Project Area a. After construction, and prior to project operation, restore and revegetate all areas disturbed by construction to pre-construction conditions as follows: i. Revegetation shall occur in accordance with Solano Grading Ordinance guidelines, with consideration given to landowner input and/or agreement

November 30, 2011 5-11 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency between the Applicant and landowner, where disturbance occurs. ii. Disturbed or graded areas shall be planted with fast-growing and deep-rooted grasses or ground cover, preferably native to the area, unless the area is actively used for farming and re-seeding would conflict with agricultural activities. Invasive pest species, as listed by Cal-IPC, shall not be used (http://www.cal-ipc.org/). A qualified biologist shall have oversight of species selected. iii. Revegetated areas shall be monitored until revegetation has been completed and successful ground cover has been established in accordance with the requirements of the Solano County Grading Ordinance. iv. If required by the County, previously vegetated areas and inactive portions of the construction site shall be seeded and watered until vegetation is grown, unless the area is actively used for farming and re-seeding would conflict with agricultural activities. v. Any trees with active or suspected raptor or other special-status avian species nests shall not be removed. Other trees without nests that cannot be avoided and are removed shall be replaced with native tree species of similar size and structure, unless otherwise requested by the landowner in writing and approved by the County. Replacement trees shall be watered and maintained as necessary

November 30, 2011 5-12 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency to ensure 90% survival rate after 5 years. Mitigation Measure AG-4 Impact BIO-2: Impacts to Mitigation Measure BIO-2A: Avoid Impacts to 1) Consult with 1 to 7) Solano 1) Prior to Aquatic Resources (Wetlands, Aquatic Resources (Wetlands, Ponds, Vernal Pools, Applicant’s County DRM construction Ponds, Vernal Pools, Streams, and Streams, and Other Potential Waters of the U.S. biologist on 2) Prior to and other Potential Waters of the U.S.) and/or the State). The Applicant shall avoid impacts to wetland delineation during aquatic resources through implementation of appropriate and review and construction approve delineation siting measures, County verification, employee education, and use of HDD as follows: reports, as necessary. 3) At a. Locate all construction activities and all project construction

components at least 250 feet from ponds and vernal startup and pools pursuant to Mitigation Measure BIO-4 a. 2) Review and periodically (Habitat Avoidance – California Tiger Salamander and approve planned during Special-Status Invertebrate Species) and at least 100 locations for construction ground feet from all other aquatic resources, where feasible. b. If, as determined by Solano County, it is not feasible disturbance, including HDD 4) As to maintain the aquatic resource setbacks required by locations and necessary paragraph a. above, the County may allow depths. during and encroachment within the setback depending on site- prior to

specific factors, subject to advance review and construction 3) Inspect project approval of the following, unless otherwise determined unnecessary by the County: site periodically 5) As i. The Applicant shall submit a supplemental during construction period to verify necessary prior evaluation that details how the proposed to construction construction activity would avoid potential impacts compliance and

to the aquatic resource, including BMPs the confirm buffer zones appropriately Applicant would implement to avoid impacting the 6) During flagged and aquatic resource. construction avoided, including

ii. Advance consultation with USFWS and/or HDD locations. CDFG, as may be determined necessary by the 7) Prior to

November 30, 2011 5-13 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency County. Verify trainings and construction c. If it is not feasible to avoid placement of lines for the tailgate reviews are power collection system across an aquatic resource, as conducted. determined by the County, the Applicant shall install the lines: 4) If applicable, i. Under the aquatic resource using the HDD review justification method in accordance with Mitigation Measure for any area where BIO-2B (Avoid Impacts from Horizontal reduced setbacks Directional Drilling); or are requested and determine whether ii. If HDD is not feasible, the Applicant may install to approve. overhead lines above aquatic resources, if

approved by the County and subject to the following requirements: 5) Consult with Applicant if fill is a.) The Applicant shall provide advance notice required and review and sufficient justification that overheading is and approve necessary, as determined by the County; Habitat Mitigation b.) Overhead lines shall comply with the design and Monitoring Plan. elements listed in Mitigation Measure BIO-8 Evaluate (Direct Mortality of Raptors, Other Avian restoration. Species, and Bats) and all work activities and Confirm facilities associated with the overhead line (e.g., compensation. poles) shall be set back 250 feet from Monitor active boundaries of ponds and vernal pools and 100 ground disturbance feet from the boundaries of all other aquatic activities. resources. 6) Consult with d. If the Applicant modifies the project configuration or Applicant in the proposes to widen the existing enXco V access road in event of a frac-out subarea D such that construction activities would during HDD. involve placement of fill material or equipment within

November 30, 2011 5-14 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency or adjacent to an aquatic resource, then the Applicant shall do the following: 7) Issue a i. Conduct a wetland delineation for the affected well/boring permit, aquatic resources and submit the report to Solano as needed, for County. The delineation shall shall be conducted HDD. by a qualified wetland biologist and be subject to verification by the Solano County biological monitor and County determination of adequacy. The Applicant’s qualified wetland biologist shall be a person with at least an undergraduate degree in biology, ecology, or related field, with USACE training and a minimum of three years of professional experience in the region or working under the direct supervision of a wetland biologist with USACE training and at least six ears of field experience in the region. The wetland delineation shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent USACE and CDFG wetland delineation protocols, including the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual for the Arid West Region. ii. If the Applicant submits a wetland delineation to the USACE, the Applicant shall concurrently submit a copy to Solano County and, in addition, a copy of any USACE determination of jurisdiction within five days of said determination. iii. Prepare a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and submit it to Solano County for review by its

November 30, 2011 5-15 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency biological monitor and County determination of adequacy. The Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be written by a qualified wetland biologist, which shall be submitted to and approved by the USACE, USFWS, and/or CDFG prior to initiating any mitigation activities. The plan shall outline restoration and conservation activities, locations, monitoring and reporting requirements, and criteria to measure mitigation success. The County may consult with the USACE, USFWS, or CDFG about the adequacy of the plan. iv. If the Applicant provides Section 1600 notification to the CDFG of the proposed activity affecting aquatic resources, the Applicant shall concurrently provide a copy of the notice to Solano County. In addition, the Applicant will provide the County with a copy of any written determination by CDFG that the activity may commence without an agreement (if any written determination is received within the notification timeframe mandated), or a copy of any final Section 1600 agreement for the proposed activity (if the Applicant enters into an Agreement with DFG), within 5 days of receipt of said determination or agreement. v. If permitting and/or notification under Section 404 of the CWA, or under Section 1600 is necessary, the Applicant shall submit a copy of the permit or agreement to Solano County within 5

November 30, 2011 5-16 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency days of receipt. vi. Compensate for permanent impacts on aquatic resources by identifying lands that provide for wetlands restoration, creation, or preservation of wetlands at a 1:1 ratio or another ratio approved by the appropriate jurisdictional agency, whichever is higher. vii. Restore temporarily impacted aquatic resources to pre-construction condition and monitor during and after disturbance for a minimum of three years. e. Identify aquatic resources and their corresponding setback required by paragraph a. above (i.e., 100- or 250- foot setback) on all project construction drawings and plans (e.g., grading and improvement plans). f. Prior to any construction activity, assign a qualified biologist to fence or flag the location of aquatic resources and their corresponding setback required by paragraph a. above (i.e. 100 or 250 foot setback). Fencing or flagging shall be in addition to, and distinguished apart from, any required construction boundary fencing or flagging pursuant to mitigation measure AG-4. g. Prior to trenching across dry valleys that are mapped by the USGS as seasonal streams but were not observed during 2011 field studies prepared for the project EIR to contain any obvious signs of streambeds or streambanks, the Applicant shall assign a qualified biologist to verify that streambeds or

November 30, 2011 5-17 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency streambanks are, in fact, not present. If there are no well-defined channels with distinguishable bed and bank showing evidence of having contained flowing water indicated by the deposit of rock, sand, gravel or soil present, the Applicant may proceed with trenching. If streambeds or streambanks are present, the Applicant shall proceed using HDD in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-2B (Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling under Aquatic Resources). h. The Applicant’s qualified wetland biologist shall hold a tailgate environmental training program with construction personnel. Training shall be conducted prior to commencement of construction, to inform construction personnel of the aquatic resources in the project area. The training program shall include information about the locations and extent of these aquatic resources, methods of resource avoidance, permit conditions, and possible fines for violations of permit conditions and state or federal environmental laws. The training program shall be recorded and subsequently shown to any construction personnel who are not able to attend the initial training program prior to their participation in any construction activity. Mitigation Measure BIO-2B: Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling under Aquatic Resources (Wetlands, Vernal Pools, Streams, and Other Potential Waters of the U.S.). The Applicant shall comply with the following mitigation measures to minimize the potential effects of HDD:

November 30, 2011 5-18 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency a. To the extent practicable, HDD drilling shall occur only during the dry season (i.e., typically April through October). i. Should it be necessary to conduct HDD operations outside the dry season, the operations shall be monitored by a qualified environmental monitor (i.e., a biologist having previous HDD monitoring experience), who shall: a) Be Either be the Applicant’s biologist or a third-party individual who shall work on behalf of Solano County at the expense of the Applicant; and b) Have knowledge of the environmental sensitivities of the project area, an understanding of the design process and construction practices and shall understand the conditions of the site and provide feedback to the construction staff regarding environmental sensitivities, regulatory concerns, and physical limitations of the field conditions. ii. The environmental monitor, as required in paragraph a.i., above, shall visually inspect the aquatic resource and surrounding area for evidence of drilling fluids surfacing from the operation. The environmental monitor shall monitor the drilling fluid circulation at the HDD site and be aware of the status of the operation. iii. If the environmental monitor suspects a potential drilling fluid leak (frac-out) that is not yet observed

November 30, 2011 5-19 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency at the surface (e.g., loss of drilling mud in the pit but no frac-out at the surface), the Applicant shall cease HDD activities immediately and the HDD contractor shall implement measures to reduce the potential for a frac-out (e.g., increase the density of the drilling mud or reduce the pressure of the drill). The Applicant shall then be allowed to continue HDD activities. If a frac-out occurs, the Applicant shall implement paragraph e, below. b. HDD under ponds and vernal pools that provide CTS habitat is prohibited. The Applicant shall ensure HDD bore entry and exit pits are located at least 250 feet from ponds and vernal pools that provide CTS habitat and 100 feet from all other aquatic resources and shall conduct suitable evaluations prior to HDD activity to identify the appropriate depth to be maintained underneath aquatic resources to avoid and minimize potential impacts from frac-outs. c. The Applicant shall obtain a well/boring permit from the Solano County Department of Resource Management Environmental Health Division under Solano County Code Chapter 13.10 prior to initiating any HDD of which the depth of the HDD is greater than or equal to 15 feet below ground surface or if groundwater is anticipated to be encountered at any depth, unless otherwise determined unnecessary by the Solano County Environmental Health Division. The Applicant shall also obtain an encroachment permit from Solano County Public Works Engineering prior to initiating any HDD within or below any County

November 30, 2011 5-20 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency road right-of-way. Said permit applications shall be accompanied by site plans presented to scale on aerial and topographical maps and which illustrate at a minimum the locations of all borings used for geologic review as may be required in paragraph d, below, entrance and exit HDD boring locations, setbacks from sensitive areas, water supply wells, septic systems, buildings, and existing utilities, public roads and right- of-way, private access roads, and existing reference points (structures, turbines, etc…). d. The Applicant shall provide recommendations from a California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer, who shall review the drilling plans, site specific geologic and other conditions and factors, and determine whether the boring depth, drilling pressure, and boring and setback locations are appropriate to avoid and minimize potential impacts to aquatic resources from frac-outs. The evaluation shall be presented in writing and stamped by a California- licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer along with the boring permit application, where required, to the Solano County Environmental Health Division for review and approval prior to issuance of a boring permit. If such permit is not required per paragraph c, above, then the evaluation together with the site plans required in paragraph c, above, shall be submitted to the Solano County Planning Division for review and approval prior to the start of HDD activities at the aquatic resources location. The Applicant’s evaluation may, at the sole

November 30, 2011 5-21 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency discretion of Solano County, be subject to peer review by a third party qualified professional expert hired by the County at the expense of the applicant. e. The Applicant shall prepare a Frac-Out Avoidance and Contingency Plan that describes the procedures required to reduce the potential for discharges, the response equipment (e.g. vacuum truck) including containment and clean-up supplies (e.g., straw bales, sedimentation fences, etc.) to be kept on-site, the measures to be implemented in the event of a frac-out, including the notification requirements listed in paragraph h.iii below, and restoration requirements. The Frac-Out Avoidance and Contingency Plan shall be submitted to the Solano County Department of Resource Management for review and approval prior to commencement of HDD activities at aquatic resource locations. The Frac-Out Avoidance and Contingency Plan shall be kept on-site at drilling locations during HDD activities. f. If the Applicant provides Section 1600 notification to the CDFG of the proposed HDD drilling activity, the Applicant shall concurrently provide a copy of the notice to Solano County. In addition, the Applicant shall provide the County with a copy of any written determination by CDFG that the activity may commence without an agreement, or a copy of any final Section 1600 agreement for the proposed HDD activity, as may be applicable, within 5 days of receipt of said determination or agreement. f. Prior to HDD activities, the Applicant’s biologist shall

November 30, 2011 5-22 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency conduct on-site briefings for all HDD workers to ensure all field personnel understand the location of aquatic resources and their responsibility for timely reporting of frac-outs. g. Barriers (e.g., straw bales, sedimentation fences, etc.) shall be erected between the bore site and required (protective) setback boundary for any nearby aquatic resources prior to drilling, as appropriate, to prevent any material from reaching aquatic resource areas. h. The necessary response equipment and supplies (e.g., vacuum truck, straw bales, sediment fencing) shall be kept on-site by the contractor during HDD operations so that they are readily available in the event of a frac- out. g. If the Applicant suspects a potential drilling fluid leak (frac-out) that is not yet observed at the surface (e.g., loss of drilling mud in the pit but no frac-out at the surface), the Applicant shall cease HDD activities immediately and the HDD contractor shall implement measures to reduce the potential for a frac-out (e.g., increase the density of the drilling mud or reduce the pressure of the drill). The Applicant shall then be allowed to continue HDD activities. If a frac-out occurs, the Applicant shall implement paragraph h, below. h. In the event a frac-out is detected, the Applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce or minimize effects on the affected aquatic resource: i. All work shall stop until the frac-out has been

November 30, 2011 5-23 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency contained and cleaned up;. ii. The frac-out area shall be isolated with straw bales, sand bags, or silt fencing to surround and contain the drilling mud and clean-up shall be performed using a vacuum truck, where appropriate, supported by construction workers on foot using hand tools, as necessary (mechanized equipment shall not be used to scoop or scrape up frac-out materials to prevent impacting the wetland or streambanks); and. iii. When a If the frac-out has occurred within where it flows or may flow into an aquatic resource, the Applicant shall notify the appropriate jurisdictional agency (USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFG) and the : a) The Solano County Public Works – Engineering Department of Resource Management by telephone and email within 24 hours of the frac-out. This notification shall provide the date and time, location, and depth of the bore and the drill head pressure at the time of the frac-out, estimated quantity (gallons) of release, the extent and type of biological habitat affected, and the containment and clean-up measures implemented by the Applicant. The frac-out shall be documented via photographs, description, and illustration on a scaled topographic site plan illustrating the sensitive habitat location, extent of frac-out and

November 30, 2011 5-24 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency location of all borings. All mitigation work shall also be documented with photographs, site plans and description of mitigation work conducted. b) The following agencies in writing (email acceptable) within 24 hours. If a, providing the information in paragraph h.iii.a) above: 1) CDFG, if the frac-out is within or may flow into the bank of a stream or wetland. 2) RWQCB, if the frac-out is within jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or waters of the State. 3) USACOE, if the frac-out is within potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. c) If the Applicant has obtained approval from CDFG, RWQCB, and/or USACOE for its HDD activities under Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, or Section 401 or 404 of the Clean Water Act, if applicable, the Applicant shall follow the notification requirements of the agency approvals instead of the notification requirements in paragraph h.iii.b), above. d) The Applicant shall provide Solano County with a copy of all written notifications to and any agreements, orders, or permits issued by, jurisdictional agencies concerning HDD activities and frac-outs.

November 30, 2011 5-25 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency iv. If the frac-out occurs outside of an aquatic resource but within a required aquatic resource setback zone and/or upland of an aquatic resource, and has setback, the potential to affect said Applicant shall: a) If the frac-out is 50 feet or less from an aquatic resource, as determined by, requires agency notification, or releases more than 42 gallons, notify the Solano County Department of Resource Management, providing the information per paragraph h.iii.a), above. If the Applicant has not notified CDFG or RWQCB, the County’s biological monitor, the same shall determine if additional agency notification shall be required; however, per paragraph h.iii.b) above. b) iIf the potential effect frac-out is not immediate more than 50 feet from the aquatic resource, the notification may be extended to within 48 hours. The required notification shall include a description of the frac-out and clean-up measures implemented only the date, location, volume, and size of the affected area. For the purpose of this mitigation, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFG are considered potentially jurisdictional agencies requiring notification for a frac-out affecting a stream feature and the RWQCB and USACE are considered potentially jurisdictional agencies requiring notification for a frac-out affecting

November 30, 2011 5-26 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency all other aquatic resources. v. If a frac-out occurs and is considered to have negatively impacted the associated aquatic resource, based on consultation with the Solano County biological monitor, an appropriate restoration plan for that aquatic resource shall be designed as outlined in Mitigation Measure BIO- 2A. h. the Frac-Out Avoidance and Contingency Plan as described in paragraph e above and appropriately implemented. i. If frac-outs occur during boring at one location and the frac-outs release a combined total of more than 42 gallons, the Applicant shall stop work and not proceed with the boring at that location until the Applicant’s California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer has reviewed the drilling plans and determined whether changes in the boring depth, drilling pressure, or location are appropriate. The review shall be presented to Solano County in writing and be stamped by the Applicant’s California-licensed certified engineering geologist or professional engineer. Said review may, at the sole discretion of Solano County, be subject to peer review by a third party qualified professional expert hired by the County at the expense of the applicant and must be approved by Solano County before boring may resume. Mitigation Measures BIO-1, AG-4, HYD-2A and HYD-2B

November 30, 2011 5-27 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency Impact BIO-3: Potential Impacts Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Avoid Impacts to Special- N/A N/A N/A to Special-Status Plants Status Plants. The Applicant shall avoid impacts to special-status plants through implementation of appropriate siting, fencing and, if needed, a species mitigation plan. a. The Applicant shall locate all construction activities and project components at least 100 feet from all special-status plants. i. If, as determined by Solano County, it is not feasible to maintain a 100-foot setback from special-status plans, the County may allow encroachment within the setback depending on- site specific factors, subject to advance review and approval of the following, unless otherwise determined unnecessary by the County: a.) A qualified botanist (a person with at least an undergraduate degree in botany, plant ecology, or a related field, with a minimum of 3 years’ professional field experience conducting botanical surveys within the region or working under the direct supervision of a professional botanist with at least 6 years of field experience conducting botanical surveys in the region) has installed a fence that completely surrounds the special-status plant population (or , if appropriate, the border of the plant population within 100 feet of construction activities). b.) The Applicant confines work areas to the minimum necessary to complete the work. ii. If, as determined by Solano County, it is not

November 30, 2011 5-28 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency feasible to avoid placement of lines for the power collection system across special-status plant population, the Applicant shall install the lines: a.) Under the aquatic botanical resource using the HDD method in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-2B (Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional Drilling). HDD entry and exit pits shall be located at least 100 feet away from the special-status plant populations. b.) If construction activities require or otherwise take special-status plants , then the Applicant shall have a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of native plant restoration, mitigation, and management plans develop and submit to Solano County and CDFG for approval a salvage and recovery prior to the start of construction activities. b. The Applicant shall identify special-status plan populations and corresponding 100-foot setback from these populations on all project construction drawings (e.g., grading and improvement plans). c. Prior to construction activities, assign a qualified botanist to flag the location of special-status plant populations and the corresponding 100-foot special- status plant setback. This flagging shall be in addition to, and distinguished apart from, any required construction boundary fencing or flagging required by Mitigation Measure AG_4 (Confine Construction To Necessary Work Areas). d. Prior to construction activities within 250 feet of

November 30, 2011 5-29 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency special status plant populations, a qualified botanist shall hold tailgate environmental training sessions with construction personnel to inform them of the special- status plants in the Project Area. These training sessions shall include information about the locations of these plants, resource avoidance, permit conditions, and possible fines for violations of state or federal environmental laws. The training program shall be recorded and subsequently shown to any construction personnel who are not able to attend the initial training program prior to their participation in any construction activity within 250 feet of special-status plant populations. e. If construction activities require or otherwise take pappose tarplant or heartscale, then the Applicant shall have a qualified botanist experienced in the development and implementation of native plant restoration, mitigation, and management plans develop and submit to Solano County and CDFG for approval a salvage and recovery plan prior to the start of construction activities. Impact BIO-4: Temporary and Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Habitat Avoidance — 1) Review and 1,2 & 3) 1) Prior to Permanent Impacts on Special- California Tiger Salamander and Special-Status approve, as Solano County construction, status Insects, Crustaceans, Invertebrate Species. necessary, the DRM review Amphibians, and Reptiles Applicant’s Applicant’s To avoid or reduce potential impacts on ponds and preconstruction CTS surveys associated habitat for special-status CTS and special-status CTS surveys. and invertebrates, the Applicant shall implement Mitigation identification Measure BIO-2A, Avoid Impacts to Aquatic Resources, of areas to be 2) Inspect project and BIO-2B, Avoid Impacts from Horizontal Directional avoided Drilling under Aquatic Resources, and implement the site prior to and following measures: periodically during

November 30, 2011 5-30 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency a. All Project components shall be constructed and all construction period 2) Inspect site construction-related activities shall be conducted a to verify periodically minimum of 250 feet from ponds and vernal pools that compliance. during provide breeding habitat for CTS. construction

b. A qualified CTS biologist (a person having three years 3) Consult with experience in conducting surveys for CTS and habitat Applicant, USFWS, 3) As within the project region, or under the direct and CDFG in the necessary, supervision of a biologist with at least six years of field event CTS are during experience in the region), as hired by the Applicant, encountered. construction shall identify and flag any CTS habitat areas to be Determine where avoided. Exclusion flagging and signs that can be easily work may occur, as read from at least 20 feet away shall be placed 250 feet applicable. outside the perimeters of potential CTS aquatic habitat to indicate clearly where areas must be avoided by construction activities. c. If the Applicant does not obtain a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Incidental Take Permit for the Project, the Applicant’s qualified CTS biologist shall conduct preconstruction CTS surveys before initiating any project construction, maintenance, and decommissioning activity with the potential to disturb surface soils within 1.24 miles of potential CTS breeding habitat (ponds and vernal pools) as follows: i. Preconstruction surveys shall occur no more than two weeks prior to initiating activities with the potential to disturb surface soils. The intent of the survey shall be to identify the potential for CTS to occur in suitable habitat (ponds, vernal pools, and upland areas within 1.24 miles of the ponds and vernal pools) that may be present within or near

November 30, 2011 5-31 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency proposed disturbance areas. If the preconstruction survey does not identify suitable CTS habitat (e.g., due to absence of conditions suitable for larva in the ponds, less than average annual rainfall amounts, etc.), no further surveys shall be required. a) Suitable upland CTS habitat shall be defined as the presence of two or more small mammal burrows greater than 1 inch in diameter within a 10-foot-diameter area (i.e., the presence of a single isolated gopher hole would not be considered habitat). b) If the preconstruction survey is conducted in an area, no subsequent surveys shall be required in the areas surveyed unless there is a six-month delay in construction activity. ii. If the Applicant has obtained an HCP and/or Incidental Take Permit, no pre-construction surveys shall be needed, unless required by the HCP or permit. d. A qualified biological monitor (a person with at least an undergraduate degree in biology, wildlife ecology, or a related field, with a minimum of 3 years’ professional experience within the region or working under the direct supervision of a professional wildlife biologist with at least 6 years of field experience in the region), shall be on-site during project construction, maintenance, and decommissioning activities that disturb surface soils in order to provide clearance for all work activities in potential CTS habitat (ponds, vernal pools, and upland areas within 1.24 miles of

November 30, 2011 5-32 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency ponds and vernal pools). e. Project related vehicle traffic shall be restricted to established roads, staging areas, and parking areas. To the extent possible, the Applicant shall confine all Project-related parking, storage areas, laydown sites, equipment storage, and any other surface disturbing activities to previously disturbed areas. f. The Applicant shall conduct all project construction, maintenance, and decommissioning activities that disturb surface soils within 1.24 miles of ponds and vernal pools during the dry season (typically April 15 through October 15). Such surface disturbing activities include but are not limited to clearing, grading, trenching, and ripping or tilling associated with site reclamation and restoration work. i. If, as determined by Solano County, in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG, it is not feasible to avoid surface disturbing activities outside the dry season, the County may approve an extension for work to occur past the dry season (i.e., in the rainy season), provided the Applicant implements the following measures: a.) CTS exclusion fencing is installed around active work sites within 1.24 miles of ponds and vernal pools. Exclusion fencing shall not be required around paved and graveled areas and adjacent to well-traveled roads. b.) Project activities terminate 30 minutes before sunset and do not resume until 30 minutes

November 30, 2011 5-33 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency after sunrise. c.) All steep walled holes or trenches that are one foot deep or greater and within 1.24 miles of potential CTS aquatic habitat shall have at least one escape ramp constructed of earthen fill or wooden planks, be completely covered prior to sunset of each workday using boards or metal plates that are placed flush to the ground, and be inspected by a the qualified CTS biologist or qualified biological monitor prior to start of daily construction activities. g. To prevent inadvertent entrapment of CTS during construction of the Project, construction, maintenance, and decommissioning: i. All construction pipes, culverts, conduits, and other similar structures stored on-site overnight shall be capped prior to storage or inspected by the Applicant’s qualified CTS biologist or qualified biological monitor before the structure is buried. ii. . All trenches one foot deep or greater shall be completely covered using plywood or other appropriate materials or backfilled at the close of each working day. The Applicant’s qualified CTS biologist or qualified biological monitor shall thoroughly inspect all trenches for trapped CTS before they are filled. h. Conduct a worker-training program that provide workers with information on their responsibilities with regard to the CTS, an overview of the appearance of the species and its habitat, and a description of the

November 30, 2011 5-34 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency measures being taken to reduce the potential effects on the species during project construction. The Applicant shall conduct the worker-training program prior to the start of any construction, maintenance, or decommissioning activity that would disturb surface soils and shall ensure all personnel working on-site receive the training, including construction contractors and personnel that will operate and maintain project facilities. The training program shall be recorded and subsequently shown to any project personnel who are not able to attend the initial training program. i. Unless otherwise required pursuant to a Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Incidental Take Permit obtained by the Applicant for the Project, if CTS (alive or dead) is encountered (i.e., observed, killed, or otherwise taken) at any location within the Shiloh project area during the project lifetime: i. All surface disturbing activities and vehicular traffic on private, Project access roads within potential CTS habitat affected by the encounter shall immediately cease. Potential CTS habitat affected by the encounter shall consist of all ponds or vernal pools within 1.24 miles of the encounter and all upland habitat within 1.24 miles of these ponds. ii. The Applicant shall notify Solano County, CDFG, and the USFWS immediately by telephone and by letter within one working day. iii. Work within affected areas shall not commence or resume, as applicable, until Solano County, in

November 30, 2011 5-35 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency consultation with the USFWS and the CDFG, determines when and where work can begin or re- commence, as applicable. iv. Project personnel shall not move the CTS encountered unless instructed to do so by the USFWS and CDFG. v. If instructed to move the CTS by the USFWS and CDFG, a USFWS-approved and permitted biologist (i.e., has a Section 10(a)(1)(A) handler’s permit for CTS) shall carefully relocate the CTS by hand to a suitable, nearby active burrow system (e.g., a nearby active Botta pocket gopher or California ground squirrel burrow) that is located outside the area where the animal could be injured or killed by project activities. vi. The rescued CTS shall be monitored by the Applicant’s qualified CTS biologist until it enters the burrow. j. To eliminate the attraction of CTS predators, all food- related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps that are within 0.5 miles of potential CTS aquatic habitat shall be disposed of in animal-proof containers and removed from the Shiloh IV project area at the end of each working week. k. The Applicant shall prohibit project personnel from bringing their dog, cat, or other pet that could harm CTS into the project area. l. Best Management Practices (BMPs; required as part of the project SWPPP) shall be implemented to prevent

November 30, 2011 5-36 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency sediment from entering suitable aquatic CTS habitat (vernal pool) at the project site, including but not limited to, silt fencing, sterile hay bales and temporary sediment disposal. Tightly woven fiber netting or other effective erosion control material shall be used to control erosion at the Project. The Applicant shall avoid the use of plastic mono-filament netting in sediment control measures that could pose an entrapment hazard to CTS. m. Unless otherwise required pursuant to a Habitat Conservation Plan and/or Incidental Take Permit obtained by the Applicant for the Project, to compensate for the permanent and temporary loss of CTS upland habitat from the Project, the Applicant shall provide off-site preservation of suitable CTS habitat with a confirmed and viable population of CTS. For impacts located within 1.24 miles of suitable aquatic habitat for CTS, the Applicant will purchase conservation credits at ratios of 1.1:1 for temporary annual grassland disturbance impacts, 0.1:1 for permanent agricultural land disturbance impacts, and 3:1 for permanent grassland disturbance impacts. The credits shall be purchased from an off-site USFWS- and CDFG-approved conservation bank. The number of conservation credits to be purchased will be assessed after consultation with Solano County and the USFWS and CDFG, pending 1) the final placement of Project infrastructure and actual suitable habitat acreage removed and 2) if applicable, USFWS approval of the Shiloh IV Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for CTS (currently in preparation by the Applicant) and/or an Incidental Take Permit issued by CDFG for the

November 30, 2011 5-37 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency Project. The purchase shall be made by the Applicant at least five (5) business days prior to the date of initial ground-breaking activities.

Impact BIO-5: Temporary Mitigation Measure BIO-5A: Avoidance of Avian 1) Inspect project 1 & 2) Solano 1) Inspect site Impacts on Nesting Birds Nests site periodically County DRM periodically during construction during If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the period to verify construction breeding season (February 1 through August 31), the compliance. Applicant’s qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys of all potential suitable nesting habitat 1) As within 0.25 miles of active construction areas, including 2) Consult with necessary, trees, shrubs, grasslands and wetland vegetation. The Applicant and during qualified wildlife biologist shall determine the timing of CDFG, as construction pre-construction surveys based on the time of year and applicable and as habitats that are present, and shall conduct the surveys no appropriate, more than 30 days prior to construction. regarding burrowing owls. a. If active raptor or owl nests are found, the Applicant shall maintain a 500-foot no-disturbance setback zone around active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined that young have fledged. The Applicant shall also maintain a 500-foot no-disturbance setback zone around the historic golden eagle nest in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8B (On-site Mitigation). b. If active Swainson’s hawk nests are found, the Applicant shall maintain a no-disturbance buffer zone around the active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined that the young have fledged. The no-disturbance buffer zone from active Swainson’s hawk nests shall be 0.25 miles, or as may otherwise be

November 30, 2011 5-38 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency determined by the County, in consultation with the USFWS and CDFG as appropriate. c. If active nests for other special-status bird species are found, the Applicant shall maintain a 250-foot no- disturbance setback zone around active nests during the breeding season or until it is determined that young have fledged. d. The Applicant shall identify the location of all active raptor, owl, and other special-status bird nests and the appropriate corresponding nest setback area (e.g., 250 feet, 500 feet, or 0.25 miles) on all project construction plans (e.g., grading and improvement plans). e. Prior to construction, assign a qualified biologist to fence or flag all active nest setback areas. f. If pre-construction surveys indicate that nests are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied during the construction period, no further mitigation shall be required. i. Trees and shrubs that have been determined to be unoccupied by special-status birds or that are located more than 500 feet from active nests (and 0.25 miles from active Swainson’s hawk nests) may be removed, unless otherwise restricted. ii. If the active nest(s) is found in an area where ground disturbance is to occur, the Applicant shall avoid the area by delaying nearby ground disturbance until the birds have fledged, or shall reroute the project component to avoid the area. g. If construction is scheduled to occur during the non-

November 30, 2011 5-39 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency nesting season, then no nesting bird surveys shall be required before the start of construction activity, except for provisions for surveys for western burrowing owls outside the nesting season (September 1 – January 31), as specified in Mitigation Measure BIO-5B. Mitigation Measure BIO-5B: Habitat Avoidance – Burrowing Owl The following guidelines adapted from the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 1995) shall be implemented by the Applicant: a. Pre-construction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted in all areas that may provide suitable nesting habitat according to CDFG (1995) guidelines. i. No more than 30 days before construction, a habitat survey including documentation of burrows and burrowing owls shall be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist within 500 feet of the construction area in areas suitable for burrowing owls. ii. The survey shall conform to the protocol described by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium, which includes up to four surveys on different dates if there are suitable burrows present. The CDFG shall be consulted by the Applicant prior to survey initiation to ensure the most current pre-construction survey methodologies are utilized. iii. The CDFG defines impacts as disturbance within approximately 160 feet of occupied burrows during the non breeding season of September 1

November 30, 2011 5-40 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency through January 31, or within approximately 250 feet during the breeding season of February 1 through August 31. Even when these buffer distances are maintained, the alteration of breeding and behavioral patterns of burrowing owls during construction activities shall be considered adverse disturbance to the owls, as determined by the Applicant’s on-site biologist and the Solano County biological monitor. b. The Applicant shall avoid disturbing active burrowing owl nests and occupied nesting burrows, and shall implement standard CDFG mitigation guidelines. c. If, as determined by the Solano County biological monitor, construction activities will not adversely affect occupied burrows or disrupt breeding behavior, construction may proceed without any restriction or mitigation measures for burrowing owls. d. If, as determined by the Solano County biological monitor, in consultation with CDFG, construction could adversely affect occupied burrows during the September 1 through January 31 non-breeding season, the subject owls may be passively relocated from the occupied burrow(s) using one-way doors, according to CDFG guidelines, using the following measures: i. There shall be at least two unoccupied burrows suitable for burrowing owl within 300 feet of the occupied burrow before one-way doors are installed in the occupied burrow. ii. The unoccupied burrows shall also be located at least 160 feet from construction activities and can be natural burrows or artificial burrows

November 30, 2011 5-41 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency constructed according to current design specifications. iii. If artificial burrows are created, these burrows shall be in place at least 1 week before one-way doors are installed on the currently occupied burrows. iv. One-way doors must be in place for a minimum of 48 hours to ensure that owls have left the burrow before the burrow is excavated. v. Mitigation for the loss of occupied habitat, as determined by the Solano County Department of Resource Management, based on the recommendations of the Solano County biological monitor, shall be provided by preservation of 6.5 acres of suitable foraging and nesting habitat contiguous with occupied burrow sites per breeding pair or single bird. Suitable preservation habitat is defined as those natural and disturbed vegetated areas (e.g. grasslands, scrublands, and tree and shrub areas with less than 30% ground cover) that have existing natural and artificial ground burrows which can support burrowing owl. Impact BIO-6: Displacement of Mitigation Measures BIO-2A and BIO-2B See above See above See above Waterfowl and Other Water Birds Using the Project Area or Moving to and from the Suisun Marsh Impact BIO-7: Impacts on Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Design Specifications for 1) Consult with 1 & 2) Solano 1) Prior to Raptors, Other Avian Species, and Overhead Power Lines Applicant to County DRM construction Bats from Overhead Wires Prior to project operation, the Applicant shall implement evaluate feasibility of locations for the following design elements for the limited overhead 2) Periodically collection system power lines: during and transmission

November 30, 2011 5-42 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency a. For any power collection system utility lines that are lines. construction. installed overhead at limited wetland and stream crossings where the use of HDD is infeasible and as 2) Inspect project approved by Solano County, as applicable: site periodically i. Avian safe practices, as outlined in Suggested during construction Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines period to verify (APLIC 2006) shall be employed during compliance. construction; ii. All jumper wires shall be insulated (5-kV minimum rating and preferably 10-kV to 15-kV); iii. All exposed terminals at the substation (e.g., pot heads, lightning arresters, and transformer bushings) shall be covered by wildlife boots or other insulating materials; iv. Non-conductive materials (e.g., fiberglass and wood) shall be used instead of the straight, aluminum-type combination arms on riser poles; v. Energized wires shall be placed a safe distance apart: 60 inches for cross arm configuration, 55 inches for armless configuration; the distance between grounded hardware and any energized phase conductor shall be a minimum of 60 inches apart; vi. No cut-outs or riser poles shall be used; vii. Jumper leads shall be oriented in a vertical configuration to discourage bird perching; viii. Perch and nest discouragers shall be installed on crossarms and on top of poles; ix. Phase conductors shall be suspended on pole top and cross arms;

November 30, 2011 5-43 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency x. Bonding of pole top devices mounted on non- conductive arms shall be done with insulated wire; xi. A minimum conductor wire size of 4/0 shall be used to increase the visibility of the wire; xii. Except for angle poles of overhead lines, none of the installed facilities shall require, or otherwise involve, the use of guy wires. All turbines and permanent meteorological towers shall be free standing; xiii. Post-construction monitoring activities consistent with those detailed in Mitigation Measure BIO-8A shall be conducted for any overhead lines not owned by PG&E and regulated by the CPUC. If post-construction monitoring indicates that any such new installed overhead lines are having significant impacts on raptor species, bird diverters shall be installed to the extent required by Solano County, based on consultation with CDFG and USFWS. b. The Applicant shall ensure that the section of overhead 230-kV transmission line be installed in conformance with APLIC 2006 suggested practices. The Applicant shall coordinate with PG&E to ensure this measure is implemented. Impact BIO-8: Direct Mortality Mitigation Measure BIO-8A: Bird and Bat Mortality 1) Inspect project 1 to 6) Solano 1) Periodically of Raptors, Other Avian Species, Monitoring site periodically County DRM during and Bats The Applicant shall conduct annual monitoring of bird and during construction construction. bat mortality in the project area, as follows: period to verify compliance. a. Qualified ornithologists shall conduct annual bird and 2) Annually

bat mortality monitoring throughout the project area

November 30, 2011 5-44 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency including where any new overhead transmission lines 2) Review and 3) As have been installed to determine avian and bat evaluate bird and appropriate mortality rates and the causes of mortality associated bat mortality studies. with the project installations. 4) Prior to b. The monitor shall collect sufficient information to construction allow evaluation of turbine design characteristics and 3) Participate in TAC. location effects that contribute to mortality. The 5) Prior to species, number, location and distance of dead birds construction relative to turbine location, availability of raptor prey 4) Review Raptor species, and cause of bird and bat mortalities shall be Mitigation Plan. noted. All results shall be provided to the Wildlife 6) Two years

Response and Reporting System database as after first maintained by the Altamont Infrastructure Company 5) Verify that the delivery of (AIC), 6185 Industrial Way, Livermore, CA 94550, or Applicant has power established an other repository approved by Solano County. irrevocable letter of c. Monitoring shall follow standardized guidelines credit or a bond to outlined by California Guidelines for Reducing Impacts ensure compliance to Birds and Bats from Wind Energy Development with the (CEC and CDFG 2007) and, as required by the conservation land County, shall be conducted for three years following or easement the first delivery of power and include, but not be provisions. limited to, the following unless otherwise determined appropriate by the Solano County Avian Technical 6) Verify that the Advisory Committee (TAC): Applicant has i. Search radius shall be 100 meters to account for purchased terrain and turbine height; conservation land. ii. Searcher efficiency trials shall be conducted for four seasons and be sufficient to analyze for changes in vegetative covers.

November 30, 2011 5-45 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency iii. A minimum of approximately 50 percent of the Project’s wind turbines shall be surveyed each year of required monitoring. iv. Carcass searches for birds and bats shall occur weekly. In addition, the Applicant shall conduct daily carcass searches for a subset of the Project’s turbines (minimum ten percent) for one week during each season of the first year of post- construction monitoring (i.e., one week each during the spring, summer, fall and winter for a total of four weeks) instead of the normal weekly searches during those weeks. The Applicant shall include the results of these intensive survey periods in its first annual report to the TAC in order to allow the TAC to compare and/or validate the results of the Applicant’s scavenger removal trials that were conducted prior to the start of post- construction monitoring. d. The Applicant shall contribute and participate in the efforts of the Solano County Avian TAC to develop mitigation measures to lessen potential impacts on raptors as a result of wind turbine generator operation. The TAC is an advisory committee to the County, composed of biologists from the CDFG, the USFWS, Solano County, representatives from local wind facility developers, a local landowner/farmer, a conservation organization and or golden eagle expert, and others. The Applicant shall prepare and submit annual reports from monitoring efforts to the USFWS, CDFG, Solano County and the Solano County Avian TAC

November 30, 2011 5-46 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency within 90 days after the end of each calendar year, unless additional time has been justified by the Applicant and is acceptable to the Solano County Department of Resource Management. Data collected during the monitoring program shall be submitted to the Biogeographic Information and Observation System Program, in accordance with California Energy Commission Guidelines. e. If a carcass with a band is found in the project area, the Applicant shall promptly report the banding information to the USFWS Bird Banding Laboratory and shall coordinate with the Laboratory to include any information provided by the USFWS and pertinent to avian mortality at the project site, if any, in the annual monitoring reports. f. After three years of post-construction monitoring data have been obtained, the County will review the data and, in consultation with the USFWS and the CDFG, determine which, if any, specific turbines generate disproportionately high levels of avian mortalities (based on evidence of statistically significant higher levels of mortality relative to other turbines). If specific turbines are found to result in disproportionately high avian mortalities, the Applicant shall consult with the County to evaluate any feasible measures that can be implemented at the discretion of the County to reduce or avoid mortalities at those specific turbines. g. If unauthorized take of a federal or state threatened or endangered avian or bat species occurs during project operation, the Applicant shall immediately notify the

November 30, 2011 5-47 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency appropriate agency (CDFG and/or USFWS) by phone. The Applicant shall then submit a written finding to the appropriate agency and the County within two calendar days that describes the date, time, location, species and, if possible, cause of unauthorized take. The Applicant shall notify the County within three calendar days of the receipt of any USFWS and/or CDFG required or recommended actions resulting from the unauthorized take, including whether an incidental take permit and/or additional requirements is deemed necessary by either agency. Mitigation Measure BIO-8B: On-site Mitigation The Applicant shall minimize and avoid potential bird and bat collision risks as follows: a. Prior to construction, the Applicant shall have a qualified biologist or ornithologist prepare and submit to the Solano County Department of Resource Management an Avian and Bat Mitigation Plan (ABMP). The ABMP shall describe the specific pre- construction siting and design, construction risk reduction, and operations and monitoring measures the Applicant will implement to avoid or minimize effects on birds and bats, as enumerated in sections b. thru d. below. b. Pre-Construction Siting and Design Measures: i. Final planned turbine locations shall avoid features of the landscape known to attract birds and bats, such as ridgelines, areas with high concentrations of aquatic resources, and other areas that provide habitat for prey species such as insects and small mammals, to the extent feasible.

November 30, 2011 5-48 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency ii. The Applicant shall re-use as many existing enXco V access roads as possible in order to minimize disturbance and avoid unnecessary vegetation/habitat removal. iii. The Applicant shall use non-lattice meteorological towers in the project area in order to reduce perching habitat for birds. iv. The Applicant shall conduct pre-construction nesting surveys and identify the location of all active nests and active nest setback zones as required by Mitigation Measure BIO-5A (Avoid Avian Nests) and Mitigation Measure BIO-5B (Habitat Avoidance – Western Burrowing Owl) on project construction plans (e.g., grading and improvement plans). c. Construction Risk Reduction Measures: i. During construction, the Applicant shall implement appropriate nest setbacks (e.g., 250 feet, 500 feet, or 0.25 miles) per Mitigation Measure BIO-5A (Avoid Avian Nests) and Mitigation Measure BIO-5B (Habitat Avoidance – Western Burrowing Owl). ii. The Applicant shall avoid creating rock and other debris piles that may provide prey habitat and remove any such piles as soon as possible. iii. The Applicant shall feather road edges and replace topsoil level with the road to allow cultivation to resume as close as possible to the roadbed. iv. Where it is not feasible to re-vegetate areas in accordance with Mitigation Measures AG-5

November 30, 2011 5-49 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency (Restore and Decompact Temporarily Disturbed Agricultural Areas) and Bio-1 (Minimize Temporary Disturbance and Restore Disturbed Habitats within Project Area),compact non- vegetated areas to discourage new rodent burrows. d. Project Operation and Management Measures: i. The Applicant shall move stored parts and equipment away from wind turbines in order to reduce potential prey habitat. ii. The Applicant shall implement overhead power line design specifications in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-7, Design Specifications for Overhead Power Lines. iii. The Applicant shall conduct bird and bat mortality monitoring in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A (Bird and Bat Morality Monitoring). In addition, the Applicant shall prepare and post a data sheet in the Project’s Operations and Maintenance facility that describes how project personnel can recognize an injured or dead bat and bird and the procedures project personnel shall take in the event an injured or dead bat and bird are discovered on-site, including whom to notify and what actions shall be taken. Bird/bat injuries and fatalities, and the responses thereto, shall be reported at least once annually to the Wildlife Response and Reporting System database, as maintained by the Altamont Infrastructure Company (AIC), 6185 Industrial Way, Livermore, CA 94550, or other repository approved by Solano County. The Applicant shall also train project

November 30, 2011 5-50 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency personnel in these procedures. iv. The Applicant shall capture and transport injured wildlife found on-site to a state-licensed facility for care and treatment such as, but not limited to, the Lindsay Wildlife Museum or the Suisun Wildlife Rehabilitation Center. Mitigation Measure BIO-8C: Off-site Mitigation and Replacement of Disturbed Aerial Habitat The Project would result in the permanent loss of up to 84 acres of aerial habitat. Additionally, fragmentation of the aerial habitat could negatively impact common and special- status avian and bat species. Thus, the impacts due to loss of aerial habitat within and outside the project area are considered significant. To compensate for permanent loss of aerial habitat and for ongoing impacts on avian and bat species, the Applicant shall acquire replacement mitigation habitat off-site at a ratio of 1:1 acreage compensation calculated from the total rotor swept area representing aerial habitat within the completed project. These lands will consist of any combination of non-native grassland, grazing land, mixed grain or cropland (excluding orchard or vineyard land), or open oak woodland. The off-site habitat mitigation area would be preserved in perpetuity. The Applicant shall provide off-site mitigation by acquiring and preserving up to 84 acres of land, based on total rotor swept area for the 50 proposed Project wind turbines, suitable for impacted avian and bat species. The total number of mitigation acres required shall be determined based on the final mix of the two turbine models ultimately

November 30, 2011 5-51 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency selected for the project. If fewer turbines are installed, the amount of required acreage shall be proportionately reduced. Off-site conservation land shall be preserved in fee title and/or easement in accordance with the following: a. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit or grading permit for the Project, whichever occurs first, the Applicant shall establish an irrevocable letter of credit in favor of the County of Solano from a reputable bank with a branch in the United States, or a bond as approved by the County, in an amount approved by the County to ensure compliance with the conservation land or easement provisions described in paragraphs b–d below. The letter of credit or bond shall not be required if at least one of the measures described in paragraphs b. through d. below has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the County prior to issuance of the first grading or building permit, whichever occurs first. b. Off-site conservation land or easement: Within two years following the first delivery of power, the Applicant shall purchase and record up to 84 acres of off-site conservation land in fee-title and/or easement for open space suitable as breeding and foraging habitat for raptors impacted by the Project, such as the golden eagle and red-tailed hawk, as follows: i. The County, in consultation with USFWS and the CDFG, shall approve the location of the conservation land or easement, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. ii. If the Applicant requests timely approval of the

November 30, 2011 5-52 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency location of the conservation land or easement, and approval is not granted within the two-year period, the Applicant shall purchase and record the land or easement within a reasonable time after the County gives its approval and shall be deemed to have complied with this two-year requirement. The conservation land or easement shall meet the following requirements: a) The conserved area shall be up to 84 acres in size, equivalent to the total rotor swept area for the 50 proposed Project turbines, and shall be located on land in Solano County providing habitat similar to the project area but shall be outside the wind resource area. b) The conserved land or easement site shall be dominated by natural vegetation, agricultural uses or a combination of both. The primary purpose of this land or easement will be to provide conservation lands for raptor species that could be impacted by the Project. c) The conserved lands shall provide breeding opportunities in an effort to offset raptor mortality associated with operation of the Project. The main species anticipated to be impacted by the Project are raptor species such as red-tailed hawk and American kestrel, although the easement could also provide habitat for other classes of birds such as ground-nesting songbirds. Types of habitat enhancement measures on the easement will

November 30, 2011 5-53 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency be weighted according to the relative abundance of birds impacted by the Project, the species-specific needs of those species, and the type and quality of habitat that may already exist on the conserved land. A number of management measures and enhancements shall be provided (if such features are not already present) to provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat on the easement. d) The conservation easement shall be recorded, shall run with the land in perpetuity, and shall list and prohibit activities inconsistent with the purpose of supporting avian foraging and breeding opportunities. If the land is acquired in fee-title and conveyed to a land trust or similar entity, an irrevocable deed restriction shall be recorded on the property to ensure that the property permanently remains in conservation regardless of ownership and contains the same restrictions as a conservation easement. iii. The Applicant shall establish a non-wasting funding mechanism to fund the maintenance, management and monitoring of the conserved area. Estimated costs shall be established using a PAR-type analysis. The analysis and funding mechanism shall require approval by the County, in consultation with the resource agencies, prior to recordation of the conservation easement. Management activities or restrictions in the

November 30, 2011 5-54 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency conservation easement shall include: a) Provisions for suitable foraging habitat by maintaining or enhancing natural areas, particularly grasslands and seasonal wetlands, or by maintaining compatible agricultural crops and practices. Suitable crop types for foraging raptors include those with low-lying vegetation such as alfalfa and other hays, and various row and grain crops. Unsuitable crop types that would be restricted in the easement shall include those that do not provide sufficient accessibility or have low prey densities, such as orchards and vineyards. b) Maintaining or enhancing nesting opportunities by protecting trees or planting trees that are suitable for raptor nesting, including native valley oaks and cottonwood trees. The installation of artificial nesting structures would be acceptable only in combination with the planting and maintenance of live trees. iv. Within three years following the first delivery of power, the Applicant’s qualified wildlife biologist shall undertake breeding habitat enhancement measures, as determined in consultation with Solano County, on the conserved property, which shall include the following: a) Prior to recording the conservation easement, the Applicant shall submit to Solano County an open space and habitat management plan

November 30, 2011 5-55 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency for the conserved area, which shall be prepared by a qualified wildlife biologist. Approval of this plan by Solano County, in consultation with the resource agencies, shall be required prior to recordation of the easement. b) Types of enhancement measures on the easement, if required by Solano County, will be weighted according to the relative abundance of birds impacted by the Project and the species-specific needs of those species but could include the placement of nesting substrate for golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, and American kestrels (nesting boxes, trees, perches, and/or other features). The use of artificial nesting structures would be acceptable only in combination with the planting and maintenance of live trees. In determining which type of nesting enhancements are appropriate for the Project, Solano County may consider measures the Applicant has committed to implement as part of a federal Habitat Conservation Plan or other document (e.g., Avian and Bat Protection Plan) that the USFWS has reviewed and determined in writing to provide an appropriate management approach for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds. c) A number of management measures and enhancements shall be provided (if such

November 30, 2011 5-56 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency features are not already present) to provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat on the easement. d) Prior to recording the conservation easement or conveying the Project in fee simple, the Applicant shall designate, for Solano County’s approval, a public agency or non-profit entity, or a designated representative, to manage the conserved area. v. The Applicant shall be responsible for all mitigation costs including habitat enhancements (if required by Solano County), preparation and implementation of the open space management plan, and long-term management of the conservation area. c. In-lieu fee: As an alternate to the off-site conservation easement requirements described in section b, above, the Applicant may contribute an in-lieu fee to the Solano Land Trust or other conservation entity approved by Solano County in consultation with CDFG (hereinafter “Trust”) in an amount and according to the terms as approved by Solano County in consultation with the CDFG for the establishment of up to 84 acres of permanent conservation land or easement in Solano County to replace lost aerial habitat. This fee shall be used by the Trust for the sole purpose of purchasing, recording, enhancing, maintaining and preserving the conserved land in fee- title or easement that provides protected breeding and foraging habitat for the raptors and other avian species

November 30, 2011 5-57 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency impacted by the Project. The requirements for the in- lieu fee alternative shall include the following: i. The amount of the in-lieu fee shall require approval by the County, in consultation with the CDFG, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld and shall be based on the Trust’s costs for the following: a) Acquisition of up to 84 acres of conservation land in fee-title and/or easement for open space and habitat suitable as breeding and foraging for raptors such as the golden eagle, red-tailed hawk and other guilds of birds impacted by the Project; and b) Reasonable administrative and other overhead costs by the Trust to acquire the land and/or easement; and c) The development, approval, and implementation of the required habitat enhancement and management plan, as required by Solano County in consultation with the CDFG; and d) The perpetual maintenance, management, and monitoring of the conserved land and habitat, based on a PAR-type analysis. ii. The Applicant shall furnish the entire in-lieu fee, as approved by Solano County, to the Trust, and a receipt to this effect shall be provided to Solano County within two years following the first delivery of power.

November 30, 2011 5-58 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency iii. The requirements for the conserved land shall be based on a written Agreement between the Trust and Solano County, shall be binding on the Trust and shall include the following: a) The size of conservation land and/or easement shall be up to 68 84 acres in size, and shall be located within Solano County but outside the wind resource area. The location shall require County approval in consultation with the CDFG, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, prior to acquisition. b) The conserved land shall provide habitat similar to the project area, dominated by natural vegetation, agricultural uses, or a combination of both. The land shall also provide, to the maximum extent feasible, foraging and breeding opportunities for the species most affected by the Project, including raptors such as the golden eagle, red-tailed hawk and American kestrel. Habitat for other species such as ground-nesting songbirds is also appropriate. c) The land and/or easement shall be held, maintained, and protected in perpetuity for the conservation purposes prescribed in this mitigation measure. If the land is acquired in fee-title, an irrevocable deed restriction shall be recorded on the property to ensure that the property permanently remains in conservation regardless of ownership.

November 30, 2011 5-59 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency d) The deed restriction or conservation easement shall be recorded, shall run with the land in perpetuity, and shall list and prohibit activities inconsistent with the purpose of supporting raptor and other avian foraging and breeding opportunities. e) Required enhancements, maintenance, management, and monitoring of the easement shall be in accordance with the habitat enhancement and management plan as prepared by the Trust and approved by Solano County in accordance with paragraph iv, below. f) The conservation land and/or easement shall be purchased, and the deed restriction or easement shall be recorded, within 2 years following the first delivery of power, and the documentation to this effect shall be furnished to Solano County. g) The in-lieu fee furnished by the Applicant shall be held in an interest-bearing or other appropriate investment account until expended for purposes of the land and/or easement acquisition, recordation, maintenance, monitoring and other measures under the terms of the Agreement. h) All in-lieu fees furnished by the Applicant shall be used exclusively for the conservation land or easement associated with the Project only.

November 30, 2011 5-60 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency iv. The Trust shall prepare and submit to Solano County an open space and habitat management plan for the conserved area, which shall be prepared by a qualified wildlife biologist. Approval of this plan by Solano County, in consultation with the CDFG, shall be required prior to implementation. The open space and habitat management plan shall include the following: a) Foraging and breeding habitat protection and maintenance measures, as well as land management measures, including restrictions in the conserved area. b) Provisions for suitable foraging habitat by maintaining or enhancing natural areas, particularly grasslands and seasonal wetlands; or by maintaining compatible agricultural crops and practices. Suitable crop types for foraging raptors include those with low-lying vegetation such as alfalfa and other hays, and various row and grain crops. Unsuitable crop types that would be restricted in the easement shall include those that do not provide sufficient accessibility or have low prey densities, such as orchards and vineyards. c) Management measures that include, but are not be limited to, maintenance and protection of trees suitable for raptor nesting, including valley oaks and other native trees, appropriate grazing management practices, vegetation management, and establishment of land use

November 30, 2011 5-61 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency restrictions and activities that may be inconsistent with the purposes of the conserved area. d) Any required enhancements in the conservation easement will be weighted according to the relative abundance of birds impacted by the Project and the species- specific needs of those species and the type and quality of habitat that may already exist on the conserved land. At a minimum, the placement of nesting substrate for golden eagles, red-tailed hawks and American kestrels (nesting boxes, trees, perches, and/or other natural features) will be necessary, unless such habitat already exists, as determined by Solano County. The use of artificial nesting structures would be acceptable only in combination with the planting and maintenance of live trees. In determining which type of nesting enhancements are appropriate for the Project, Solano County may consider measures the Applicant has committed to implement as part of a federal Habitat Conservation Plan or other document (e.g., Avian and Bat Protection Plan) that the USFWS has reviewed and determined in writing to provide an appropriate management approach for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds. e) Habitat enhancements (if required by Solano County) shall be fully undertaken by the Trust

November 30, 2011 5-62 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency within one year following the acquisition of the conservation land or easement by the Trust. d. Mitigation bank credits: As an alternate to the off site conservation requirements described in sections b and c, above, the Applicant may purchase Swainson’s hawk or other mitigation credits approved by Solano County, in consultation with CDFG for the benefit of the species of raptors impacted by the Project, equivalent to a total of up to 68 84 acres, based on total rotor swept area for the 34 50 project turbines, of established conservation land from a conservation bank with appropriate raptor habitat in Solano County, as approved by Solano County in consultation with the CDFG. The purchase of conservation easement credits shall comply with the following: i. Full purchase of all required credits shall be completed within two years following the first delivery of power, and a receipt to this effect shall be furnished to Solano County. ii. The credits shall be equivalent to the protection of up to 68 84 acres of similar habitat as the project area, dominated by natural vegetation, agricultural lands or a combination of both. The conserved land shall further provide, to the maximum extent feasible, foraging and breeding opportunities for the avian species most affected by the Project, including red-tailed hawk and American kestrel. Habitat for other species such as ground-nesting songbirds is also appropriate.

November 30, 2011 5-63 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency iii. Purchase of the credits shall include costs for the design, installation and perpetual maintenance of nesting enhancements on the conservation bank property (if nesting opportunities are not already present), as required by the County in consultation with the CDFG, and in coordination with the conservation bank operator. The nesting enhancement requirements shall include the following: a) The enhancements to the conservation bank will be weighted according to the relative abundance of birds impacted by the Project and the species-specific needs of those species but shall include, at a minimum, the placement of nesting substrate for golden eagles, red- tailed hawks and American kestrels (nesting boxes, trees, perches, and/or other natural features), as determined by the County. The use of artificial nesting structures would be acceptable only in combination with the planting of live trees. All nesting enhancement measures shall be specified in the sales Agreement between the bank operator and the Applicant. In determining which type of nesting enhancements are appropriate for the Project, Solano County may consider measures the Applicant has committed to implement as part of a federal Habitat Conservation Plan or other document (e.g., Avian and Bat Protection Plan) that the USFWS has reviewed

November 30, 2011 5-64 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency and determined in writing to provide an appropriate management approach for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds. b) The quantity of nesting enhancements shall be proportionate to the area of the required off site conservation easement. c) Nesting enhancements, if required by Solano County, shall be completed by the bank operator within one year of the purchase of mitigation credits by the Applicant, and this shall be specified in the sales agreement between the bank operator and the Applicant. d) The bank operator shall be responsible for notifying Solano County upon completion of nesting enhancements, which shall be specified in the sales agreement between the bank operator and the Applicant. iv. The conservation bank operator shall adequately document and report transactions as specifically provided for in their banking agreement with the appropriate resource agencies.

Mitigation Measure BIO-8D: Reimbursement Upon the first delivery of power, and by the annual anniversary date of this event for each of three consecutive years thereafter, the Applicant shall furnish to the County a project review and monitoring fee, equivalent to two weeks annually of senior planner staff time at the hourly rate for direct staff services according to Solano County

November 30, 2011 5-65 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency Department of Resource Management fee schedule in effect at the time each deposit is required. This planner shall monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures and other conditions of approval required for the Project. Mitigation Measure BIO-8E: Minimize Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk. The Applicant shall minimize potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk associated with operation of the Project as follows:

a. A minimum of approximately 50 percent of the Project's wind turbines shall be surveyed each year of required monitoring in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-8A.c.

b. Increased carcass searches shall be provided and reported in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO- 8A.c.iv.

November 30, 2011 5-66 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

ii. The composition of trees shall consist of a mix of species known to be preferred by Swainson’s hawk for use as nest trees, including but not limited to

November 30, 2011 5-67 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency valley oaks (Quercus lobata), Fremont’s cottonwood (Poplus fremontii), willows (Salix spp.), sycamores (Platanus spp.), and walnut (Juglans spp.). This mix shall ensure that nest trees will be available in the short-term (e.g., 5-10 years for cottonwoods and willows) and long term (e.g., valley oak and sycamores).

iii. Nest trees, if necessary, shall be planted as close as possible to the highest quality available foraging habitat available at the conserved land.

iv. Nest tree locations shall be spaced in a manner that maximizes the number of potential nest sites to the greatest extent feasible given the specific conditions of the conserved land.

v. Nest trees shall be planted within one year of the purchase of the conserved easement, in-lieu fee, or mitigation bank credits as applicable. Irrigation and fencing to protect from deer and other herbivores may be needed for the first two years to ensure maximum tree survival. The extent of irrigation and protective fencing necessary to ensure survival of the plantings shall be determined by the operator of the conserved land based on site specific conditions and previous requirements, if applicable.

vi. Nest trees shall be inspected and monitored at least once a year by the operator of the conserved

November 30, 2011 5-68 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency land for a period of three years following planting. The plantings shall be considered successful if 67 percent of the trees survive at the end of three years. The results of monitoring, including a description of any breeding activities observed by the operator of the conserved land in the nest trees, shall be reported annually by the operator to the regulating agencies (i.e., USFWS, DFG, etc.) and Solano County. f. For any period the required nest tree monitoring in paragraph e. vi., above, occurs during the post-construction monitoring required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8A, the results of the nest tree monitoring, including a description of any breeding activities observed by the operator of the conserved land in the nest trees, shall additionally be included in the annual avian/bat monitoring report required by Mitigation Measure BIO-8A. 9 Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1: Impacts on Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Avoid Known Cultural Inspect site Solano County Periodically Known Cultural Resources Resource. The cultural resource survey revealed one periodically during DRM during cultural resource within the project area of impact, a construction near construction historic and currently operational windmill and well pump. resource to verify In order to protect the structural integrity and maintain the compliance present function of the windmill and well pump, the Applicant shall avoid construction activities within 50 feet of the windmill and well pump. Impact CUL-2: Impacts on Mitigation Measure CUL-2A: Supplemental 1) Inspect 1) Solano 1) During Unknown Cultural Resources, Evaluation and Cultural Surveys. To address potential discovered site County DRM construction as Paleontological Resources, and impacts on cultural, archaeological, and paleontological necessary Human Remains resources, in areas that the cultural resources inventory did 2) Determine 2) Solano not previously cover and where ground disturbance will significance in County DRM 2) During occur, the Applicant shall achieve avoidance by coordination with construction as implementing the following measures:

November 30, 2011 5-69 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency a. Prior to construction, the Applicant shall identify all other applicable necessary areas, if any, where project components are proposed parties, such as that were not covered during the pedestrian surveys tribal conducted for the Cultural Resources Inventory Report for representatives, the Proposed Shiloh IV Project, Solano County, California coroner, and DHP. (ICF International 2011) or other supplemental evaluation. In areas where ground-disturbance will occur for project construction, the Applicant shall provide documentation to the County confirming where surveys were previously completed versus not completed. b. In areas where ground-disturbance will occur, the Applicant shall consult and contract with a qualified archaeologist to conduct a supplemental evaluation of known cultural resources occurring within the locations not covered during the pedestrian surveys conducted for the Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Shiloh IV Project, Solano County, California (ICF International 2011), including any areas not covered due to subsequent project revisions. These areas include, but are not limited to, access roads, collection system routes, transmission line route, turbine locations, and any other areas where ground disturbance would occur that the pedestrian surveys did not cover. c. As determined by the Applicant’s qualified archaeologist, supplemental evaluation of prehistoric and historic archaeological sites could include, but is not limited to archival research to establish the site’s place in local history and events; intensive surveys, of the revised area of impact to locate artifacts and features; and subsurface testing consisting of shovel- November 30, 2011 5-70 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency excavated test units in areas with less than 100% ground surface visibility. d. Prior to approval of the grading permit for an area requiring supplemental evaluation, the Applicant shall prepare a complete supplemental evaluation that is consistent with State Office of Historic Preservation Criteria and submit it to Solano County. The supplemental evaluation shall include recommendations of significance to the SHRC for the site(s). Commencement of ground disturbance shall not occur unless authorized by the County. e. Except in areas where the Applicant conducts additional surveys and obtains Solano County approval, the Applicant shall not conduct ground-disturbing activities in areas not previously surveyed for cultural resources, as evaluated in the pedestrian surveys conducted for the Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Shiloh IV Wind Project, Solano County, California (ICF International 2011). In any area where the Applicant conducts a subsequent survey, the Applicant shall submit it to Solano County for review and approval and shall not commence ground-disturbing activities there until Solano County has given authorization to do so. f. Identify the locations of known cultural resources on construction plans and drawings (which shall not be distributed beyond project personnel for the reasons described below), place a protective barrier around known cultural deposits, and educate construction personnel on avoidance measures. Cultural resources are easily disturbed, damaged, or destroyed and are a

November 30, 2011 5-71 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency nonrenewable resource. Additionally, some cultural resources may be at risk of looting. Therefore, information pertaining to the exact location of an archaeological site is exempt from the California Public Records Act. The location of these resources shall be made available only on a need-to-know basis to avoid disturbance, damage, or destruction. MM CUL-2B: Cultural and Paleontological Monitoring and Unanticipated Discovery Procedure The Applicant shall minimize impacts on cultural and paleontological resources in project evaluated during the pedestrian surveys for the Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Shiloh IV Wind Project, Solano County, California (ICF International 2011) and any subsequent surveys performed in compliance with Mitigation Measure CUL-2A by implementing the following measures: a. The Applicant shall post notices (signs) on and/or at all project construction trailers and portable lavatories, identifying the potential for cultural and paleontological resource discovery and the required notification procedures in the event of a find. Such notices shall be subject to County approval. b. The Applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist for training of construction personnel and periodic construction monitoring, as described further, below, in addition to “on call” consultation on potential finds either by telephone or in the field. i. The archaeologist shall have the following qualifications:

November 30, 2011 5-72 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency a) Working knowledge of the project area; b) Ability to identify the range of cultural resources known to exist in the vicinity of the project; c) Ability to recognize paleontological resources; and d) Approval of Solano County prior to commencement of construction activities. ii. Prior to construction, the qualified archaeologist shall: a) Train all construction personnel that would be engaged in ground disturbing construction activities about the potential for archaeological resource discovery and appropriate procedures for notification of a find. Training may be conducted in person, by video, or using another method approved by the County. b) Train the Applicant’s biological monitor to enable him or her to recognize a potential find, determine if it has potential archaeological, historical, or paleontological value, and isolate it for review by the qualified archaeologist. iii. During construction, the qualified archaeologist or archaeologist-trained biological monitor shall conduct weekly inspection of ground-disturbing activities within 0.1 mile of a known cultural resource site. c. The archaeological or archaeologist-trained biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily stop construction activities to inspect areas where ground-

November 30, 2011 5-73 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency disturbance has revealed potential cultural or paleontological resources. The Applicant shall suspend construction activities until the qualified archaeologist has inspected the discovery and determined required or recommended treatment for the resource(s), including but not limited to the following: i. Evaluation and Avoidance (Cultural Resources). The evaluation of unanticipated discovery of potentially significant cultural resources may require a subsurface testing and evaluation program for cultural resources. Resources determined to be significant or potentially significant shall be flagged and avoided. If necessary, the Project shall be redesigned to avoid impacts on cultural resources. ii. Recovery and Documentation (Cultural Resources). If the Applicant cannot implement site avoidance through project redesign, the Applicant shall implement a data recovery program to mitigate impacts. Appropriate treatment of significant or potentially significant cultural resource(s) includes excavation and removal of the resource(s) and curation in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified archaeologist and in consultation with Native Americans who are culturally affiliated with the area. iii. Evaluation and Avoidance (Paleontological Resources). If potential paleontological resources are encountered during construction, the qualified monitor shall suspend all construction activities in the vicinity of the potential resource to examine

November 30, 2011 5-74 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency the resource and determine the proper method to avoid adverse effects on the resource. If necessary, a qualified paleontological monitor shall be consulted to assist the cultural monitor through all phases of evaluation, avoidance, recovery, and documentation, as necessary. At the monitor’s discretion, the area in the vicinity of the potential resource may be flagged for avoidance. If necessary, the Project shall be redesigned to avoid impacts on paleontological resources. iv. Recovery and Documentation (Paleontological Resources). If site avoidance cannot be implemented through project redesign, the Applicant shall implement a data recovery program to mitigate impacts. Appropriate recovery of the potential resource may include removal from the site by plaster jacketing, taking a sample of the potentially fossiliferous formation, or, if necessary, excavation. Recovered specimens that are determined to be important paleontological resources shall be prepared to the point of curation, including the washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates or vertebrates, and stabilized to mitigate impacts. In the event that recovered specimens are determined to be important paleontological resources, the Applicant shall prepare and execute a written repository agreement with an established, accredited museum repository, and all important paleontological specimens shall be curated. v. Unanticipated Human Remains Discovery. If human remains are discovered, work in the vicinity

November 30, 2011 5-75 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency must stop until the County coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If they are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC. The NAHC will identify the person(s) it believes to be the "Most Likely Descendant" of the deceased Native American. The Most Likely Descendant would be responsible for recommending the disposition and treatment of the remains. The Most Likely Descendant may make recommendations to the Applicant and the County for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. d. For each of the unanticipated discovery scenarios described above, the Applicant shall immediately notify the Solano County Resource Management Department. Solano County will work with the qualified archaeologist, who shall work at the expense of the Applicant. The County shall determine whether the discovered resource can be avoided and, if impacts have not occurred, whether work can continue. If it is determined that the resource has been impacted and an assessment of its significance is required, work shall not resume until permission is received from Solano County. 10 Geology Impact GEO-1: Ground Shaking Mitigation Measure GEO-1A: Conduct a Site-Specific Review Solano County Prior to and Landslides Geotechnical Study geotechnical DRM construction To further reduce potential impacts associated with studies

November 30, 2011 5-76 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency geological hazards, the applicant shall: a. Conduct a geotechnical study to evaluate soil conditions and geologic hazards in the project area. The geotechnical study shall be signed by a California- registered geologist and approved by Solano County, and it shall identify the following: i. Location of fault traces and potential for surface rupture; ii. Potential for seismically induced ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, differential settlement, and mudflows and specific locations to be avoided where practicable; iii. Stability of existing cut-and-fill slopes; iv. Collapsible or expansive soils; v. Foundation material type; vi. Location of abandoned and active production wells to be avoided during construction; vii. Potential for wind erosion, water erosion, sedimentation, and flooding; and viii. Location and description of unprotected drainage that could be impacted by the proposed development. b. Design this project based on the results of this study to: i. Follow safety and building codes and other design requirements, as indicated by the site-specific geotechnical review, including the California Building Code; ii. Use existing roads to the greatest extent feasible to

November 30, 2011 5-77 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency minimize increased erosion; iii. Design fill slopes for an adequate factor of safety, considering material type and compaction, identified during the site-specific geotechnical study; iv. Cut slopes with a slope ratio compatible with the known geologic conditions or be stabilized by a buttressed fill; v. Avoid locating roads and structures near landslide and mudflow areas. Where avoidance of landslide areas is not feasible, relatively flat cut-and-fill slopes would be constructed (2:1 horizontal to vertical, or 26 percent or flatter). Roads would be constructed with slope buttressing consisting of excavation of the unstable materials, installation of subdrains, and reconstruction of the slopes to the designed grades using the excavated materials in properly compacted fills. Stabilization of soil, where required for tower foundations, shall use the same methods; vi. Utilize setback requirements from surrounding uses, including roads or utilities and/or diversion walls to mitigate impacts from mudflow-prone areas; vii. Avoid locating turbine locations, transmission lines, and associated structures astride faults, lineaments, or unstable areas; and viii. Depending on the findings of the site-specific geotechnical study, remove and replace shrink- swell soils with a non-expansive or non-collapsible soil, or use appropriate foundation or construction

November 30, 2011 5-78 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Mitigation Measure GEO-1B: Design Facilities to Withstand Ground Shaking To mitigate potential impacts caused by ground shaking and landslides, the Applicant shall design project facilities to withstand substantial fault movement consistent with findings of the geotechnical report required per RS.1-50 of the General Plan for wind turbine development projects. The geotechnical report shall include consideration of facility placement and design with respect to ground shaking and landslides. Impact GEO-2: Expansive Soils Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Design Facilities to Review Solano County Prior to and Soil Settlement Withstand Expansive Soils and Other Soil Hazards geotechnical DRM construction To reduce the potential impacts caused by expansive soils, studies soil compaction, and settlement, the Applicant shall design permanent aboveground facilities to withstand changes in soil density and include consideration of facility placement and design with respect to soil shrinking and swelling potential identified in the site-specific geotechnical report required by Mitigation Measure GEO-1A (Conduct a Site- Specific Geotechnical Study). Impact GEO-3: Loss of Soil from Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Implement Erosion 1) Review 1) Solano 1) Prior to Erosion Controls geotechnical County DRM construction The Applicant shall: studies a. Salvage all topsoil disturbed by project activities for 2) RWQCB 2) Prior to reuse during restoration. 2) Review SWPPP construction b. Monitor any disturbed areas each spring for eroding or November 30, 2011 5-79 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency slump areas and rehabilitate them as necessary, in 3) RWQCB coordination with Solano County. 3) Ensure 3) Periodically Mitigation Measures HYD-2A, HYD-2B and AIR-2 implementation of during SWPPP construction 11 Greenhouse Gases Impact GHG-1: Greenhouse None Required N/A N/A N/A Gas Emissions 12 Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Potential Mitigation Measure HAZ-1A: Proper Use and Storage 1) Review and 1) Solano 1) Prior to Hazardous Materials Spills of Materials approve SPCC County DRM construction Hazardous material inventories shall be required if chemicals stored on-site meet or exceed 55 gallons liquid, 2) Review 2) Solano 2) Prior to 200 cubic feet of gas and/or 500 pounds of solid, construction County DRM construction potentially hazardous materials. Hazardous material contracts to ensure inventories shall be provided to and evaluated by the all subcontractors 3) Solano 3) During Department of Resource Management’s Environmental are aware of and County DRM construction Health Division. In accordance with the California Health will comply with and operations and Safety Code and California Code of Regulations, the SPCC Plan Applicant shall prepare, submit to the appropriate agency,

and implement a Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan (Business Plan) and a Spill Prevention, 3) Inspect project Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan to avoid spills site to ensure and minimize impacts in the event of a spill. The purpose compliance of these plans is to ensure that adequate containment would be provided to control accidental spills, that adequate spill response equipment and absorbents would be readily available, and that personnel would be properly trained in how to control and clean up any spills. The Applicant shall also ensure the following regarding these plans:

November 30, 2011 5-80 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency a. The Applicant shall include as part of the Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan (Business Plan) a discussion of best practices to be used for hazardous materials management, including handling and storage procedures for all hazardous materials used on-site, spill prevention procedures, access and egress routes, procedures for fires involving hazardous materials, and notification procedures. b. The Applicant shall store and handle all paint, solvents, and any other hazardous materials in the manner specified by the manufacturer and in accordance with federal regulations and nationally and internationally recognized codes and standards. Small spray cans of carburetor fluid and other hazardous materials should be stored in an enclosed area in the enXco Operations and Maintenance facility. A material safety data sheet shall also be stored with each material. c. The plans shall be provided to all employees, including contractors, working on the Project, and one copy shall be available on-site at all times. d. All employees shall be properly trained in the use and handling of these materials. e. Should a spill of hazardous material occur, the Solano County Department of Resource Management shall have jurisdiction over response and cleanup operations. f. The plans shall be certified by a professional engineer. g. The plans shall be submitted to the Solano County Department of Resource Management at least 30 days prior to construction.

November 30, 2011 5-81 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency Mitigation Measure HAZ-1B: Waste Management Plan The Applicant shall prepare and implement a Waste Management Plan (Plan) in accordance with, and shall otherwise comply with, the following: a. The plan shall describe the storage, transportation, and handling of wastes, and emphasize the recycling of construction wastes where possible. b. The plan shall identify the specific landfills that would receive construction wastes that could not be recycled. c. The Applicant shall manage construction wastes in accordance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq. and RCRA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR 260, et seq.) and other applicable state and local regulations. d. The plan shall be submitted to the Solano County Department of Resource Management at least 30 days prior to construction. Commencement of construction shall not occur unless authorized by the County. Impact HAZ-2: Encountering Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Plan for Encountering Review Plan Solano County Prior to Hazardous Materials/Waste during Contaminated Soil, Groundwater, Natural Gas Wells, DRM construction Construction and Other Hazards Prior to construction, the Applicant shall prepare, submit to the Solano County Department of Resource Management, and implement a written plan in accordance with the following: a. The plan shall specify proper handling, reporting, and disposal procedures to ensure proper protocols are followed in the event that hazardous materials are encountered unexpectedly during construction.

November 30, 2011 5-82 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency b. The plan shall address the potential for unearthing or exposing buried hazardous materials or contamination or shallow contaminated groundwater during construction activities, likely within six feet of the surface. c. The plan shall detail the steps that the Applicant or its contractor shall take to prevent the migration of contaminated soils or other materials off-site and the remedial action that will be undertaken. d. The plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Solano County Department of Resource Management prior to construction. e. The Applicant shall provide worker awareness training based on the plan prior to construction. f. At a minimum, construction crews shall stop work and notify the Department of Resource Management, and appropriate federal and State agencies, immediately after encountering any hazards. g. The Applicant shall review applicable maps of abandoned natural gas well locations prior to construction to ensure that no ground-disturbing activities will be conducted and no structures will be built over or in proximity to an abandoned well location. h. If any wells are inadvertently uncovered or damaged during excavation or grading, the Applicant shall immediately contact DOGGR’s Sacramento District office to obtain information on the requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations, which the Applicant will perform upon DOGGR approval.

November 30, 2011 5-83 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency i. A licensed waste disposal contractor shall remove the hazardous materials, once identified, from the site, according to federal, state, and local requirements. 13 Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HYD-1: Impacts on Mitigation Measures BIO-2A and BIO-2B N/A N/A N/A Wetlands, Streams, and Waters of the United States Impact HYD-2: Water Quality Mitigation Measure HYD-2A: Storm Water Pollution 1) Review Notice 1) RWQCB 1) Prior to Degradation Prevention Plan of Intent to construction Comply with The Construction General Permit requires preparation of a 2) RWQCB Construction SWPPP by a certified contractor and submittal to the 2) Periodically General Permit and Regional Water Quality Control Board, which enforces the during SWPPP . 3) Solano provisions of the general permit. construction County DRM a. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the SWPPP to the Solano County Public Works Engineering (Public 2) Ensure 3) Prior to Works) and provide copies of notices and annual implementation of 4) Solano Construction reports submitted to the RWQCB under the provisions SWPPP. County DRM

of General Permit Orders 2009-0009-DWQ. 4) During b. The Applicant shall include erosion and sedimentation 3) Approve grading 5) Solano construction, if control BMPs in SWPPP to protect the water quality of permit. County DRM aquatic resources in and near the project area, including appropriate

Lucol Hollow, Clank Hollow, and Hopkins Ravine. 4) Approve 6) Solano The SWPPP shall the following measures: 5) Prior to construction County DRM i. Erosion control BMPs such as scheduling, construction activities between preservation of existing vegetation, hydraulic October 15 and mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders, straw mulch, 7) Solano April 15. 6) During geotextiles and mats, wood mulching, earth dikes County DRM construction, if and drainage swales, velocity dissipation devices, appropriate slope drains, streambank stabilization, and 5) Approve polyacrylamide; construction

November 30, 2011 5-84 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency ii. Sedimentation control BMPs such as silt fences, activities within 100 7) Post sediment basins, sediment traps, check dams, fiber feet of aquatic construction rolls, gravel bag berms, sand bag barriers, straw resources. bale barriers, and chemical treatment; and iii. Cover and berm loose stockpiled construction 6) Inspect project materials that are not actively being used. site to ensure Mitigation Measure HYD-2B: Storm Water Discharge compliance with and Sedimentation Control measures to Due to the project-specific characteristics, including hilly minimize impacts terrain, possible construction during the rainy season and of construction potential construction within the 100-foot buffer from within 100 feet of aquatic resources, the following additional measures would aquatic resources. be required to minimize erosion, storm water discharge, and sedimentation from project construction. These 7) Inspect project measures would be enforced as conditions of the required site to ensure Solano County grading permit. successful a. If the County determines that there is no feasible revegetation and alternative that would maintain the 100 foot setback restoration. from an aquatic resources, the Applicant shall adhere to requirements in Mitigation Measure BIO-2A.a. and shall implement the following additional measures to reduce sedimentation and contamination of aquatic resources: i. Confine construction activity for access road entrances from Birds Landing Road such that the activity does not disturb the opposite side of road where Lucol Hollow is located. ii. Locate equipment that is not in use more than 250 feet of aquatic resources. b. Site and conduct all vehicle fueling and scheduled

November 30, 2011 5-85 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency equipment maintenance at the designated equipment laydown area to prevent spills of fuel or other hazardous materials from affecting aquatic resources. Where vehicle maintenance (excluding fueling) cannot be avoided in areas outside those previously specified, the Applicant shall perform these maintenance activities as least 250 feet from all aquatic resources, on an impermeable bladder or tarp specified for such maintenance activities. c. If construction activities occur during the restrictive Solano County rainy season between October 15th and April 15th, the Applicant shall obtain prior written approval from the Director of Resource Management. Approval of such wet weather construction activities would be dependent and conditional upon weather, site and soil conditions, monitoring by the County, and the Applicant’s adherence to requirements set by the Department of Resource Management. d. The Applicant shall discontinue grading and other ground disturbing activities during precipitation or when told to do so by the Department of Resource Management. Mitigation Measure AIR-2, BIO-1A, BIO-1B, GEO-3, HAZ-1A, and HAZ-1B Impact HYD-3: Increased Rate of None Required N/A N/A N/A Storm Water Runoff from Permanently Disturbed Surfaces Impact HYD-4: Water Use None Required N/A N/A N/A Impact HYD-5: Impeded or None Required N/A N/A N/A Redirected Flood Flows

November 30, 2011 5-86 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

14 Land Use Impact LU-1: Conflicts with Mitigation Measure LU-1: Provide Public Road, 1) Inspect project 1) Solano 1) During Applicable Land Use Plans and Property Line, Residential, and Transmission Facility site to evaluate County DRM construction Policies Setback Waivers compliance with setbacks. To ensure that the Project is consistent with Solano 2) Solano 2) Prior to County setback requirements, the Applicant shall comply County DRM construction with the following measures: 2) Review/ a. Prior to construction of the turbine or meteorological approve setback

foundation, the Applicant shall furnish the Solano waivers.

County Department of Resource Management with the final planned location and elevations of turbines and

meteorological towers and the adjacent public roads, railroads, property lines, residences, and above ground

electrical transmission facilities to review conformance

with Solano County’s setback requirements.

b. Wind turbines and meteorological towers shall be located as follows:

i. Three times (3x) the total turbine height, 1,245 feet

for 415-foot turbines and 1,146 feet for 382-foot

turbines, from property lines and residences, and from public roads, railroads, and above ground

electrical transmission facilities, as measured to

their right-of-way or easement, as applicable, unless a reduced setback is otherwise allowed by

the General Plan;

ii. At least one turbine blade length plus 10 feet from any other structure on the property; and,

iii. Meteorological towers shall be setback a minimum

November 30, 2011 5-87 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency of 1.25 times (1.25x) the maximum height of the tower (i.e., the height of the tower plus 25%). from property lines and residences, and from public

roads, railroads, and above ground electrical transmission facilities as measured to their right-of- way or easement, as applicable. c. Where a reduced turbine setback is allowed as prescribed in paragraph b.i., above, the Applicant shall comply with the alternative minimum setback requirements prescribed in Mitigation Measure SA-1B.

d. Where a turbine setback of less than three times the total turbine height from an adjacent property line, other than a public road, is proposed, prior to construction the Applicant shall submit to the Department of Resource Management evidence of the following:

i. That the minimum setback distance equivalent to one turbine blade length plus five feet (unless otherwise required by California Building Code) is provided for interior property lines within the project area; ii. That the minimum setback distance equivalent to one turbine blade length plus 20 feet is provided for exterior property lines defining the project boundary; and iii. That overall setback is adequate to avoid hazards to the adjacent landowner, as determined by the County. e. Prior to construction of the turbine foundation at locations where a reduced setback is proposed, the Applicant shall furnish to the Department of Resource

November 30, 2011 5-88 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency Management a written waiver(s) from the affected adjacent property owners consenting to the turbine(s) being installed with a reduced setback on the abutting

property. In the case of a reduced public road setback, the adjacent property owner is the owner of property on the opposite side of the road. The waiver shall be subject to County approval, be irrevocable, and recorded with the Solano County Recorder prior to

installation of the affecting turbine.

Review grading Mitigation Measure LU-1B: Parking Compliance. plans and final Solano County Prior to issuing Provisions for parking associated with the existing and project design for DRM grading permit proposed O&M buildings shall conform to the County’s compliance with Zoning Regulations Section 28-55 (Parking Requirements). Solano County parking requirements.

Impact LU-2: Physically Divide a None Required N/A N/A N/A Piece of Property or Established Community Impact LU-3: Induce Substantial None Required N/A N/A N/A Population Growth in an Area, Either Directly or Indirectly and/or Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing Housing or Numbers of People Impact LU-4: Inhibit Future Land Mitigation Measure LU-4: Guarantee Bond or Confirm Applicant Solano County Prior to Use of the Project Area Corporate Surety obtained surety DRM construction To ensure that future land uses in the project area are not bond or other inhibited after the Project is decommissioned, the bond.

November 30, 2011 5-89 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency Applicant shall: a. Set aside decommissioning funds in the form of a surety bond or other bond acceptable to the County as a specific project budget item; b. Execute the surety bond or other county-accepted bond on behalf of the Project in favor of the County, with an independent administrator of such funds, to cover all decommissioning costs in an amount approved by the County; and c. Maintain the bond for the life of the Project and through any transfer of ownership. 15 Noise Impact NOI-1: Short-term Mitigation Measures NOI-1: Reduce Construction 1) Inspect project 1) Solano 1) During Increase in Noise Levels during Noise site. County DRM construction Construction To reduce noise levels associated with construction of the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project, the Applicant shall comply 2) Review/ 2) Solano 2) Prior to with the following measures: approve Noise County DRM construction a. Equipment Care: Equipment engines shall be covered, Complaint Plan. and the Applicant shall ensure that mufflers are in good working condition. This measure can reduce equipment noise by 5 to 10 dBA (EPA 1971). b. Restricted Work Hours: Work hours shall be restricted for all noise generating construction activities from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. c. Equipment Location: All stationary equipment such as compressors and welding machines shall be shielded and located away from noise receptors to the extent practicable. d. Pneumatic Tools: Pneumatic tools to be used within November 30, 2011 5-90 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency 1,500 feet of a residence shall have an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust. This shall be included in the construction specifications. e. Prior to issuance of any grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first, for the Project, the Applicant shall prepare a Construction Noise Complaint Plan and submit it to the Solano County Department of Resource Management for approval. The Construction Noise Complaint Plan shall detail how the Applicant will respond to construction noise complaints, keep the County apprised of the complaints, and document the resolution of those complaints. Impact NOI-2: Long-term Mitigation Measure NOI-2A: Reduce or Avoid 1) Inspect project 1) Solano 1) During Increase in Noise during Operational Noise site. County DRM construction Operation of the Shiloh IV Wind Based on the proposed turbine configuration evaluated in Energy Project Figure 15.2-1 of the Draft EIR, noise generated by Shiloh 2) Review/ 2) Solano 2) Prior to IV project turbines is predicted to exceed applicable approve County DRM building permit exterior Solano County standards for wind turbine attenuation generators (50 dBA CNEL or equivalent steady-state 44 analyses and plan 3) Solano 3) Prior to dBA Leq) at residences 3, 7, 11, 13, and 14. The Applicant for committing to County DRM building permit shall reduce or avoid the Shiloh IV project’s potential operational operational noise impacts through implementation of the limitations or following measures: adjustments. 4) Solano 4) Upon County DRM receipt of a. The Applicant shall implement one or more of the reasonable 3) Review waivers following actions, enumerated as subparagraphs i. thru noise from landowners. iii., to comply with County noise standards: complaint i. Relocate and/or employ noise restricted operating modes at turbines as necessary such that the 4) Follow Project would not exceed applicable exterior noise measures for

November 30, 2011 5-91 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency levels at all affected residences. Prior to starting resolution of any construction activity at any affecting turbine or complaints, if any. otherwise as noted, the Applicant shall: a) Submit to the County for review and approval additional technical noise data demonstrating that the proposed turbine relocations and/or noise restricted modes would enable the Shiloh IV project to meet applicable County exterior noise standards of 44 dBA Leq / 50 dBA CNEL; and b) If noise restricted modes are employed, submit to the County written manufacturer’s documentation that Project turbines can operate in noise-restricted modes assumed in the additional technical noise data required above. ii. Prior to obtaining a building permit for the affecting wind turbine or otherwise as noted, submit to the County for review and approval additional attenuation analyses demonstrating, based on terrain effects, nighttime wind speed, or other considerations, that the proposed configuration would not exceed applicable County standards (50 dBA CNEL or equivalent steady- state 44 dBA Leq) at any residences. iii. Prior to beginning construction of the foundations for the affecting turbine(s), provide the County with a written waiver from the property owner, which shall: 1) be subject to County approval and shall specify that the property owner consents to allowing construction of one or more turbines that

November 30, 2011 5-92 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency would place their residence in exceedance of exterior noise limits (with full disclosure of the estimated levels at the residence) and waives their right to any noise mitigation by the wind energy operator after the turbine(s) become operational; and 2) be recorded with the Solano County Recorder, be binding on the property as long as the turbines are in operation, and shall be irrevocable. b. Prior to obtaining a building permit for the affecting wind turbine(s), provide the County with a plan that is subject to County approval for committing to operational limitations or adjustments (e.g., partial “feathering” of the turbine blades) during nighttime hours or other provisions that would be implemented based upon noise complaints from nearby residents. Such limitations would provide a basis for reducing the CNEL penalty imposed for nighttime noise. The plan would not be implemented unless field measurements by the Applicant verify that noise from nearby turbines substantially influences noise levels at the residence and exceeds the 50 dBA CNEL (or equivalent steady A- weighted 44 dBA) criterion and the County has reviewed and approved these measures. c. If the Applicant modifies the turbine configuration subsequent to what has been evaluated in this EIR (i.e., locates turbines closer to or additional turbines within 4,000 feet of a residence), there is potential for the 50 dBA CNEL noise criteria (or the equivalent steady- state 44 dBA Leq) to be exceeded at residences other than residences 3, 7, 11, 13, and 14. In the event the Applicant modifies the final turbine configuration such

November 30, 2011 5-93 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency that it is different than that evaluated in this EIR, the Applicant shall, prior to obtaining a building permit for any potential affecting wind turbine(s): i. Conduct a supplemental noise analysis and provide an acoustical report to the County that evaluates predicted noise levels under the modified configuration relative to applicable noise criteria; and ii. If noise levels at any residences are predicted to exceed applicable criteria, the Applicant shall implement either measure a.i, a.ii, or a.iii above (i.e., relocate or employ noise-restricted mode at affecting turbines, conduct additional attenuation analyses to demonstrate noise levels would not be exceeded, or obtain a waiver from the landowner).

Mitigation Measure NOI-2B: Operational Noise Complaint Plan To reduce and prevent impacts associated with operational noise, the Applicant shall implement the following measures: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the first wind turbine in the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project, the Applicant shall submit an Operational Noise Complaint Plan to the Solano County Department of Resource Management Department for approval. The plan shall detail how the Applicant will respond to operational noise complaints, keep the county apprised of the complaints, and document the resolution of those complaints. The Construction and Operational Noise Compliant Plans may be consolidated into a

November 30, 2011 5-94 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency single plan that addresses both construction and operation. b. Upon receipt of a reasonable complaint alleging that noise from the operation of the turbines is causing noise levels at the exterior of a residence to exceed the 50 dBA CNEL or 44 dBA steady noise level, except where a noise waiver has been recorded on the affected property: i. The Solano County Department of Resource Management shall commission, at the Applicant’s expense, a qualified acoustical firm to conduct a site-specific study to verify whether noise levels routinely exceed the 50 dBA CNEL criterion at the residence and whether these levels can be attributed, at least in part, to the operation of specific Shiloh IV turbines. All findings shall be consolidated into a single report. The acoustical firm shall be authorized to require that the Applicant cease operation of the specified turbines at such times as may be necessary for a period not to exceed 10 days to verify that the noise levels at the residence would be noticeably reduced (3 dB decrease in sound levels) by modifications to or restrictions on the operation of the specified Shiloh IV turbines. Upon verification of the complaint, the qualified firm shall identify the circumstances and measures that could be undertaken to ensure conformance with the 50 dBA CNEL (or 44 dBA equivalent) standard. ii. For 30 days after the receipt of the verification of the complaint and mitigation recommendations,

November 30, 2011 5-95 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency the Applicant shall attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of this matter with the party making the allegation and shall report any such resolution to the Solano County Department of Resource Management in a timely manner. iii. If a resolution of the complaint is not achieved within 30 days, and as determined by the Solano County Department of Resource Management, the Applicant shall implement one or more of the recommendations specified in the acoustical report (Appendix F) required by b. i. above to achieve conformance with the applicable standards, which may include operational curtailment and/or turbine relocation. The Applicant and the County would not be responsible for responding to turbine-related noise complaints affecting a property where the property owner, at the time of Project construction, recorded on the property an irrevocable noise waiver, allowing exterior noise from turbines in excess of Solano County’s noise thresholds. 16 Public Services and Utilities Impact PSU-1: Public Services Mitigation Measures HAZ-1A, SA-2B and SA-5 N/A N/A N/A Impact PSU-2: Public Utilities None Required N/A N/A N/A Impact PSU-3: Interference with Mitigation Measure PSU-3: Notification and Siting 1) Review notices 1) Solano 1) Prior to Microwave Transmissions In order to reduce potential impacts on microwave and results of County DRM building transmissions and radio frequency facilities, the following negotiations, if any permits shall apply to the Applicant prior to construction: a. If the Applicant revises turbine locations to place a turbine within 328 feet (100 meters) of a microwave path, c Conduct a revised study and prepare a report

November 30, 2011 5-96 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency on the effect upon nearby FCC licensed microwave and fixed station radio frequency facilities due to the construction of the Project. The report shall describe the results of the study and analysis to determine the locations of FCC microwave and fixed station radio frequency facilities that may be adversely impacted as a result of the construction of wind turbines in the project area. i. The revised study and report shall be prepared by a qualified professional telecommunications and technology design firm with experience evaluating impacts on microwave transmissions and radio frequency facilities. ii. The report shall be based on the final siting plan of the project’s turbines and shall describe impact zones and recommendations concerning individual wind turbine siting to avoid impacts. iii. The study shall also evaluate the effect of proposed turbines on radio communication at Sandy Beach Park. iv. If specific turbines are found to adversely impact FCC microwave facilities, the turbines shall be re- sited to avoid impacts. v. If turbines are found to substantially degrade fixed station radio frequency facilities or radio communication at Sandy Beach Park, they shall be re-sited to ensure interference is reduced to acceptable levels. Alternatively, the Applicant shall upgrade or relocate affected radio transmitter equipment to ensure interference is reduced to acceptable levels.

November 30, 2011 5-97 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency vi. All report results shall be submitted to Solano County at least 30 days prior to construction, and are subject to review and approval by the County. b. Less than six months before construction begins, a qualified professional technology design firm with experience evaluating impacts on microwave transmissions and radio frequencies shall conduct an updated FCC database search and, if new microwave paths in or near the project area have been added to the FCC database, the firm shall update the microwave study as needed. c b. No turbine or meteorological tower shall be installed in any location along the major axis of an existing microwave communications link. Wind turbines and meteorological towers shall be sited outside of microwave paths to avoid potential conflict with microwave communication signals. i. The Applicant shall confirm the geographic coordinates and heights of the microwave antennas through a land survey to confirm that all turbine locations would conform to the applicable provisions of the California Building Code with respect to WCFZ. ii. Turbines may require an adjustment in location depending upon the results of the land survey. Prior to construction, the Applicant shall submit a report by a licensed engineer based on the revised turbine locations to the County verifying that no turbines would be located within an existing microwave path. iii. No turbine or meteorological tower shall be

November 30, 2011 5-98 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency installed in any location where its proximity with other fixed broadcast, retransmission or reception antenna for radio, television, internet service, wireless phone, or other communications systems would produce EMI with the signal transmission or reception of such facilities. d c. The Applicant shall be required to comply with the following measures prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall: i. Provide notification of proposed locations and heights of turbine and meteorological towers to all owners of frequency-based communication stations, towers, and microwave station owners as recorded by the FCC, television and radio station owners, and owners of any other unrecorded but physically observed cellular, PCS, or other mobile communications service antennas within two miles of the Project. ii. Notify all land mobile licensees identified in the microwave study by letter and describe the specific turbine locations and the estimated project impact. iii. Inspect the site to identify any undocumented communications towers or antennas, including microwave and cellular. iv. Resolve any anomalies identified by receiving equipment modifications or installation of satellite dishes in appropriate cases. Additional options for resolution include installation of a higher-gain outside antenna to increase the strength of the direct wave. e d. In the event that a complaint is received regarding

November 30, 2011 5-99 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency microwave or land mobile pathway interference, the Applicant shall appropriately and satisfactorily resolve receiver interference through coordination with owners of frequency-based communication stations and towers and is responsible for any remediation necessary to restore the affected communication signal at a minimum to pre-turbine or meteorological tower installed levels. Possible actions include installation of high-performance antennas at nearby microwave sites, if required. Impact PSU-4: Interference with Mitigation Measure PSU-3 N/A N/A N/A Television or Radio Reception Impact PSU-5: Navigational None Required N/A N/A N/A System Interference 17 Recreation Impact Rec-1: Impacts to the None Required N/A N/A N/A Quality of Recreational Experience Impact Rec-2: The Shiloh IV None Required N/A N/A N/A Wind Energy Project Could Conflict with Future Plans for a Regional Park near the Western Railway Museum 18 Safety Impact SA-1: Blade or Blade Mitigation Measure SA-1A: Wind Turbine Design and 1) Review 1) Solano 1) Prior to Fragment Throw and Tower Safety Mechanisms. To prevent rotor and tower failure manufacturer's County DRM construction Failure and avoid potential impacts, the Applicant shall specifications for the wind turbines. incorporate the following measures into the project design: 2) Solano 2) Prior to a. Turbines shall conform to international standards for County DRM construction wind turbine generating systems, including IEC 2) Review waivers,

November 30, 2011 5-100 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency 61400-1: Wind Turbine Generator Systems – Part I: if any, from Design Requirements (2005) and shall be certified adjacent property according to these requirements, to assure that the owners where a static, dynamic, and defined life fatigue stresses of the reduced turbine blade would not be exceeded under the combined load setback is expected in the Shiloh IV Wind Project Area. proposed. b. The Applicant shall adhere to state and local building codes during turbine installation on the foundations, which would also minimize the risk of rotor and tower failure. c. To prevent safety hazards due to over-speed, the Applicant shall install a comprehensive protection system on each turbine to prevent excess rotor speed and turbine and tower failures, such as rotor speed controlled by a redundant pitch control system and a backup disk brake system. d. To prevent safety hazards due to tower failure, the Applicant shall: i. Design the turbine towers and foundation to withstand wind speed of 100 miles per hour at the standard height of 30 feet; ii. Engineer the turbines according to California Building Code Earthquake Standards; and iii. Ensure that all installed equipment shall meet the standards of NEMA, ANSI, and Cal-OSHA. e. To prevent safety hazards due to electrical failure, electrical systems and the substation shall: i. Be designed by California-registered electrical

November 30, 2011 5-101 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency engineers; and ii. Meet the latest editions of national electrical safety codes and other national standards, including NEMA, ANSI, and Cal-OSHA standards and the California Electrical Code. f. The Applicant shall provide the County with manufacturer's specifications for the wind turbines, specifying that all turbines are equipped with a braking system, blade pitch control, and/or other mechanism for rotor control and shall have both manual and automatic over-speed controls. Mitigation Measure SA-1B: Project Turbine Siting. To reduce potential impacts associated with turbine failure, the Applicant shall site turbines and meteorological towers an appropriate distance from public roads, railroads, transmission facilities, property lines, and residences to protect the public should a turbine or meteorological tower fail as follows: a. Where a turbine setback of less than three times the total turbine height from a residence is proposed, prior to construction the Applicant shall submit to the Department of Resource Management evidence that the affected turbines meet or exceed the minimum setback requirement of 1.2 times the maximum turbine blade throw distance as recommended by the hazards analysis report (KPFF 2011). b. Where a turbine setback of less than three times the total turbine height from a public road is proposed, prior to construction the Applicant shall submit to the Department of Resource Management evidence that

November 30, 2011 5-102 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency the affected turbines meet or exceed the minimum setback requirement of 1.2 times the maximum turbine blade throw distance recommended by the hazards analysis report (KKPF 2011) and approved by the Public Works Engineering Division. Such evidence shall include, but not be limited to, certification of the elevation of the turbine base and adjacent road. c. Where a turbine setback of less than three times the total turbine height from an above-ground electrical transmission facility or railroad is proposed, prior to construction the Applicant shall submit to the Department of Resource Management evidence that the affected turbines meet or exceed the minimum setback requirement of 1.2 times the maximum turbine blade throw distance as recommended by the hazards analysis report (KPFF 2011). Alternatively, a lesser setback may be allowed by the Department of Resource Management, based on the written consent of the landowner and/or the asset owner. d. Should an alternative turbine be used that is not adequately assessed in the hazards analysis report (KPFF 2011), as determined by the County, any required setback that is a function of maximum blade throw distance shall be established based on the recommendations of a qualified professional engineer for the turbine model and location, at the Applicant’s expense, subject to approval of the Director of Resource Management.

Impact SA-2: Electrical Shock and Mitigation Measure SA-2A: Install Grounding and 1) Inspect project 1) Solano 1) Periodically during

November 30, 2011 5-103 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency Accidents Shut-off Mechanisms on Project Facilities site County DRM construction To protect workers from electrical shock and other work- related accidents the following measures shall be 2) Review Injury 2) Cal/OSHA 2) Prior to implemented: and Illness construction a. Grounding shall be designed and implemented to the Prevention 3) Solano standards of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Program County DRM 3) Prior to Engineers. construction b. All turbines and utility lines shall be equipped with 3) Require automatic and manual-disconnect mechanisms. Applicant to verify c. Two circuit breakers that can be both manually and consistency of automatically operated shall be provided between each Injury and Illness turbine and the connection to the electrical grid. Prevention d. The electrical systems and substations shall be Program with designed by California-registered electrical engineers Cal/OSHA and shall meet the latest editions of the national regulations electrical safety codes and other national standards, including NEMA, ANSI, and Cal-OSHA standards and the California Electrical Code. e. These mechanisms shall be installed and tested before interconnection. Mitigation Measure SA-2B: Injury and Illness Prevention Plan Prior to construction, the Applicant shall develop, in accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations, a project-specific Injury and Illness Prevention Plan for implementation during construction and operation which specifies responsibilities and procedures to protect employees and reduce losses resulting from injuries and illness. The Injury and Illness Prevention Program shall be available at the project site. The Applicant shall be responsible for

November 30, 2011 5-104 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency ensuring that all personnel receive adequate training and that new employees receive supervision by trained personnel. Impact SA-3: Accidents Involving Mitigation Measure SA-3: Limit Public Access to the Inspect project site Solano Periodically the General Public (Other Than Project Area County DRM during Turbine Failure) construction The Applicant shall minimize accidents involving the and operation public and impacts on the public by limiting access to the project area. The Applicant shall limit access to the project area by: a. Installing locking gates where new access roads constructed within the project area connects to existing public access roads. To further limit access from public roads the Applicant shall: i. Only provide keys to authorized personnel and landowners, thereby preventing access by the public; ii. Post and maintain no-trespassing signs at the entrance gates; and iii. Post and maintain signs at the entrance gates noting the existence of high-voltage and underground cable on the site and warning people of electrocution hazards; b. Installing locks on the turbine towers and the substation, and the Applicant shall: i. Only provide keys to authorized personnel, thereby preventing access by the public; ii. Install a sign with high-voltage warning at the substation; c. Ensuring that all facilities in a. and b. above are maintained, locked, and/or otherwise secured at all

November 30, 2011 5-105 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency times to discourage unauthorized access; d. In addition to existing agricultural fencing that is already in place, installing additional fencing as requested by the landowner and agreed to in landowner agreements, which will further inhibit public access; e. Providing training for project personnel to monitor for unauthorized individuals and activities during construction activities and throughout operation and to report such observations to the project superintendent on duty; f. During operation of the Project, long-term staff shall conduct periodic surveillance of the project area to identify access or signs of access (e.g., vandalism) by unauthorized individuals and shall report such incidents to the project superintendent on duty. The Applicant shall rectify such incidents (e.g., installing additional locks or increasing intervals of surveillance) and, as necessary, work with Solano County and local enforcement agencies in doing so; and g. Ensuring that all tower-climbing apparatus and blade tips of the wind turbines shall be no closer than fifteen feet from ground level unless enclosed by a 6-foot high fence. Impact SA-4: Impacts from None Required N/A N/A N/A Shadow Flicker

Impact SA-5: Impacts From Mitigation Measure SA-5A: Wind Project Grass Fire 1) Review of Plan 1) Solano 1) Prior to Wildfires Control Plan County DRM construction To minimize the potential for grass fires, the following 2) Review of Plan

November 30, 2011 5-106 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency shall be required: and approval as 2) Montezuma 2) Prior to a. Prior to commencing construction, the Applicant shall applicable Fire Protection grading and develop and implement a Grass Fire Control Plan for District building permits use during construction and operation. The Grass Fire 3) Inspect project Control Plan shall include notification procedures and site to ensure 3) Solano emergency fire precautions. implementation of County DRM 3) Periodically b. During project construction, the Applicant shall the Plan. during comply with the following: construction 4) Montezuma and operation i. All internal combustion engines, stationary and 4) Accessibility of Fire Protection mobile, shall be equipped with spark arresters; water storage tanks District ii. Spark arresters shall be in good working order; as needed. 4) Throughout construction iii. Light trucks and cars with factory-installed (type) 5) Solano and operation, mufflers, in good condition, may be used on roads 5) Issuance of County DRM as needed where the roadway is cleared of vegetation; grading and iv. No smoking signs and fire rules shall be posted on building permits the project bulletin board at the contractor’s field pending receipt of 5) Prior to office and in areas visible to employees during the Fire District grading and fire season; and approval building v. Equipment parking areas and small stationary permits engine sites shall be cleared of all extraneous flammable materials. c. During project operation, the Applicant shall comply with the following: i. Warning signs for high-voltage equipment shall be posted; ii. Brush and other dried vegetation around pad- mount transformers and riser poles shall be cleared annually; iii. Employees shall be trained in using extinguishers

November 30, 2011 5-107 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency and communicating with the Montezuma Fire Protection District; and iv. Accommodate inspections by the Montezuma Fire Protection District. d. The Grass Fire Control Plan shall be submitted to the County for approval. The Applicant shall not commence construction activities until the County has approved the plan. e. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Grass Fire Control Plan, along with maps of the Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Area and roads, to the Montezuma Fire Protection District for their approval. f. The Applicant shall provide the Montezuma Fire Protection District access to its water storage tanks, if needed. Mitigation Measure SA-5B: Comply with Fire Codes Requirements for Access Roads. In order to provide safe access for fire apparatus in the event of fire, and reduce potential fire impacts to a less than significant level, the Applicant shall design and construct access roads within the project boundaries in compliance with applicable Fire Code standards as determined by the Montezuma Fire Protection District. Prior to construction, the Applicant shall submit project plans to the Montezuma Fire Protection District for review and approval. No grading permit shall be issued until such time as the County has received written approval of the Project, including access road plans, from the Fire District. Impact SA-6: Safety Impacts Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 Related to Accidentally Damaging

November 30, 2011 5-108 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

19 Transportation Impact TRA-1: Temporary Mitigation Measure TRA-1: Develop a Traffic Control 1) Review Traffic 1) Solano 1) Prior to Increase in Traffic during Plan and Transportation Plan for the Project Control and County DRM; construction Construction The Applicant shall develop a Traffic Control Plan to be Transportation Caltrans Plans implemented during construction. Requirements for the 2) During Traffic Control Plan are as follows: 2) Solano construction a. The Traffic Control Plan shall be based on the 2) Inspect project County DRM project’s final engineering design, prepared by a site to ensure registered professional engineer, and be submitted for compliance review and approval to the Solano County Public Works Engineering Division (for affected county roads) and to Caltrans (for affected state highways at least 45 days prior to construction. The Traffic Control Plan shall: i. Describe the location, schedule, and safety procedures for land and road closures as well as the hours, routes, and safety and management requirements; ii. Describe how the Applicant shall implement the following measures: a) Traffic safety measures, such as warning signs on approaches to areas with construction activity (i.e., “Construction Traffic Ahead” or equivalent) to prevent hazards to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians; b) Scheduling of construction traffic to avoid peak traffic hours;

November 30, 2011 5-109 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency c) Procedures for coordination with local jurisdictions to notify residents of alternate traffic routes and provide other notifications, as required by Solano County or other transportation agencies (e.g., Caltrans); d) Best Management Practices to reduce traffic impacts (e.g., identifying parking areas to be located in approved work areas) and to minimize trips on local roads. For example, construction equipment would be delivered directly to the construction location rather than to the staging area and carpooling would be promoted; e) Ensuring access for emergency vehicles at all times; f) Providing temporary access to businesses, residences, and/or pedestrians during construction; g) Opening lanes as soon as possible to restore normal traffic patterns; h) During the design phase, coordination by the Applicant with other utilities service providers to ensure conflicts with other utilities are minimized; i) Designing and constructing new roads to accommodate traffic and minimize the potential for accidents, in accordance with all applicable Caltrans and Solano County specifications, including appropriate slopes, sufficient turning radii, and appropriate

November 30, 2011 5-110 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency roadway depth; and j) After construction, restoring the routes to original conditions. b. The Applicant shall also develop, provide to Solano County Public Works Engineering Division, and adhere to a Transportation Plan that addresses the following issues: i. Describe the location, schedule, and safety procedures for lane and road closures as well as the hours, routes, and safety management requirements; ii. Transport of all equipment to the site; iii. Transport of all equipment during equipment removal; iv. Transport of all building materials; v. Circulation, itemizing how many of each vehicle type shall use which roads; vi. Security bonding; vii. Vehicular traffic types and amounts necessary; viii. Extra-legal loads; ix. Signage; x. Road maintenance; and xi. Obtaining required grading, transportation, and encroachment permits from Solano County and Caltrans. Impact TRA-2: Temporary Mitigation Measure TRA-2: Minimize Lane Closures Inspect project site Solano County During Disruptions to Traffic Flow during and Provide Alternative Access for the Project to ensure DRM construction Construction To minimize impacts on traffic caused by temporary lane compliance

November 30, 2011 5-111 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency closures, if required, the Applicant shall: a. Implement the procedures identified in the Traffic Control Plan to provide alternate access to residents/businesses and emergency vehicles and reopen roads as soon as possible; b. Obtain advance approval from Solano County Public Works of any lane closure; c. Allow lane closures only during workdays (no overnight lane closures shall be allowed) and limit them to the minimum amount of time needed to complete necessary activities, with consecutive daily closure of no more than two weeks for any road, thereby preventing impacts to adjacent land uses; and d. Provide at least one access lane or alternate access at all times. Impact TRA-3: Damage to Mitigation Measure TRA-3: Minimize Road Damage Establish an Solano County Prior to Existing Roads Due to and Repair Roads. The Applicant shall be responsible agreement DRM construction Construction, Maintenance, and for maintaining, repairing, paving, and reconstructing identifying that Operation County roads through implementation of the following roads shall be measures. The Applicant shall: repaired to original conditions after a. Use regulation-sized vehicles, except for specific construction. construction equipment, which may haul oversized loads; b. Obtain local hauling permits from appropriate agencies prior to construction and adhere to any conditions in these permits; c. Be responsible for any damage to roads incurred as a result of the project; i. The Applicant shall repair damage to roads as a

November 30, 2011 5-112 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency result of the project construction consistent with the most recent update to the Solano County Road Improvement Standards and Land Development Requirements, currently dated February 28, 2006, except that repairs to damaged paved sections may be made with 5 inches of asphalt concrete at the discretion of the County, while repairs to damaged gravel sections of road shall replace the preexisting depth of aggregate base but be not less than 12 inches in depth; ii. Repairs to roads shall include but are not limited to overlays and full depth reconstruction to the satisfaction of Solano County, as solely determined by the Solano County Department of Public Works Engineering; iii. The Applicant shall pay fair share costs of an area wide overlay of the County roads impacted by the Project, as solely determined by Solano County. d. Apply for, secure, and abide by the conditions of an encroachment permit for any and all work within the County right-of-way, which may further define and qualify the road repair requirements of the County; e. Apply for, secure, and abide by the conditions of a grading permit for any and all work within project limits, or construction associated with the Shiloh IV wind farm; f. Enter into a secured agreement with Solano County to ensure that any existing County roads impacted by the Project will be repaired and improved to accommodate the increased traffic from the construction, repair,

November 30, 2011 5-113 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency replacement and long term operation of the turbines. All required repairs and improvements will be completed to the satisfaction of Solano County. The same shall be required for any road damage or modification associated with the decommissioning of wind energy project; g. Post a security bond to cover the costs of road maintenance during construction. The Applicant shall repair any damage to roads and restore roads to condition in effect prior to commencement of construction or per requirements of the state (for state roads) and Solano County (for county roads), as applicable, the latter of which shall be as solely determined by the Solano County Department of Public Works Engineering. Should the Applicant not perform such repairs to county roads to Solano County’s satisfaction, the County reserves the right to perform the repair work at the cost of the Applicant; and h. Remove or reduce new access roads installed for initial project construction to the minimum width necessary for maintenance and/or emergency access, and the disturbed areas shall be restored by the facility owner to the original preconstruction condition, as determined by Solano County. The same shall also be required for any access roads installed for the repair, replacement or decommissioning of a wind energy project.

November 30, 2011 5-114 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Impact TRA-5: Potential Impacts Mitigation Measure TRA-5A: Prohibit Hazards to Air 1) Review/ 1) Solano 1) Prior to on Air Navigation Navigation approve siting plan. County DRM construction To ensure the project does not result in a hazard to air navigation: 2a) Approve FAA 2a) FAA 2a & 2b) Prior a. The Applicant shall submit to the Solano County Form 7460-1. 2b) Solano to construction DRM: 2b) Review FAA County DRM i. Evidence that Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Form 7460-1. 3a) Per FAA Construction or Alteration, requesting that the 3a) FAA regulations FAA issue a Determination of No Hazard to Air 3a) Approve FAA 3b) Solano 3b) Prior to Navigation for each of the Project’s turbines and From 7460-2. County DRM issuance of meteorological towers, has been filed with the 3b) Review FAA C of O FAA. The Applicant shall submit evidence to the Form 7460-2. Solano County DRM that Form 7460-1 has been filed with the FAA, including the outcome of all notifications and any conditions required by the FAA, prior to the installation of the Project’s wind turbines and meteorological towers. ii. Evidence that Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, has been filed with the FAA. The Applicant shall submit evidence to the Solano County DRM that Form 7460-2 has been filed with the FAA prior to the issuance of any final certification of occupancy for the project by the County. b. Should a significant revision occur to the height and/or location of a wind turbine or meteorological tower,

November 30, 2011 5-115 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency subsequent to receipt of a No-Hazard determination for the affected wind turbine or meteorological tower, the Applicant shall be required to re-notify the FAA, as determined by the Solano County DRM. A significant revision to the height and/or location of a wind turbine or meteorological tower shall be defined as a change in location that: i. Is 100 or more feet in any horizontal direction from the structure’s original location, as identified on submitted Form 7460-1; ii. Results in a vertical height increase of one foot or more, as compared to the structure’s original overall height as identified on submitted Form 7460-1. c. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions set forth in all FAA Determinations of No Hazard issued in connection with the project. No wind turbine or meteorological tower shall be installed without prior receipt of and submission to the Solano County DRM of an FAA “Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.”

Mitigation Measure TRA-5B: Prohibit Penetration of Travis AFB Outer Horizontal Surface. To ensure that the Project does not penetrate the Travis Air Force Base outer horizontal surface: a. The Applicant shall submit documentation to the Solano County Department of Resource Management demonstrating that the total height of project turbines

November 30, 2011 5-116 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR 5 Proposed MMRP

Table 23.2-1 (Revised) SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT PROPOSED MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Monitoring/ Responsible Environmental Impact Mitigation Measures Timing Reporting Action Agency and meteorological towers located within the Travis Air Force Base outer horizontal surface, as measured with the turbine blade tip in the 12 o’clock position, is less than 562 feet above mean sea level. Impact TRA-6: Potential Travis None Required N/A N/A N/A Air Force Base ASR-11 Radar Reduction in Probability of Detection

November 30, 2011 5-117 Shiloh IV Wind Energy Project Final EIR This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX K

DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR THE DRAFT EIR

This page intentionally left blank SHILOH IV WIND ENERGY PROJECT DEIR AVAILABILITY/PC HEARING MAILING LIST

Fed Agencies

Travis AFB U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 60 CES/CEAO Attn: Marc Fugler Attn: William Guthrie Attn: Nate Pyron, Community Planner Delta Branch Chief, Delta Office 411 Airmen Dr. 1325 “J” Street, Room 1480 1325 “J” Street Travis AFB, CA 94535-2001 Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Sacramento, CA 95814-2922

Nina Bicknese, Sr. F&W Biologist U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FEMA Region IX San Francisco District Conserv. Planning Br., Attn: Branch Chief Regulatory Branch Endangered Spec. Div. 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 1455 Market Street 2800 Cottage Way Oakland, CA 95607-4052 San Francisco, CA 94103 Sacramento, CA. 95825

Gregory G. Parrott U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 60 AMW/JA U.S. Department of Agriculture Attn: Eric Tattersall 510 Mulheron Street 5554 Clayton Road 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. W-2605 Building 383 Clayton, CA 94521 Sacramento, CA 95825 Travis AFB CA 94535

U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security Attn: Joseph Rodriguez U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service FEMA Region IX U.S. Department of Transportation Attn: Michelle Tovar Attn: Jana Critchfield 831 Mitten Road, Room 210 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. W-2605 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Sacramento, CA 95825 Oakland, CA 95607-4052

Federal Aviation Administration FAA Flight Standards Federal Aviation Administration Western Pacific Region, Attn: AWE-590 Attn: Brian West or Pete Wilhelmson S.F. Airports District Office P.O.B. 92007 6650 Belleau Wood Lane 831 Mitten Road Worldway Postal Center Sacramento, CA 95822 Burlingame, CA 94010 Los Angeles, CA 90009

Nina Bicknese, Sr. F&W Biologist Heather Beeler Advisory Council on Historic Preservation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Eagle Permit Specialist 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Ste. 809 Conserv. Planning Br., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Old Post Office Building Endangered Spec. Div. 2800 Cottage Way Washington, DC 20004 2800 Cottage Way Sacramento, CA 95825 Sacramento, CA. 95825

State Agencies

Attn: Craig Weightman, Staff Environ. Attn: Regional Manager Attn: Sean Gallagher, Director Scientist CA Dept. of Fish & Game Energy Division/CPUC CA Dept. of Fish & Game Region 3 – Bay Delta Region 505 Van Ness, 4th Floor Region 3 – Bay Delta Region P.O. Box 47 San Francisco, CA 94102 P.O. Box 47 Yountville, CA 94599 Yountville, CA 94599 Attn: Ken Lewis, Program Mgr. CA Dept of Fish & Game California Air Resources Board Energy Division/CPUC Bay Delta Region #3 P.O. Box 2815 505 Van Ness, 4th Floor 4001 N Wilson Way Sacramento, CA 95812 San Francisco, CA 94102 Stockton, Ca 95205

Attn: Pam Ceccarelli CalRecycle Dept. of Telecommunications CA Department of Conservation 801 K Street, MS 19-01 601 Sequoia Pacific Blvd. Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 801 “K” Street, MS 20-22 Sacramento, CA 95814

Attn: Paul Richins Dept. of Toxic Substances & Control CA Dept of Fish & Game California Energy Commission P.O. Box 806 2548 Grizzly Island Road 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814-0806 Suisun, CA 94585 Sacramento, CA 95814

Attn: Timothy C. Sable CA Department of Conservation Caltrans District No. 4 State Office of Historic Preservation California Geological Survey 111 Grand Avenue P.O. Box 942896 801 K Street, MS 12-30 P.O. Box 23660 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Sacramento, CA 95814 Oakland, CA 94623-0660

Attn: Dan Otis, Program Mgr. Department of Parks and Recreation CA Department of Conservation California Highway Patrol Resource Management Division Division of Land Resource Protection P.O.Box 942898 P.O. Box 942896 801 “K” Street, MS 18-01 Sacramento, CA 94298 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Sacramento, CA 95814

Attn: Paul Massera, Chief Caltrans Environmental Planning & Info Branch Cal EPA P.O. Box 942876 California Dept. of Water Resources P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 901 P Street Sacramento, CA 95812 Sacramento, CA 95814

Sandy Hesnard Terry Gaines California Dept. of Transportation Natural Resources Agency CA Department of Water Resources Division of Aeronautics – M.S.#40 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 1416 9th St. P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001

Attn: 401 Water Cert. Program Regional Water Quality Control Bd State Water Resource Quality Ctrl. Bd. State Water Resource Control Board Region 2 – S.F. Bay Region Division of Water Quality 1001 I Street Environmental Document Coordinator P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95814 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 1001 I Street Oakland, CA 94612 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025

Attn: Curt Schmutte Native American Heritage Commission Regional Water Quality Control Board California Dept. of Water Resources Executive Secretary Region 5 - Central Valley Region

901 P Street 915 Capitol Mall, Room 288 11020 Sun Center Drive, #200 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

Attn: Mike Ensminger Northwest Information Center State Lands Commission CA Dept. of General Services Sonoma State University State Lands Division Telecommunications Division 1303 Maurice Ave. 1000 Howe Street, Suite 100 South 601 Sequoia Pacific Boulevard Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3609 Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 Sacramento, CA 95814 Joseph A. Vincenty Habitat Conservation Planning Branch Susan Sanders CA Dept. of Fish & Game 12213 Half Moon Way 1416 Ninth Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Sacramento, CA 95814

Regional Agencies

Jeffry S. Blanchfield San Francisco Bay Conservation & Metropolitan Transportation Commission Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Development Commission 101 Eighth Street 1947 Galileo Court, Ste. 103 50 California Street, Suite 2600 Oakland, CA 94607 Davis, CA 95616 San Francisco, CA 94111

Attn: Executive Director Regional Clearinghouse Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.District Delta Protection Commission Association of Bay Area Governments 939 Ellis Street P.O. Box 530 P.O. Box 2050 San Francisco, CA 94109 Walnut Grove, CA 95690 Oakland, CA 94604-2050

Timothy Doherty, Sacramento Area Council of Governments Coastal Program Analyst 1415 L Street San Francisco BCDC Sacramento, CA 95814 50 California Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111

Solano County Departments/

Agencies

Director Solano County Agricultural Commission Solano County Transportation Authority Solano County Resource Mgmt. Dept. 501 Texas Street One Harbor Center, Suite 130 675 Texas Street Fairfield, CA 94533 Suisun City, CA 94585 Fairfield, CA 94533

Ken Solomon Solano County Mosquito Abatement County of Solano Solano County District Board of Supervisors/Clerk of the Board Resource Management Department 2950 Industrial Court 675 Texas Street, Suite 6500 675 Texas Street Fairfield, CA 94533 Fairfield, CA 94533 Fairfield, CA 94533

Jim Leland, Secretary Dan Sykes Solano County ALUC Solano County Sheriff Solano County Dept. of Resource Management 530 Union Avenue, Ste. 100 Parks Admin. & Planning 675 Texas Street, Suite 5500 Fairfield, CA 94533 675 Texas Street, Suite 2500 Fairfield, CA 94533-6341 Fairfield, CA 94533

Ken Solomon Lee Axelrad Muniplan Office of Solano County Counsel 483 Firecrest Ave. 675 Texas Street, Suite 6600 Pacifica, CA 94044. Fairfield, CA 94533

Other Agencies, Organizations, Clubs, Companies

Mike Gunby Ms. Jo Lynn Lambert PG&E PG&E Land and Environmental Mgmt. Attorney at Law P.O. Box 770000 3401 Crow Canyon Road, 151K 707 Brookside Ave. San Francisco, CA 94177 San Ramon, CA 94583 Redlands, CA 92373

Mike Gunby PG&E Gerald D. Karr PG&E Land and Environmental Management Tax Department Napa-Solano Audubon Society

3401 Crow Canyon Road, 151K One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, 4th Floor 149 Garden Court San Ramon, CA 94583 San Francisco, CA 94015 Vallejo, CA 94591-7448

Steven Chappell Audubon California Suisun Fire Protection District Suisun Resource Conservation District Julia Levin, State Policy Director 445 Jackson Street 2544 Grizzly Island Rd. 4225 Hollis Street Fairfield, CA 94533 Suisun, CA 94585 Emeryville, CA 94608

Executive Director Rio Vista Airport Attn: Exec. Director Bay Area Railroad Assoc. Airport Manager Solano Land Trust

5848 State Hwy. 12 One Main Street 1001 Texas Street, #C Suisun City, CA 94585 Rio Vista, CA 94571 Fairfield, CA 94533

Louis Franchimon Fire Chief Friends of the Airport Napa-Solano Bldg. Trades Council Montezuma Fire Protection District 207-A Main St. 2540 North Watney Way 21 N. Fourth St. Rio Vista, CA 94571 Fairfield, CA 94533-6732 Rio Vista, CA 94571

Rio Vista Library Fairfield Civic Center Library Suisun City Library 44 South 2nd Street 1150 Kentucky Street 601 Pintail Dr. Rio Vista, CA 94571 Fairfield, CA 94533 Suisun City, CA 94585

Jude Lamare, Pres. Robin L. C. Leong Scott Gravitt, Landman Friends of the Swainson's Hawk Napa-Solano Audubon Society Rosetta Resources

915 L Street, C-425 Post Office Box 10006 1200 17th. St., Suite 770 Sacramento, CA 95814 Napa, CA 94581 Denver, CO 80202

Hale Conklin Gerry Nolan Angelo Cellini Rio Vista Airport Advisory Comm. 1014 Vintage Ct. 1747 Ventura Way 202 Riviera Rio Vista, CA 94571 Suisun, CA 94585 Rio Vista, CA 94571

Applicant

Dick Timmons Hanson Wood enXco, Inc. enXco

4000 Executive Parkway, Suite 100 4000 Executive Parkway, Suite 100 San Ramon, CA 94583-4342 San Ramon, CA 94583

Other Wind Energy Companies

Dennis Dudzik, PE Jose Bodipo-Memba Jerry Roppe URS Corporation Environmental Specialist III Iberdrola Renewables Crown Corporate Center SMUD 1125 NW Couch, Suite 700 2870 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 300 P.O.B. 15830 Portland, OR 97209 Sacramento, CA 95833 Sacramento, CA 95852-1899

Mike Radford Cliff Graham Mark Gagner Airtricity Wind Co. NextEra LightWind Energy

503 Scripps Drive 700 Universe Blvd. FEW/JB 445 Bryant St. Davis CA 95616 Juno Beach, FL 33408 Palo Alto, CA 94301

Angus Coyle Brenda LeMay Don Bain PG&E Director of Project Development Aeropower Services Inc. 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B5Q Horizon Wind Energy 2502 NW 35th Cir. San Francisco, CA 94177 1600 Shattuck, Suite 222 Camas, Washington 98607-8237 Berkeley, CA 94709

Sam Leavitt Montezuma Wetlands LLC

1900 Powell Street, Suite 1200 Emeryville, CA 94608-1811

Other Jurisdictions

City of Fairfield Attn: City Planner Attn: Director Attn: Planning Director El Cerrito Planning Division, Richmond Planning Department Dept. of Planning & Development Community Development Department P.O. Box 4046 1000 Webster Street 10890 San Pablo Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 Fairfield, CA 94533 El Cerrito, CA 94530

Napa County Sacramento County City of Winters Planning Department Planning & Community Dev. Planning Department

1195 3rd Street, Room 210 827 7th Street, Room 230 318 First Street Napa, CA 94558 Sacramento, CA 95814 Winters, CA 95694 Attn: Planning Director City Manager John Andoh City of Rio Vista City of Rio Vista Transit & Airport Coordinator Community Develop. Dept. 1 Main Street City of Rio Vista 1 Main Street Rio Vista, CA 94571 One Main Street, Rio Vista, CA 94571 Rio Vista, CA 94571

Sonoma County Yolo County City of Davis Planning Department Planning & Public Works Community Development Department

2550 Ventura Avenue 292 West Beamer 23 Russell Blvd Santa Rosa, CA 94503 Woodland, CA 95695 Davis, CA 95616

Contra Costa County Attn: Director Attn: Director Community Development Dept. City of Antioch Marin County Community Dev. Agency 525 Henrietta Street Planning Department 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room #308 Administrative Bldg. Third & H Streets San Rafael, CA 94903 Martinez, CA 94553 Antioch, CA 94509

City of Napa Attn: Director Attn: Community Development Dir. Community Development Dept. Martinez Community Development Dept City of Oakley

P.O. BOX 660 525 Henrietta Street 3231 Main Street Napa, CA 94559-0660 Martinez, CA 94553 Oakley, CA 94561

Attn: Director of Planning Attn: Manager Attn: Director Pittsburg Planning Department San Pablo Development Services Hercules Planning

66 Civic Avenue One Alvarado Square 111 Civic Drive Pittsburg, CA 94565 San Pablo, CA, 94806 Hercules, CA 94547

Attn: City Planner Attn: City Manager Attn: Planning Director Pinole Community Development Department City of Benicia City of Dixon

2131 Pear Street 250 East L Street 600 East A street Pinole, CA 94590 Benicia, CA 94510 Dixon, CA 95620

Mindy Gentry Attn: Rick Griffin ATTN: Chief Planner City of Antioch San Joaquin County Planning Alameda County Planning Dept. Planning Division 1810 E. Hazelton Ave. 224 West Winton Ave., Suite 111 P.O. Box 5007 Stockton, CA 95205 Hayward, CA 94544 Antioch, CA 94531-5007

Other Interested Persons & Commenters from previous wind projects

Alan M. & P.M. Fitzpatrick Jonathan Wisnom Dan Simpson 9674 E. Arapahoe Rd. #174 5390 Birds Landing Road 864 Saint Francis Way Greenwood Village, CO 801112 Birds Landing, CA 94512 Rio Vista, CA 94571

Attn: Jeff Miller George Boero Mark Peugh Center for Biological Diversity Morrow Island Land Co. #703 6200 Birds Landing Road S.F. Bay Area Office 14255 Sycamore Ave. Birds Landing, CA 94512 351 California St., Suite 600 San Marlin, CA 95046 San Francisco, CA 94104 Ken Hattich Scott Honegger William S. & Jeanne Anderson 15 Billington Court 3308 Las Huertas Rd. 1535 Collinsville Road Lafayette, CA 94549 Lafayette, CA 94549 Birds Landing, CA 94512

June Forsyth William Cuneo Tule West 1711 Kent Street 1320 Butterfield Rd. 1125 Greenwich St. Durham, NC 27707 San Anselmo, CA 94960 San Francisco, CA 94109

Albert Bertucci, Jr. Jeff Wieland A. Douglas Hobson 19 Zita Manor 3001 S. Winchester Blvd. #B 916 Cochise Court Daly City, CA 94015 Campbell, CA 95008 Walnut Creek, CA 94598

Alan R. Horeis, President Gary Cappelletti William Lee Blacklock, Trustee Greenhead, Inc. 401 Red Wing Drive 2963 Shiloh Road 5063 Commercial Circle, Suite “I” Alamo, CA 94507 Suisun City, CA 94585 Concord, CA 94520

Jack Schafer Leslie Emmington-Jones Gregory A. Tonnesen Schafer Farms 195 The Uplands 3073 Shiloh Road 4576 Minnesota Avenue Berkeley, CA 94705 Suisun City, CA 94585 Fair Oaks, CA 95628

Leland Lehman Chris Lanzafame Janet Beebe Pintail Ranch Reclamation District No. 1607 2555 Joseph Drive 154 Cima Drive PO BOX 350 Alamo, CA 94507 Vallejo, CA 94589 Pittsburg, CA 94565

Richard and Diane Tesene Frank Johnson Alan and Frankie Freese 2400 Gum Tree Rd. 1251 Civic Drive 6498 Birds Landing Road Suisun City, CA 94585 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Birds Landing, CA 94512

S.C. Lyon Simmons Island Land Company Maria T. Del Castillo Richard Belcher Conklin Bros. 1630 Mason Road 178 Glen Eagle Way 1100 Selby Street Suisun, CA 94534 Vacaville, CA 95688 San Francisco, CA 94124-1307

Arthur H. Honegger TR Aubrey Matthews Catherine Cook 4019 Boulder Drive 663 Scottsdale Drive 580 Texas Street Antioch, CA 94509 Vacaville, CA 95687 Fairfield, CA 94533

Robert Cattey Frank J. II, Freese, Sullivan O’Brien

4512 Green Valley Road 1579 35th Avenue

Fairfield, CA 94534 San Francisco, CA 84122 John Stewart Blacklock Robert Booher Harry Hansen 6186 Linda Lee Court 3221 Quail Hollow Dr. 6810 Birds Landing Road Magalia, CA 95954 Fairfield, CA 94534-8300 Birds Landing, CA 94512

Ralph McKinnon Jim Castle David Marianno P.O. Box 251 900 Civic Center Drive # D 3915 Denverton Road Mt. Shasta, CA 96067 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Suisun City, CA 94585

Assembly Member Tom Torlakson Melissa Coleman Angelo Cellini District 11 2151 St. Andrews Drive 1747 Ventura Way 815 Estudillo Street Rio Vista, CA 94571 Suisun, CA 94585 Martinez, CA 94553

Elizabeth Ball Roberto Valdez Aubrey Matthews 62 Rodondo Ave 248 Plantation Way 1000 Allison Drive, Apt 278 Suisun, CA 94585 Vacaville, CA 95687 Vacaville, CA 95687

William T. Ferrier, DVM, MS Richard Drury Frank Crim Senior Clinical Veterinarian Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld NCCRC Campus Veterinary Services 1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200 404 Nebraska Street University of California Alameda, CA 94501 Vallejo, CA 94590 Davis, CA 95616 Sam Leavitt 1900 Powell Street, Suite 1200 0048100480 June Guidotti Melinda Dorin Bradbury Emeryville, CA 94608-1811 Resident 3703 Scally Road 2367 Marina Glen Way 7620 HIGHWAY 12 Suisun, CA 94585 Sacramento CA 95833 RIO VISTA CA 94571

Sam Leavitt 1900 Powell Street, Suite 1200 Emeryville, CA 94608-1811 Participating Property Owners & Surrounding Property Owners Within ½ Mile

ANDERSON JEANNE E LE BAY AREA ELECTRIC RR ASSN INC U-10-10 (Shiloh IV) 1535 COLLINSVILLE RD 5848 STATE HWY 12 Mailing labels BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 SUISUN CA 94585-9741

BENJAMIN JOHN C ANDERSON ERIC IAN CARRINGTON JULIA I TR 5924 BIRDS LANDING RD 6269 BIRDS LANDING RD 6466 LEWIS RD BIRDS LANDING CA 94512-9509 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 VACAVILLE CA 95687

CITIZENS CIRILLO DANIEL L & CHRISTIN B CIRILLO RICHARD P TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO 5149 BLUE CT 2099 COLLINSVILLE RD CO CITIZENS UTILITIES CO FAIRFIELD CA 94534 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 PO BOX 433 HARVEY LA 70059 COLLINSVILLE PROPERTY CORP CO CATELLUS DEVELOPMENT CORP 201 MISSION ST RETURNED COUGHRAN THEREZA L TR DANA DORA TR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 1117 EDGEWOOD DR 2123 COLLINSVILLE RD LODI CA 95240 BIRDS LANDING CA 94585-9651

HALE VIRGINIA BOYD (ESTATE) HALL ROBERT W & LINDA MARCELLI-OESTREICH ANTONINE M CO THEREZA COUGHRAN TR 2155 COLLINSVILLE RD 8 HILL CT 1117 EDGEWOOD DR BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 RIO VISTA CA 94571 LODI CA 95240

MARSALLA COMPANY LLC MATTHEWS MICHAEL L MATTHEWS MICHAEL L CO JEFFRY MARSALLA 2134 COLLINSVILLE RD PO BOX 2 PO BOX 1208 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 ROSEVILLE CA 95678

MONTEZUMA WETLANDS LLC MONAHAN JAMES L III OSTROM RODNEY & REBECCA JT CO LEVINE FRICKE RESTOR CORP 2131 COLLINSVILLE RD 2126 COLLINSVILLE RD 1900 POWELL ST 12TH FL BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 SUISUN CITY CA 94585 EMERYVILLE CA 94608

PAOLINI SHIRLEY J TR PARIS ADRIENNE STEWART THOMAS W 2152 COLLINSVILLE RD 2130 COLINSVILLE RD PO BOX 533 SUISUN CITY CA 94585 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 RIO VISTA CA 94571

ZADWICK KENNETH A ANDERSON JEANNE E LE WINTERS JULIE M & DOLORES E 1535 COLLINSVILLE RD 2127 COLLINSVILLE RD 328 SEAWIND DR BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 VALLEJO CA 94590

COCO PROPERTIES LLC ANDERSON EDWARD A JR TR PEUGH DIANA MARIE TR CO RICHARD W RUSSELL 5966 BIRDS LANDING RD 6200 BIRDS LANDING 7020 TERRACE CT BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 EL DORADO CA 95623

FREESE ALAN E & FRANKIE L TR PARKER ARCHIE G TR ANDERSON WILLIAM S & J E JT 6498 BIRDS LANDING RD PO BOX GG 1535 COLLINSVILLE RD BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 FAIRFIELD CA 94533 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512

MEYER KRISTIN F TR DAVIS CORA M TR DUTRA BILL T TR 2877 CURRIE RD 2334 EAST 14TH ST 1000 POINT SAN PEDRO RD RIO VISTA CA 94571 SAN LEANDRO CA 94577 SAN RAFAEL CA 94901

JORGENSEN BRUCE C TR MONTEZUMA WETLANDS LLC HUNT HARRY T TR CO ERNEST C JORGENSEN CO LEVINE FRICKE RESTOR CORP PO BOX 849 1463 COLLINSVILLE RD 1900 POWELL ST 12TH FL RIO VISTA CA 94571 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 EMERYVILLE CA 94608 BARCLAY GAYLE A ESPINOZA ERIC J & SUSAN M HANES DONIPHAN HERBERT TR 6887 BIRDS LANDING RD 6556 BIRDS LANDING RD 2670 OLSEN RD BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 RIO VISTA CA 94571

LEUTHOLTZ STEVEN KENNETH TR QUATTRIN KEVIN TR WHITFIELD RONALD & JULIET JT 6669 BIRDS LANDING RD 330 LOMA VISTA TERRACE PO BOX 594 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 PACIFICA CA 94044 SUISUN CITY CA 94585

MCCORMACK THOMAS RILEY JAMES D & MARILYN D JT STEWART GUY PO BX 849 2770 OLSEN RD PO BOX 533 RIO VISTA CA 94571 RIO VISTA CA 94571 RIO VISTA CA 94571

STEWART THOMAS W ZADWICK KENNETH A & DOLORES E 2374 SHILOH ROAD 15013 FRUITVALE AV SUISUN CA 94585 SARATOGA CA 95070

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND PLANNING COMMISSION

Barbara R. Kondylis Linda Seifert James P. Spering 94 "B" Street 675 Texas Street, Suite 6500 675 Texas Street, Suite 6500 Vallejo, CA 94590 Fairfield, CA 94533 Fairfield, CA 94533

John M. Vasquez, Chair Mike J. Reagan 413 Boyd Street 1007 Copper Court Vacaville, CA 95688 Vacaville, CA 95687

Karimah Karah Rod Boschee Dan Mahoney 187 C Street 43 Sandy Beach Road 7940 Emigh Road Vallejo, CA 94590 Vallejo, CA 94590 Rio Vista, CA 94571

Kay F. Cayler Kelly Rhoads-Poston 510 Spruce Street 1848 Winchester Court Dixon, CA 95620 Fairfield, CA 94533 TAC ADD-ONS (Selected)

Robert H. Doster, Ph.D. Kevin Riley Misa Milliron U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Dir. Of Planning & Inspection California Energy Commission Pacific Southwest Region City of Santa Clara 1516 Ninth Street, MS-40 Migratory Bird Program 1500 Warburton Ave. Sacramento, CA 95814 752 County Road 99W Santa Clara, CA 95050 Willows, CA 95988

Marie Strassburger Judd A. Howell, Ph.D. Migratory Bird Chief. US Fish and Wildlife Mr. Dick Anderson American Wind Wildlife Institute Service. 2800 Cottage Way 2850 Layton Dr P.O. Box 108 Sacramento, CA 95825 Davis, CA 95618 Stinson Beach, CA 94970

Grainger Hunt The Peregrine Fund

552-205 James Drive McArthur, CA 96056

EIR SCOPING MEETING ADD-ONS

Jeff Smith Dan Broadwater H.T. Harvey & Associates IBEW

983 University Ave., Bldg. D 720-B Technology Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Napa, CA 94558

MISC. ADD-ONs, UPDATES, CORRECTIONS

Dan Calamuci Carpenters Local 180 Research Department 265 Hegenberger Rd., Ste 220 Oakland, CA 94621

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX L

SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT AND EVALUATION FOR THE SHILOH IV WIND PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

Memorandum

Date: October 18, 2011

To: Hanson Wood and Joshua Lazarus , enXco

From: Brad Schafer and John Holson

Subject: Second Addendum to the Final Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the Shiloh IV Wind Project, Solano County, California

Introduction

The purpose of this second addendum report is to describe and document changes to the proposed layout for the Shiloh IV Wind Project (proposed project) that have occurred since preparation of the Final Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the Shiloh IV Wind Project, Solano County, California, prepared by ICF International (ICF) in May 2011, and the first addendum report prepared by ICF in June 2011. EnXco has provided information and mapping for a new collection line that is being considered as an option for the proposed project. The new collection line would connect two wind turbines, permitted and approved as part of the Shiloh III Wind Project (referred to as A12 and A14), but not yet constructed, to the Shiloh IV project. The proposed collection line generally runs north approximately 1.25 miles between the Shiloh IV project area and the Shiloh III project area (Figure 1). Other than this additional collection line, no other project components have changed since our first addendum report.

Surveys for special-status plants, special-status wildlife, and wetlands have been conducted in the area of the new collection line for the previous Shiloh I and Shiloh III projects. ICF biologist, John Holson, reviewed the previous survey results and conducted an additional field survey on October 12, 2011. The survey was conducted in order to identify and map the biological resources along the proposed collection line route. The proposed collection line route and a 300 foot buffer distance were surveyed, resulting in a 600 foot wide survey corridor. This report provides a summary of the survey methods, the results, and conclusions as they relate to the findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) published recently for the Shiloh IV wind project by Solano County on August 23, 2011. 2

Methods

The ICF biologist conducted a pedestrian survey for special-status plants, wildlife (and their habitats), and waters of the United States (including wetlands) on October 12, 2011. The biologist identified and mapped vegetation (habitat) types and verified previously mapped wetlands, special- status plant occurrences, and special status wildlife habitats. Conditions were sunny and clear at the time of the survey, with temperatures between 65-75 degrees Fahrenheit.

The biologist conducted a reconnaissance-level survey that documented wetland and water features in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) (Environmental Laboratory 1987)1 and, where applicable, the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (2008 Supplement) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008)2. Other waters of the United States were mapped and delineated in accordance with the guidelines in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Guidance Letter No. 05- 05, dated December 7, 2005. These surveys differed from a formal delineation in that hydric soils were not examined, and the presence and boundaries of each wetland feature were determined on the basis of the presence or inference of positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology. Information on vegetation and hydrology was collected in and adjacent to the features. A resource-grade global positioning system (GPS) unit, typically accurate to less than 1 horizontal meter, was used to record the location of wetland boundaries, and other pertinent features. The corrected GPS data were superimposed onto orthorectified aerial photographs, which were then used to prepare wetland maps (Figure 1).

In addition to identifying and mapping potential wetlands and waters, the biologist surveyed for special status plant species within suitable habitat (i.e., uncultivated wetland or grassland areas), according to California Native Plant Society (CNPS) botanical survey guidelines, and where appropriate, according to the most recent California Department of Fish and Game Guidelines, released in November 2009. Thirty-five special-status plant species were identified in the DEIR as potentially occurring in the study area. Five of those plants, brittlescale, Carquinez goldenbush, Gairdner’s yampah, heartscale, and pappose spikeweed, were identifiable during the October 2011 survey and are known to occur nearby; therefore they were the focused species of the survey. Although the Hispid bird’s beak and the San Joaquin spearscale typically finish blooming in September, a cold, wet spring has delayed the local phenology, and it is reasonable to expect that they may be blooming in October this particular year.

Based on a review of the CNDDB and the DEIR prepared for the Shiloh IV project, 42 special-status wildlife species were identified as having the potential to occur in the project area. Of these species, 27 have not been observed or have a low to moderate expectation of occurring in the project area because they have extremely limited ranges or are limited to habitats that are not present in the project area. The remaining potential 15 special-status wildlife species are known to occur in or near the project area, or have a high potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat or the location of the project area within the species known range. The biologist also surveyed for

1 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. (Technical Report Y-87-1.) Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station. 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble (eds). (ERDC/EL TR-08-13.) Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 3

special-status wildlife habitat in the study area, primarily vernal pools and ponds, which may be habitat for listed species such as California tiger salamander and vernal pool fairy and tadpole shrimp. Lastly, the biologist reviewed the study area for nesting habitat for raptors and other special-status birds.

Results

As depicted on Figure 1, the majority of the new collection line study area is within an agricultural land use and a majority of the area was recently tilled at the time of the surveys. The new collection line study area crosses two unnamed drainages and the biologist mapped several types of wetlands including seasonal wetland, alkali meadow, and bulrush –cattail wetland, as well as some adjacent grassland habitats (Figure 2). Additionally, one of the wetland areas supports two species of special status plants, pappose spikeweed (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi), and heartscale (Atriplex cordulata), both of which were previously known to occur in the area. No suitable raptor nesting habitat was located within the biological study area, however there are nearby trees in the area. No ponds or vernal pools were located in the study area. Wetlands A brief summary of the wetlands in the study area is provided below.

Bulrush-Cattail Wetland The outer boundary of the bulrush-cattail wetland was delineated by collecting vegetation, soils, and hydrology data in wetland and upland areas at three locations along the northern edge. Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology were observed within the wetland. The dominant hydrophytic vegetation in the wetland areas consisted of tule (Scirpus acutus) (OBL3), fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher) (FAC3), and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum) (FACW3). Primary indicators of wetland hydrology that were observed in the wetland areas were water marks, sediment deposits, a high water table, and soil saturation. Upland areas observed nearby exhibited positive indicators for hydrophytic vegetation but not for wetland hydrology. Alkali Meadow The alkali meadow habitat on site occurs in the lowland areas that still contain native vegetation, as seen in Figure 1. Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology were observed within the meadow. The dominant hydrophytic vegetation in the alkali meadow areas consisted of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) (FACW3), fiddle dock (FAC3), and Mediterranean barley

3 OBL = Obligate, almost always occurs in wetlands (>99% probability) FACW = Facultative wetland, usually occurs in wetlands (66%–99% probability) FAC = Facultative, equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands (34%–66% probability) FACU = Facultative upland, usually occurs in nonwetlands but occasionally in wetlands (1%–33% probability) UPL = Obligate upland, almost never occurs in wetlands (<1% probability)

(Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum) (FAC3). Primary indicators of wetland hydrology that were observed in the wetland areas were water marks, sediment deposits, and a wrack line. Upland areas nearby exhibited a positive indicator for hydrophytic vegetation in some locations but not for hydric soils or wetland hydrology. Seasonal Wetlands Seasonal wetlands occurred in the two lowland areas of the site that are not currently being used for agriculture (Figure 1). Positive indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology were observed within these wetlands. The dominant hydrophytic vegetation in the wetland areas consisted of rushes (Juncus sp.) (FACW3), fiddle dock (FAC3), and Mediterranean barley (FAC3). Primary indicators of wetland hydrology that were observed in the wetland areas were water marks, sediment deposits, biotic crust, and a wrack line. Upland areas nearby exhibited a positive indicator for hydrophytic vegetation in some locations but not for wetland hydrology. Special Status Wildlife

Habitat for special status wildlife species appears to be limited. A majority of the new collection line route is located in tilled agricultural lands. No vernal pools or ponds were located within the study area. No nesting trees are located in the study area although there are groups of eucalyptus trees nearby. No special-status wildlife species were observed during the surveys. Special Status Plants Habitat for special status plants is limited to two small wetland areas and some small associated grassland areas. Two special-status plants, pappose spikeweed and heartscale, are located along the new collection line within one of the wetland areas (Figure 1). Surveys for spring blooming plants have not been conducted in these areas and several species have a potential to occur. Pappose spikeweed CDFG and CNPS consider pappose tarplant to be rare or endangered in California qualifying it for CRPR 1B.2. The populations observed, consisting of approximately 50 plants, were observed in the eastern half of the southernmost Alkali Meadow wetland (See Figure 1). Pappose tarplant occurs in meadows, seeps, annual grasslands, and alkali grasslands in Solano County below approximately 328 feet in elevation. It is known to occur elsewhere in the Montezuma Hills and in the surrounding region in the Kirby Hills and near Fairfield.

Heartscale CDFG and CNPS consider heartscale to be rare or endangered in California qualifying it for CRPR 1B.2. The populations observed, consisting of approximately 100 plants, were observed in the eastern half of the southernmost Alkali Meadow wetland (See Figure 1) within alkali scalds that were otherwise void of vegetation. Heartscale occurs in alkali meadows, chenopod scrub, playas, annual grasslands, and alkali grasslands in the west Central Valley and valleys of adjacent foothills, below approximately 660 feet in elevation. It is known to occur elsewhere in the Montezuma Hills and in the surrounding region.

Conclusions

Overall, the same special-status species identified in the DEIR still occur or have a potential to occur along the route for the new collection line. The habitats along the route are substantially similar to those in the Shiloh IV project area. The proposed collection line would cross two wetland areas and two special status plant populations.

As outlined in the DEIR, Mitigation Measures 2A and 2B should reduce potential impacts to less than significant in regards to the mapped wetlands on site. As part of the mitigation measures, potentially jurisdictional waters should be avoided, with construction activities taking place outside the boundaries of the observed wetlands. If avoidance is not feasible, underground boring and its associated Mitigation Measures (as outlined in Mitigation Measure 2B) should be utilized.

Mitigation measure 3A, Avoid Impacts to Special-Status Plant Species, should reduce potential impacts to less than significant for the heartscale and pappose spikeweed observed on site. Although surveys were conducted for the fall-blooming special-status plant species that have the potential to occur on site, several of the previously mentioned plant species will not be identifiable until spring of next year. However, as the potential habitat (alkali meadow, wetlands) for these plants will be avoided according to Mitigation Measures Bio 2A, 2B, and 3A, impacts should be less than significant for these species as well.

No special-status animal species were observed on site; however, if construction activities occur during the nesting bird season (February 1st-August 31st), implementation of Mitigation Measure 5A is required to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. Additionally, mitigation measure Bio-4, Habitat Avoidance for California Tiger Salamander and Special-status Invertebrate Species includes appropriate measures to ensure avoidance and minimization of impacts for these species.

In summary, our review of the new collection line area indicates that no new types of impacts can be expected from addition of the collection line option to the project. The mitigation measures already described in the DEIR are applicable to the installation of the line and no further or additional measures are necessary.

APPENDIX M

ADDENDUM TO CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY REPORT FOR THE SHILOH IV WINDFARM PROJECT

This page intentionally left blank

Memorandum

Date: October 21, 2011

To: Hanson Wood and Joshua Lazarus, enXco

From: Brad Schafer

Subject: Addendum to the Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Shiloh IV Windfarm Project

The purpose of this addendum report is to describe and document changes to the proposed layout for the Shiloh IV Wind Project (proposed project) that have occurred since preparation of the Cultural Resources Inventory Report and Evaluation for the Shiloh IV Wind Project, Solano County, California, prepared by ICF International (ICF) in June 2011. EnXco has provided information and mapping for a new collection line that is being considered as an option for the proposed project. The new collection line would connect two wind turbines, permitted and approved as part of the Shiloh III Wind Project (referred to as A12 and A14), but not yet constructed, to the Shiloh IV project. The proposed collection line generally runs north approximately 1.25 miles between the Shiloh IV project area and the Shiloh III project area (Figure 1). Other than this additional collection line, no other project components have changed since our inventory report.

A survey was conducted in order to identify and map the cultural resources along the proposed collection line route. The proposed collection line route and a 300 foot buffer distance were surveyed, resulting in a 600 foot wide survey corridor. This report provides a summary of the survey methods, the results, and conclusions as they relate to the findings of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) published recently for the Shiloh IV wind project by Solano County on August 23, 2011.

An ICF archaeologist, Andrea Nardin, conducted a pedestrian survey of the study area on October 12, 2011. Ms. Nardin surveyed the area on foot using transects spaced 20 meters apart. Visibility in the area was excellent with 100% visibility of the ground surface. The natural and cultural setting and the project description for the Shiloh VI project, are not described in this memorandum but they are discussed in the original inventory report, Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Shiloh VI Project, Solano County, California (ICF 2011). The cultural resources field survey of the additional area proposed for the collection line did not result in the identification of any cultural resources, either historical or archaeological.

A records search was conducted for the original project area plus a one mile radius surrounding the project area. The ICF archaeologist consulted the records search and no cultural resources have been previously recorded along the proposed collection line route study area. However, immediately adjacent to the study area there is a historical archaeological site consisting of a former

Addendum to Cultural Resources Inventory Report October 21, 2011 Page 2 of 2

property approximately 140 meters west of the alignment’s center line. Additionally, the field survey identified the presence of a historical well related to the former property (Figure 1). The property and well have not been evaluated for significance as a historical resource under CEQA and as a historic property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). However, based on the proximity of the site, ICF recommends that the site be treated as eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR unless further evaluation proves otherwise.

Overall, no new cultural resources are located in the study area for the proposed collection line. The potentially eligible resource consisting of the well site and associated historic property are located immediately adjacent to the study area. Although no effects to this resource are anticipated based on the location of the collection line approximately 300 feet from the well, the DEIR already includes Mitigation Measure CUL-1, Avoid Known Cultural Resource, which is applicable to the potentially eligible resource.

In summary, our review of the new collection line area indicates that no new types of impacts can be expected from addition of the collection line option to the project. The mitigation measure already described in the DEIR related to avoidance of known cultural resources is applicable to the installation of the line and is sufficient to ensure that no impacts to the potentially eligible resource are avoided.

APPENDIX N

SOLANO COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 11-06

This page intentionally left blank

APPENDIX O

TRAVIS AFB LETTER CONCERNING RADAR ANALYSIS, MAY 30, 2011

This page intentionally left blank