Appendix a NOP Distribution List, Scoping Comments, and Index

Appendix A NOP Distribution List, Scoping Comments, and Index

This page intentionally left blank

A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

NOP DISTRIBUTION LIST

The NOP and scoping meeting announcement was sent to 232 agency representatives and other interested parties on the following distribution list, and was submitted to the State Clearinghouse on December 3, 2009.

Fed Agencies Travis AFB FEMA Region IX U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 60 CES/CECP 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Sacramento District Attn: Sara E. Underwood Oakland, CA 95607 Regulatory Section 411 Airmen Dr. 1325 “J” Street Travis AFB, CA 94535 Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Travis AFB FEMA Region IX U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 60 CES/CEVP Attn: Michael Shore, Branch Chief Attn: William Guthrie Attn: Ray Crowell 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Chief, Delta Office 400 Brennan Circle Oakland, CA 95607 1325 “J” Street Travis AFB, CA 94535 Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Terri Johnson Attn: Joseph Rodriguez U.S. Army Corps of Engineers FAA Air Force Representatives Office U.S. Department of Transportation San Francisco District ASO-910 831 Mitten Road, Room 210 Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 20636 Burlingame, CA 94010 333 Market Street, 8th Floor Atlanta, GA 30320-6031 San Francisco, CA 94105-2197 Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Council on Historic U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service S.F. Airports District Office Preservation Attn: Michelle Tovar 831 Mitten Road 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Ste. 809 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. W-2605 Burlingame, CA 94010 Old Post Office Building Sacramento, CA 95825 Washington, DC 2004 Federal Aviation Administration FAA Flight Standards U.S. Department of Agriculture Western Pacific Region, Attn: AWE-590 Attn: Brian West or Pete Wilhelmson 5554 Clayton Road P.O.B. 92007 6650 Belleau Wood Lane Clayton, CA 94521 Worldway Postal Center Sacramento, CA 95822 Los Angeles, CA 90009 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Attn: Eric Tattersall 2800 Cottage Way, Rm. W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 State Agencies Attn: Sean Gallagher, Director State Lands Commission CA Dept. of Fish & Game Energy Division/CPUC State Lands Division Region 3 – Bay Delta Region 505 Van Ness, 4th Floor 1000 Howe Street, Suite 100 South P.O. Box 47 San Francisco, CA 94102 Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 Yountville, CA 94599 Attn: Ken Lewis, Program Mgr. California Air Resources Board Ms. Janice Gan Energy Division/CPUC P.O. Box 2815 CA Dept of Fish & Game 505 Van Ness, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95812 Bay Delta Region #3 San Francisco, CA 94102 4001 N Wilson Way Stockton, Ca 95205

June 2010 A-1 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

Integrated Waste Management Board Dept. of Telecommunications Ms. Janice Gan P.O. Box 4025 601 Sequoia Pacific Blvd. P.O. Box 850 Sacramento, CA 95812 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tracy, CA 95378 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 CA Department of Conservation Attn: Timothy C. Sable State Office of Historic Preservation California Geological Survey Caltrans District No. 4 P.O. Box 942896 801 K Street, MS 12-30 111 Grand Avenue Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 23660 Oakland, CA 94623-0660 CA Department of Conservation California Highway Patrol Department of Parks and Recreation Division of Land Resource Protection P.O.Box 942898 Resource Management Division 801 “K” Street, MS 18-01 Sacramento, CA 94298 P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Attn: Environmental Planner Caltrans Attn: Victor Pacheco, Chief Cal EPA P.O. Box 942876 Environmental Planning & Info Branch P.O. Box 2815 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 California Dept. of Water Resources Sacramento, CA 95812 3251 S Street Sacramento, CA 95816 Sandy Hesnard Terry Gaines The Resources Agency California Dept. of Transportation CA Department of Water Resources 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 Division of Aeronautics – M.S.#40 1416 9th St. Sacramento, CA 95814 P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 94273-0001 Attn: 401 Water Cert. Program State Water Resource Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Bd State Water Resource Quality Ctrl. Bd. 1001 I Street Region 2 – S.F. Bay Region Division of Water Quality Sacramento, CA 95814 Environmental Document P.O. Box 100 Coordinator 1001 I Street 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025 Oakland, CA 94612 Attn: Curt Schmutte Native American Heritage Commission Regional Water Quality Control California Dept. of Water Resources Executive Secretary Board 901 P Street 915 Capitol Mall, Room 288 Region 5 - Central Valley Region Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 11020 Sun Center Drive, #200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114 Northwest Information Center Attn: Mike Ensminger Attn: Joe Khan Sonoma State University CA Dept. of General Services CA Dept. of General Services 1303 Maurice Ave. Telecommunications Division Telecommunications Division Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3609 601 Sequoia Pacific Boulevard 601 Sequoia Pacific Boulevard Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Joseph A. Vincenty Susan Sanders State Lands Commission Habitat Conservation Planning Branch 12213 Half Moon Way State Lands Division CA Dept. of Fish & Game Nevada City, CA 95959 1000 Howe Street, Suite 100 South 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 Sacramento, CA 95814

June 2010 A-2 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

Regional Agencies Jeffry S. Blanchfield Metropolitan Transportation Commission Yolo-Solano Air Quality San Francisco Bay Conservation & 101 Eighth Street Management District Development Commission Oakland, CA 94607 1947 Galileo Court, Ste. 103 50 California Street, Suite 2600 Davis, CA 95616 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn: Executive Director Association of Bay Area Governments Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.District Delta Protection Commission P.O. Box 2050 939 Ellis Street P.O. Box 530 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 San Francisco, CA 94109 Walnut Grove, CA 95690 Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1415 L Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Solano County Departments/ Agencies Birgitta Corsello, Director Solano County Agricultural Commission Solano County Transportation Solano County Resource Mgmt. Dept. 501 Texas Street Authority 675 Texas Street Fairfield, CA 94533 One Harbor Center, Suite 130 Fairfield, CA 94533 Suisun City, CA 94585 Solano County Mosquito Abatement Ken Solomon County of Solano District Solano County Board of Supervisors/Clerk of the 2950 Industrial Court Resource Management Department Board Fairfield, CA 94533 675 Texas Street 675 Texas Street, Suite 6500 Fairfield, CA 94533 Fairfield, CA 94533 Jim Leland, Secretary Solano County Sheriff Dan Sykes Solano County ALUC 530 Union Avenue, Ste. 100 Solano County Dept. of Resource Management Fairfield, CA 94533 Parks Admin. & Planning 675 Texas Street, Suite 5500 675 Texas Street, Suite 2500 Fairfield, CA 94533-6341 Fairfield, CA 94533

Other Agencies, Organizations, Clubs, Companies Mike Gunby PG&E Ms. Jo Lynn Lambert PG&E P.O. Box 770000 Attorney at Law 2730 Gateway Oaks Drive, Rm 220 San Francisco, CA 94177 707 Brookside Ave. Sacramento, CA 95833 Redlands, CA 92373 Steven Chappell Audubon California Gerald D. Karr Suisun Resource Conservation District Julia Levin, State Policy Director Napa-Solano Audubon Society 2544 Grizzly Island Rd. 4225 Hollis Street 149 Garden Court Suisun, CA 94585 Emeryville, CA 94608 Vallejo, CA 94591-7448 Executive Director Rio Vista Airport Suisun Fire Protection District Bay Area Railroad Assoc. Airport Manager 445 Jackson Street 5848 State Hwy. 12 One Main Street Fairfield, CA 94533 Suisun City, CA 94585 Rio Vista, CA 94571

June 2010 A-3 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

Louis Franchimon Fire Chief Attn: Exec. Director Napa-Solano Bldg. Trades Council Montezuma Fire Protection District Solano Land Trust 2540 North Watney Way 21 N. Fourth St. 1001 Texas Street, #C Fairfield, CA 94533-6732 Rio Vista, CA 94571 Fairfield, CA 94533 Rio Vista Library Fairfield Civic Center Library Suisun City Library 44 South 2nd Street 1150 Kentucky Street 333 Sunset Street, Suite 280 Rio Vista, CA 94571 Fairfield, CA 94533 Suisun City, CA 94585

Applicant Dick Timmons Shiloh Wind Partners LLC Anne E. Mudge enXco, Inc. enXco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 4000 Executive Parkway, Suite 100 700 La Terraza Blvd., Suite 700 555 California Street, 10th Floor San Ramon, CA 94583-4342 Escondido, CA 92025 San Francisco, CA 94104 Other Wind Energy Companies Dennis Dudzik, PE Andy Linehan Coke Coakley URS Corporation Iberdrola Renewables NextEra Crown Corporate Center 1125 NW Couch, Suite 700 700 Universe Blvd. 2870 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97209 Juno Beach, FL 33408 Sacramento, CA 95833 Lonn Maier, Environmental Project Mgr. Cliff Graham Mark Gagner Sacramento Municipal Utility District NextEra LightWind Energy P.O. Box 15830 MS B203 700 Universe Boulevard 445 Bryant St. Sacramento, CA 95852 Juno Beach, FL 33408 Palo Alto, CA 94301 Mike Radford Don Bain Brenda LeMay Airtricity Wind Co. Aeropower Services Inc. Director of Project Development 503 Scripps Drive 2502 NW 35th Cir. Horizon Wind Energy Davis CA 95616 Camas, Washington 98607-8237 1600 Shattuck, Suite 222 Berkeley, CA 94709 Other Jurisdictions City of Fairfield Attn: Director Attn: City Planner Attn: Planning Director Richmond Planning Department El Cerrito Planning Division, Dept. of Planning & Development P.O. Box 4046 Community Development 1000 Webster Street Richmond, CA 94804 Department Fairfield, CA 94533 10890 San Pablo Avenue El Cerrito, CA 94530 Contra Costa County City of American Canyon City of Napa Community Development Dept. 300 Crawford Way Community Development Dept. Administrative Bldg. American Canyon, CA 94503 P.O. BOX 660 Martinez, CA 94553 Napa, CA 94559-0660 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 Sonoma County Yolo County City of Davis Planning Department Planning & Public Works Community Development 2550 Ventura Avenue 292 West Beamer Department Santa Rosa, CA 94503 Woodland, CA 95695 23 Russell Blvd., Davis, CA 95616

June 2010 A-4 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

Attn: Planning Director Attn: Director Attn: Director City of Rio Vista City of Antioch Marin County Community Dev. Community Develop. Dept. Planning Department Agency 1 Main Street Third & H Streets 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room Rio Vista, CA 94571 Antioch, CA 94509 #308 San Rafael, CA 94903 Attn: City Manager Attn: Director Attn: Community Development Dir. City of Rio Vista Martinez Community Development Dept City of Oakley 1 Main Street 525 Henrietta Street 3231 Main Street Rio Vista, CA 94571 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 City of Benicia City of Dixon Department 250 East L Street 600 East A street 2131 Pear Street Benicia, CA 94510 Dixon, CA 95620 Pinole, CA 94590 San Joaquin County Planning 1810 E. Hazelton Ave. Stockton, CA 95205 Other Interested Persons & Commenters from previous Wind projects Alan M. & P.M. Fitzpatrick Jonathan Wisnom Mr. K Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. 9674 E. Arapahoe Rd. #174 5390 Birds Landing Road 109 Luz Place Greenwood Village, CO 801112 Birds Landing, CA 94512 Davis, CA 95616 George Boero Mark Peugh Attn: Jeff Miller Morrow Island Land Co. #703 6200 Birds Landing Road Center for Biological Diversity 14255 Sycamore Ave. Birds Landing, CA 94512 S.F. Bay Area Office San Marlin, CA 95046 1095 Market Street, Suite 511 San Francisco, CA 94103 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 William Cuneo Dave Cavanaugh Tule West 1320 Butterfield Rd. 1700 Park Street 1125 Greenwich St. San Anselmo, CA 94960 Alameda, CA 94501 San Francisco, CA 94109 Paul Crapucrettes Jeff Wieland A. Douglas Hobson Director Emeritus, SRCD 3001 S. Winchester Blvd. #B 916 Cochise Court 6656 Ishi Drive Campbell, CA 95008 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Magulia, CA 95954 Gary Cappelletti William Lee Blacklock, Trustee Alan R. Horeis, President 401 Red Wing Drive 2963 Shiloh Road Greenhead, Inc. Alamo, CA 94507 Suisun City, CA 94585 5063 Commercial Circle, Suite “I” Concord, CA 94520

June 2010 A-5 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

Leonard P. Gianno Albert Bertucci, Jr. Jack Schafer Frontier Title Company 19 Zita Manor Schafer Farms 1499 Oliver Road Daly City, CA 94015 4576 Minnesota Avenue PO BOX 70 Fair Oaks, CA 95628 Fairfield, CA 94533-3472 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 Michael and Carolyn Freese Leslie Emmington-Jones Gregory A. Tonnesen 6556 Birds Landing Road 195 The Uplands 3073 Shiloh Road Birds Landing, CA 94512 Berkeley, CA 94705 Suisun City, CA 94585 S.C. Lyon Maria T. Del Castillo Richard Belcher Simmons Island Land Company 1630 Mason Road 178 Glen Eagle Way Conklin Bros. Suisun, CA 94534 Vacaville, CA 95688 1100 Selby Street 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 Michael Freese Frank J. II, Freese, Sullivan O’Brien Ian and Margaret Anderson 6556 Birds Landing Road 1579 35th Avenue 6269 Birds Landing Road Birds Landing, CA 94512 San Francisco, CA 84122 Birds Landing, CA 94512 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 William S. & Jeanne Anderson June Forsyth David & Irene Hempstead 1535 Collinsville Road 20 Sea Pointe Way P.O. Box 140 Birds Landing, CA 94512 Pittsburgh, CA 94565 Rio Vista, CA 94571 Ralph McKinnon Jim Castle Dan Simpson P.O. Box 251 900 Civic Center Drive # D 864 Saint Francis Way Mt. Shasta, CA 96067 Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Rio Vista, CA 94571 Robert Cattey Angellica Yi 4512 Green Valley Road Sen. Tom Torlekson’s Office Fairfield, CA 94534 2801 Concord Blvd. Concord, CA 94519 New General Inquiries – Shiloh III Melissa Coleman 2151 St. Andrews Drive Rio Vista, CA 94571

June 2010 A-6 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

Property Owners & Surrounding Property Owners Within ½ Mile DIETRICH IVANNA S GURULE RONALD W TR (EDNA TRST) HEMPSTEAD DAVID J & IRENE TR 465 CALIFORNIA ST., SUITE 607 1417 WEST WAVELAND, #2 PO BOX 140 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 CHICAGO, IL 60613 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 ALSOP VERDIE C TR AWENDER JOSEPH E CATTEY ROBERT V TR 4168 DONALD DR 2935 CANRIGHT RD 4512 GREEN VALLEY RD PALO ALTO, CA 94306-3822 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 FAIRFIELD, CA 94534 KROUTCH VICTOR N JR & D M TR LYNN CAROLE J TR MAHONEY DANIEL & C E TR 900 MORGAN LN 36 ACKLEY CT PO BOX 788 RIO VISTA, CA 94571-1538 PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 MARKS NORMAN J TR MCCORMACK JEANNE P G & E CO 5334 CALEB AVE PO BOX 565 TAX DEPT B8E SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 PO BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94177 THRELFALL KATHLEEN M TR VIERRA GILBERT TR MCCOLGAN ALBERT M TR 2915 AZEVEDO RD 6059 CREEKBERRY WY 7400 STATE HIGHWAY 12 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 EL DORADO HILLS, CA 95762 RIO VISTA, CA 94571-1050 CURRIE RD LLC DIII PROPERTIES LLC ANDERSON EVERETT R & M I TR 864 ST. FRANCIS WY 440 DROUIN DR 30 HIGHLAND DR RIO VISTA, CA 94571 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 ANDERSON IRWIN E & M L TR EMIGH LTD EMIGH MARTIN & JEANINE TR 811 INVERNESS DR PO BX 788 5814 PEDRICK RD RIO VISTA, CA 94571 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 DIXON, CA 95620 MCKINNON MARY LOUISE TR KULP JEANNETTE TR BAIRD PAMELA W TR 10061 RIVER MIST WY 518 ST CLAIRE DR CO HAMILTON BROTHERS RANCHO CORDOVA, CA 95670 LODI, CA 95240 PO BOX 445 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 BAIRD PAMELA W TR BERESFORD JAMES A & EILEEN M HAMILTON EVA P LE CO RICHARD R HAMILTON 3404 WEST COUNTRY CLUB LN BOX 445 8237 MONTEZUMA HILLS RD SACRAMENTO CA 95821 RIO VISTA CA 94571 RIO VISTA, CA 94571 MAYHOOD E DEXTER III ESPERSON RICHARD W & I S TR GRIMM-RIO VISTA FMLY LTD PO BOX 155 398 CRESCENT DR PTSHP RIO VISTA CA 94571 RIO VISTA CA 94571 398 CRESCENT DRIVE RIO VISTA CA 94571 VACUUM PROCESS PRODUCTS INC APOSTOLIC TEMPLE OF BARCLAY GAYLE A 864 ST FRANCIS WY TRUTH INC 6887 BIRDS LANDING RD RIO VISTA CA 94571 125 S THIRTEENTH ST BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 RICHMOND CA 94802 CALIFORNIA STATE SUGAWARA MICHAEL M & S TR ALAVI KAMRAN JT CO STATE CONTROLLER 4020 LAS NINAS CT 3127 MCCLOSKEY RD P O BOX 1019 SACRAMENTO CA 95821 RIO VISTA CA 94571 SACRAMENTO CA 95805

June 2010 A-7 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

ARCHIBALD EDWARD F JONES MARVIN & BAMBI JT LIVINGSTON BERYL & BEVERLY 445 171ST PL NE 3138 MCCLOSKY RD TR BELLEVUE WA 98008-4109 RIO VISTA CA 94571 7183 STATE HY 12 RIO VISTA CA 94571 MEYER KRISTIN F TR MEYER KRISTIN F TR RED CLAY INVESTMENTS LLC 2877 CURRIE RD BOX 91 2977 YGNACIO VALLEY RD #463 RIO VISTA CA 94571 KASILOF AK 99610 WALNUT CREEK CA 94598 TRIMBLE BARBARA J TR WALDIE BARRY & JULIE ANDERSON ERIC IAN & M B 7121 STATE HIGHWAY 12 7187 STATE HWY 12 6269 BIRDS LANDING RD RIO VISTA CA 94571 RIO VISTA CA 94571 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 HATCH INVESTMENTS IT ENVIRONMENTAL LIQUIDATIN TR MCCOSKER DARYL O TR CO NOLA T HATCH 2251 LAKE HERMAN RD 1064 VIA BAJA 19901 YORBA LINDA BL BENICIA CA 94510 LAFAYETTE CA 94549 YORBA LINDA CA 92886 MCGRAUGH JUDITH L ORCIUOLI NICK & ENINA TR RILEY JAMES D & MARILYN D JT 2956 CANRIGHT RD 1651 ESTEE AV 2770 OLSEN RD RIO VISTA CA 94571 NAPA CA 94558 RIO VISTA CA 94571 SHANNON JANICE K STEWART THOMAS W WHITFIELD RONALD & JULIET JT 1055 MOCKINGBIRD CT PO BOX 533 PO BOX 594 FAIRFIELD CA 94533 RIO VISTA CA 94571 SUISUN CITY CA 94585 PETERS ROSS H TR GIORDANO FREDERICK J & V S JT HAMILTON BURROWS P 7055 BIRDS LANDING RD 6991 BIRDS LANDING RD 140 EDGEWATER DR BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 RIO VISTA CA 94571 JOSEPH AWENDER IAN & MARGARET ANDERSON IT CORP 327 MAIN STREET 6269 BIRDS LANDING ROAD EAST BAY OIL RECOVERY RIO VISTA CA 94571 BIRDS LANDING CA 94512 16406 US ROUTE 224E FINDLAY OHIO 45840 RICHARD ESPERSON 2740 AMERADA ROAD RIO VISTA CA 94571

June 2010 A-8 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

SCOPING COMMENTS AND INDEX

Table A-1 summarizes agency and public comments that were received on the Shiloh III Wind Energy Project in response to the Development Permit Application, the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and the December 16, 2009, public scoping meeting. Following the table are copies of the letters received.

Table A-1 Summary of Comments Comment Agency/ Received in Location Addressed No. Name Association Date Response to Topic Comment in Draft EIR 1 Stanley J. Solano County 4/7/09 Development Public Road Concerned that construction will cause adverse impact to the Chapter 18, Schram Department of Permit System existing public road system. Draft EIR should analyze the Transportation Resource Application project traffic and roads ability to carry heavy loads. The Management, applicant shall be responsible for the coast of maintaining, Chapter 15, Public Public Works repairing, paving, and reconstructing County roads during Services and Utilities Engineering construction. The applicant shall also repair any damage resulting to County roads. 2 Grading Permit Detailed onsite grading plans should be provided for review and Chapter 12, approval as the project moves forward. The applicant shall Hydrology and Water apply for, secure, and abide by the conditions of a grading Quality permit. Chapter 10, Geologic Resources 3 Encroachment The applicant shall apply for, secure, and abide by the Chapter 18, Permit conditions of an encroachment permit for any and all work Transportation within the County right of way. 4 Sandy Hesnard California 4/10/09 Development Airport The proposed project should be coordinated with Solano Chapter 14, Noise Department of Permit Coordination County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), Rio Vista Airport, Transportation, Application Regarding Noise and Travis Air Force Base. Chapter 17, Safety Division of and Safety Aeronautics 5 FAA Notice of CPUC Section 21659 prohibits structural hazards near airports. Chapter 17, Safety Proposed Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) will Construction or be required by the FAA. The project must not result in visual Alteration hazards associated with distracting lights, glare, and sources of smoke, and electrical hazards that may interfere with aircraft instruments or radio communication. 6 Hale Conklin Rio Vista Airport 12/16/09 Public Navigation Rio Vista Airport is unhappy with the current flight Chapter 18, Advisory Meeting (oral Interference landing/approach/takeoff requirements of the FAA and is Transportation Commission comments) working currently on efforts to return to the previous requirements

June 2010 A-9 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

Table A-1 Summary of Comments Comment Agency/ Received in Location Addressed No. Name Association Date Response to Topic Comment in Draft EIR 7 Concerned that additional wind development, such as Shiloh III, Chapter 18, would impair ongoing Rio Vista Airport efforts and/or decision by Transportation the FAA to return to their earlier flight requirements 8 Did not receive a notice for the scoping meeting Placed on Project mailing list for future notices 9 Gregor Federal 12/7/09 NOP National Flood Draft EIR to address Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) flood Chapter 12, Blackburn Emergency Insurance zone for the County of Solano. Development must adhere to 44 Hydrology and Water Management Program (NFIP) CFR, Sections 59 through 65. Quality Agency (FEMA) 10 Charles Armor California 12/9/09 NOP Biological Draft EIR to provide a complete assessment of the habitats, Chapter 8, Biological Department of Fish Resources flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, including Resources and Game (CDFG) Assessment endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitat. The assessment should include the reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect changes (temporary and permanent) that may occur with implementation of the project. 11 California A permit is required if the project has the potential to result in Chapter 8, Biological Endangered take of species of plants or animals lists under CESA, either Resources Species Act during construction or over the life of the project. (CESA) 12 Lake and CDFG may require a LSAA for any activity that will divert or Chapter 8, Biological Streambed obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank Resources Alteration (which may include associated riparian resources) of a river or Agreement stream, or use material from a streambed. (LSAA) 13 Mark Fugler Army Corps of 12/16/09 NOP Fill in Waters of A permit is required to place fill material in waters of the U.S. Chapter 8, Biological Engineers, the US Wetland delineation should be performed in accordance with Resources Sacramento the District’s “Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary District Wetland Delineations,” under “Jurisdiction” and should be Chapter 12, submitted for verification. Hydrology and Water Quality 14 Alternatives Range of alternatives considered should include alternatives Chapter 8, Biological analysis that avoids impacts on wetlands or other waters of the Resources U.S. In the event filling waters of the U.S. cannot be avoided, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for Chapter 19, unavoidable losses. Alternatives

June 2010 A-10 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

Table A-1 Summary of Comments Comment Agency/ Received in Location Addressed No. Name Association Date Response to Topic Comment in Draft EIR 15 Christine Ellman Burke 12/16/09 Proposed Setback Shiloh III project area abuts NextEra’s Montezuma project. The Chapter 13, Land Griffith Hoffman & Project Requirements project layout submitted to the FAA on October 13, 2009, would Use and Population Johnson – on Layout not meet the current Solano County setback requirements of behalf of NextEra Submitted to three times turbine height from a property / project boundary for Energy Resources, FAA on six proposed turbine locations (B13, B14, B15, B16, B18, B19). LLC 10/31/09 16 Sandy Hesnard California 12/22/09 NOP Airport The proposed project should be coordinated with Solano Chapter 14, Noise Department of Coordination County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for a consistency Transportation, determination. The project should also be coordinated with the Chapter 17, Safety Division of Rio Vista Airport and with Travis Air Force Base. Aeronautics 17 FAA Notice of CPUC Section 21659 prohibits structural hazards near airports. Chapter 17, Safety Proposed Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) will Construction or be required by the FAA. The project must not result in visual Alteration hazards associated with distracting lights, glare, and sources of smoke, and electrical hazards that may interfere with aircraft instruments or radio communication. 18 Navigational Draft EIR must address potential interference with navigational Chapter 17, Safety Interference systems (including radar) as well as for structural lighting, location, and height. 19 Steve Solano County 1/5/10 NOP Sandy Beach Draft EIR should show the County’s Sandy Beach Park on Chapter 13, Land Hermsmeyer Park and County Park maps showing surrounding land ownerships. Draft EIR should Use and Population Recreation evaluate and recommend appropriate mitigation measure for Commission impacts that could adversely affect the park’s recreational Chapter 16, setting, its natural resources, public safety and revenue- Recreation generating potential. 20 Sandy Beach Draft EIR should address potential impacts and propose Chapter 5, County Park – mitigation as appropriate for changes in visual setting for Aesthetic/Visual Visual campers and parker users from locations within the park. Resources 21 Sandy Beach Draft EIR should address potential impacts and propose Chapter 14, Noise County Park – mitigation as appropriate for changes in ambient noise for Noise campers and parker users from locations within the park. 22 Sandy Beach Draft EIR should address potential impacts and propose Chapter 17, Safety County Park – mitigation as appropriate for extent of disruption to radio Radio communication for park rangers, who rely on effective Communication communication with the Sheriff’s Office dispatch for officer safety.

June 2010 A-11 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR A. NOP Distribution List, Public Comments, and Index

Table A-1 Summary of Comments Comment Agency/ Received in Location Addressed No. Name Association Date Response to Topic Comment in Draft EIR 23 Sandy Beach Draft EIR should address potential impacts and propose Chapter 8, Biological County Park – mitigation as appropriate for bird strikes on birds that use the Resources Bird Strikes park and surrounding landscape. 24 Hale Conklin Rio Vista Airport 1/6/10 NOP Navigation Draft EIR should carefully consider any impact that the project Chapter 18, Advisory Interference would have on not only the one new instrument approach being Transportation Commission considered but on any changes Rio Vista Airport has planned, as documented in their Airport Master Plan Update, dated June 2007, including runway extensions, etc. 25 Pam Ceccarelli California 1/12/10 NOP Gas Well In any natural gas wells are uncovered or damaged during Chapter 10, Geologic Department of Remedial excavation or grading, remedial plugging operations may be Resources Conservation; Operations required. The Sacramento District office must be contacted to Division of Oil, Gas obtain information on the requirements for and approval to and Geothermal perform remedial operations. Resources 26 Structure The Division recommends that no structure be built over in Chapter 10, Geologic Placement proximity to an abandoned well location. Resources

Chapter 17, Safety 27 Dan Otis California 1/12/10 NOP Agricultural Draft EIR should address the agricultural setting of the project Chapter 6, Department of Setting and and potential impacts on agricultural land. Agricultural and Conservation; Potential Impacts Forest Resources Division of Land Resource Protection 28 Williamson Act Draft EIR should provide information regarding Williamson Act Chapter 6, Lands Lands, including a map, a table, and a discussion. The Draft Agricultural and EIR should also discuss potential impacts related to Williamson Forest Resources Act Lands. 29 Mitigation If the collective footprint of the wind turbines creates a Chapter 6, Measures measureable impact to agricultural land, the Draft EIR should Agricultural and implement mitigation measures. The Division of Land Resource Forest Resources Protection suggests several options for mitigation.

June 2010 A-12 Shiloh III Wind Energy Project Draft EIR

2 2,000 1,000 Figure 1 } þ | 113 · } þ 113 | · 1 12 } þ | · 0 500 Feet 80 ´ § ¨ ¦ Meters 12 } þ | · PropertyLine Setback 462 Meters - 80 air navigation issued on 10/13/2009. issued navigation air 2. § ¨ ¦ As filed with the DeterminationFAA. of no hazard to 1. Inside Required Setback Required Inside Outside Required Setback Area Project Wind Montezuma Parcel County Road Transmission Regional Line SetbackRequired from Project Boundary Map production: December 15, 2009. Note: This map is for planning purposes only; it is not a construction is document. it only; construction a purposes not planning 0 Assumption is a Vestas V90 2.0MW turbine (80m (262.47ft) tall tall tower) (262.47ft) (80m V90 2.0MW turbine Vestas a is Assumption D " Defined by the minimum setback required for smallest proposed turbine. ! ( ! ( 2,000 Shiloh III Turbine Locations Turbine III Shiloh ! Montezuma Wind Project Wind Setbacks Montezuma

" 4

6 I

! (

- N

G h 2

g A A i n

6 4 o

A s G m 1

M r

- E R H e

d 8

O T n

S A

0 S

- N

H 8

K 0

8 R

A -

" O

A ! (

C i u r e r

T 2

O O

4 R 1

1 R O

- 0

- R

M -

0 1

R Y O

- 1

O -

C 8

M 8

c 4

M A

F 12 } þ | ·

1 R

6 S

i n g L a n d i r d s

} þ B 113 | ·

T D ! (

E D ! ( D

4 ! (

- O

E T

8 D

! ( 8

0 T

C D

Y ! (

; D

E ! (

8 "

C ! (

;

S 2

- E

H -

Y " 9

4 ! (

0 M

- R

8 T

E T (12-15-09) FIG1_MONTEZUMA_SETBACK_4_SHILOHIII.MXD \ MAPDOC \ 00000_00_MONTE_PLUS \ FPL_ENERGY \ CTS PROJE \ Q:

From: [email protected] To: Muniplan.US Cc: hdelarosa ; gerrynolan ; Cattey, Robert ; Pfeifer, John ; [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 2:23 PM Subject: Rio Vista Airport Concerns with Shiloh III EIR

Ken Solomon Project Mgr, Shiloh III EIR Contract Planner, Solano County.

Ken,

We are responding to your e‐mail (below) regarding the EIR for Shiloh III. We understand that the deadline for such comments is today.

We originally asked that the EIR carefully consider any impact that the Shiloh III project will have on not only the one new instrument approach being considered but on any changes we have planned, as documented in our Airport Master Plan Update, dated June 2007, including runway extensions, etc. Our stated concern is that the proposed Shiloh III project will have a deleterious effect on our airport’s published plans and current efforts for the future.

At your request, we provided you with the name of the FAA contact, Mr. Fred Mitchell, with whom we are working to establish a new approach that will help to mitigate at least some of the damage that prior projects have already done to our airport.

Mr. Williams apparently told you that the new approach he is working on for us will be fine and get us about half‐way back to where we were originally. However, we wonder how much Mr. Williams really knows about the proposed Shiloh III, which may pose a huge threat to our airport.

Your statement that “New wind energy development, provided that it is south or southwest of the Rio Vista Airport should have no bearing or effect on the FAA's decision for the new approach realignment or reduced approach altitude that is under consideration” suggests you may not understand how instrument approaches are designed. An instrument approach has two components: the approach itself and its associated “missed approach”. If an instrument approach permits one to descend to, say, 300’ before he has the airport in sight, it’s because not only are there no obstructions in his way as he approaches the airport but also there are no obstructions in his way out as he over-flies the airport and tries to fly away because he couldn’t see the airport at 300’ (i.e., he has to perform his “missed approach”). There may be no obstacles on his approach to the airport, but if there’s a 1000’ tower at the far end of the runway, the FAA’s not going to let him descend to 300’ in clouds and have him bump into the tower when he has to over-fly the airport because he couldn’t see the runway in time.

Mr. Mitchell may not have been told that enXco’s planning to put more 415’ turbines at the south end of our airport (or exactly where) that may very well not allow him to reduce the minimums on the new approach he’s designing.

Again, let me state that we are concerned that the construction of Shiloh III will undo the new approach the FAA is constructing for us and may even may matters worse for us than they are today. Bear in mind that, in designing instrument approaches, the FAA has to look at obstacles in both the approach end of the airport as well as the departure end (in the event of a “missed approach”).

We respectfully request that our stated concern remain open until resolved by the FAA when they have been apprised of the plans for Shiloh III.

Hale Conklin Rio Vista Airport Advisory Commission

------Forwarded Message: ------From: "Muniplan.US" To: Cc: Subject: Rio Vista Airport Concerns with Shiloh III Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 22:50:42 +0000

Hale - As suggested by Gerry Nolan, I spoke with Fred Mitchell of the FAA, who was very helpful, regarding.the concerns of Rio Vista Airport as you generally referenced at the Shiloh III EIR scoping meeting

As a result of my communication with Mr. Mitchell, the following is my understanding of the situation:

1) The current required final flight approach at Rio Vista Airport is along an alignment that is a 15 degree offset from the runway centerline and to the south, with a required Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) of 560 feet.

2) Rio Vista Airport representatives seek a return to a previous MDA requirement, which was lower than 560 feet.

I presume the above sufficiently depicts the concerns of Rio Vista Airport.

The following is what I additionally gleaned from communicating with Mr. Mitchell (FAA):

1) The FAA has preliminarily reviewed the matter as communicated to them by Gerry Nolan and seems confident that they should be able to accommodate the above concerns by modifying the required approach to a new alignment along the runway centerline, which would allow a lower Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) of 440 feet.

2) The FAA is apparently waiting for a formal request and/or additional information from the Rio Vista Airport. Otherwise, I am not clear on these details.

3) New wind energy development, provided that it is south or southwest of the Rio Vista Airport should have no bearing or effect on the FAA's decision for the new approach realignment or reduced approach altitude that is under consideration.

Unless I hear otherwise from you or receive any additional communication by the close of January 6, 2010, which is the end date for comments on the Shiloh III (EIR) Notice of Preparation, I will consider this matter closed for purposes of follow-up to your comments made at the Shiloh III EIR scoping meeting.

Ken Solomon Contract Planner Solano County 707-784-3164 [email protected] [email protected]

Appendix B Air Emissions Calculations

This page intentionally left blank

Table 1 Summary of Daily Emissions Shiloh III Project

Daily Emissions (lb/day) PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 Activity Emission Source ROG CO NOx SO2 PM10 (Exh) (Exh) (Dust) (Dust) CO2 Exhaust Emissions - Nonroad Equipment 6.7 22 53 0.05 2.4 2.4 - - 4,820 Exhaust Emissions - Onroad Vehicles 1.8 17 2 0.04 0.03 0.03 - - 721 Site Preparation Fugitive Dust Emissions - Roads ------13 1.3 - Subtotal 8.5 39 55 0.09 2.4 2.4 13 1.3 5,541 Exhaust Emissions - Nonroad Equipment 3.3 15 27 0.027 1.4 1.4 - - 2,530

Foundation Exhaust Emissions - Onroad Vehicles 9.9 93 8.9 0.117 0.075 0.072 - - 3,206 Construction / Electrical Fugitive Dust Emissions - Roads ------56 5.7 - Subtotal 13 108 36 0.144 1.5 1.5 56 5.7 5,737 Exhaust Emissions - Nonroad Equipment 11 36 96 0.094 4.2 4.2 - - 8,781

Turbine Installation and Exhaust Emissions - Onroad Vehicles 7.5 71 7.7 0.108 0.077 0.075 - - 2,607 Delivery Fugitive Dust Emissions - Roads ------46 4.6 - Subtotal 18 107 104 0.20 4.3 4.3 46 4.6 11,388 Exhaust Emissions - Nonroad Equipment 2.6 9.7 22 0.023 1.1 1.1 - - 2,031 Exhaust Emissions - Onroad Vehicles 3.0 28 3.29 0.0474 0.0356 0.0348 - - 1,071 Electrical Trenching Fugitive Dust Emissions - Roads ------19 1.9 - Subtotal 5.6 38 26 0.070 1.2 1.2 19 1.9 3,101 All Activities Fugitive Dust Emissions - Earth Moving Activities ------226 47 - TOTAL 45 292 221 0.51 9.3 9.3 359 61 25,767 Table 2 Summary of Total Emissions Shiloh III Project

Emissions GHG Emissions (tons) (metric tons)

PM2.5

Activity Emission Source ROG CO NOx SO2 PM10 (Exh) PM2.5 (Exh) PM10 (Dust) (Dust) CO2 CO2 Exhaust Emissions - Nonroad Equipment 0.055 0.18 0.42 0.00042 0.020 0.020 - - 39 35 Exhaust Emissions - Onroad Vehicles 0.016 0.15 0.02 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 - - 6 6 Site Preparation Fugitive Dust Emissions - Roads ------0.10.01 - - Subtotal 0.071 0.33 0.45 0.0008 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.01 45 41 Exhaust Emissions - Nonroad Equipment 0.11 0.50 0.90 0.00091 0.046 0.046 - - 85 77

Foundation Exhaust Emissions - Onroad Vehicles 0.47 4.5 0.43 0.0056 0.00358 0.00346 - - 154 140 Construction / Electrical Fugitive Dust Emissions - Roads ------2.70.3- - Subtotal 0.58 5.0 1.3 0.0065 0.05 0.05 2.7 0.27 238 216 Exhaust Emissions - Nonroad Equipment 0.14 0.48 1.3 0.0012 0.054 0.054 - - 118 107

Turbine Installation and Exhaust Emissions - Onroad Vehicles 0.23 2.1 0.23 0.0032 0.00232 0.00226 - - 78 71 Delivery Fugitive Dust Emissions - Roads ------1.40.1- - Subtotal 0.36 2.6 1.5 0.0045 0.06 0.06 1.4 0.14 197 178 Exhaust Emissions - Nonroad Equipment 0.093 0.34 0.78 0.00080 0.039 0.039 - - 71 64 Exhaust Emissions - Onroad Vehicles 0.112 1.1 0.123 0.00178 0.00133 0.00130 - - 40 36 Electrical Trenching Fugitive Dust Emissions - Roads ------0.70.1- - Subtotal 0.20 1.4 0.90 0.0026 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.07 111 101 All Activities Fugitive Dust Emissions - Earth Moving Activities ------142.8- - TOTAL 1.2 9.3 4.2 0.0143 0.17 0.17 18 3.3 592 537 Table 3 Nonroad Equipment Exhaust Emission Factors Shiloh III Project

a Engine Size Emission Factor (g/hp-hr)

Equipment Type Fuel Type Range ROG CO NOx SO2 PM10 CO2 Rubber Tire Dozers Diesel 0

Daily Total Equipment Operation Working Daily Emissions (lb/day) Emissions (tons) No of Engine Size Fuel of All Units Load Days per a Phase Equipment Type Units (hp) Type (hrs/day) Factor Unit (days) ROG CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 ROG CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Site Preparation 16H Motor Grader 1 275 Diesel 9 0.61 18 2.1 6.0 9.9 0.012 0.6 0.6 1,041 0.018 0.054 0.089 0.0001 0.005 0.005 9.4 613 Scraper 2 181 Diesel 18 0.59 18 2.2 6.1 20.6 0.020 0.8 0.8 1,736 0.020 0.055 0.185 0.0002 0.007 0.007 15.6 623 Scraper 1 330 Diesel 9 0.56 12 1.7 7.1 16.0 0.015 0.6 0.6 1,502 0.010 0.042 0.096 0.0001 0.004 0.004 9.0 CP563C Roller 1 153 Diesel 9 0.56 18 0.7 3.1 6.0 0.006 0.3 0.3 542 0.007 0.028 0.054 0.0001 0.003 0.003 4.9 Subtotal 6.67 22.3 52.5 0.052 2.39 2.39 4,820 0.05 0.2 0.4 0.0004 0.02 0.02 39 65 Ton Rough Terrain Crane 1 152 Diesel 5 0.43 20 0.3 1.1 2.0 0.002 0.1 0.1 176 0.003 0.011 0.020 0.00002 0.001 0.001 1.8 330L Excavator 2 222 Diesel 16 0.07 60 0.2 0.4 1.7 0.002 0.1 0.1 178 0.005 0.013 0.050 0.0001 0.002 0.002 5.3 Foundation 966C Loader 1 140 Diesel 8 0.68 80 0.6 3.0 5.0 0.006 0.3 0.3 525 0.025 0.122 0.200 0.0002 0.012 0.012 21.0 Construction / D6H Dozer 1 275 Diesel 8 0.59 60 1.3 6.3 11.6 0.009 0.5 0.5 960 0.039 0.189 0.348 0.0003 0.015 0.015 28.8 Electrical CAT Forklists 3 153 Diesel 20 0.3 80 0.9 4.0 7.1 0.008 0.4 0.4 691 0.036 0.162 0.285 0.0003 0.017 0.017 27.6 Subtotal 3.28 14.9 27.5 0.027 1.38 1.38 2,530 0.11 0.5 0.9 0.0009 0.05 0.05 85 75 Ton Rough Terrain Crane 2 250 Diesel 18 0.43 14 1.2 3.2 11.5 0.012 0.4 0.4 1,043 0.008 0.023 0.081 0.0001 0.003 0.003 7.3 90 Ton Rough Terrain Crane 5 250 Diesel 40 0.43 14 2.6 7.1 25.6 0.026 1.0 1.0 2,319 0.018 0.050 0.179 0.0002 0.007 0.007 16.2 Manitowoc 777 Crane 2 330 Diesel 11 0.43 55 0.9 3.1 8.3 0.008 0.3 0.3 842 0.023 0.085 0.228 0.0002 0.009 0.009 23.1 Turbine Manitowoc 2250 Crane 2 450 Diesel 12 0.43 55 1.3 4.6 12.3 0.012 0.5 0.5 1,252 0.035 0.126 0.339 0.0003 0.013 0.013 34.4 Installation and CAT Forklists 10 60 Diesel 60 0.03 40 0.2 0.6 1.0 0.001 0.1 0.1 81 0.003 0.012 0.019 0.00002 0.002 0.002 1.6 Delivery 14G Motor Grader 2 165 Diesel 10 0.61 20 1.1 4.6 8.4 0.009 0.5 0.5 770 0.011 0.046 0.084 0.0001 0.005 0.005 7.7 D6H Dozer 4 140 Diesel 20 0.59 20 2.3 8.2 16.9 0.014 1.0 1.0 1,222 0.023 0.082 0.169 0.0001 0.010 0.010 12.2 LR 1400 Crane 2 450 Diesel 12 0.43 25 1.3 4.6 12.3 0.012 0.5 0.5 1,252 0.016 0.057 0.154 0.0002 0.006 0.006 15.7 Subtotal 10.61 36.0 96.3 0.094 4.23 4.23 8,781 0.14 0.5 1.3 0.0012 0.05 0.05 118 14G Motor Grader 2 165 Diesel 9 0.61 70 1.0 4.1 7.6 0.008 0.4 0.4 693 0.034 0.145 0.265 0.0003 0.015 0.015 24.3 Electrical D6H LGP Dozer 1 140 Diesel 9 0.59 70 1.0 3.7 7.6 0.006 0.4 0.4 550 0.036 0.129 0.266 0.0002 0.015 0.015 19.3 Trenching 966C Loader 1 210 Diesel 8 0.68 70 0.7 1.9 7.1 0.009 0.2 0.2 788 0.023 0.065 0.249 0.0003 0.008 0.008 27.6 Subtotal 2.65 9.7 22.3 0.023 1.12 1.12 2,031 0.09 0.3 0.8 0.001 0.04 0.04 71 TOTAL 23.21 82.94 199 0.20 9.12 9.12 18,162 0.4 1.5 3.4 0.003 0.2 0.2 312.81 Table 5 Onroad Vehicle Activity Shiloh III Project

Travel Distance per Roundtrip VMT per Day Total VMT for Construction Period Round Trips per Paved Unpaved Total Working Unpaved Unpaved Activity Vehicle No. of Unitsa Day Roads Roads Days per Unit Paved Roads Roads Total Paved Roads Roads Total Site Preparation Trucks 2 2 14 2 18 56 8 64 1,008 144 1,152 Diesel Vehicle - Subtotal 56 8 64 1,008 144 1,152 Worker Vehicles 9 1 58 2 18 522 18 540 9,396 324 9,720 Gasoline Vehicle - Subtotal 522 18 540 9,396 324 9,720 Total 578 26 604 10,404 468 10,872 Foundation Trucks 3 2 14 2 96 84 12 96 8,064 1,152 9,216 Construction / Electrical Diesel Vehicle - Subtotal 84 12 96 8,064 1,152 9,216 Worker Vehicles 50 1 58 2 96 2,900 100 3,000 278,400 9,600 288,000 Gasoline Vehicle - Subtotal 2,900 100 3,000 278,400 9,600 288,000 Total 2,984 112 3,096 286,464 10,752 297,216 Turbine Trucks 4 2 14 2 60 112 16 128 6,720 960 7,680 Installation and Delivery Diesel Vehicle - Subtotal 112 16 128 6,720 960 7,680 Worker Vehicles 38 1 58 2 60 2,204 76 2,280 132,240 4,560 136,800 Gasoline Vehicle - Subtotal 2,204 76 2,280 132,240 4,560 136,800 Total 2,316 92 2,408 138,960 5,520 144,480 Electrical Trucks 2 2 14 2 75 56 8 64 4,200 600 4,800 Trenching Diesel Vehicle - Subtotal 56 8 64 4,200 600 4,800 Worker Vehicles 15 1 58 2 75 870 30 900 65,250 2,250 67,500 Gasoline Vehicle - Subtotal 870 30 900 65,250 2,250 67,500 Total 926 38 964 69,450 2,850 72,300 Notes: a. It was assumed that the number of worker vehicles was based on a 50% carpool/vanpool rate for workers. Table 6 Onroad Vehicle Exhaust Emission Factors Shiloh III Project

Emission Factora (g/VMT)

Equipment Type Fuel Type NOx ROG CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Gasoline Vehicles Gasoline 1.09 1.49 14.05 0.0127 0.0059 0.0055 440 Diesel Vehicles Diesel 8.06 0.28 1.10 0.158 0.17 0.17 1,400 Notes: a. Emission factors for gasoline worker vehicles from "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and Fuel Consumption for Gasoline-Fueled Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (EPA420-F-05-22, EPA 2005). It was assumed that the vehicle make-up included 50% cars and 50% light-duty trucks/SUVs. SO2 emission factor calculated from gasoline consumption rate and a sulfur content of 80 ppm. b. Emission factors for diesel worker and delivery vehicles (except SO2 and CO2) from "Assessing the Effects of Freight Movement on Air Quality at the National and Regional Level- Final Report" (U.S. Federal Highway Administration 2005). c. CO2 and SO2 emission factors for diesel worker and delivery vehicles from "Greenhouse Gas Protocol - Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard / Mobile Guide" (World Resources Institute/World Business Council for Sustainable Development 2005). SO2 emission factor calculated from diesel consumption rate and a sulfur content of 348 ppm. d. HAP emission factors based on fractions presented in "Documentation for the Oonroad National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for Base Years 1970-2002" (EPA 2004). Table 7 Onroad Vehicle Exhaust Emissions Shiloh III Project

Emissions Emissions Total Daily Mileage Mileage (lbs/day) (tons)

Activity Description Fuel Type (VMT) (VMT) ROG CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 ROG CO NOx SO2 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Site Preparation Onroad Vehicles Gasoline 540 9,720 1.77 16.73 1.29 0.02 0.01 0.01 523.81 0.02 0.2 0.01 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 5 Onroad Vehicles Diesel 64 1,152 0.04 0.16 1.14 0.02 0.02 0.02 197.53 0.000 0.001 0.01 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 2 Total 1.81 16.9 2.43 0.037 0.031 0.030 721 0.02 0.2 0.02 0.000 0.0003 0.0003 6 Foundation Construction / Electrical Onroad Vehicles Gasoline 3,000 288,000 9.82 92.92 7.18 0.08 0.039 0.036 2910.05 0.47 4.5 0.34 0.0040 0.0019 0.0017 140 Onroad Vehicles Diesel 96 9,216 0.06 0.23 1.71 0.03 0.036 0.036 296.30 0.003 0.01 0.1 0.0016 0.0017 0.0017 14 Total 9.88 93.2 8.9 0.1171 0.075 0.072 3206 0.47 4.5 0.43 0.0056 0.0036 0.0035 154 Turbine Installation and Delivery Onroad Vehicles Gasoline 2,280 136,800 7.46 70.62 5.45 0.06 0.029 0.027 2211.64 0.224 2.12 0.164 0.0019 0.0009 0.0008 66 Onroad Vehicles Diesel 128 7,680 0.08 0.31 2.27 0.04 0.048 0.048 395.06 0.0024 0.009 0.07 0.0013 0.0014 0.0014 12 Total 7.543 70.93 7.73 0.1082 0.077 0.075 2607 0.226 2.13 0.23 0.0032 0.0023 0.0023 78 Electrical Trenching Onroad Vehicles Gasoline 900 67,500 2.95 27.88 2.15 0.03 0.012 0.011 873.02 0.11 1.0 0.08 0.0009 0.0004 0.0004 33 Onroad Vehicles Diesel 64 4,800 0.04 0.16 1.14 0.02 0.024 0.024 197.53 0.001 0.006 0.04 0.0008 0.0009 0.0009 7 Total 2.99 28.0 3.29 0.047 0.036 0.035 1071 0.11 1.1 0.12 0.0018 0.0013 0.0013 40 Table 8 Road Fugitive Dust Emissions from Onroad Vehicles Shiloh III Project

Uncontrolled Daily Controlled Daily Emission Factora Emissions Uncontrolled Emissions Emissions Controlled Emissions Daily Mileage Total Mileage (lb/VMT) (lb/day) (tons) (lb/day) (tons)

Activity Road Type (VMT) (VMT) PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation Paved Roads 578 10,404 0.0068 0.0007 4.0 0.43 0.036 0.0038 2.0 0.21 0.018 0.0019 Unpaved 26 468 0.82 0.082 21 2.1 0.19 0.019 11 1.07 0.10 0.010 Subtotal 25 2.6 0.23 0.023 13 1 0.11 0.012 Paved Roads 2,984 286,464 0.0068 0.0007 20.43 2.20 0.98 0.11 10.2 1.10 0.490 0.053 Foundation Construction / Unpaved Electrical 112 10,752 0.82 0.082 92 9.2 4.4 0.44 46 4.6 2.2 0.22 Subtotal 112 11.4 5.4 0.55 56 5.7 2.7 0.273 Paved Roads 2,316 138,960 0.0068 0.0007 15.9 1.71 0.48 0.051 7.9 0.85 0.24 0.026 Turbine Installation and Unpaved Delivery 92 5,520 0.82 0.082 75 8 2.3 0.23 38 3.8 1.1 0.11 Subtotal 91 9 2.7 0.28 46 4.6 1.4 0.14 Electrical Trenching Paved Roads 926 69,450 0.0068 0.0007 6.3 0.68 0.238 0.0256 3.17 0.34 0.12 0.013 Unpaved 38 2,850 0.82 0.082 31 3.1 1.17 0.117 16 1.6 0.58 0.058 Subtotal 38 3.8 1.41 0.142 19 1.9 0.70 0.071 Notes: a. See emission factor derivation table below. b. It was assumed that half of vehicle mileage would occur in Utah Co. and half of vehicle mileage would occur in Salt Lake Co.

Paved Roads - Emission Factor Derivation Table

E = (k(sL/2)0.65(W/3)1.5-C) AP-42 Section 13.2.1 (11/06 version) where: E = particulate emission factor (lb/VMT) k = particle size multiplier sL = road surface silt loading (g/m2) W = average vehicle weight (tons) C = emission factor for 1980's vehicle fleet exhaust, break wear and tire wear

Parameter Units PM10 PM2.5 Reference Mean Vehicle Weight tons 33 Assumption k factor lb/VMT 0.016 0.0024 Table 13.2-1.1 Silt Loading, sL g/m2 0.6 0.6 Table 13.2.1-3 Emission factor, C lb/VMT 0.00047 0.00036 Table 13.2.1-2

Unpaved Roads - Emission Factor Derivation E = k(s/12)a(W/3)b AP-42 Section 13.2.2 (11/06 version) Controlled E = E * ((100-CE)/100) where: E = particulate emission factor (lb/VMT) k, a, b = empirical constants for industrial roads s = surface material silt content (%) W = average vehicle weight (tons)

Parameter Units PM10 PM2.5 Reference Mean Vehicle Weight tons 4.25 4.25 Assumption Constant, k lb/VMT 1.8 0.18 Table 13.2.2-2 (worst case) Constant, a 1 1 Table 13.2.2-2 (worst case) Constant, b 0.45 0.45 Table 13.2.2-2 (worst case) Silt content, s % 8.5 8.5 Table 13.2..2-1 (construction sites) Control Efficiency, CE % 45 45 Assumption based on regular watering Table 9 Fugitve Dust Emissions from Earth Moving Activities Shiloh III Project

Uncontrolled Daily Controlled Daily b c Duration of Emissions Uncontrolled Emissions Emissions Controlled Emissions Disturbancea Activity (lbs/day) (tons) (lbs/day) (tons)

Construction Activity (acres) (days) PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 PM10 PM2.5 All Activities 20 120 400.0 83.5 24.0 5.0 226.2 47.2 13.6 2.8 Notes: a. Area of disturbance is listed as average disturbance area for a typical work day. b. Based on output from URBEMIS model (using 20 lb/day/acre). c. Based on output from URBEMIS model (using 20 lb/day/acre) and control efficiency of 45% using watering 2 times per day..

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix C1 Avian Monitoring Study and Risk Assessment

This page intentionally left blank

Avian Monitoring Study and Risk Assessment for the Shiloh III Wind Power Project Solano County, California

December 2009

Prepared for: ENXCO

Prepared by: CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC

Paul Kerlinger, Ph.D. Richard Curry, Ph.D. Cullen Wilkerson Lois Culp Aaron Hasch Aaftab Jain

Curry and Kerlinger, LLC 1734 Susquehannock Drive McLean, VA. 22101 703-821-1404, fax-703-821-1366 [email protected] www.currykerlinger.com

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 INTRODUCTION...... 9

FIGURE 1. PROPOSED TURBINE LOCATIONS...... 10

FIGURE 2. SHILOH III AND ADJACENT PROJECTS IN THE CMHWRA ...... 10 METHODS...... 11

AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND BEHAVIOR (USE) ...... 11

FIGURE 3. LOCATIONS OF SHILOH III OBSERVATION POINTS...... 13

OBSERVATION PROTOCOLS ...... 16

TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF ROUNDS OF AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND BEHAVIOR SURVEYS CONDUCTED AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, APRIL 24, 2007 THROUGH APRIL 24, 2008...... 17

TABLE 2. NUMBERS OF ROUNDS AND HOURS SURVEYS WERE CONDUCTED PER MONTH AT SHILOH III, APRIL 24, 2007 THROUGH APRIL 24, 2008...... 18

COMPARISON OF AVIAN ABUNDANCE PATTERNS AT THE SHILOH III PROJECT WITH ADJACENT WIND PROJECT SITES...... 18

FIGURE 4. OBSERVATION POINTS FOR SHILOH III, HIGH WINDS, SHILOH I AND SHILOH II PROJECT AREAS...... 19

RAPTOR NESTING SURVEYS ...... 20 RESULTS ...... 20

AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND BEHAVIOR (USE) ...... 20

TABLE 3. AVIAN SPECIES OBSERVED AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 21

FIGURE 5. PERCENTAGE OF OBSERVATIONS OF SPECIES CLASSIFIED INTO SPECIES GROUPS, INCLUDING AND EXCLUDING “MIXED BLACKBIRD” OBSERVATIONS IN THE TOTALS...... 23

TABLE 4. AGE CLASSES OF RAPTORS OBSERVED AT SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 24

TABLE 5. NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS FOR CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES, CALIFORNIA SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN AND FULLY PROTECTED SPECIES AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA..24

SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIES IN THE SHILOH III PROJECT SITE...... 25

TABLE 6. AVIAN SPECIES OBSERVED BY OBSERVATION POINT AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 25

TABLE 7. THE NUMBER OF AVIAN OBSERVATIONS RECORDED WITHIN EACH SPECIES GROUPING BY OBSERVATION POINT AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 27

TABLE 8. THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS PER OBSERVATION POINT RECORDED WITHIN EACH SPECIES GROUPING BY REGION AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 28

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 2

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

AVIAN SPECIES BY MONTH AT THE SHILOH III PROJECT SITE ...... 29

TABLE 9. NUMBER OF BIRD OBSERVATIONS PER HOUR BY MONTH AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 29

FIGURE 6. NUMBER OF RAPTORS OBSERVED PER HOUR PER MONTH (APRIL 2007 THROUGH APRIL 2008). DATA INCLUDES ONLY RAPTOR SPECIES WITH 20 OR MORE TOTAL OBSERVATIONS RECORDED DURING THE YEARLONG STUDY...... 33

TABLE 10. INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS MADE BETWEEN SURVEYS WITHIN THE SHILOH III WIND PROJECT...... 33

TABLE 11. INCIDENTAL OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING STANDARDIZED SURVEYS BEYOND THE 1-MILE SEARCH RADIUS WITHIN THE SHILOH III WIND PROJECT...... 34

RAPTOR FLIGHT ACTIVITIES AND RELATED BEHAVIOR(S)...... 35

TABLE 12. PERCHING BEHAVIOR OF RAPTORS AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 35

TABLE 13. FLIGHT BEHAVIOR OF RAPTORS AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 36

TABLE 14. FLIGHT HEIGHTS OF RAPTORS OBSERVED AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 37

FLIGHT HEIGHT – NON-RAPTORS ...... 38

TABLE 15. FLIGHT HEIGHTS OF NON-RAPTORS OBSERVED AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 39

FIGURE 7. HEIGHT ABOVE GROUND OF BIRDS WITHIN EACH SPECIES GROUP (RAPTOR, PASSERINE, WATERFOWL, WATER BIRD, AND OTHER BIRD) IN PERCENTAGE OF OBSERVATIONS AT SHILOH III...... 41

TABLE 16. NON-AVIAN SPECIES OBSERVED AT THE SHILOH III WIND POWER PROJECT, CA...... 41

COMPARISON WITH SHILOH I, SHILOH II, AND HIGH WINDS ABUNDANCE AND BEHAVIOR STUDIES ...... 42

TABLE 17. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF BIRDS OBSERVED PER HOUR DURING ONE YEAR OF PRE- CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS CONDUCTED AT THE SHILOH III PROJECT SITE (2007-2008), AND THE SHILOH I (2004) PROJECT SITE, AND TWO YEARS OF POST-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS AT THE HIGH WINDS PROJECT SITE (2003 - 05)...... 44

TABLE 18. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF BIRDS CLASSIFIED BY SPECIES GROUP OBSERVED PER HOUR DURING ONE YEAR OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS CONDUCTED AT THE SHILOH III AND THE SHILOH I PROJECT SITES, AND TWO YEARS OF POST-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS AT THE HIGH WINDS PROJECT SITE...... 46

TABLE 19. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF BIRDS OBSERVED PER HOUR DURING THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER THROUGH MAY DURING PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS CONDUCTED AT THE SHILOH III PROJECT SITE (2007-2008), THE SHILOH I (2004) AND SHILOH II (2005 - 06) PROJECT SITES, AND TWO YEARS OF POST- CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS AT THE HIGH WINDS PROJECT SITE (2003 - 05)...... 47

TABLE 20. SUMMARY AND COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF BIRDS CLASSIFIED BY SPECIES GROUP OBSERVED PER HOUR DURING THE MONTHS OF NOVEMBER THROUGH MAY DURING PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS CONDUCTED AT THE SHILOH III, SHILOH I AND SHILOH II PROJECT SITES, AND TWO YEARS OF POST-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS AT THE HIGH WINDS PROJECT SITE...... 49

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 3

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

RAPTOR NESTING...... 49

2005 RAPTOR NESTING SURVEY...... 50 DISCUSSION...... 53

REVIEW OF AVIAN IMPACTS AND RISK FACTORS ...... 53

HABITAT ALTERATION AND DISTURBANCE/AVOIDANCE IMPACTS ...... 53

TABLE 21. COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF EACH SPECIES OBSERVED PER HOUR DURING AVIAN ABUNDANCE AND BEHAVIOR SURVEYS AT THE HIGH WINDS PROJECT SITE BETWEEN ONE YEAR OF PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS (MID-AUGUST 2000 - MID-AUGUST 2001) AND TWO YEARS OF THE POST-CONSTRUCTION (2003-2005).57

COLLISION FATALITY IMPACTS...... 58

TABLE 22. COMPARATIVE USE ESTIMATES FOR FOUR NATIVE LANDSCAPE AREAS (ESTIMATED NUMBER OBSERVED PER 20 MINUTE SURVEY)...... 60

PRE-CONSTRUCTION FLIGHT PATTERNS: HEIGHT AND FLIGHT CHARACTERISTICS...... 61

FIGURE 8. OBSERVATIONS AT BLADE HEIGHT VS. ESTIMATED INCIDENTS (HIGH WINDS WRA)...... 63

DISTINGUISHING THE ALTAMONT WIND RESOURCE AREA AND THE SOLANO COUNTY WIND RESOURCE AREA.....64

TABLE 23. THE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS OF NIGHT MIGRATING BIRDS AND BATS, AND NON-MIGRATING BIRDS, FOUND DURING FALL (AUGUST - NOVEMBER) AND SPRING (MID-FEBRUARY - MAY) MIGRATIONS DURING THE THREE YEARS OF STANDARDIZED SURVEYS, AT TOWERS WITH AND WITHOUT FAA RED-BLINKING LIGHTS...... 70

AVIAN FATALITIES IN THE CMHWRA...... 71

TABLE 24. NUMBER OF INCIDENTS PER SPECIES PER YEAR AND PER TOTAL INSTALLED MEGAWATT CAPACITY AT THE MONTEZUMA HILLS WRA HIGH WINDS COMPANY, AUGUST 2003 – JULY 2005, FOUND DURING STANDARDIZED SURVEYS (INCIDENTAL FINDS ARE NOTED SEPARATELY)...... 71

TABLE 25. UNADJUSTED NUMBER OF INCIDENTS PER SPECIES DURING THE 3 YEARS OF SURVEYS PER TOTAL INSTALLED MEGAWATT CAPACITY PER YEAR, AND PER TURBINE PER YEAR, AT THE SHILOH I PROJECT AREA, APRIL 2006 – APRIL 2009, FOUND DURING STANDARDIZED SURVEYS...... 73

SITE COMPARISON: SHILOH I AND HIGH WINDS...... 75

TABLE 26. ADJUSTED NUMBER OF INCIDENTS PER SPECIES PER TOTAL INSTALLED MEGAWATT CAPACITY PER YEAR AT SHILOH I (APRIL 2006 – APRIL 2009) AND HIGH WINDS (AUGUST 2003 - JULY 2005), FROM STANDARDIZED SURVEYS...... 77

TABLE 27. SUMMARY OF NUMBERS OF CARCASSES OF THE MOST COMMONLY KILLED BIRDS AT THE SHILOH AND HIGH WINDS PROJECTS SITE DURING THREE AND TWO YEARS OF STUDY, RESPECTIVELY...... 85

ASSESSING THE BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TURBINE RELATED FATALITIES ...... 86

TABLE 28. GAME BIRD CARCASSES FOUND AT SHILOH I TURBINES AND ANNUAL HARVEST DATA FOR CALIFORNIA...... 87 REFERENCES ...... 91

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 4

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

APPENDIX I. RAPTOR NESTING SURVEY ...... 95 STUDY AREA...... 95

METHODS...... 96 Figure 1. The study area...... 97

RESULTS...... 97 Figure 2. Territorial raptor pairs confirmed in 2007. All pairs outside the WRA are within 3 miles of its boundary, except one Golden Eagle pair (as indicated)...... 98

DISCUSSION...... 99

RECOMMENDATIONS...... 100

LITERATURE CITED ...... 101

APPENDIX 1.1. GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE EIGHT RAPTOR SPECIES OBSERVED NESTING IN THE VICINITY OF MONTEZUMA HILLS IN 2007...... 102

REFERENCES (HUNT REPORT) ...... 112

APPENDIX 1.2. (HUNT REPORT) RECORDS OF 167 PAIRS OF RAPTORS OBSERVED IN THE STUDY AREA IN SPRING 2007. REFERENCE NUMBERS (LAST COLUMN) LINK EACH RECORD TO ON-FILE FIELD NOTES AND/OR MAP NOTATIONS...... 114 APPENDIX II. OBSERVATION POINTS AND BIRD SPECIES OBSERVED FROM SHILOH I AND SHILOH II AND SHILOH III PROJECTS IN RELATION TO PROPOSED SHILOH III PROJECT AREAS...... 119 APPENDIX III. TEMPORAL DATA FOR SHILOH 1 AND HIGH WINDS...... 121 NUMBER OF AVIAN SPECIES OBSERVED PER HOUR BY MONTH – SHILOH I AND HIGH WINDS YEAR 1 AND 2 ...... 121 WINTER BIRD DENSITIES IN THE REGION OF THE PROJECT ...... 125 APPENDIX IV. FACTORS FOR DETERMINING BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF FATALITIES REGISTERED AT THE HIGH WINDS PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA...... 127 APPENDIX V. CAUSES OF BIRD FATALITIES ...... 128

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 5

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes information drawn from several studies conducted over the last several years within the Collinsville Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area in conjunction with a study of avian abundance and behavior patterns (April 24, 2007 through April 24, 2008) at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project in the Collinsville Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (CMHWRA), Solano County, California. These data were compared to data collected at three adjacent wind project sites in various years starting in 2000. The data were collected using the same methodology and by a research team with a leadership core that was consistent throughout the entire period and is currently in place. The survey sites shared comparable topography, land use, array of vegetative type and avian and bat species.

• For the High Winds project site, we designed a one-year pre-construction field study that commenced in mid-August 2000 and ended in mid-August 2001. (Kerlinger et al. 2001) • Data collection for the Shiloh I Project pre-construction surveys covered the period from January 1, through December 31, 2004. (Kerlinger et al. 2005) • Data collection for the Shiloh II Project pre-construction surveys covered the period from November 2005 through May 2006. (Kerlinger et al. 2007)

Two of these studies were for one year (High Winds and Shiloh I) whereas the Shiloh II field data was collected for seven months between November and May. However, by employing similar protocols for collecting data for all of these surveys over an extensive portion of the CMHWRA and the comparability of the Shiloh III development area in topography, land use, and vegetative cover with the adjacent areas there is an extensive body of relevant existing wildlife data upon which to assess the Shiloh III site.

All of the pre construction data for Shiloh III were examined in the context of the findings of five years of post construction survey data of operating projects adjacent to the proposed development site where risk (levels of fatalities) has been empirically determined.

• For the High Winds Wind Farm fatality date was collected during a two-year post construction survey of the High Winds Wind Farm from August 2003 through July 2005 (Kerlinger et al. 2006). • For the Shiloh I Wind Farm fatality data was collected as part of a three year period from April, 2006 to April, 2009 (Kerlinger et al. 2009)

In addition, a raptor nesting survey with a special focus on Golden Eagle nesting covering a five- mile zone around the project area was conducted for the Shiloh III project in 2007 as part of the pre construction surveys (Hunt 2007).

The Shiloh III project site qualifies as a Category I project site (project sites with existing wind- wildlife data) as described in the California Energy Commission Guidelines (2007). Although

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 6

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT the Guidelines were not in effect prior to the design and implementation of this study and the other Curry & Kerlinger studies referenced herein, the protocols employed in these avian studies are, with few exceptions, equal to or exceed those recommended in the voluntary guidelines issued by the CEC.

A total of 74 rounds of Bird Use Counts (BUC) (point counts of relative abundance and use [behavior]), totaling 333 hours were conducted. A total of 42,038 observations of 70 avian species including unidentified birds were recorded at nine observation points. Of the 19,166 birds not identified to species, 98% were blackbird species seen in large flocks. These flocks were composed mostly of Red-winged Blackbirds and Brewer’s Blackbirds, and to a lesser degree European Starlings and Tricolored Blackbirds. The most common avian species group observed was small songbirds. Red-tailed Hawk, American Kestrel and Northern Harrier constituted nearly 86% of one thousand one hundred eleven (1,111) raptor observations. Golden Eagle sightings, a species of special concern at wind plants, constituted 2.8% of all raptor species and only 0.13% of all species (excluding mixed blackbirds) observed at the Shiloh III project site. No federally endangered or threatened species was observed on or near the site, although a State Threatened species, the Swainson’s Hawk, was observed on 33 occasions, and a single Peregrine Falcon observation was made in March 2008 from OP #6 in the southernmost survey region near the Sacramento River. This species is currently listed as State Endangered, as a State Candidate for Delisting, and is Fully Protected.

Raptor nesting surveys revealed nests of 10 species of raptors (including owls). One hundred thirty seven nests were confirmed and another 13 were rated as probable. An active Golden Eagle nest was confirmed on that portion of the Callahan property adjacent to Birds Landing Road, in the SWRA. A second confirmed Golden Eagle nest was found in the Potrero Hills, in the 5-mile buffer zone survey area to the west of the project.

Abundance and use data collected at the Shiloh III project during the 12-month survey were compared with data collected during 12 months of surveys using comparable protocols but not conducted contemporaneously at the adjacent High Winds Wind Power Project and the Shiloh I project. Both of these wind farms are currently operating. Data were also compared between these sites and a third site, the Shiloh II Wind Project at which only seven months of surveys were conducted, for the months of November through May. Avian abundance and use patterns of bird use were generally similar between sites, although for particular species some differences were recorded. Abundance of water birds was greater at the Shiloh III project, whereas raptors as a group (most notably American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, Northern Harrier, Golden Eagle, White-tailed Kite) were observed less frequently than at all of the three adjacent sites.

The California Guidelines recommend pre-permitting studies on proposed project sites, “to investigate the presence of migratory or resident bats and to assess risk”. The five years of defensible site-specific data from fatality surveys on projects in close proximity to the Shiloh III project have established the temporal and spatial presence of several bat species within the CMNWRA. With respect to risk, defensible, site-specific data are available indicating that the operating projects are unlikely to pose a risk to bats. There is a high level of agreement that post construction surveys are the best source of information for assessing anticipated risk at

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 7

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT comparable sites and developing hypothesis for ways to reduce risk and mitigate impacts. This site clearly qualifies as a Category I area for bats as well as birds.

Overall, for most if not all avian and bat species, the level of risk on a fatality per-turbine, per- year basis at Shiloh III is likely to be similar on a species specific basis to risk levels (fatality rates) demonstrated at the nearby High Winds and Shiloh I projects and currently under study at the Shiloh II project. From comparisons with the relative abundance and behavior (use) of birds observed at High Winds, Shiloh I, and Shiloh II, we conclude that fatality rates at the Shiloh III project are likely to primarily involve the same species and at the same rates as those at the adjacent wind farms.

Based on five years of post construction monitoring at High Winds and Shiloh I, the levels of fatalities expected at Shiloh III for any species are not expected to be biologically significant at the local, regional or global level. Biological significance is determined by examining the mortality literature, the literature on hunting harvests of various species, the levels of depredation permits issued by state and federal governments, whether the species is a resident, a migrant or a combination of both and comparing absolute numbers of fatalities to estimates of population size.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 8

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

INTRODUCTION

EnXco, Inc. is proposing to construct the Shiloh III Wind Power Project (hereafter, the “Project”). The proposed site encompasses approximately 4600 acres of agricultural land in the Montezuma Hills, near Rio Vista in Solano County, California. The proposed site is within the Collinsville Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (CMHWRA). It includes two sections along Highway 12 above the 100-turbine Shiloh I project and wraps around the upper northeast sections of the 90 turbine High Winds, LLC project that became operational in 2003. The wind turbines installed in the High Winds project are the Vestas V80 model capable of generating 1.8 megawatts. The Shiloh I project consists of 100 General Electric 1.5 MW wind turbines. The Shiloh III project developers are proposing 65 turbine locations at which the Repower W turbines will be installed to produce 130 MW of energy. The hub height would be 68 and 80 meters and the rotor diameter would be 92.5 meters (303 feet).

The report that follows examines the data generated from the avian abundance and behavior (use) surveys on the Shiloh III site, the raptor nesting surveys conducted for the Shiloh III project and comparisons with studies done for the adjacent High Winds and Shiloh I and II projects. Curry & Kerlinger, LLC conducted and coordinated studies that will provide an inventory of the avian resources on the proposed development sites. The inventory will be used to: evaluate the potential risk of project development to avian species; assist, when supported by relevant data, with the micro-siting of the turbines; and, provide a comparative basis for determining the actual impact of the facility upon completion of construction during one or more years of initial operation.

From August 2000 through May 2006, Curry & Kerlinger, LLC developed and managed a pre- development Avian Monitoring Study and Risk Assessment for the adjacent High Winds, Shiloh I and Shiloh II wind projects. For the High Winds project site, we designed a one-year pre- construction field study that commenced in mid-August 2000 and ended in mid-August 2001. Data collection for the Shiloh I Project pre-construction surveys covered the period from January 1, through December 31, 2004. Data collection for the Shiloh II Project pre-construction surveys covered the period from November 2005 through May 2006. Two of these studies were for one year whereas the Shiloh II field data was collected for seven months between November and May due to an accelerated permitting process. However, by employing similar protocols for collecting data for all of these pre and post construction surveys over an extensive portion of the CMHWRA we are able to demonstrate the comparability of the Shiloh III development area (Figure.1) with the adjacent areas (Figure 2) in terms of topography, land use, vegetative cover and relative abundance and behavior (use).

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 9

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Figure 1. Proposed turbine locations.

Figure 2. Shiloh III and adjacent projects in the CMHWRA

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 10

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

It is appropriate to extrapolate from data collected at these sites collected in the same months of the year but not contemporaneously and apply those data to the examination of avian risk at the Shiloh III project site because of the similarities in protocols and site characteristics listed above.

The primary objective of the study is to document avian species on site, as well as seasonal occurrence, abundance, and behavior while within the project area. From those data and the operating experience of adjacent wind farm operations one can anticipate potential areas of use conflict such as the identification of localized hunting areas by raptors which can be mitigated by micrositing of turbines and to project the significance of avian impacts from the proposed project. Pre-construction data collection also establishes baseline that can be compared with observations made following construction of the project.

The five years of post-construction fatality data at immediately adjacent sites are the most reliable, if not the only, means to empirically assess general risk parameters for the proposed area. The methods used in these studies are based on standard protocols discussed in Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document – Metrics and Methods for Determining or monitoring Potential Impacts on Birds at Existing and Proposed Wind Energy Sites (Anderson et al. 1999) and California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. California Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats from Windplant Development. Committee Draft Final Report, California Energy Commission, Renewables Committee, and Energy Siting Division, and California Department of Fish and Game, Resources Management and Policy Division. CEC 700- 2007-008-CTF.

METHODS

Avian Abundance and Behavior (Use)

The following survey protocols were employed to determine avian abundance (relative number of each avian species present) and behavior (observed activities and seasonal presence) within the project area. The emphasis is on the bird use of the area and is not designed to provide a population estimate of each species observed in the area. Nine sampling sites (hereafter referred to as observation points or observations sites) were selected for observing birds. These site selections were based on the conceptual site layout at the onset of the study. Again the emphasis is on the relative distribution and use of the project area by the various species recorded at the observation points (OPs). An important part of our observations was to observe large raptor use of the area, accordingly, the range of our search radius extended outwards to a mile. In total, these observation points covered the project area within which the turbines were to be installed. The final project configuration did not include some of the initial areas and as a result three of the nine observation points focus on areas currently proposed for development. Figure 2 shows the location of the observation points in relation to the proposed project area (Figure 1).

However, a larger portion of the proposed development area was observed at a different time as part of adjacent project preconstruction surveys (Figure 2). Figure 3 shows the location of the

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 11

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT observation points in relation to the proposed project area. The circles represent the area observed from each survey location.

From a spatial aspect, coverage of the Shiloh III project area was complete and thereby sufficient to characterize avian abundance and behavior in the development area, and as a result affords a basis for assessing potential risk to birds. In addition, those observation points not directly inclusive of proposed turbine sites provide information of relative avian abundance and use of adjacent areas that may become subject to future development.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 12

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Figure 3. Locations of Shiloh III observation points.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 13

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Observation Points:

The observation points were based on the initial scope of the Shiloh III project that has now been reduced in size. The most relevant OPs to the reconfigured Shiloh III project are marked with an asterisk in the following sections. The data from all of the OPs for the Shiloh III project and data gathered from the other preconstruction studies have been considered in developing this assessment (Figure 3). Because of the close proximity of the areas currently excluded from development under Shiloh III we presented the data gathered at these OPs. Nevertheless, it is important for the reader to carefully observe the differences in the data from the two sets of OPs that are discussed below.

Observation Point 1:

Observation Point 1 (OP 1) site is located approximately ½ mile North of Robinson Road and Flannery Road intersection in grazed pasture on the McCormack property. The land use in the area is predominately grazed pasture with sheep and cattle. Within observation range are the following: two barns, several outpost buildings with vehicles, large transmissions lines and several groves of eucalyptus trees. The terrain is relatively flat with small drainages that fill with water in the winter. This site was chosen because it offered unobstructed views of the Northeast portion of the proposed project area. A revised plan has been developed since the study was completed and this area will not be developed at this time. This also applies to Observation Points 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 surveyed from April 24, 2007 through April 24, 2008.

Observation Point 2:

Observation Point 2 (OP 2) is located approximately 1½ miles Northwest of the Robinson Road and Flannery Road intersection in grazed pasture on the Orcott Partners property. The land use in the area is predominately grazed pasture with sheep and cattle. Within observation range are the following: an abandoned homestead with several outpost buildings, large transmission lines and several groves of eucalyptus trees. The terrain is relatively flat with small drainages that fill with water in the winter. This site was chosen because it offered unobstructed views of the Northern portion of the proposed project and addressed concerns that birds using the Jepson Prairie Preserve could also be using the proposed project area.

Observation Point 3:

Observation Point 3 (OP 3) is located approximately 1 mile West of the Flannery Road and Hwy 113 intersection in grazed pasture on the Mahoney property. The land use in the area is predominately grazed pasture with sheep and cattle and also some agriculture (primarily wheat). Within observation range are the following: power lines, drainage ditches and a grove of eucalyptus trees. The terrain is flat to the North and small hills to the South, West and East of the OP. This site was chosen because it offered unobstructed views of the North and Northwestern portion of the proposed project and addressed concerns that birds using Jepson Prairie Preserve could also be using the proposed project area.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 14

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Observation Point 4:

Observation Point 4 (OP 4) is located approximately ¾ mile East of the McCormack Road and Hwy 113 intersection in grazed pasture on the Hatch property. The land use in the area is predominately grazed pasture with sheep and cattle and also some agriculture (primarily wheat). Within observation range are the following: power lines, drainage ditches and several eucalyptus trees. The terrain is flat to the North and small hills to the South, West and East. This site was chosen because it offered unobstructed views of the center section of the proposed project area.

Observation Point 5*:

Observation Point 5 (OP 5) is located approximately ¾ mile North of the Olsen Road and Highway 12 intersection in a wheat field on the Mayhood property. The land use in the area is predominately agriculture (primarily wheat) with some small areas of grazed pasture and fallow. Within observation range are the following: a large drainage located approximately ¼ - ½ mile South-Southeast of the observation point and contains several ponds during the winter months in which rain water fills them, several eucalyptus trees and power lines. The terrain is flat to the North and small hills to the South. This site was chosen because it offered unobstructed views of the West-Northwest portion of the proposed project area.

Observation Point 6:

Observation Point 6 (OP 6) is located approximately 1 mile East-Northeast of the Stratton Road and Collinsville Road intersection in a fallow field. The land use in the area is predominately agriculture (primarily wheat) with small areas of grazed pasture and fallow. Within observation range are the following: several ponds and wetland areas which are located ¼- ¾ mile South of the OP, an old barn, the Sacramento River and several eucalyptus trees The land to the North, East and West consists of rolling hills and the land to the South flattens out towards the Sacramento River. This site was chosen because it offered unobstructed views of the Southern portion of the proposed project area.

Observation Point 7:

Observation Point 7 (OP 7) is located approximately ½ mile east of the Dinkelspiel Road and Collinsville Road intersection in grazed pasture on the Anderson Property. The land use in the area is predominately grazed pasture with sheep, goats and cattle and some agriculture (primarily wheat). Within observation range are the following: views of Suisun Marsh and the Birds Landing Hunting Club to the West, the town of Birds Landing, rolling hills of the Shiloh I Wind Project and several groves of eucalyptus trees. This site was chosen because it offered unobstructed views of the Western portion of the proposed project area.

Observation Point 8*:

Observation Point 8 (OP 8) is located approximately 1½ miles Southwest of the Emigh Road and Montezuma Hills Road intersection in a wheat field on the Mayhood property. The land use in the area is predominately agriculture (primarily wheat) with some sheep grazing in fallow fields.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 15

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Within observation range are the following: a residence, power lines, natural gas wells and several eucalyptus trees. This area consists of rolling hills. This site was chosen because it offered unobstructed views of the Southeast portion of the proposed project area.

Observation Point 9*:

Observation Point 9 (OP 9) is located approximately ½ mile North of the Emigh Road and Azevedo Road intersection in grazed pasture on the Threlfell property. The land use in the area is predominately grazed pasture with sheep and cattle and small parcels of agriculture (primarily wheat). Within observation range are the following: large transmission lines, power lines, natural gas wells, several residences and several groves of eucalyptus trees. This area consists of small rolling hills flattening out towards the North. This site was chosen because it offered unobstructed views of the Eastern portion of the proposed project area.

Observation Protocols:

Generally, observations started at 0800 hours and continued until about 1600 hours, corresponding to the time raptors are most active. Observation periods were 30 minutes in length at each observation point. All observation points were sampled on the same day or on successive days when weather precluded a complete round of observations. The order of making observations from observation points was rotated on a regular basis, ensuring that all observation points were given approximately equal coverage with respect to time of day and to reduce potential sampling bias. A full survey consisted of 4.5 hours of viewing and data collection and a similar amount of time moving between observation points.

At the beginning of each survey, the starting time and standard weather information were recorded including: wind direction and approximate speed; temperature, percent cloud cover, precipitation and, range of visibility. It was noted whether visibility was sufficient to afford a view of the entire observation area. The following behavioral information was collected for each survey: species identity, number of individuals, estimate of age, the time the observed behavior commenced and ended, flight height of the individual corresponding to the rotor swept height (low = below rotor swept height 0-30 meters, medium = within rotor swept height 31-120 meters, high = above rotor swept height or >120 meters. The individual’s direction and their behavior were also recorded.

A total of 333 hours observing on 74 different visits were conducted at the nine observation points between April 24, 2007 and April 24, 2008 equal to 37 hours of observing per observation point.

Incidental observations were recorded while walking/driving between observation points. These observations were recorded on separate data sheets and were not used for statistical analysis. Instead the data were collected and analyzed to provide additional information about avian activity at the proposed site. Incidental observations were recorded on 74 different days with a total of 340.4 hours of viewing.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 16

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

In addition to recording avian activity, the presence (observations of animals or their sign) and activities of prey species specifically ground squirrels, pocket gophers and jackrabbits were recorded at each observation point. Prey information was recorded on the incidental data sheets, with a reference noted as to location. The relative numbers of prey species present at a specific site are a good indicator of the attractiveness of that location to Golden Eagles and other raptor species. A summary of the survey rounds used in this report is presented below in Table One.

Table 1. Summary of rounds of avian abundance and behavior surveys conducted at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, April 24, 2007 through April 24, 2008.

Year Round Date Completed Year Round Date Completed 2007 Round 1 April 24 2007 Round 38 November 7 Round 2 April 25 Round 39 November 9 Round 3 May 1 Round 40 November 11 Round 4 May 8 Round 41 November 13 Round 5 May 15 Round 42 November 18 Round 6 May 24 Round 43 November 23 Round 7 May 30 Round 44 November 28 Round 8 June 5 Round 45 November 30 Round 9 June 12 Round 46 December 3 Round 10 June 19 Round 47 December 11 Round 11 June 26 Round 48 December 21 Round 12 July 3 Round 49 December 27 Round 13 July 10 2008 Round 50 January 5 Round 14 July 19 Round 51 January 11 Round 15 July 24 Round 52 January 16 Round 16 July 31 Round 53 January 24 Round 17 August 5 Round 54 January 28 Round 18 August 17 Round 55 February 8 Round 19 August 21 Round 56 February 15 Round 20 August 28 Round 57 February 17 Round 21 September 5 Round 58 February 29 Round 22 September 12 Round 59 March 6 Round 23 September 13 Round 60 March 8 Round 24 September 18 Round 61 March 14 Round 25 September 21 Round 62 March 15 Round 26 September 24 Round 63 March 18 Round 27 September 27 Round 64 March 22 Round 28 October 4 Round 65 March 25 Round 29 October 5 Round 66 March 27 Round 30 October 8 Round 67 March 31 Round 31 October 10 Round 68 April 4 Round 32 October 15 Round 69 April 10 Round 33 October 19 Round 70 April 12 Round 34 October 22 Round 71 April 14 Round 35 October 27 Round 72 April 17 Round 36 October 29 Round 73 April 22 Round 37 November 1 Round 74 April 24 9 sites, half hour surveys

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 17

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Year Round Date Completed Year Round Date Completed 74 rounds 666 site rounds = 74 * 9 sites 666 site rounds * 0.5 hours = 333 hours

The months of fall and spring migrations were surveyed more often than the other months. The numbers of rounds and amount of hours surveys were conducted per month are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Numbers of rounds and hours surveys were conducted per month at Shiloh III, April 24, 2007 through April 24, 2008.

Month 2007 2008

Jul

# Jan Jun Oct Sep Feb Apr Dec Apr Mar Aug Nov May Total

Rounds 2 5 4 5 4 7 9 9 4 5 4 9 7 74

Hours 9 22.5 18 22.5 18 32 41 40.5 18 22.5 18 41 32 333

Comparison of Avian Abundance Patterns at the Shiloh III Project with Adjacent Wind Project Sites

To provide a context for the abundance patterns of birds found at the Shiloh III project site, comparisons are made to abundance patterns found at Shiloh I and II, and High Winds a previously constructed wind power facility that is adjacent to the Project. The High Winds Wind Power Project was constructed nearly four years prior to this study (July 2003) on adjacent lands within the Collinsville Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (CMHWRA). Methods used to determine avian abundance and behavior at the Shiloh III, Shiloh I and High Winds projects were nearly identical to those used at the Shiloh II project, making it possible to make direct comparisons. The observation points utilized in all of the surveys conducted on the Shiloh I and II and the High Winds projects within the Collinsville Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (CMHWRA) are shown below (Figure 4).

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 18

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Figure 4. Observation Points for Shiloh III, High Winds, Shiloh I and Shiloh II Project Areas.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 19

SHILOH I WIND POWER PROJECT THREE YEAR REPORT

Raptor Nesting Surveys

In the spring of 2007, the developers commissioned a survey of raptor nesting in and around the Collinsville Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (CMHWRA) Surveys. The study was designed and managed by Grainger and Terry Hunt leading authorities on Golden Eagle wind turbine interaction and utilizing Curry & Kerlinger field biologists who were also conducting BUC surveys for Shiloh III. The study area was divided into four zones: 1) the South CMHWRA (62 square miles), south of Highway 12, containing some 650 wind turbines, 2) the North CMHWRA (27 square miles), north of Highway 12, as yet contains no wind turbines, 3) the 3-mile buffer zone (139 square miles), extending concentrically around the WRA boundaries to a distance of 3 miles, and 4) the 5-mile buffer zone (122 square miles), which extends concentrically two miles further (see Appendix I).

Two aerial surveys were conducted on March 22-23 and May 23, to map the locations of suitable nesting habitat and to search for raptor nests on power lines. Ground nesting surveys commenced March 29, and ended mid-June 2007. Surveys consisted of an observer driving various public roads and observing potential nesting habit. Each potential nesting site was observed until a determination could be made as to whether or not a raptor pair was occupying the site. Observations of raptors perching together, copulating, nest-building and repairing, incubating, territorial displays, courting, soaring together, attacking intruders, vocalizing to one another, and bringing food to nests were considered evidence of territory occupancy. Focus was put on territory occupancy rather than reproduction to allow time to survey other sites. Efforts were concentrated in the northern WRA and in two buffer zones, in order to better complement the data collected during several previous nesting studies conducted within the developed WRA. The occurrence of Golden Eagle nests was of primary focus in these areas.

As part of the pre construction surveys conducted by Curry & Kerlinger on adjacent sites, a similar Golden Eagle survey was conducted in 2005. In addition, general nesting surveys were conducted in 2001, 2004, and 2005. From these efforts there is an historical nesting database for most of the CMHWRA.

RESULTS

Avian Abundance and Behavior (Use)

A total of 42,038 observations of 70 avian species were recorded at nine observation points (Table 3). The most common avian species group observed were small songbirds (passerines not including large corvid species), which accounted for 82% of all bird observations (n=34,573). Of these small songbirds, blackbird species (mostly Red-winged Blackbirds and Brewer’s Blackbirds) comprised 68.6% (n=23,731), and made up 56.4% of the total number of avian observations. Of these blackbirds, 18,796 observations were of mixed blackbirds seen flying in large flocks that could not be quantified per species.

Excluding these large flocks of mixed blackbirds from the total, small songbirds then comprised 67.9% (n=15,777) of the total number of observations of all avian species; waterfowl species (ducks and geese), 2.3% (n=532); raptors, 4.8% (n=1111); water birds

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

(shorebirds, egrets, pelicans, cormorants [n=2546]) 11.0%; large corvids (crows and ravens, n=475) 2.0%; gulls (n=88) 0.4%; and, other birds 11.7% (vultures, doves/pigeons, flickers, swifts, hummingbirds, etc. [n=2713])(Figure 3).

Of one thousand one hundred eleven (1,111) raptor sightings, Red-tailed Hawks constituted 49.7% (n=552); followed by: American Kestrels, 28.6% (n=318); Northern Harriers, 7.5% (n=83); Swainson’s Hawks, 3.0% (n=33); Golden Eagles, 2.8% (n=31); Rough-legged Hawks, 2.2% (n=24); Ferruginous Hawks, 1.6% (n=18); Prairie Falcons, 1.4% (n=16); Burrowing Owls, 1.4% (n=15); Great Horned Owls, 1.1% (n=12); White-tailed Kites, 0.5% (n=6); and Merlin, Osprey and Peregrine Falcon, 0.09% each (n=1). Golden Eagle, a species of special concern at wind plants constituted 2.8% of all raptor species and only 0.2% of all species (excluding blackbirds) observed at the Shiloh III project site.

Table 3. Avian species observed at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

% Species % Species Number Composition Composition of including excluding Species Name Observations Mixed Blackbirds Mixed Blackbirds American Coot 12 0.029 0.052 American Crow 18 0.043 0.077 American Goldfinch 148 0.352 0.637 American Kestrel 318 0.756 1.368 American Pipit 340 0.809 1.463 American Robin 1 0.002 0.004 American White Pelican 117 0.278 0.503 American Wigeon 8 0.019 0.034 Ash-throated Flycatcher 1 0.002 0.004 Barn Swallow 883 2.100 3.799 Black Phoebe 8 0.019 0.034 Black Swift 3 0.007 0.013 Black-necked Stilt 8 0.019 0.034 Brewer's Blackbird 2851 6.782 12.267 Burrowing Owl 15 0.036 0.065 Canada Goose 98 0.233 0.422 Chukar 2 0.005 0.009 Cinnamon Teal 3 0.007 0.013 Cliff Swallow 324 0.771 1.394 Common Raven 457 1.087 1.966 Dark-eyed Junco 126 0.300 0.542 Double-crested Cormorant 2 0.005 0.009 European Starling 1740 4.139 7.486 Ferruginous Hawk 18 0.043 0.077 Golden Eagle 31 0.074 0.133 Great Blue Heron 1 0.002 0.004 Great Egret 8 0.019 0.034 Great Horned Owl 12 0.029 0.052 Greater Yellowlegs 4 0.010 0.017

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 21

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

% Species % Species Number Composition Composition of including excluding Species Name Observations Mixed Blackbirds Mixed Blackbirds Herring Gull 1 0.002 0.004 Horned Lark 1703 4.051 7.327 House Finch 88 0.209 0.379 Killdeer 273 0.649 1.175 Lark Sparrow 2 0.005 0.009 Lesser Goldfinch 40 0.095 0.172 Lesser Scaup 10 0.024 0.043 Lincoln's Sparrow 10 0.024 0.043 Loggerhead Shrike 220 0.523 0.947 Long-billed Curlew 2121 5.045 9.126 Mallard 159 0.378 0.684 Merlin 1 0.002 0.004 Mourning Dove 786 1.870 3.382 Northern Flicker 29 0.069 0.125 Northern Harrier 83 0.197 0.357 Northern Mockingbird 11 0.026 0.047 Osprey 1 0.002 0.004 Peregrine Falcon 1 0.002 0.004 Prairie Falcon 16 0.038 0.069 Red-tailed Hawk 552 1.313 2.375 Red-winged Blackbird 2078 4.943 8.941 Ring-necked Pheasant 11 0.026 0.047 Rock Pigeon 682 1.622 2.934 Rough-legged Hawk 24 0.057 0.103 Savannah Sparrow 998 2.374 4.294 Say's Phoebe 32 0.076 0.138 Snow Goose 254 0.604 1.093 Song Sparrow 1 0.002 0.004 Swainson's Hawk 33 0.079 0.142 Tree Swallow 146 0.347 0.628 Tricolored Blackbird 6 0.014 0.026 Turkey Vulture 1199 2.852 5.159 Varied Thrush 1 0.002 0.004 Western Gull 1 0.002 0.004 Western Kingbird 23 0.055 0.099 Western Meadowlark 3531 8.400 15.192 Western Scrub-jay 1 0.002 0.004 White-crowned Sparrow 140 0.333 0.602 White-tailed Kite 6 0.014 0.026 Yellow-billed Magpie 3 0.007 0.013 Yellow-rumped Warbler 38 0.090 0.163 Mixed Blackbird spp. 18796 44.712 -- Unidentified Gull 86 0.205 0.370 Unidentified Hummingbird 1 0.002 0.004 Unidentified Sparrow 100 0.238 0.430 Unidentified Swallow 183 0.435 0.787 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 22

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

% Species % Species Number Composition Composition of including excluding Species Name Observations Mixed Blackbirds Mixed Blackbirds Total Avian Species 42038 100.000

Total Avian Species excluding Mixed Blackbirds 23242 100.000

Figure 5 shows the percentage of observations recorded of species classified into species groups with and without mixed blackbird observations included. Species groups were classified as follows: raptor, passerine, waterfowl, water bird, and other birds (including large corvids and gulls along with vultures, doves/pigeons, etc.). The large number of “mixed blackbirds” observed tend to skew the data, thus this passerine subgroup will be included and excluded in analyses to show how its inclusion affects the results. These mixed blackbird flocks were made up primarily of Red-winged Blackbirds and Brewer’s Blackbirds, and to a lesser degree, European Starlings and Tricolored Blackbirds, and were not observed using the site, but flying through the area.

Figure 5. Percentage of observations of species classified into species groups, including and excluding “mixed blackbird” observations in the totals. *Other birds here include gulls and large corvid species, along with vultures, doves/pigeons, flickers, swifts, and hummingbirds.

The number of observations of raptors within each age class is shown in Table 4. The majority (79.4%) of raptors observed during this study were adults. Seventy five percent (75%) of Red- tailed Hawks, 88% of American Kestrels, and 94% of Northern Harriers seen were adults. Just CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 23

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT under half (48.4%) of Golden Eagles were adults, and 51.6% were juveniles, sub-adults or near adults, i.e., birds under 4 years of age. Table 4. Age classes of raptors observed at Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

Number of Observations Raptor Species Adult Juvenile Total American Kestrel 279 39 318 Burrowing Owl 15 15 Ferruginous Hawk 9 9 18 Golden Eagle* 15 16 31 Great Horned Owl 12 12 Merlin 1 1 Northern Harrier 78 5 83 Osprey 1 1 Peregrine Falcon 1 1 Prairie Falcon 15 1 16 Red-tailed Hawk 412 140 552 Rough-legged Hawk 17 7 24 Swainson's Hawk 21 12 33 White-tailed Kite 6 6 TOTAL 882 229 1111 * For Golden Eagles, "Juvenile" in this table refers to birds under 4 years of age, i.e. juvenile, subadult and near adult eagles.

Five hundred fifteen (515) observations were made of California Endangered and Threatened Species, Species of Special Concern, and Fully Protected Species (Table 5), comprising only 1.2% of all avian observations recorded during this study. A single Peregrine Falcon was observed in March 2008 from OP #6 (n=1) and comprised 0.2% of listed species observations. This species is currently listed as State Endangered, as a State Candidate for Delisting, and is Fully Protected. One California threatened species was observed, the Swainson’s Hawk (n=33) 6.4% and two other fully protected species, the Golden Eagle (n=31) constituting 6%, and White-tailed Kite (n=6), 1.2%. Loggerhead Shrikes (n=220) were the most observed California listed species of concern with 42.7% of all of these 515 observations, followed by American White Pelicans (n=117) with 22.7% and Northern Harriers (n=83) with 16.1%. No federally listed endangered or threatened species were observed during the study period.

Table 5. Number of observations for California Endangered and Threatened species, California Species of Special Concern and Fully Protected species at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

Number of Listing Species Name Observations Status American White Pelican 117 CSC Black Swift 3 CSC Burrowing Owl 15 CSC CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 24

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Number of Listing Species Name Observations Status Golden Eagle 31 Fully Protected* Loggerhead Shrike 220 CSC Northern Harrier 83 CSC Peregrine Falcon (RECOVERED) 1 SE, SCD, Fully Protected Swainson’s Hawk 33 ST Tricolored Blackbird 6 CSC White-tailed Kite 6 Fully Protected Total Listed Species 515 SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SCD = State Candidate (delisting) CSC = California Species of Special Concern * Golden Eagle is also protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Spatial Distribution of Species in the Shiloh III Project Site

The relative numbers of each species observed during the standardized surveys at the various observation points are presented in Table 6. The greatest numbers of observations were recorded at OPs #1 and 2, and fewest at OP #8. These differences appear to be attributed at least in part to numbers of Brewer’s Blackbirds, European Starlings, Long-billed Curlews, Mourning Doves, Western Meadowlarks, and mixed blackbirds recorded at these three sites. Other high concentrations of a single species at the other OPs were recorded as follows: OP #2, American Goldfinch (n=148), and Dark-eyed Junco (n=126), 100% of the observations for each species project wide; also at OP #2, 20% of all Savannah Sparrow observations (n=204); OP #3, Red- winged Blackbird (n=530), 26% of the observations of that species; and OP #5, American Pipit (n=193), and Cliff Swallow (n=178), 57% and 55% of the observations of those species respectively; and OP #7, Barn Swallow (n=499), Rock Pigeon (n=374), and White-crowned Sparrow (n=96), 57%, 55% and 69% of the observations of those species respectively.

The greatest amount (22%) of raptor activity was registered at OP #7, with 35% of Red-tailed Hawk observations recorded at this location. This (22%) is double what would be expected at each observation site if raptors were distributed evenly (1 of 9 sites is 11% of the total number of sites observed). As a group, raptors were broadly distributed among the nine observation points. The lowest amounts of activity were recorded at OP #4 (6%) and OP #9* (7%). The other six sites were all within the 9% to 16% activity range. American Kestrels were distributed fairly evenly over the nine sites, with the greatest numbers recorded at OP #8*, where 19% of this species’ observations were registered. Fifty eight percent (58%) of Northern Harrier observations were recorded at OPs #5*, 6 and 7 combined. Approximately 30% of Swainson’s Hawk observations were recorded at OP #6. Golden Eagles were observed at all nine observation points, with 58% of observations recorded at OPs #6 and #8* combined, and only 13% at OPs #2 through #5* combined. All six White-tiled Kites were seen at OP #6, while all Burrowing Owls (n=15) were seen at OP #1. The single Peregrine Falcon sighting was recorded also at OP #6.

Table 6. Avian species observed by observation point at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 25

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Observation Point Species Name 1 2 3 4 5* 6 7 8* 9* Total American Coot 12 12 American Crow 4 2 6 2 4 18 American Goldfinch 148 148 American Kestrel 19 30 34 33 26 45 31 61 39 318 American Pipit 60 41 10 193 20 4 12 340 American Robin 1 1 American White Pelican 2 26 53 36 117 American Wigeon 8 8 Ash-throated Flycatcher 1 1 Barn Swallow 29 43 14 13 71 146 499 45 23 883 Black Phoebe 2 3 1 2 8 Black Swift 1 2 3 Black-necked Stilt 8 8 Brewer's Blackbird 838 782 435 422 80 94 36 48 116 2851 Burrowing Owl 15 15 Canada Goose 36 28 26 8 98 Chukar 2 2 Cinnamon Teal 3 3 Cliff Swallow 18 54 178 18 24 32 324 Common Raven 86 57 49 41 100 15 54 21 34 457 Dark-eyed Junco 126 126 Double-crested Cormorant 1 1 2 European Starling 587 389 300 97 22 8 80 257 1740 Ferruginous Hawk 3 4 2 2 1 1 5 18 Golden Eagle 2 1 1 1 1 8 3 10 4 31 Great Blue Heron 1 1 Great Egret 2 1 2 2 1 8 Great Horned Owl 6 1 4 1 12 Greater Yellowlegs 1 3 4 Herring Gull 1 1 Horned Lark 112 220 45 417 350 104 91 244 120 1703 House Finch 20 58 8 2 88 Killdeer 90 83 54 14 4 11 3 14 273 Lark Sparrow 2 2 Lesser Goldfinch 13 27 40 Lesser Scaup 10 10 Lincoln’s Sparrow 10 10 Loggerhead Shrike 48 14 32 17 21 9 6 23 50 220 Long-billed Curlew 607 1150 213 58 93 2121 Mallard 26 8 10 53 62 159 Merlin 1 1 Mourning Dove 124 346 168 51 21 47 13 16 786 Northern Flicker 1 24 3 1 29 Northern Harrier 5 8 6 19 15 14 8 8 83 Northern Mockingbird 4 5 1 1 11 Osprey 1 1 Peregrine Falcon 1 1 Prairie Falcon 4 1 3 2 3 1 2 16 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 26

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Observation Point Species Name 1 2 3 4 5* 6 7 8* 9* Total Red-tailed Hawk 47 60 57 21 41 89 192 28 17 552 Red-winged Blackbird 178 160 530 172 264 204 170 87 313 2078 Ring-necked Pheasant 1 10 11 Rock Pigeon 2 8 22 5 13 86 374 116 56 682 Rough-legged Hawk 2 5 3 9 2 1 2 24 Savannah Sparrow 46 204 67 150 191 132 50 30 128 998 Say's Phoebe 6 6 1 8 2 1 3 5 32 Snow Goose 92 162 254 Song Sparrow 1 1 Swainson's Hawk 2 8 2 5 10 3 3 33 Tree Swallow 7 6 73 34 18 7 1 146 Tricolored Blackbird 2 4 6 Turkey Vulture 86 118 116 83 181 108 153 190 164 1199 Varied Thrush 1 1 Western Gull 1 1 Western Kingbird 18 1 4 23 Western Meadowlark 435 509 574 336 546 293 103 276 459 3531 Western Scrub-jay 1 1 White-crowned Sparrow 8 18 14 96 4 140 White-tailed Kite 6 6 Yellow-billed Magpie 3 3 Yellow-rumped Warbler 9 22 5 2 38 Mixed Blackbird spp. 3940 4924 1454 1726 1015 2358 1860 157 1362 18796 Unidentified Gull 34 22 30 86 Unidentified Hummingbird 1 1 Unidentified Sparrow 10 90 100 Unidentified Swallow 3 120 60 183 Total Avian Species 7401 9682 4165 3877 3830 4288 3833 1577 3385 42038 Total Avian Species excluding Mixed Blackbirds 3461 4758 2711 2151 2815 1930 1973 1420 2023 23242

* denotes OP that covers proposed project site

As a species group, waterfowl were observed predominantly at OPs #5* (36%, n=192) and #6 (44%, n=232). Mallard (72% of 159) and Snow Goose (100% of 254) observations were concentrated in these two observation sites. There were a couple of temporary wetland areas within Shiloh III, mainly around OPs #5* and #6. The majority of water bird observations (76%) were observed at OPs #1 and 2, largely attributed to the great numbers of Long-billed Curlews recorded at those two sites (Table 7), this species alone comprised 69% of all water bird observations at these two sites. There were more (n=2028, 95.6%) curlews observed north of HWY 12 versus south (n=93, 4.4%). This species was almost exclusively seen foraging in pastures or en route to pastures.

Table 7. The number of avian observations recorded within each species grouping by observation point at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 27

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Observation Point Species Group 1 2 3 4 5* 6 7 8* 9* Total Raptor (incl. owls) 99 115 111 66 109 177 245 109 80 1111 Passerine excluding Mixed Blackbirds 2330 2824 2112 1667 2106 1155 1120 967 1496 15777 Waterfowl (ducks, geese) 36 26 36 10 192 232 532 Water Bird (cormorants, pelicans, egrets, shorebirds) 697 1235 57 228 87 83 12 4 143 2546 Other Bird (vultures, large corvids, gulls, doves, flickers, pheasants etc.) 299 558 395 180 321 283 596 340 304 3276 Total excluding Mixed Blackbirds 3461 4758 2711 2151 2815 1930 1973 1420 2023 23242

* denotes OP that covers proposed project site

Observation points were lumped into regions, with OPs 1 through 5* which are north of Highway 12 referred to as the “North”, OPs 6 and 7 along Collinsville Road down to just north of the Sacramento River as the “Southwest”, and OPs 8* and 9* near Montezuma Hills, Emigh and Azevedo Roads as the “East” (see Figure 1). The “North” region was typified by a flatter terrain than the other two regions and the other three adjacent wind power projects. There were a greater average number of avian observations recorded in the “North” compared to the other regions, even when mixed blackbirds were excluded from the data. Passerines and water birds were most numerous in the “North”, while raptors, waterfowl and other birds were most numerous in the “Southwest”. No waterfowl were observed in the “East”. Excluding mixed blackbird observations, the ratio of bird observations per observation point was 1.85 to 1.13 to 1 corresponding to the “North”, “Southwest” and “East” respectively.

Table 8. The average number of observations per observation point recorded within each species grouping by region at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

Average # of Observations / OP NORTH SOUTHWEST EAST North of Collinsville Rd/ Azevedo/Emigh/ Average Highway 12 Sacramento River Montezuma Hills Rds. # of Observations Species Group OPs 1-5 OPs 6-7 OPs 8-9 per OP Raptor 100 211 94.5 123.4 Passerine 4819.6 3246.5 1991 3841.4 Passerine excl. 2207.8 1137.5 1231.5 1753.0 Mixed Blackbirds Waterfowl 60 116 59.1 Water Bird 460.8 47.5 73.5 282.9 Other Bird 350.6 439.5 322 364.0 Average # Observations/OP 5791 4060.5 2481 4670.9 Average # Obs/OP excluding Mixed Blackbirds 3179.2 1951.5 1721.5 2582.4

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 28

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Avian Species by month at the Shiloh III Project Site

Table 9 displays the monthly number of observations of species recorded per hour at the site of the proposed Shiloh III Wind Project during the April 24, 2007 through April 24, 2008 study. In Appendix II, the monthly rates of observations of avian species at the Shiloh I Wind Project and the High Winds Project sites are presented for comparison. Since the number of hours surveyed monthly varied greatly between months at the Shiloh III site (see Table 2) and also between sites, monthly species composition is shown as a rate, as the number of observations per hour.

There were notable peaks in numbers of birds observed per hour during certain months at Shiloh III of the following species: Long-billed Curlew (October – December, with a large peak in November), Snow Goose (January), Turkey Vulture (September), American Goldfinch (January), Barn Swallow (August – September), Brewer’s Blackbird (October, and a lesser peak in March), European Starling (January – February), Horned Lark (November – December, February), Red-winged Blackbird (February – April), Savannah Sparrow (November – January), Western Meadowlark (September – April, with a large peak in October), flocks of “Mixed Blackbirds” (October – February, with a very large peak in December). February of 2008 registered the largest numbers of all avian species per hour (excluding mixed blackbirds), largely due to the great numbers of starlings, Horned Larks, Red-winged Blackbirds and meadowlarks observed that month. When mixed blackbirds are included, the greatest number of observations per hour was recorded in December.

Table 9. Number of bird observations per hour by month at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

Total Number of Observations per Hour by Month # # 2007 2008

Species Name Obs OPs Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr American Coot 12 1 0.44 0.13 American Crow 18 5 0.36 0.11 0.11 0.18 0.11 American Goldfinch 148 1 6.58 American Kestrel 318 9 0.67 0.53 0.44 0.71 1.06 0.95 0.77 1.56 2.22 1.11 1.50 0.89 0.16 American Pipit 340 7 1.56 0.22 0.13 1.53 3.01 3.33 2.35 American Robin 1 1 0.04 American White Pelican 117 4 1.44 0.10 1.60 2.78 0.05 American Wigeon 8 1 0.44 Ash-throated Flycatcher 1 1 0.03 Barn Swallow 883 9 2.93 3.33 4.09 11.39 6.86 0.74 0.69 0.64 5.08 Black Phoebe 8 4 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.05 Black Swift 3 2 0.11 0.06 Black-necked Stilt 8 1 0.25 Brewer's Blackbird 2851 9 6.44 2.40 0.56 1.42 2.00 6.16 29.95 3.63 5.06 8.67 8.06 12.00 6.03 Burrowing Owl 15 1 0.12 0.05 0.09 0.06 0.05 0.10 Canada Goose 98 4 0.70 1.60 1.00 0.10 0.57 Chukar 2 1 0.04 0.04 Cinnamon Teal 3 1 0.17

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 29

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Total Number of Observations per Hour by Month # # 2007 2008

Species Name Obs OPs Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Cliff Swallow 324 6 2.04 1.89 1.73 1.67 0.57 0.30 4.60 Common Raven 457 9 0.44 0.36 0.22 0.36 0.61 0.83 2.74 2.20 3.83 1.16 0.83 1.68 0.57 Dark-eyed Junco 126 1 0.89 0.18 0.79 1.87 0.22 0.89 Double-crested Cormorant 2 2 0.06 0.02 European Starling 1740 8 3.78 2.13 1.22 0.36 0.33 1.21 1.83 1.68 1.50 22.80 24.39 9.33 2.70 Ferruginous Hawk 18 7 0.10 0.15 0.33 0.11 Golden Eagle 31 9 0.22 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.16 0.10 0.07 0.17 0.06 0.15 Great Blue Heron 1 1 0.02 Great Egret 8 5 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.10 Great Horned Owl 12 4 0.04 0.18 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 Greater Yellowlegs 4 2 0.06 0.10 Herring Gull 1 1 0.02 Horned Lark 1703 9 2.89 0.09 0.28 0.36 2.44 0.16 0.69 13.85 20.33 1.16 23.67 4.69 0.51 House Finch 88 4 0.53 0.11 0.74 0.59 0.20 0.38 Killdeer 273 8 0.17 0.13 0.83 0.16 3.14 1.11 2.72 0.71 0.32 Lark Sparrow 2 1 0.05 Lesser Goldfinch 40 2 2.22 Lesser Scaup 10 1 0.56 Lincoln's Sparrow 10 1 0.56 Loggerhead Shrike 220 9 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.53 1.06 0.67 0.47 0.35 0.78 0.58 0.94 1.04 0.63 Long-billed Curlew 2121 5 13.41 21.28 18.56 0.40 6.83 2.94 4.16 Mallard 159 5 0.22 0.25 1.69 1.56 1.46 0.70 Merlin 1 1 0.04 Mourning Dove 786 8 1.78 0.44 0.28 1.20 4.33 1.46 2.47 2.91 5.72 5.96 3.28 1.19 1.33 Northern Flicker 29 4 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.67 0.11 0.10 Northern Harrier 83 8 0.56 0.13 0.33 0.13 0.17 0.10 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.09 0.44 0.32 0.35 Northern Mockingbird 11 4 0.18 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.10 Osprey 1 1 0.02 Peregrine Falcon 1 1 0.02 Prairie Falcon 16 7 0.11 0.17 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.17 0.04 0.11 Red-tailed Hawk 552 9 0.78 0.80 0.44 0.80 1.17 1.05 1.31 3.38 2.67 2.49 2.67 2.20 0.51 Red-winged Blackbird 2078 9 2.89 1.60 0.83 0.40 0.22 0.44 1.09 0.62 1.78 1.78 34.11 12.62 22.48 Ring-necked Pheasant 11 2 0.22 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.10 Rock Pigeon 682 9 5.11 4.00 3.00 2.27 3.56 1.14 1.36 1.36 3.28 0.53 1.89 1.83 1.65 Rough-legged Hawk 24 7 0.17 0.11 0.04 0.28 0.22 Savannah Sparrow 998 9 0.44 0.22 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.06 3.75 7.83 13.67 5.56 3.56 1.28 0.83 Say's Phoebe 32 8 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.25 0.15 0.33 0.04 0.22 0.03 Snow Goose 254 2 11.29 Song Sparrow 1 1 0.06 Swainson's Hawk 33 7 0.67 0.22 0.18 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.22 Tree Swallow 146 7 1.11 0.53 1.08 0.10 0.47 0.06 1.44 0.99 Tricolored Blackbird 6 2 0.10 0.06 Turkey Vulture 1199 9 1.89 2.36 2.00 2.80 4.50 12.60 5.98 3.09 2.17 0.49 1.39 2.10 0.79 Varied Thrush 1 1 0.04 Western Gull 1 1 0.02 Western Kingbird 23 3 0.35 0.29 Western Meadowlark 3531 9 1.78 2.31 1.39 2.36 6.33 9.33 17.58 12.52 15.83 14.71 16.06 14.47 8.48 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 30

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Total Number of Observations per Hour by Month # # 2007 2008

Species Name Obs OPs Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Western Scrub-jay 1 1 0.03 White-crowned Sparrow 140 5 0.94 0.54 1.96 2.00 White-tailed Kite 6 1 0.13 0.02 0.06 Yellow-billed Magpie 3 1 0.10 Yellow-rumped Warbler 38 4 0.44 0.22 0.02 0.56 0.18 0.56 Mixed Blackbird spp. 18796 9 2.22 81.19 116.84 242.17 128.00 107.22 38.69 Unidentified Gull 86 3 0.44 0.79 1.67 0.09 1.00 Unidentified Hummingbird 1 1 0.03 Unidentified Sparrow 100 2 0.25 4.00 Unidentified Swallow 183 3 0.17 1.48 3.81 Total 42038 9 35.0 25.2 19.3 20.8 45.1 46.5 174.8 202.3 348.6 228.4 254.3 113.0 70.7 Total excluding Mixed Blackbirds 23242 9 35.0 25.2 19.3 20.8 42.8 46.5 93.6 85.5 106.4 100.4 147.1 74.3 70.7

Between April 24, 2007 and April 24, 2008, three hundred eighteen (318) American Kestrel observations were made. In the one-year study at Shiloh I, 340 kestrel observations were recorded. At High Winds, 116 kestrel observations were recorded in year one and 80 in year two. In the Shiloh II surveys from November 2005 through May 2006 there were 218 American Kestrel observations made. The number of observations of this species was greatest between November and February at Shiloh III with a peak in numbers in December, while greatest numbers were observed between September and February at Shiloh I, with a peak recorded during September and October (2004). The highest numbers of kestrel observations at Shiloh II were made in November, December and March with the highest number recorded in November. The numbers observed at High Winds were greatest between the months of August and February, with a peak in December during both years of the study. Peak months for all four sites correspond to fall migration. This species was also widely distributed spatially, being observed at all observation points at each project site.

Five hundred fifty two (552) Red-tailed Hawk observations were made at Shiloh III. The peak months of observation for this species were November through March. Six hundred eighty nine (689) Red-tail hawk observations were registered at Shiloh I, with peak numbers observed January and February, and October through December 2004. The greatest numbers were seen in the months of January and February 2004. Three hundred ninety (390) Red-tailed Hawks were observed at High Winds during year one, and 128 in year two. Peak numbers were recorded in November through February the first year, and to a lesser extent, in October through February of year two. This species was also observed from each observation point.

Few White-tailed Kite observations were recorded at Shiloh III (6), all occurring in 3 months, September, October and February, with the greatest number in September. White-tailed Kites were observed at Shiloh I in the greatest numbers during January and February and again in November through December, with a peak in January. Observations of this species at High Winds were minimal, with the greatest numbers of birds were seen in the winter, between January and February of year one, and December and January of year two. The White-tailed

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 31

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Kite observations made at Shiloh II occurred in each month of the study but were greatest from November through January. This species was only seen from one observation point at Shiloh III (OP #6) and Shiloh II #2 while observations were more widespread at Shiloh I (seen at all OPs) and High Winds (five and four OPs, years one and two respectively). The three full year and one seven month observational data sets from these two adjacent sites strongly indicate that these species observed in most of the CMHWRA were wintering in this area.

Eighty-three Northern Harriers were registered at Shiloh III during the one-year study, with a slight increase in rate of observation recorded in February through April, with a high of 0.56 observations per hour in April of 2007. One hundred eighty four harriers were recorded at Shiloh I, with peak numbers recorded January through April. From November to March at Shiloh II (121) Northern Harrier observations were made with peak numbers occurring in January (19), February (32) and March (34)) respectively. In year one of the High Winds study, 53 harriers were recorded, in their greatest numbers in February (13) of that year, and to a lesser extent, November (8). In year two only 32 harriers were recorded at High Winds, with a very slight increases in numbers observed in December, February and March (n=5 during each of those months). This species was recorded at all but one OP at Shiloh III (all except OP #2), and at all the OPs at Shiloh I, II and High Winds.

Thirty-one (31) Golden Eagles were recorded at Shiloh III during the year, with a slight peak in April of 2007, with a rate of 0.22 observations per hour. At Shiloh I, 30 Golden Eagles were observed during the year, with slight increases in numbers recorded during April, May, November and December. Fourteen eagles were observed each year at High Winds, with no clear difference in numbers between months. Six Golden Eagles were observed at five of the seven OPs and only in November (2) and March (4). This species was widely distributed at Shiloh III, being observed from all observation points, while it was observed at the majority of OPs at the other two sites.

Thirty-three Swainson’s Hawks were registered at Shiloh III, with the greatest rate of observation recorded for May, at 0.67 observations per hour. This species was observed having three confirmed nests within the southern WRA, thus may have contributed to greater numbers seen during nesting season. Of 27 Swainson’s Hawk observations recorded at Shiloh I, 5 of them occurred in June. At Shiloh II two observations of this species were made both in March and at OPs #4 and #5. During the entire two-year study at High Winds, only one Swainson’s Hawk was seen, during the month of May of 2004 (year one). This species was well distributed spatially at the Shiloh III site, with observations registered at seven of nine observation points. This species was observed at five of seven OPs at Shiloh I.

Northern Harriers would not be expected in great numbers during the breeding season because Montezuma Hills support very little potential marsh or seasonal wetland breeding habitat. White-tailed Kites would also not be expected during the breeding season, because there is very limited nesting habitat for this species; while Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, and Great- horned Owls will nest in eucalyptus trees, which is the most common tree type in this area.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 32

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Figure 6 shows the number of birds observed per hour of frequently observed raptor species (designated to be those with a total of over 20 observations) at Shiloh III for each month of the one-year study. The most notable fall migrants are the American Kestrel and Red-tailed Hawk.

3.5 r u o h

r 3 e p

d e v

r 2.5

e American s

b Kestrel o

d 2 Golden Eagle r i b

f o Northern Harrier r

e 1.5 b m

u Red-tailed Hawk N 1 Rough-legged Hawk 0.5 Swainson's Hawk

0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Month (2007-2008)

Figure 6. Number of raptors observed per hour per month (April 2007 through April 2008). Data includes only raptor species with 20 or more total observations recorded during the yearlong study.

While moving from one observation point to another, observations of raptors were recorded but not included or analyzed with the data gathered in the standardized surveys. The total numbers of “incidental” raptor species observations are presented in Table 10. A total of 1261 incidental raptor observations were recorded. Red-tailed hawk and American Kestrel together comprised 90% of all incidental observations. There were 21 observations of Swainson’s Hawks, and 1 Peregrine Falcon observation. Table 10. Incidental observations made between surveys within the Shiloh III Wind Project.

Species # of Observations American Kestrel 509 Burrowing Owl 9 Ferruginous Hawk 7 Golden Eagle 12

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 33

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Species # of Observations Northern Harrier 32 Peregrine Falcon 1 Prairie Falcon 11 Red-tailed Hawk 629 Rough-legged Hawk 19 Swainson’s Hawk 21 White-tailed Kite 11 TOTAL 1261

In addition to incidental observations recorded between surveys, all birds seen beyond the one- mile survey radius during standardized surveys were recorded. These observations were considered out of the defined study area, and therefore “incidental”, and are presented in Table 11. Species observed were seen between an estimated range of 1700 meters (just over 1 mile) and 7000 meters (4.35 miles) from the observation points. Nine thousand two hundred thirteen observations were recorded outside the study area. Approximately 71% (n=6506) of these were seen beyond 2 miles from the observation point. Fifteen hundred of these were unidentified geese seen at about 2-1/2 miles from the OP, while five thousand were seen beyond 3 miles, and included a flock of 3000 unidentified geese, and 2000 mixed species of blackbirds. The single Swainson’s Hawk was observed at approximately 1900 meters (1.2 miles) from OP # 5.

Table 11. Incidental observations made during standardized surveys beyond the 1-mile search radius within the Shiloh III Wind Project.

Incidental Observation Observation Point Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total American Kestrel 3 1 2 6 American White Pelican 30 51 81 Canada Goose 53 53 Common Raven 9 2 1 2 14 Double-crested Cormorant 5 5 Ferruginous Hawk 2 1 3 Golden Eagle 1 2 3 Great Egret 1 1 Horned Lark 50 50 Long-billed Curlew 50 81 30 100 261 Mallard 14 14 Northern Harrier 1 1 1 3 Northern Mockingbird 1 1 Prairie Falcon 1 1 Red-tailed Hawk 1 3 3 1 3 3 1 15 Rock Pigeon 6 9 15 Savannah Sparrow 1 1 Swainson's Hawk 1 1 Turkey Vulture 3 6 11 5 8 5 2 12 17 69 White-tailed Kite 1 3 4 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 34

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Incidental Observation Observation Point Species 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Mixed Blackbird spp. 24 24 2000 50 2000 4098 Unidentified Buteo 2 2 Unidentified Duck 6 6 Unidentified Goose 4500 4500 Unidentified Gull 6 6 Total 117 93 40 38 67 2157 62 119 6520 9213 Total excluding Mixed Blackbirds 117 93 16 38 43 157 12 119 4520 5115

Raptor Flight Activities and Related Behavior(s)

The following avian flight and perching behaviors were recorded: types of flight activity and perching locations. Flight behaviors were categorized as: soaring and/or gliding; coursing/low hunting flight; kiting or hovering usually associated with hunting; flapping flight through the area; and, courtship or territorial behavior. Perching behavior was categorized by the location and/or type of the perching, such as: on the ground or a rocky outcrop, a tree, a fence post, or a power line or pole. Height above ground of each perching location was also recorded, as the individual’s flight to the perching site would have been at the same height.

Raptor Perching Observations. Perch behaviors were categorized by perch location/structure, such as the ground, a fence, tree, or power line. A total of 297 raptor perching observations were recorded (Table 12). Of these, the most common perch structure of raptors observed was the ground, which accounted for 33% (n=99) of all raptor perching observations. Other perch structures frequently used by raptors during surveys included: power lines (27%); fence posts (26%), and trees (14%). The majority of perching observations were of Red-tailed Hawks. This species perched on the ground most frequently, comprising 79% (n=78) of all raptor perching observations on this type of perch structure, 46% of all Red-tailed Hawk perching observations, and 26% of all raptor perch observations. They also perched on power lines, comprising 24% of all Red-tailed Hawk perching observations, followed by trees (15%) and fence posts (14%). These three perch sites accounted for (54%) of all Red-tailed Hawk perches and (31%) of all observed raptor perching. Fence posts were the most common perch sites for American Kestrels and Burrowing Owls. Forty eight percent of kestrel perching observations were on fence posts, and accounted for 52% of the observations on this structure type. Kestrel perching was also observed on power lines (43% of kestrel perching observations), and to a lesser degree, on trees (~5%) and the ground (~5%). Red-tail Hawk and American Kestrel perching accounted for 85% of all raptor perching observations.

Table 12. Perching behavior of raptors at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

Number of Perching Structure Raptor Species Observations Fence Post Ground Power line Tree American Kestrel 84 40 4 36 4 Burrowing Owl 14 8 6 Ferruginous Hawk 1 1 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 35

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Number of Perching Structure Raptor Species Observations Fence Post Ground Power line Tree Golden Eagle 5 1 2 2 Great Horned Owl 11 11 Merlin 0 Northern Harrier 4 2 2 Osprey 0 Peregrine Falcon 0 Prairie Falcon 2 1 1 Red-tailed Hawk 169 24 78 41 26 Rough-legged Hawk 6 6 Swainson's Hawk 0 White-tailed Kite 1 1 TOTAL 297 77 99 80 41

Flight Behaviors. Flight observations were categorized as: flapping flight, soaring, coursing, kiting, or hovering. The latter three flights are often associated with hunting.

A total of 814 observations of raptor flight behaviors were recorded (Table 13). The majority (45%) of the flight observations were of soaring (n=367), followed by flapping flights (28%, n=230), kiting (17%, n=135), coursing (7%, n=55), and hovering (3%, n=27). The most frequently observed soaring activity was by the Red-tailed Hawk, with 251 recorded soaring flights. These constituted 68% of the total 367 soaring flights recorded. The majority (69%) of Golden Eagle flights recorded were soaring flights (n=18). The next most common flight behavior recorded was a flapping flight, constituting 28% of all recorded flights. Seventy-eight percent of flapping flights were exhibited by American Kestrels (n=105) and Red-tailed Hawks (n=74). Hovering and kiting constituted the next most frequently observed specific flight activities. Eighty-seven (87%) of observations of hovering (n=73) were of American Kestrel. Red-tailed Hawks (n=48) accounted for 62% of all of the kiting observations and American Kestrel accounted for (37%) of this hunting activity. Nearly all (98%) observations of coursing were made of Northern Harrier (n=54).

Table 13. Flight behavior of raptors at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA. Number of # of Observations of Flight Behavior Raptor Species Observations Flapping Soaring Coursing Kiting Hovering American Kestrel 234 105 27 29 73 Burrowing Owl 1 1 Ferruginous Hawk 17 8 9 Golden Eagle 26 7 18 1 Great Horned Owl 1 1 Merlin 1 1 Northern Harrier 79 10 15 54 Osprey 1 1 Peregrine Falcon 1 1 Prairie Falcon 14 12 2 Red-tailed Hawk 383 74 251 48 10 Rough-legged Hawk 18 4 13 1 Swainson's Hawk 33 3 30 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 36

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Number of # of Observations of Flight Behavior Raptor Species Observations Flapping Soaring Coursing Kiting Hovering White-tailed Kite 5 3 1 1 TOTAL 814 230 367 55 78 84

Flight Height – Raptors. A common metric that is used to describe flight activity is the relationship of the flight to the ground and how it corresponds to the rotor swept area of the turbines were they to be in place at the points of observation. Estimates of this type of flight activity were made in three height ranges. The first height range of flight activity was between ground level and less than 30 meters. If one imagines the rotor sweep area as the face of a clock this roughly corresponds to the lowest point of rotation of the rotors or the 6 o’clock position. The second height range was defined as the area between 31 and 120 meters above the ground, or height of the rotor swept area. The third area was defined as greater than 120 meters above ground, or above the rotor swept area. The height above ground of structures birds were observed perching on was also included in the analysis of “flight height” (see Table 14), as the individuals seen perching had flown at altitudes corresponding to the perch structures they landed upon.

Over half (nearly 54%) of all raptor flights (including perched birds) were below rotor swept area (Table 14). Nearly 37% were observed at rotor swept area height, or between 31 and 120 meters above ground. About 9% were seen flying above rotor swept area, at greater than 120 meters above ground. Forty-five percent of all Golden Eagle altitudes were above 120 meters, 29% were below 30 meters, and about 26% were within rotor swept area. Roughly equal percentages of Red-tailed Hawks were observed below and within rotor swept areas (44 and 45% respectively), while only 11% were seen above rotor swept area. The majority (~ 72%) of American Kestrel flight heights were below 30 meters, and the remaining (~28% of) flights recorded within rotor swept area, with exception of less than 1% seen above 120 meters. Of 83 Northern Harrier observations, 77% were below 30 meters, and 23% were within rotor swept area. The majority (54.5%) of 33 Swainson’s Hawk flight heights were recorded within rotor swept area. Thirty-nine percent of flights recorded for this species were above 120 meters, and 6% were below 30 meters. One third of all Rough-legged Hawk observations were within rotor swept area, with a slightly greater percentage (37.5%) seen below 30 meters, and a smaller percentage (29%) above 120 meters. The single Peregrine Falcon observation was registered above rotor swept area altitudes.

Table 14. Flight heights* of raptors observed at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

Number of Flights % % % Raptor Species Observed 0-30 meters 31-120 meters > 120 meters American Kestrel 318 71.7 27.7 0.6 Burrowing Owl 15 100 Ferruginous Hawk 18 22.2 55.6 22.2 Golden Eagle 31 29.0 25.8 45.2 Great Horned Owl 12 83.3 16.7 Merlin 1 100 Northern Harrier 83 77.1 22.9 Osprey 1 100 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 37

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Number of Flights % % % Raptor Species Observed 0-30 meters 31-120 meters > 120 meters Peregrine Falcon 1 100 Prairie Falcon 16 56.3 37.5 6.3 Red-tailed Hawk 552 44.0 45.1 10.9 Rough-legged Hawk 24 37.5 33.3 29.2 Swainson's Hawk 33 6.1 54.5 39.4 White-tailed Kite 6 83.3 16.7 TOTAL 1111 53.8 36.9 9.3 * Flight height here includes altitude above ground of flights as well as the perching structures recorded during perching observations.

When perching observations are not included in the analysis of “flight heights”, nearly 48% of 814 actual flights were within rotor swept area (between 31 and 120 meters above ground). Just fewer than 40% were below 30 meters above ground, and 12.5% were above 120 meters. Of the 26 Golden Eagles actual flights observed during the surveys, nearly 54% (n=14) of the time these birds were active greater than 120 meters above ground. Approximately 27% of Golden Eagle flights were estimated to be between 31 and 120 meters, or at the height of the rotor swept area. The remaining 19% of Golden Eagle flight activity occurred below the rotor swept area. The 383 Red-tailed Hawk flights were observed at the following height ranges: 24% of the time in the 1-30 meter area; 61% in the 31-120 meter area; and 15% above 120 meters. Of 234 American Kestrel flights, 62% were below 30 meters, 37% were within rotor swept area, and just less than 1% were above 120 meters. Of 79 Northern Harrier actual flights, 76% were below 30 meters, and 24% were within rotor swept area (roughly the same as shown above in Table 13). Swainson’s Hawk percentages did not change from those shown in Table 13, as all observations of this species were in flight. Forty four percent of Rough-legged Hawk actual flights were within rotor swept area, 39% were above, and 17% were below.

Flight Height – Non-Raptors

A total of 40,927 flight heights (including perching observations) of 56 non-raptor species were recorded during the yearlong study (Table 15). Sixty-six percent of non-raptor flight heights were below rotor swept area, 31% were at rotor swept area, and 3% were above. American White Pelicans (a California Species of Special Concern, or CSC) were predominantly seen flying above rotor swept area, with 90% of observations registered at this height range. The remaining 10% of flights were recorded at rotor swept area. Two of the three Black Swift (CSC) observations were recorded at rotor swept area, while the majority (98%) of Loggerhead Shrike (CSC) observations were recorded as below rotor swept area. All of six Tricolored Blackbird (CSC) observations were below rotor swept area (2 of these were flights, 4 were perching observations). Species which were observed with 50% or more of their observations within the rotor swept area height include: American Crow, American Robin, Black Swift, Cliff Swallow, Common Raven, Double-crested Cormorant, Great Egret, Rock Pigeon, and Western Gull. If we remove mixed blackbird observations from the total, 74% of non-raptor flights were below rotor swept area, 21.4% were within rotor swept area, and less than 5% were above.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 38

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

There were a total of 24,374 actual flights, not including perching observations, of 47 non-raptor species. About half (51%) of these flights were between 31 and 120 meters AGL, or within the range of altitudes corresponding to the rotor swept area.

Table 15. Flight heights* of non-raptors observed at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

Number of % % % 31-120 Species Observations 0-30 meters meters >120 meters American Coot 12 100 American Crow 18 44.4 55.6 American Goldfinch 148 100 American Pipit 340 88.8 11.2 American Robin 1 100 American White Pelican 117 10.3 89.7 American Wigeon 8 100 Ash-throated Flycatcher 1 100 Barn Swallow 883 76.9 23.1 Black Phoebe 8 100.0 Black Swift 3 33.3 66.7 Black-necked Stilt 8 100 Brewer's Blackbird 2851 74.3 25.7 Canada Goose 98 32.7 8.2 59.2 Chukar 2 100 Cinnamon Teal 3 100 Cliff Swallow 324 47.5 52.5 Common Raven 457 46.6 50.5 2.8 Dark-eyed Junco 126 100 Double-crested Cormorant 2 50.0 50.0 European Starling 1740 77.1 22.9 Great Blue Heron 1 10 Great Egret 8 25.0 62.5 12.5 Greater Yellowlegs 4 100 Herring Gull 1 100 Horned Lark 1703 72.8 27.2 House Finch 88 86.4 13.6 Killdeer 273 53.5 44.0 2.6 Lark Sparrow 2 100 Lesser Goldfinch 40 100 Lesser Scaup 10 100 Lincoln’s Sparrow 10 100 Loggerhead Shrike 220 97.7 2.3 Long-billed Curlew 2121 66.4 33.6 Mallard 159 67.3 27.7 5.0 Mourning Dove 786 91.5 8.5 Northern Flicker 29 89.7 10.3 Northern Mockingbird 11 90.9 9.1 Red-winged Blackbird 2078 94.0 6.0 Ring-necked Pheasant 11 100 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 39

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Number of % % % 31-120 Species Observations 0-30 meters meters >120 meters Rock Pigeon 682 22.6 77.4 Savannah Sparrow 998 91.6 8.2 0.2 Say's Phoebe 32 100 Snow Goose 254 100 Song Sparrow 1 100 Tree Swallow 146 70.5 29.5 Tricolored Blackbird 6 100 Turkey Vulture 1199 13.4 43.9 42.7 Varied Thrush 1 100 Western Gull 1 100 Western Kingbird 23 100 Western Meadowlark 3531 97.5 2.5 Western Scrub-Jay 1 100 White-crowned Sparrow 140 100 Yellow-billed Magpie 3 100 Yellow-rumped Warbler 38 89.5 10.5 Mixed Blackbirds 18796 57.3 41.5 1.2 Unidentified Gull 86 41.9 58.1 Unidentified Hummingbird 1 100 Unidentified Sparrow 100 90.0 10.0 Unidentified Swallow 183 67.2 32.8 Total 40927 66.3 30.6 3.0 Total excluding Mixed Blackbirds 22131 74 21.4 4.6 * Flight height here includes altitude above ground of flights as well as the perching structures recorded during perching observations.

Figure 7 illustrates the percentage of observations recorded within each height range of species classified into the following groups: raptors, passerines, waterfowl, water birds, and other, the latter being a large group which includes all other non-raptor birds such as vultures, pigeons/doves, woodpeckers, swifts, pheasants, large corvids (crows and ravens) and gulls. Mixed blackbird observations were included in “Passerines” in this graph, since the blackbird species in this lumped group, though not quantified by species, are also at risk of turbine strike. The majority of raptors, passerines, and water birds were observed below rotor swept area, while the majority of waterfowl were above. Waterfowl was the only species group with a small percentage (10%) recorded within rotor swept area. The percentage of observations of all other species groups recorded within the rotor swept area ranged between 29.6% for passerines and 42.8% for Other Birds. “Other Bird” was the only grouping in which the largest percentage of observations was within rotor swept area.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 40

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

80 Raptor (n=1111)

70 Passerine (n=34573) s

n 60 o i t a v r

e 50 s Passerine excl. Mixed BBs (n=15777) b O

o 40

t n

e Waterfowl (n=532) c r

e 30 P

20 Water Bird (n=2546)

10 Other Bird (n=3276) 0 <30 31-120 >120

Height Above Ground (meters)

Figure 7. Height above ground of birds within each species group (raptor, passerine, waterfowl, water bird, and other bird) in percentage of observations at Shiloh III. Includes both perching and flight observations. “Passerine” includes “Mixed Blackbirds”. <30m above ground = below rotor swept area; 31-120m = within rotor swept area; >120m = above rotor swept area

Observations of Non-Avian Species. A total of 65 observations were made of non-avian and potential prey species (Table 16). California Ground Squirrels (n=24) comprised 37% of all non- avian species recorded, with half of the squirrel observations recorded at OP #7. Fourteen Black-tailed Jackrabbits and the same number of Domestic Cats were recorded during the yearlong study, each comprising 21.5% of all non-avian species observations. The largest numbers of jackrabbits were seen at OP #1, while cats were slightly more even seen throughout the site. Observation Point #6 was the only OP in which no mammalian prey was observed. Other species recorded include Coyote, Red Fox, Opossum, Gopher Snake, and Western Racer.

Table 16. Non-avian species observed at the Shiloh III Wind Power Project, CA.

# of % Species Observation Point Species Name Observations Composition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Black-tailed Jackrabbit 14 21.5 6 2 3 1 2 California Ground 24 36.9 4 12 2 6 Squirrel Domestic Cat 14 21.5 2 1 2 2 3 4 Coyote 2 3.1 1 1 Red Fox 1 1.5 1

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 41

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

# of % Species Observation Point Species Name Observations Composition 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Opossum 1 1.5 1 Gopher Snake 7 10.8 2 1 2 2 Western Racer 2 3.1 1 1 Total 65 100.0 11 3 4 3 6 2 15 7 14

Comparison with Shiloh I, Shiloh II, and High Winds Abundance and Behavior Studies

Adjacent to the Shiloh III Project is the newly operational Shiloh I wind project with 100 turbines and the 90 turbine High Winds project which has been in operation since 2003. Curry and Kerlinger used similar protocols to determine abundance and behavior (use) for both of these areas beginning in August, 2000 (Kerlinger et al. 2001 with pre-construction surveys, and 2003 and 2004 with post-construction surveys Kerlinger et al. 2006. In addition to these two sites, there is seven months of pre-construction abundance and behavior surveys for the Shiloh II project, also situated adjacent to Shiloh III. The terrain and habitat at the High Winds site is generally similar to that of both of the Shiloh sites and to areas of the Shiloh III site south of Highway 12. As previously mentioned, the northern area of the Shiloh III project is flatter than the south and dominated by grazed grassland, and thus differs from the other sites. However, the revised project is located only on land south of Highway 12 which is comparable to the other sites with respect to terrain and habitat. Because of the proximity of the lands surveyed outside of the immediate proposed development area, we included and present the data gathered and highlight the anomalies in the discussion. In preparation of this report, we used data collected from pre-construction surveys from the Shiloh I and II projects and two years of post- construction raptor surveys from High Winds (Kerlinger et al. 2006).

To compare abundance of species at the four sites during their respective periods of study, we transformed the data for each species into the numbers of birds observed per hour of observation. This provided a metric for each species that was comparable. By comparing the rate of observations per hour for each species, comparisons can be made to examine potential risk to each species. This is particularly useful when combined with empirically determined measures of risk (collision fatalities) at the High Winds and Shiloh I sites. The proximity of the survey points and the circles of observation are shown above in Figure 3.

Table 17 summarizes the number of observations per hour per species for the yearlong period of surveys at Shiloh III, Shiloh I and High Winds, in the respective years. This analysis does not include Shiloh II, at which only 7 months of surveys were conducted. There is a moderate degree of similarity of species composition within the four surveys covering three project areas. Sixty-seven percent (67%) of the species seen at Shiloh III were observed in at least at one of the other surveys and fifty percent (50%) of the species were observed in at least two of the other surveys. In comparison to Shiloh I and High Winds, the species diversity observed at Shiloh III appears to be much greater. Twenty three species observed only at Shiloh III include: American Coot, American Goldfinch, American Robin, American Wigeon, Ash-throated Flycatcher, Black Swift (CSC), Black-necked Stilt, Chukar, Cinnamon Teal, Double-crested Cormorant, Greater Yellowlegs, Herring Gull, Lark Sparrow, Lesser Goldfinch, Lesser Scaup, Lincoln’s Sparrow, Long-billed Curlew, Peregrine Falcon, Song Sparrow, Varied Thrush, Western Gull, Western CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 42

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Scrub-jay, and Yellow-rumped Warbler. Species observed at Shiloh I or High Winds but not at Shiloh III include: Golden-crowned Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Northern Rough-winged Swallow, Red-shouldered Hawk, Violet-green Swallow, and White-throated Swift.

Differences in survey methods most likely contributed to whether or not certain species present were observed, for instance the number of hours spent per year conducting surveys varied greatly between sites: High Winds was surveyed for 64 hours per year of the two year study; Shiloh I, 217 hours for one year of surveys; and Shiloh III, 333 hours for one year of surveys. The number of rounds of surveys was roughly constant per month at Shiloh I and High Winds, whereas Shiloh III more rounds were conducted during fall and spring migration periods, possibly contributing to the species diversity recorded there.

Some of the species observed only at Shiloh III during pre-construction surveys (listed above) were also recorded at the Shiloh I and High Wind sites during different phases of surveys not presented in this Table 17. For example, species reported (incidents found under wind turbines between April 2006 and March 2008) at Shiloh I during post-construction carcass surveys included: American Coot, American Goldfinch, Chukar, Lincoln’s Sparrow, and Peregrine Falcon. During pre-construction avian abundance and behavior surveys at the High Winds site (August 2000 to August 2001), the following species were observed: American Goldfinch, American Robin, Cinnamon Teal, Long-billed Curlew, Song Sparrow, Western Scrub-jay, and Yellow-rumped Warbler. During post-construction carcass surveys at High Winds (August 2003- August 2005), the following species (as incidents found under wind turbines) were recorded: American Coot, Double-crested Cormorant, and Lincoln’s Sparrow.

The terrain differences between sites may have contributed to differences in species composition. The flatter areas north of Highway 12 at Shiloh III would have given the observer a better view of smaller birds than observation points situated on top of ridgelines characteristic of many of the observation points chosen for High Winds. Also, raptors may prefer hilly areas for utilizing thermal updrafts during flight.

The presence of a few temporary wetlands, ponds and drainages that fill up with water during the winter at Shiloh III could account for the additional diversity of water bird and waterfowl species as well as the slight increased numbers of Snow Goose and Mallard observations. The larger wetland/pond areas are located within OP sites #5 and 6, where about 80% of all waterfowl observations were recorded. All of the observations recorded of American Coot, American Wigeon, Cinnamon Teal, Lesser Scaup, and Black-necked Stilt, Great Blue Heron, Greater Yellowlegs were registered at OPs #5 and 6. Approximately 68% of all American White Pelican observations were made from these same OPs.

A greater percent of the land cover is located in grazed grasslands and is not subject to as much turnover/tillage in the Shiloh III project area that may account for the higher number of observations of grassland birds such as Brewer’s Blackbird, Horned Lark, Western Meadowlark, and Savannah Sparrow.

With respect to raptor observations, there were fewer observations recorded per hour of American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, Northern Harrier, Golden Eagle and White-tailed Kite at

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 43

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Shiloh III than at Shiloh I and High Winds. The regions to the north of Highway 12 and to the east along Azevedo and Montezuma Hills Roads combined, comprising 7 observation points, had slightly fewer raptor observations than the southwestern area, which was comprised of only 2 observation points. This concentration was probably at least in part due to the flatter areas to the north of Highway 12 (5 OPs) not being as preferable to raptors as the hilly terrain of the south. The numbers of Swainson’s Hawks seen per hour was similar to that of the Shiloh I site. Burrowing Owls were seen in slightly greater numbers at Shiloh III than Shiloh I and High Winds.

Table 17. Summary and comparison of number of birds observed per hour during one year of Pre-Construction surveys conducted at the Shiloh III Project Site (2007-2008), and the Shiloh I (2004) Project Site, and two years of Post-Construction Surveys at the High Winds Project Site (2003 - 05).

Shiloh III Shiloh I High Winds Yr 1 High Winds Yr 2 Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Construction Species Apr 07- Apr 08 Jan - Dec 04 Aug 03 - Aug 04 Aug 04 - Aug 05 American Coot 0.036 American Crow 0.054 0.157 0.109 0.203 American Goldfinch 0.444 American Kestrel 0.955 1.576 1.813 1.250 American Pipit 1.021 1.060 7.813 2.094 American Robin 0.003 American White Pelican 0.351 0.553 0.109 0.266 American Wigeon 0.024 Ash-throated Flycatcher 0.003 Barn Swallow 2.652 0.359 1.109 1.406 Black Phoebe 0.024 0.005 Black Swift 0.009 Black-necked Stilt 0.024 Brewer's Blackbird 8.562 2.194 5.438 0.281 Burrowing Owl 0.045 0.009 0.016 0.031 Canada Goose 0.294 0.267 1.172 0.313 Chukar 0.006 Cinnamon Teal 0.009 Cliff Swallow 0.973 1.046 0.094 0.141 Common Raven 1.372 0.935 2.359 2.219 Dark-eyed Junco 0.378 0.065 Double-crested Cormorant 0.006 European Starling 5.225 2.406 0.531 Ferruginous Hawk 0.054 0.016 0.016 Golden Eagle 0.093 0.138 0.219 0.219 Golden-crowned Sparrow 0.078 Grasshopper Sparrow 0.031 Great Blue Heron 0.003 0.016 Great Egret 0.024 0.037 0.031 Great Horned Owl 0.036 0.018 Greater Yellowlegs 0.012 Herring Gull 0.003 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 44

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Shiloh III Shiloh I High Winds Yr 1 High Winds Yr 2 Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Construction Species Apr 07- Apr 08 Jan - Dec 04 Aug 03 - Aug 04 Aug 04 - Aug 05 Horned Lark 5.114 1.834 2.250 2.078 House Finch 0.264 0.047 0.047 Killdeer 0.820 0.788 0.516 0.219 Lark Sparrow 0.006 Lesser Goldfinch 0.120 Lesser Scaup 0.030 Lincoln's Sparrow 0.030 Loggerhead Shrike 0.661 0.770 0.500 0.281 Long-billed Curlew 6.369 Mallard 0.477 0.138 0.047 0.109 Merlin 0.003 0.005 0.016 Mourning Dove 2.360 0.161 0.844 0.438 Northern Flicker 0.087 0.069 Northern Harrier 0.249 0.848 0.813 0.500 Northern Mockingbird 0.033 0.005 0.047 0.031 Northern Rough-winged Swallow 0.016 Osprey 0.003 0.005 Peregrine Falcon 0.003 Prairie Falcon 0.048 0.051 Red-shouldered Hawk 0.009 Red-tailed Hawk 1.658 3.175 6.094 2.000 Red-winged Blackbird 6.240 5.479 55.188 11.188 Ring-necked Pheasant 0.033 0.037 0.016 Rock Pigeon 2.048 0.521 3.453 3.859 Rough-legged Hawk 0.072 0.018 Savannah Sparrow 2.997 0.323 0.344 0.109 Say's Phoebe 0.096 0.060 0.078 Snow Goose 0.763 0.461 Song Sparrow 0.003 Swainson's Hawk 0.099 0.124 0.016 Tree Swallow 0.438 0.046 0.203 0.438 Tricolored Blackbird 0.018 0.028 Turkey Vulture 3.601 3.940 3.953 3.625 Varied Thrush 0.003 Violet-green Swallow 0.359 Western Gull 0.003 Western Kingbird 0.069 0.047 0.109 Western Meadowlark 10.604 2.447 3.063 1.703 Western Scrub-jay 0.003 White-crowned Sparrow 0.420 0.016 White-tailed Kite 0.018 0.419 0.266 0.219 White-throated Swift 0.047 Yellow-billed Magpie 0.009 0.016 Yellow-rumped Warbler 0.114 Mixed Blackbird spp. 56.444 52.696 855.703 347.516 Unidentified Corvid 0.125 Unidentified Duck 0.406 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 45

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Shiloh III Shiloh I High Winds Yr 1 High Winds Yr 2 Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Construction Species Apr 07- Apr 08 Jan - Dec 04 Aug 03 - Aug 04 Aug 04 - Aug 05 Unidentified Gull 0.258 0.005 0.016 0.031 Unidentified Hawk 0.005 0.516 0.094 Unidentified Hummingbird 0.003 0.016 Unidentified Songbird 0.656 Unidentified Sparrow 0.300 0.016 Unidentified Swallow 0.550 2.469 1.422 Total 126.240 82.885 960.859 385.125 Total excluding Mixed Blackbirds 69.796 30.189 105.156 37.609

Comparison of the number of observations recorded per hour of birds classified into species groups shows Shiloh III with the lowest occurrence of raptors between these three sites (Table 18). The rates of raptor observation recorded at High Winds the first and second year of the study show large differences in raptor abundance per year. Thus it is impossible to determine the degree to which yearly differences affect raptor abundance. However, the difference in the terrain to the north of HWY 12, where five of the nine Shiloh III OPs were located, likely does affect the numbers of raptors using that area, with this area not providing the thermal updrafts associated with the more hilly terrain of the south that many species utilize. The great number of passerines observed at High Winds in both years of that study can be attributed to large flocks of mixed blackbirds recorded. Water birds were seen in greater abundance at Shiloh III than Shiloh I and High Winds. The number of Other Bird observations (mostly Turkey Vultures, Rock Pigeons, and Mourning Doves) recorded per hour at Shiloh III was comparable to that of High Winds.

Table 18. Summary and comparison of number of birds classified by species group observed per hour during one year of Pre-Construction surveys conducted at the Shiloh III and the Shiloh I Project Sites, and two years of Post-Construction Surveys at the High Winds Project Site.

Shiloh III Shiloh I High Winds Yr 1 High Winds Yr 2 Species Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Construction Group Apr 07- Apr 08 Jan - Dec 04 Aug 03 - Aug 04 Aug 04 - Aug 05 Raptor 3.34 6.40 9.78 4.33 Passerine 103.82 68.41 937.86 369.50 Passerine excl. Mixed Blackbirds 47.38 15.72 82.16 21.98 Waterfowl 1.60 0.87 1.63 0.42 Water Bird 7.65 1.38 0.67 0.48 Other Bird 9.84 5.82 10.92 10.39 Total 126.24 82.88 960.86 385.13 Total excluding Mixed Blackbirds 69.80 30.19 105.16 37.61

Table 19 summarizes the number of observations recorded per hour per species for the months of November through May at Shiloh III, Shiloh I and II, and High Winds in the respective years. CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 46

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Seventy-six percent (76%) of the species seen at Shiloh III were observed in at least at one of the other surveys and fifty-six percent (56%) of the species were observed in at least two of the other surveys. When comparing the numbers of raptor species observed per hour between surveys, there were fewer of the following species at Shiloh III than all other sites: American Kestrel and Red-tailed Hawk (both species nearly comparable to High Winds year two), Golden Eagle, Northern Harrier, and White-tailed Kite. There was a slightly greater number of Burrowing Owl and Rough-legged Hawk seen at Shiloh III than the other sites.

Table 19. Summary and comparison of number of birds observed per hour during the months of November through May during Pre-Construction surveys conducted at the Shiloh III Project Site (2007-2008), the Shiloh I (2004) and Shiloh II (2005 - 06) Project Sites, and two years of Post-Construction Surveys at the High Winds Project Site (2003 - 05).

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Shiloh III Shiloh I Shiloh II High Winds Yr 1 High Winds Yr 2 Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Construction April - May 07, Jan-May, Nov-Dec Species Nov 07 - April 08 04 Nov 05 - May 06 Nov 03- May 04 Nov 04- May 05 House Finch 0.277 0.199 0.080 Killdeer 0.593 1.227 1.738 0.670 0.134 Lark Sparrow 0.010 Lesser Goldfinch 0.198 Lesser Scaup 0.049 Lincoln's Sparrow 0.049 Loggerhead Shrike 0.681 0.824 0.707 0.670 0.241 Long-billed Curlew 7.793 1.060 Mallard 0.726 0.202 3.037 0.080 0.188 Marsh Wren 0.011 Merlin 0.005 0.008 0.011 Mourning Dove 2.617 0.294 0.991 0.509 0.188 Northern Flicker 0.123 0.126 0.103 Northern Harrier 0.277 1.151 1.123 0.911 0.563 Northern Mockingbird 0.040 0.008 0.040 0.027 0.027 Northern Shoveler 0.120 Osprey 0.005 0.008 Peregrine Falcon 0.005 Pintail 0.011 Prairie Falcon 0.054 0.092 0.068 Red-shouldered Hawk 0.017 Red-tailed Hawk 2.069 3.975 4.228 8.893 2.196 Red-winged Blackbird 9.837 9.731 36.171 94.608 17.116 Ring-necked Pheasant 0.044 0.025 0.028 0.027 Rock Pigeon 2.084 0.445 18.011 3.911 4.313 Rough-legged Hawk 0.119 0.034 Savannah Sparrow 4.143 0.202 11.134 0.589 0.188 Say's Phoebe 0.089 0.076 0.080 0.107 Snow Goose 1.254 0.840 0.342 Snowy Egret 0.023 Song Sparrow 0.005 Swainson's Hawk 0.114 0.109 0.148 0.027 Tree Swallow 0.533 0.084 1.783 0.054 0.643 Tricolored Blackbird 0.030 Tundra Swan 0.980 Turkey Vulture 1.877 2.697 2.741 2.571 1.607 Varied Thrush 0.005 Western Gull 0.005 Western Kingbird 0.114 0.034 0.027 0.134 Western Meadowlark 11.521 2.143 7.949 3.509 2.063 Western Scrub-jay 0.005 0.080 White-crowned Sparrow 0.504 0.017 0.027 White-tailed Kite 0.005 0.681 0.137 0.429 0.295 White-throated Swift 0.114 0.080 Wilson's Snipe 0.006 Yellow-billed Magpie 0.015 0.027 Yellow-rumped Warbler 0.143 0.023 Mixed Blackbird spp. 76.385 68.824 563.556 1430.611 320.842 Unidentified Duck 1.105 0.696 Unidentified Gull 0.425 0.008 0.142 0.027 0.054 Unidentified Hawk 0.008 0.427 0.804 0.107 Unidentified Hummingbird 0.005 0.011 0.027 Unidentified Songbird 1.125 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 48

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Shiloh III Shiloh I Shiloh II High Winds Yr 1 High Winds Yr 2 Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Construction April - May 07, Jan-May, Nov-Dec Species Nov 07 - April 08 04 Nov 05 - May 06 Nov 03- May 04 Nov 04- May 05 Unidentified Sparrow 0.444 0.017 0.027 Unidentified Swallow 0.593 1.271 0.080 1.152 Unidentified Waterfowl 0.028 Total 157.388 105.034 689.926 1584.63 365.04 Total excluding Mixed Blackbirds 81.003 36.210 126.370 154.019 44.198 When species are classified into groups, there were fewer observations of raptors recorded per hour at Shiloh III than any other site during the seven month period of November through May (Table 20). This rate of observation however was not much lower than that recorded in year two of the High Winds survey. The number of Water Bird observations per hour at Shiloh III was greater than that of any other site surveyed during these months. As noted above the use of the data from all observation points masks the similarities of bird species observed at survey sites south of Highway 12. The current development site is even more comparable than the Shiloh III data suggest. Table 20. Summary and comparison of number of birds classified by species group observed per hour during the months of November through May during Pre-Construction surveys conducted at the Shiloh III, Shiloh I and Shiloh II Project Sites, and two years of Post-Construction Surveys at the High Winds Project Site.

Shiloh III Shiloh I Shiloh II High Winds Yr 1 High Winds Yr 2 Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Construction

April - May 07, Jan-May, Nov- Species Group Nov 07 - April 08 Dec 04 Nov 05 - May 06 Nov 03- May 04 Nov 04- May 05 Raptor 3.95 7.89 8.10 13.39 4.66 Passerine 133.29 89.34 641.54 1556.88 349.85 Passerine excluding 56.91 20.52 77.98 126.27 29.01 Mixed Blackbirds Waterfowl 2.46 1.07 8.85 2.73 0.72 Water Bird 8.97 1.50 5.45 0.83 0.13 Other Bird 8.72 5.24 25.97 10.79 9.67 Total 157.39 105.03 689.93 1584.63 365.04 Total excluding Mixed Blackbirds 81.00 36.21 126.37 154.02 44.20

Raptor Nesting

In the 350-square mile radius survey area, 150 pairs including ten raptor species were observed during the nesting surveys. Of these, 137 were confirmed nests, and 13 were probable. Raptor species observed included: Red-tailed Hawk, American Kestrel, Great Horned Owl, Swainson’s Hawk, Northern Harrier, Barn Owl, White-tailed Kite, and Golden Eagle (Appendix I). All pairs observed were within 3 miles of the boundary of the WRA (per the methods, only Golden Eagle nests were included in the survey within the 5-mile buffer zone), with the exception of one Golden Eagle nest, located in the west.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 49

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Two confirmed Golden Eagle nests were observed. One of the two eagle territories reported as active in 2005, the Callahan Property territory off of Birds Landing Road, was occupied in 2007, and was observed to produce one fledgling. A second pair of eagles was observed undulating in the Potrero Hills (within the 5-mile buffer zone) to the west. No permission was granted from the area managers to examine the territory more closely, however it was deemed as a “confirmed” nest based on territorial behavior of the eagle pair. It was concluded that these were the only eagle nests in the study area during 2007, based the habitat outside of the SWRA being unsuitable eagle breeding habitat, lacking in terrain-induced updrafts due to the flatness of the terrain. The two pairs observed in this survey (2007) and nesting eagles in previous years were all situated in hilly regions. A complete list of the numbers of confirmed and probable nests by species, and a map of the locations of each nest is given in Appendix I. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of the nests were of Red-tailed Hawk (n=44 pairs), American Kestrel (n=43 pairs) and Great Horned Owl (n=30 pairs). Ten pairs of Northern Harriers and seven pairs of Barn Owls were observed, however these species were likely to be underrepresented in the nesting surveys based on the harrier being a ground-nester, and the Barn Owl being strictly nocturnal and nesting primarily in buildings.

2005 Raptor Nesting Survey

Raptor nesting surveys have been conducted periodically by Curry & Kerlinger in the Collinsville Montezuma Hills Wind Resource area since 2001. The most recent survey was conducted in 2005, as part of the Post-Construction Avian and Bat Fatality Monitoring Study for the High Winds Wind Power Project (Kerlinger, P. et al. 2006) and is excerpted below.

2005 Nesting Study. Six different species of raptors were observed in and/or adjacent to the project area (Table 38). A total of 26 raptor nests were designated confirmed, 10 as probable and 3 possible. The most common raptor species nesting were American Kestrels, followed by Red-tailed Hawks, and Great-Horned Owls. One California Threatened Species was observed nesting within the area surveyed, one pair of Swainson’s Hawk. This pair successfully fledged one offspring. Figure 17 shows raptor nest locations observed in the vicinity of the High Winds Project.

There appeared to be a decline in the number of raptors nesting within/adjacent to the project site when compared to the previous year’s data, which had 66 confirmed, probable and possible nests. This could be attributed to the severe weather that occurred in the area in the second year spring. Many of the nests that were active in 2004 had been blown out of the trees in the spring of 2005. There were also fewer raptors observed during avian behavior and abundance surveys in the second year.

Table 38*. Number of Raptor Nesting Sites per Species Observed In and Adjacent to the High Winds Power Project, Solano County, CA. April 18 - June 27, 2005.

Species Confirmed* Probable** Possible*** Grand Total American Kestrel 12 6 2 20 Golden Eagle 2 2 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 50

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Great Horned Owl 4 4 Northern Harrier 1 2 3 Red-tailed Hawk 6 1 1 8 Swainson’s Hawk 1 1 2

Grand Total 26 10 3 39

*Confirmed - Observed activity at a nest **Probable - Observed nesting or territorial behavior in an area ***Possible - Observed adult pair using area

Note: Table and Figure numbers (38 and 17 respectively) are from the original report cited above.

Two active Golden Eagle nests/territories were determined to be present within the CMHWRA in 2005: the Callahan pair and the Emigh Road pair. The Callahan pair consisted of two adult eagles and the Emigh road pair consisted of two sub-adult eagles. Both pairs of eagles actively foraged within and adjacent to the CMHWRA. The nests were concluded to be failures for the following reasons. 1) No chicks or juvenile birds were observed at or near the nests; 2) Golden Eagle activity on the nest ceased early in the nesting cycle; 3) eagles were absent in/around their nests; 4) songbirds actively moved in/around the eagle nest; and 5), fresh prey remains and whitewash underneath the nests were absent.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 51

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Figure 17. Map of 39 Raptor Nests observed in 2005 in the Vicinity of the High Winds Project from: Post-Construction Avian and Bat Fatality Monitoring Study for the High Winds Wind Power Project (Kerlinger, P. et al. 2006)

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 52

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

DISCUSSION

Review of Avian Impacts and Risk Factors

Two types of negative impacts to birds have been documented at wind power projects:  Habitat alteration and disturbance resulting from construction and the operation of wind turbines on the landscape may render an area unsuitable for some birds to nest, forage, rest, or use in other ways.  Direct mortality has resulted from collisions with moving rotors and meteorology tower guy wires, as well as electrocution. Each of these types of impacts and a discussion of their significance is reviewed below.

Habitat Alteration and Disturbance/Avoidance Impacts

The presence of new infrastructure – primarily turbines and roads – has been studied at sites in both Europe and the United States to determine whether birds are permanently displaced from a particular area as a result of this new feature on the landscape.

Construction impacts. Habitat impacts include the disturbance resulting from wind plant construction, which is generally ephemeral. Construction activity rarely extends for more than a year and most human activity is reduced after several months of construction. This disturbance cannot be considered significant because after construction is completed, human presence, construction noise, and other activity associated with construction ceases or is greatly reduced. After construction, land use goes back to its previous state, with the exception of the presence of the turbines and maintenance crews. The Shiloh III Wind Project and the other projects in the CMHWRA are located in an active agricultural area where the land is almost entirely tilled agriculture with a rotation of fallow and grazing activities.

Operational Impacts. The amount of habitat altered by a wind power project footprint is usually a very small percentage of the area at a particular site and after construction, land use at most sites continues as prior to construction. This impact to habitat from the infrastructure is not generally considered to be significant because the footprint is so small. However, the area impacted by the presence of tall structures with moving rotors is larger than the actual, on the ground, footprint. The impact can extend for many meters out from the turbine base, causing disturbance to nesting and foraging birds as well as displacement of these birds from the area surrounding a wind turbine.

Studies of disturbance type impacts on grassland and open field birds have been conducted in Minnesota, Wyoming and Iowa, as well as in several countries in Europe. A study done in conservation reserve program (CRP) grasslands in southwestern Minnesota at a large wind farm detected reduced nesting activity among Savannah Sparrows, Western Meadowlarks, and some other songbirds close to wind turbines as opposed to farther from those turbines (Leddy et al.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 53

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

1999). These species were less numerous within 200 m of wind turbines than farther away. At the Foot Creek Rim Wind Power Project in Wyoming use of an area by nesting Mountain Plovers was shown to decline following construction of wind turbines and their productivity was apparently reduced (Johnson et al. 2000). Successful nesting of Mountain Plovers was at times, however, noted within 200 m of operating wind turbines.

A recent study of Bird and Bat Behavior and Mortality at a Northern Iowa Windfarm, Jain, A, Iowa State University, 2005 that although within 0 to 30 meters of a turbine there was little avian activity, that beyond that there was little impact on avian activity at the site. The site referenced is the 89 turbine Top of Iowa Wind Farm near Joice, IA. Because this project site is near three large Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), there is great potential for bird activity. The study found neither a clear pattern of significant differences in avian activity between tower and non- tower sites within the project, nor a clear pattern of significant differences between wind farm sites and sites in an adjacent area approximately 2 miles to the southwest of the farm.

In Europe, studies have shown that some birds avoided the area immediately beneath wind turbines. Shorebirds may be the most sensitive species. For example, at a site in the Netherlands shorebirds (lapwing and curlew) avoided the area within 250-500 m of wind turbines (Winkelman 1990). In Denmark, some shorebirds (golden plover and lapwings) were displaced by up to 800 m by the presence of turbines (Pederson and Poulsen 1991). Reduced avian use near wind turbines by some waterfowl and songbirds has also been detected (Peterson and Nohr 1989, Winkelman 1990). A study of eiders and scoters at a site off the coast of Denmark demonstrated that these birds avoid flying within 200 m of wind turbines and did not forage within 100 to 200 m of them (Tulp et al. 1999). Other studies have shown that birds do habituate to turbines or are not disturbed by them (Ihde and Vauk-Henzelt 1999, Winkelman 1990). One such study from England reported that shorebirds (Purple Sandpiper and Sanderling), as well as gulls and seaducks (including eiders – see above), habituated to the presence of turbines mounted on a rock jetty at the edge of the ocean (in Lowther 2000). In Denmark, Pink-footed Geese generally will not forage within 100 m of wind turbines in agricultural fields, but closely related Barnacle Geese will feed up to about 25 m from the same turbines (Larsen and Madsen 2000). Pink-footed Geese are known to be particularly sensitive to disturbance and flush at much greater distances than most other species. This suggests that most waterfowl species are less sensitive and will forage closer to turbines than Pink-footed Geese.

From these studies it is clear that some species, including waterfowl and shorebirds, may be disturbed and displaced from small areas. However, because most impacts occur within 100 to 200 m of wind turbines, it is unlikely that waterfowl and other waterbirds that use the Suisun Marsh will be impacted in any way by the construction of wind turbines in the CMHWRA. The proposed development sites for Shiloh III are east of the operating turbines of the Shiloh I and the newly operational Shiloh II projects.

Disturbance and displacement impacts are not always permanent. At wind power facilities in Colorado and the Altamont region of California several grassland bird species have habituated to wind turbines and do not seem to be significantly disturbed by them. At these grassland sites, Horned Larks, Western Meadowlarks, and Loggerhead Shrikes forage beneath the turbines and even perch on them when they are mounted on lattice towers (observations in the Altamont Pass

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 54

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Wind Resource Area by authors and others). Other birds, including Common Ravens and various species of raptors regularly perch on those same turbines. Some species (ravens and Barn Owls) nest inside the turbine nacelles or on the turbine work platform in the Altamont (Red-tailed Hawk, raven). The turbines in California have been operating for nearly 20 years, so birds seem to have habituated to the turbines, at least after several years. The Altamont turbines are also older model turbines and provide perching and nesting opportunities, unlike modern turbines. Some of the earlier studies suggesting displacement such as Leddy et al. (1999) were of short duration and could not determine if habituation occurred in subsequent years.

Displacement/Disturbance Risk at the Shiloh III Partners Power Project. When the first wind turbines were introduced into the Collinsville Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area concern was raised about waterfowl impacts. None of the expressed concerns materialized in terms of habitat impact or wind farm related fatalities to waterfowl and/or waterbirds. The Shiloh III project will be no closer to the Suisun Marsh than the adjacent Shiloh I and II sites. However there are a few temporary wetlands near OPs #5 and #6 that are suitable habitat for waterfowl and other water bird species. Observations of waterfowl at these two OPs have been greater in number than at any other sites within the Shiloh III project. There is clearly more activity on the western edge of the project area. However, the areas immediately adjacent to observation points 5, 6 and 7 are no longer a part of currently proposed development in the Shiloh III project.

In a study of a wind farm in northern Iowa, which is adjacent to three Wildlife Management Areas that there was no hesitancy of the waterfowl (predominately geese) to forage around and under the turbines. Moreover, there were no recorded waterfowl fatalities and the birds were observed successfully avoiding the turbines as they continued to use the area among the turbines (Jain, 2005). The number of waterfowl observations per hour at Shiloh III (1.6/hr) was comparable to that of the first year of post-construction surveys at High Winds (1.63/hr), and was greater than at Shiloh I (0.87/hr) and High Winds in year two (0.42/hr). In comparison to Shiloh II, there were 3.6 times more waterfowl observations per hour at Shiloh II (8.85/hr) than at Shiloh III (2.46/hr) between the months of November and May of different years. There was much more rainfall during the Shiloh II study (2005-06), while the 2007 to 2008 study at Shiloh III was fairly dry.

With respect to ground nesting species, it is important to keep in mind that the proposed wind farm site is in an active agricultural zone. At any given time, a substantial part of the site will be planted in wheat and/or barley, a portion of the land will remain fallow and the remaining segments will be in pasture. Fallow lands usually remains this way for only a few months before tilling and replanting, not allowing time for birds to nest successfully. These patterns of use are systematically rotated across most of the area under consideration for wind farm development. Thus, there is already significant disturbance to the landscape from agricultural operations. The wind turbines will not create significant new disturbance. At any given time, approximately 40%-45% of land use will be pasture and approximately 55%-60% agricultural. Observation points two (2) and three (3) were set up on the Northern and Northwestern portions of the proposed project area to determine if birds using the Jepson Prairie Preserve were using areas within and adjacent to the project site. No observations were recorded of birds actively using Jepson Prairie Preserve and the proposed project area.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 55

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

With respect to disturbance impacts to grassland portions of the Shiloh III site (fallow and grazed grassland), the studies from southwestern Minnesota (Leddy et al. 1999) and the Ponnequin Site in Colorado are most instructive. The Leddy study shows that some grassland nesting species are disturbed and displaced from the immediate area surrounding turbines. The species that would be displaced would include small numbers of common grassland nesting species. Displacement from habitat appears to be a species-specific phenomenon. In the Ponnequin WRA six years after commencement of operations, Horned Larks and McCown’s Longspurs have returned to nesting distances equivalent to those reported prior to installation of the turbines (personal communication Ron Ryder, 2003). The removal of cattle from one area of the Ponnequin Windplant has had the greatest impact in terms of habitat characteristic and related use. In the areas closest to the turbines where the grasses are shortest the Horned Larks and McCown’s Longspurs remain. Away from the turbines where vegetation is higher, Chestnut- collared Longspurs are now dominant (personal communication Ron Ryder, 2003). The Colorado site had been surveyed annually since 1997 and these species were nesting in close proximity to the towers (personal communication R. Ryder).

With respect to the CMHWRA, there does not appear to be an across the board diminution of relative use as a result of the introduction of wind turbines based on observations made during the studies of the High Winds Project. The total number of birds observed per hour was approximately 2.5 times greater in the first year of the High Winds post-construction study than in the second year and the pre-construction study (Table 21). A single large mixed flock of blackbird species accounted for the great difference between the years, as the number of observations per hour of “Unidentified Non-Raptors” (which were 99.6% blackbird species) was 2.5 times greater in the post-construction first year than the pre-construction study. The numbers of several species of birds varied between the two study periods. However, there was no clear pattern of increase or decrease, by groups. For example, in the case of raptors, the Golden Eagle, Prairie Falcon, Rough-Legged Hawk were seen in greater numbers during pre-construction surveys, while Red-tailed Hawks, Northern Harriers and White-tailed Kites were seen in greater numbers post-construction. Other species with notably different number of observations per hour between studies include the Canada Goose, American Pipit and European Starling, which were observed at a greater rate during the first year of post-construction surveys; and American Crow, Chipping Sparrow, Cliff Swallow, Long-billed Curlew, Horned Lark and Turkey Vulture, which all had notably larger rates of observation in pre-construction surveys than post-construction. When comparing two years of post-construction observations to the pre-construction observations, Red-tailed Hawks were 1.7 times more abundant per hour during the post- construction surveys, and the total numbers of avian observations recorded per hour were 1.7 times greater during the post-construction surveys (Table 21). Essentially, no strong evidence for decrease of overall avian activity was seen in the first two years after construction. Given the proximity of the High Winds project to the Shiloh and Shiloh III project areas, and the relatively similar range of species seen at these sites, we expect to see similar mixed trends in bird numbers by species. The greater species diversity recorded at Shiloh III may in large part be attributed to a greater number of hours of observations conducted at this site in comparison to the adjacent sites, as many species that were only seen at Shiloh III during surveys were also observed at some adjacent sites during incidental observations or other surveys. While some species may react negatively to the presence of turbines, others may well increase. The current data available

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 56

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT cannot predict bird numbers in subsequent years, but post-construction surveys will paint a clearer picture.

Table 21. Comparison of the number of each species observed per hour during Avian Abundance and Behavior Surveys at the High Winds Project Site between one year of Pre- Construction surveys (mid-August 2000 - mid-August 2001) and two years of the Post- Construction (2003-2005).

Pre-Construction Post-Construction 2000 - 2001 Year 1 Year 2 Both Years

Species Name Number per Hour Number per Hour Number per Hour Number per Hour American Crow 0.61 0.11 0.20 0.16 American Goldfinch 0.05 American Kestrel 2.27 1.81 1.25 1.53 American Pipit 3.77 7.81 2.09 4.95 American Robin 0.02 American White Pelican 0.2 0.11 0.27 0.19 Anna's Hummingbird 0.01 Bank Swallow Barn Swallow 0.89 1.11 1.41 1.26 Black Phoebe 0.02 Brewer's Blackbird 2.06 5.44 0.28 2.86 Burrowing Owl 0.02 0.03 0.02 California Quail Canada Goose 0.22 1.17 0.31 0.74 Chipping Sparrow 0.22 Cinnamon Teal Cliff Swallow 1.05 0.09 0.14 0.12 Common Raven 2.31 2.36 2.22 2.29 Cooper's Hawk European Starling 0.39 2.41 0.53 1.47 Ferruginous Hawk 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 Golden Eagle 0.86 0.22 0.22 0.22 Golden-crowned Sparrow 0.08 0.04 Grasshopper Sparrow 0.03 0.02 Great Blue Heron 0.02 0.01 Great Egret 0.03 0.03 0.02 Horned Lark 8.29 2.25 2.08 2.16 House Finch 0.27 0.05 0.05 0.05 Killdeer 0.72 0.52 0.22 0.37 Lesser Yellowlegs 0.01 Loggerhead Shrike 0.43 0.5 0.28 0.39 Long-billed Curlew 0.42 Mallard 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.08 Merlin 0.02 0.01 Mourning Dove 0.59 0.84 0.44 0.64 Northern Flicker 0.07 Northern Harrier 0.52 0.81 0.50 0.66 Northern Mockingbird 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.04 Northern Rough-winged Swallow 0.02 0.01 Nuttall's Woodpecker 0.01 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 57

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Pre-Construction Post-Construction 2000 - 2001 Year 1 Year 2 Both Years

Species Name Number per Hour Number per Hour Number per Hour Number per Hour Peacock 0.02 Prairie Falcon 0.03 Red-tailed Hawk 2.34 6.09 2.00 4.05 Red-winged Blackbird 2.37 55.19 11.19 33.19 Ring-necked Pheasant 0.04 0.02 0 0.01 Rock Dove 1.24 3.45 3.86 3.66 Rough-legged Hawk 0.29 Savannah Sparrow 0.05 0.34 0.11 0.23 Say's Phoebe 0.12 0.08 0.04 Scrub Jay 0.29 Short-eared Owl 0.01 Snowy Egret 0.03 Song Sparrow 0.07 Swainson's Hawk 0.01 0.02 0.01 Tree Swallow 0.04 0.2 0.44 0.32 Tri-colored Blackbird 0.05 Turkey Vulture 5.44 3.95 3.63 3.79 Unidentified Hawk 0.63 0.52 0.09 0.3 Unidentified Non-Raptor* 345.59 859.39 348.98 604.19 Violet-green Swallow 0.16 0.36 0.18 Western Kingbird 0.07 0.05 0.11 0.08 Western Meadowlark 3.6 3.06 1.70 2.38 Whimbrel 0.07 White-crowned Sparrow 0.14 0.02 0.01 White-tailed Kite 0.01 0.27 0.22 0.24 White-throated Swift 0.05 0.02 Willet Yellow-billed Magpie 0.02 0.01 Yellow-rumped Warbler Grand Total 389.23 960.86 385.13 672.99 * Unidentified Non-Raptors were predominantly blackbird species (99.6%)

In almost every life history description of species of concern in California, the primary cause of decline is loss of habitat. In the CMHWRA and in other WRAs in California and across the nation, wind projects located on lands utilized for agriculture provide a means of maintaining the existing land use and habitat against the pressure of commercial or residential development that reduces the availability and viability of habitat.

Collision Fatality Impacts

Avian fatalities are the second type of impact noted at wind power facilities. These fatalities result primarily from collisions with rotors and with guy wires supporting meteorology towers. Electrocutions can also occur where transmission wires within the site are above ground, unlike modern facilities at which such transmission is below ground. Collision impacts have been studied or monitored systematically and intensively at about 15 different wind power project sites in more than a dozen states in the United States and a similar number of sites in Europe

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 58

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

(Erickson et al. 2001). The number of fatalities involved at project sites has, generally, been small and population impacts have neither been established nor suspected.

To put collision fatality impacts into perspective, fatalities caused by wind turbines are orders of magnitude smaller than fatalities resulting from collision with transmission lines, windows, motor vehicles, and communication towers (Erickson et al. 2001), as well as non-collision fatalities related to cat predation, hay mowing, oil pits, fishery long lines (see Appendix III). Even livestock watering tanks are also a substantial source of fatalities (Dr. Ronald Ryder personal communication and personal observations of authors at the Ponnequin Wind Farm in Colorado) etc. Turbine collision fatalities are also orders of magnitude smaller than hunting harvests permitted by professional wildlife managers (data from U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). The harvest of game birds in such great numbers occurs on a regular basis proceeds without biological impact on the populations of a broad range of game species. In comparison, the number of wind turbine related fatalities, especially when examined on a species specific basis is inconsequential in biological terms. A species specific list of fatalities recorded over a two year period at the adjacent High Winds shows that with few exceptions the fatalities on a per species basis are less than double digits (see Table 23 below). For a general summary of fatalities documented at wind plants in the United States see Erickson et al. (2001).

Abundance and Behavior (Use) as an Indicator of Risk. Behavioral observations and abundance data, when taken together can also be used to assess fatality risk. The abundance and behavioral data being gathered in this study are generally accepted as a measure of “use” by birds and can, with some limitations, be used to assess risk. The method used for assessing risk in this report is to determine existing avian use on the site and compare the species and their behavior to sites with empirically demonstrated levels of risk: unadjusted (carcasses found in standardized surveys) and adjusted (projections based on calculating the impact of such factors as searcher efficiency and scavenger removal rates) fatality rates. In addition, suspected and known risk factors were being examined. By comparing the avifauna on site and their behavior with that of sites with high risk and low risk, an overall assessment of risk to the various species can be made. In many instances, risk is examined at the species level, because risk is believed to be species, site and turbine specific (Anderson 1998).

Abundance and Risk. We compared the observations of all avian species recorded during the yearlong surveys at Shiloh III, Shiloh I and High Winds (years one and two). We also compared data collected during the months of November through May (in different years) between these sites and Shiloh II. As discussed above the Shiloh III project site is generally comparable to these adjacent sites. However, it appears to have a slightly greater species diversity, though lower rate of raptor observation and higher rate of water bird observation than the other 3 project areas.

With respect to raptor observations, there were fewer observations recorded per hour of American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, Northern Harrier, Golden Eagle and White-tailed Kite at Shiloh III than at Shiloh I, Shiloh II and High Winds.

We also compared the observations of raptor species at Shiloh III and three other wind plants. As Table 22 shows use of the Shiloh III and Shiloh I project sites by kestrels (and the single Merlin,

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 59

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT in the small falcon category) is greater than the numbers reported from the Altamont and the Foote Creek Rim Project in Wyoming. Use by Red-tailed Hawks and other Buteos at these two CMHWRA sites is less than the Altamont and the Golden Eagle density is substantially less than was recorded in the Altamont, with the lowest rate of observation recorded at Shiloh III. The number of Northern Harriers at Shiloh III and Shiloh I was greater than those reported in the Altamont and Foote Creek Rim.

Table 22. Comparative use estimates for four Native Landscape Areas (estimated number observed per 20 minute survey).

Comparative Use (Raptors)

Wind Resource Area Shiloh I Altamont Foote Creek Raptor Group Season Shiloh III Project Pass Rim

Buteos Spring 0.38 0.46 0.64 0.25 Golden Eagle Spring 0.02 0.06 0.44 0.30 Small Falcon Spring 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.08 Northern Harrier Spring 0.10 0.2 0.03 0.02

The post-construction study at the High Winds Project provides empirical data on which we can build better assessments of risk. Orloff and Flannery (1992) noted that for raptors, with the exception of the Turkey Vulture, fatalities could not simply be explained by relative abundance. In the High Winds study (Kerlinger et al. 2006), the avian species with the largest number of recorded fatality incidents (45), the American Kestrel, was observed 196 times. Whereas, the most abundant species, was the Red-winged Blackbird (counting only those who were observed and identified to species) who were observed 4,248 times. For this species, there were fourteen (14) recorded fatalities during the standardized post construction searches of High Winds project area, indicating this species is not as susceptible to turbine strike as the American Kestrel.

Although there were fewer observations of Red-winged Blackbirds in the second year than the first, fatalities of this species were six times greater in the second year. This species nests in wheat fields and was believed to be impacted by either wind turbine blades or harvesting equipment more heavily in the second year because of possibly differences in nesting use of the project site. The precise cause of death was not clinically determined, thus when in doubt, they were recorded as wind turbine collision incidents rather than agricultural related incidents.

Within the High Winds project area there was a marked difference in use for some of the raptor species between pre- and post-construction surveys as noted in Table 21 (in which the observations were recorded per hour). Red-tailed Hawks were 1.7 times more abundant (2.34 [pre] and 4.05 [post]) and White-tailed Kites were many times more abundant (0.01 [pre] to 0.24 [post]) in 2003-2004 compared to 2000-2001. Northern Harrier observations per hour were up just slightly from 0.52 per hour to 0.66. Simply comparing the number of fatalities for the species listed above between the Altamont and High Winds, the total incidents recorded in High Winds was less for following species (listed in Table 22): Red-tailed Hawk (213 Altamont – 18 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 60

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

High Winds); Golden Eagle (54 Altamont – 1 High Winds); American Kestrels (59 Altamont to 45 High Winds); and, Northern Harrier (3 Altamont – 0 High Winds).

To date, risk has not been demonstrated empirically to be related to avian use for all but a very few species. The probable reason is that species appear to differ greatly in their ability to take notice of and avoid colliding with wind turbines during the course of their flight activities. Carrion as the primary food source of vultures and the fact that the hunting activity is primarily locating a stationary food source perhaps accounts for the low fatality rates of vultures in comparison to other raptors who are pursuing live and moving targets. Perhaps the need for many avian species to be aware of potential predation by raptors requires a higher concentration and awareness of surroundings for birds that are prey as opposed to birds of prey, the predators.

The Top of Iowa wind project experiences high levels of Canada Geese coming into the fields in which the turbines are arrayed to feed with no fatalities reported in post construction fatality searches (Jain, 2005).

Pre-construction Flight Patterns: Height and Flight Characteristics

A common metric is to chart the height above ground level of birds flying over the area proposed for development. With respect to using this metric as an indicator of risk, it is important to register the following caveat. The reader should be cautioned that there are limitations to this metric as a predictor of risk since it is very clear that birds avoid objects including wind turbines. Therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that the level of flight activity observed within the projected rotor sweep area will be the same once the turbines are in place and even more specifically when the turbines are operating.

The Kenetech Avian Task Force in the early 1990s photographically tracked different flight behaviors of homing pigeons flying on landscapes in the Altamont both with and without turbines. By using two cameras, they were able to track the bird flight in three dimensions thereby accurately determining where the bird was in space, especially in relation to distance from objects such as wind turbines. Homing pigeons were released in various parts of the Altamont wind plant under a variety of conditions and their flight behavior was recorded as they initiated flights back to their home lofts. Many flight tracks were recorded passing through the projected rotor sweep area over landscapes on which there were no turbines deployed. The birds were released around the turbines under the same set of conditions. Flight patterns recorded on landscapes where turbines were in place reflected the bird’s recognition of the presence of objects (turbines) in the air space and exhibited avoidance flight behavior. Evidence of that behavior was even more pronounced when the turbines were operating. Avoidance was typically achieved by flying under or over the rotor swept area when passing through a turbine string. Many flight tracks recorded flight paths that completely avoided passing through the turbine strings by flying around either end of the string. In addition, the birds appeared to be able to distinguish between operating and non-operating turbines. They were tracked flying through a turbine string of operating turbines only where one or more of the turbines were not operating.

The authors of the PIER sponsored study of the Altamont (Smallwood and Thelander, 2004, p326) were also clear in stating they observed what appeared to be avoidance behavior by

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 61

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Golden Eagles making an effort to fly under the rotor planes of wind turbines. The authors generally attributed this flight behavior to hunting activities. It was not clear whether the turbines were operational at the time of the observations.

Smallwood and Thelander (2004) also assert that Red-tail hawks and Kestrels recognize turbines as dangerous. They observed flight paths around turbine strings of these species similar to those of homing pigeons documented by the Kenetech Avian Task Force in the early 1990s and described above.

As stated earlier, a total of 40,927 non-raptor avian flights (including perching observations and mixed blackbirds) of 56 species were observed between April 24, 2007 and April 24, 2008 at High Winds. The majority of these flights were below 30 meters AGL (66%). Of those flights that did occur within the projected rotor swept area, 7 of the 29 species involved were species of waterfowl or water birds. The species and number of flight observations made for each are as follows: American White Pelican (n=12); Canada Goose (n=8); Double-crested Cormorant (n=1); Great Egret (n=5); Killdeer (n=120); Long-billed Curlew (n=713); and Mallard (n=44).

There were multiple flights of non-raptor species that were observed completely below 30 meter AGL. The species and numbers of flights observed include the following: American Coot (n=12); American Goldfinch (n=148); American Wigeon (n=8); Ash-throated Flycatcher (n=1); Black Phoebe (n=8); Black-necked Stilt (n=8); Chukar (n=2); Cinnamon Teal (n=3); Dark-eyed Junco (n=126); Greater Yellowlegs (n=4); Herring Gull (n=1); Lark Sparrow (n=2); (Lesser Goldfinch (n=40); Lesser Scaup (n=10); Lincoln’s Sparrow (n=10); Ring-neck Pheasant (n=11); Say’s Phoebe (n=32); Song Sparrow (n=1); Tricolored Blackbird (n=6); Varied Thrush (n=1); Western Kingbird (n=23); Western Scrub-jay (n=1); White-crowned Sparrow (n=140); Yellow- billed Magpie (n=3); and unidentified hummingbird (n=1).

With respect to raptor species, of the 31 Golden Eagles flights observed in the surveys, 45% were above 120 meters, 29% were below 30 meters, and about 26% were within rotor swept area (Table 14). All height estimates are above ground level (AGL). Roughly equal percentages of Red-tailed Hawks were observed below and within rotor swept areas (44 and 45% respectively), while the majority (~ 72%) of American Kestrel flight heights were below 30 meters, and the remaining (~28% of) flights recorded within rotor swept area. Seventy- seven percent of Northern Harrier observations were below 30 meters, and 23% were within rotor swept area. About 55% of 33 Swainson’s Hawk flight heights were recorded within rotor swept area. Thirty-nine percent of flights recorded for this species were above 120 meters, and 6% were below 30 meters. The single Peregrine Falcon observation was registered above rotor swept area altitudes.

There may be some weak evidence to suggest a relationship between the proportions of observations (per species) at blade height vs. the estimated number of mortalities after weighting with the relative abundance of species.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 62

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

We ran a simple ANOVA (SAS Institute Inc, 2001), regressing proportion of blade height versus (estimated mortality)/(relative abundance) for 5 species at the High Winds WRA (White-tailed Kite, American Kestrel, Northern Harrier, Red-tailed Hawk and Golden Eagle). The remaining raptors had insufficient observed flight heights to test. The result of the F-test was (df = 1, F = 7.88, p = 0.1069).

We also arranged the raptor species in ascending order of proportion of flight at blade height, and plotted (estimated mortality/relative abundance) versus the proportion of flight at blade height versus estimated mortality weighted by relative abundance to illustrate potential sources of this weak evidence. The graphs show that the American Kestrel and White-tailed Kite suffered mortality at rates higher than expected if flight height was the primary factor considered. However, Northern Harriers, Red-tailed Hawks and Golden Eagles seem to follow the expected pattern of greater amount of blade height flight and corresponding greater mortality (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Observations at Blade Height vs. Estimated Incidents (High Winds WRA).

Proportion of Blade Height Flight Versus Estimated Incidents weighted by Relative Abundance

90 s

t 80 n

e 70 d i Proportion of Blade Height

c 60 n

I Flight

50 d

e 40 Est. Mortality Weighted by t a 30 Rel. Abundance m i

t 20 s 10 E 0 White- American Northern Red-tailed Golden tailed Kite Kestrel Harrier Hawk Eagle Species

The absence of Northern Harrier from the list of recorded fatalities at High Winds is not unexpected given their hunting flight line that usually well below the 1-30 meter AGL zone.

As this data from the neighboring High Winds WRA shows, bird flight patterns in the area of the Shiloh III WRA did not indicate significant levels of blade-height flight. Where blade-flight height was detected in certain species, the data did not indicate strong evidence of increased fatality in those species.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 63

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Distinguishing the Altamont Wind Resource Area and the Solano County Wind Resource Area

The only wind resource area in the United States where risk to birds has even been suspected to be biologically significant is the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) of California, where raptor fatalities have been reported for more than two decades. Golden Eagles, Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrels, and some other species collide with turbines in varying numbers in the APWRA. Raptors are believed to be the most collision-susceptible group of birds (Anderson et al. 2000), although nowhere, including the APWRA have such fatalities been documented to have negative impacts on populations of individual raptors species. A long-term study of the Altamont Golden Eagle population by Hunt (2002) concluded that although fatalities of this species occur at a high rate, the population remains stable (no detectable decline). Large numbers of gulls, ravens, vultures, grassland songbirds, and other species fly among the APWRA turbines and rarely collide with the turbines. The situation with respect to raptor impact in the APWRA seems to be an anomaly, where raptors have shown a disproportionately higher risk than other species. Raptor fatalities have not been found to be extensive, however, at other wind plants. Raptors have shown a disproportionately higher risk than other species, based on studies in the APWRA. Specifically, studies at all wind power facilities outside of California, however, have yielded a small number of recorded raptor fatalities, indicating that the APWRA is an anomaly and that overall raptor fatalities are rare events at wind plants. Reported raptor fatalities in California were 488, most of them attributed to the APWRA, whereas outside of California the number was 20 (Erickson et al. 2001).

This information however, has not affected the steadily increasing amount of pre-construction site-specific environmental assessments conducted on site at proposed wind projects regardless of the variety of local permitting requirements in place. These studies are not only important in providing information in the permitting process, they have contributed to better site selection and macro siting of turbines in new projects. With respect to the Shiloh I project, information gathered during preconstruction field observations at the proposed development site was used to make siting adjustments in turbine locations in order to preemptively mitigate avian risk. Specific micro-siting of some turbines was adjusted based on observations of consistent hunting behavior by red-tailed hawks at a specific location.

Several factors based on the weight of evidence developed in numerous studies over the years are now believed to produce higher than industry average mortality in the APWRA. They are: project size (APWRA one of the world’s largest concentrations of operating turbines (N=5,400, reduced from about 7,000 several years ago); project density (closely spaced turbines (<10 m [<30 feet] rotor to rotor distance) that may not permit birds to fly between them safely; prey base (a superabundant population of California ground squirrels (which attract the raptors); Raptor Use (the presence of very large numbers of foraging raptors throughout the year clearly related to the abundance of prey); Complex topography (steep topography with turbines placed in valleys and along steep valley/canyon edges where risk is greater); turbines mounted on lattice type towers and/or old style tubular towers (each type enhances perching by providing easily gripped surfaces and shade and cover from the sun and rain); and turbine rotors that revolve at high rotation rates (>40-72 rpm). These factors have been hypothesized to act alone or in concert

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 64

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

(Howell and DiDonato 1991, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996, Curry and Kerlinger 2000), to produce mortality in the APWRA.

Number of Wind Turbines. The largest numbers of fatalities, especially raptors, at wind plants have generally been at plants with large numbers of wind turbines, although number of turbines alone does not seem to be highly correlated with risk. The APWRA is the best example of this with nearly 5,400 turbines and more documented fatalities than any other wind resource area. Small wind power plants, with fewer than a dozen turbines, have not reported more than a single fatality or two and many report no fatalities. Wind power plants in the mid-range size, more than a 100 to 1,000 turbines, generally report small numbers of fatalities. However, other wind power plants with thousands of turbines, such as those at Tehachapi and San Gorgonio wind resource areas in California, have not demonstrated significant risk to birds (see Erickson et al. 2001 and Erickson et al. 2002). The Shiloh III project will have about an order of magnitude fewer turbines than the APWRA. Even maximum build out of the CMHWRA is not expected to exceed 1,000 turbines. Currently a little over 800 turbines are operating in the CMHWRA and that number could increase over the next 2 years to over a 1000. However, with the repowering of the existing 600 older turbines and taking into account possible development of the rest of the WRA, that number will be reduced to about 575 total.1 To date there have been 90 (56-100 model) older technology turbines removed and replaced by 6 General Electric (GE) 1.5 MW turbines as part of the EnXco repowering program.

If fatality risk does become strongly correlated with numbers of turbines, then risk at the Shiloh II site even when the CMHWRA is fully developed, is anticipated to be less than significant based on the adjusted per turbine and per MW per year fatality rates that are being recorded in the wind resource area.

1 The cumulative impacts analysis for this project includes consideration of full build-out of the Collinsville/Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area. The WRA currently includes 237 mega watts (“MW”) of installed wind turbines or a total of 713 turbines. This Project proposes to add approximately 114 turbines or up to 1168 MW. In addition, by the end of 2006, FPL plans to add approximately 38 MW or 21 turbines and SMUD plans to construct an additional 85 MW or approximately 57 turbines. Over the next two years, therefore, this would result in a total of approximately 1011 turbines in the entire WRA.

EnXco however, also plans to “repower” or replace older, less efficient wind turbines with newer models. These repowering projects result in a net decrease in the number of turbines while still maintaining the same power production. In all, enXco plans to replace 690 existing turbines with 46 new 1.5 MW turbines. Once repowering is completed, these reductions would result in a total of approximately 450 turbines in the WRA.

The Collinsville-Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (WRA) consists of approximately 40,300 acres of area. The four (4) current projects that are built and the proposed Shiloh II consist of approximately 17,300 acres. With the proposed development for High Winds III and SMUD, and enXco Shiloh II, it adds another 8000 acres or a total of 25,300 acres. This represents 62% of the WRA. The Solano Land Trust controls approximately 3700 acres (9%) within this area.

An additional remaining 11,000 acres (27%) in the WRA could be developed in the future to maximize the wind potential of the WRA. The estimated potential output as determined by the maximum transmission capacity is approximately 850 MW. Correlating the 11,000 acres to be developed and assuming a turbine of a 1.5 MW size and additional 125 turbines would be added for a total of approximately 575 turbines in the WRA. CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 65

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Spacing of Turbines. Modern wind turbines are larger and more widely spaced in the field than were older turbines. For example, where adjacent turbines were spaced at only 80 feet (24m) from tower leg to tower leg and about 30 feet (10 m) from rotor to rotor, risk is great and fatalities are high. Modern turbines in the 1+ megawatt size range are usually spaced at 700 feet or more. The wider spacing provides more room for birds to fly between turbines. Smallwood and Thelander document raptor behavior that suggests that Golden Eagles prefer to fly in less densely arrayed turbine areas in the Altamont but in the absence of repowering in the areas they studied, the spacing scales they observed between old turbine arrays in the Altamont and new turbine arrays in CMHWRA and elsewhere do not appear to be comparable. Observations of birds in the APWRA (Kerlinger and Curry 1997) show that raptors and other species that cross turbine rows at elevations below the top of the rotor swept area, come closer to rotors than birds that cross turbine strings that are more widely spaced (Kerlinger, and Ryder, personal observations from Ponnequin Wind Energy Project in Colorado, Micon 750 turbines spaced at more than 500 feet [152 m]). The Shiloh III turbines will be spaced at distances of at least 400 feet (122 m) thereby presenting lower risk to birds flying between them.

Tower/Turbine Height. The rotor swept area on the taller turbines extends higher than the older turbines. These taller turbines are beginning to approach the 500 feet, AGL. It is too early to determine whether this will increase risk to birds soaring at higher altitudes in the project area. Although no relationship between height and risk has been demonstrated for wind turbines per se, risk has been associated with height at communication towers (especially when coupled with the use of guy wires). Risk to night migrants appears to be one or more orders of magnitude greater for communication towers taller than 500 feet (152 m) than communication towers less than 500 feet. Moreover, communication towers have more extensive lighting and employ guy wires. These factors are important considerations in explaining why the studies at turbine facilities around the United States have demonstrated little risk to night migrants. Avian fatalities have seldom been demonstrated at communication towers in the height range of wind turbine (usually less than 350 feet [107 m]; (Kerlinger 2000, Crawford and Engstrom 2001, Trapp 1998,). This is probably because wind turbines do not reach into the normal height above ground level (AGL) used by nocturnal migrants.

Most importantly, a majority of migrants fly between 300 and 2,500 feet (91-915 m) AGL (Kerlinger 1995, Kerlinger and Moore 1989), with small numbers flying above 5,000 feet (1,524 m) AGL. Except for landing and taking off, relatively fewer migrants fly below about 500-600 feet (152-183 m) AGL. Mean hourly altitudes usually exceed 1,200 to 1,500 feet (366-457 m) AGL. With most migrants flying higher than 300 feet above ground level, they are well above the turbine rotors and even higher above turbine lights (which are generally at about 65-80 m [213-262 feet on modern turbines]). The Shiloh III turbines are not likely to pose a risk to night migrating birds.

With respect to birds that hunt flying low to the ground (coursing), such as Northern Harriers, and Golden Eagles, rotors tips that are near the 30 meter AGL in the 6 O’clock position present less risk than do the Kenetech KCS-56 turbines which have rotors that extend to only about 30 feet (10 m) above the ground when mounted on 60 foot (18 m) towers (the most common tower used). However, it appears that the space beneath the rotor swept areas of the new technology reduces the level of risk for species such as the Golden Eagle. Smallwood and Thelander

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 66

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT recommend that the lowest point of the rotor swept area be around 30 meters AGL in their 2004 study.

Rotation Rate. It has been hypothesized that with faster rotation rates and smaller turbine rotors, the rotor – mostly the tip – is less visible and, therefore, more risky to flying birds (Tucker 1996, Howell 1995). The older turbines, including the Kenetech KCS-56 machine, had small rotors (tip about a foot [0.3 m across] wide and 28 feet long) and rotated at about 72 rpm. Tip speeds on these turbines are approximately 212 miles per hour. The more modern turbines, such as those proposed for the Shiloh III project, rotate at about 12-24 rpm (depending on turbine and gearing) and have a rotor that is nearly 3 feet (1 m) across at the tip and are approximately 37 meters long. Depending on the machine, rotor tip speed is generally lower than the older machines. The blades appear to be more visible because of the larger size. (Also see below for discussion on KVS-33 fatality rate.) However, this relationship has yet to be fully documented. Another result of slower rotation rate is longer rotors and a larger space between the rotors. The larger, pie-shaped area between the rotors may pose less risk than with shorter rotors that provide a smaller area through which to pass through the plane of operating turbine blades (see Tucker, 1996). – Shiloh III turbines are likely to present less risk than older style turbines because of enhanced visibility of the larger blades and wider spaces within the plane of the rotor swept area.

Tower Design and Perching. Perching is an energy conserving opportunity for all birds and for raptors a perch is also a platform from which to hunt. A total of 297 raptor perching observations were recorded (Table 12). Of these, the most common perch structure of raptors observed was the ground, which accounted for 33% (n=99) of all raptor perching observations. Other perch structures frequently used by raptors during surveys included: power lines (27%); fence posts (26%), and trees (14%). Red-tailed Hawks were observed perching more often than all other raptor species combined. Forty-six percent (46%) of all Red-tailed Hawks perching occurred on the ground. Fence posts and power lines were the most common perch sites for American Kestrels, with the observations on these structures comprising 90% of the perch observations of this species. Red-tail Hawk and American Kestrel perching accounted for 85% of all raptor perching observations.

Older turbines mounted on horizontal lattice type towers provide ideal situations for perching by raptors and other birds. Those towers are hypothesized to present a greater risk to birds than the tubular towers, as proposed for this project, for two reasons. First, birds attempting to perch or take off from operating turbines are at risk of collision. Second, birds that perch on turbines, even when they are not operating, habituate to being in close proximity to turbines. If birds become comfortable near turbines, they are more likely to collide with them than if they are not habituated to the turbines. Kenetech KCS-56 turbines on lattice towers have been demonstrated to be favored perch sites as well as presenting greater risk of collision than other turbines (Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996). Thelander and Rugge (2000) did not find the same relationship, but they frequently pooled data from unrelated species (raptors and non raptors) rather than conducting the analyses at the species or species group level. Small sample sizes may have made such analyses impractical.

Although the level of risk associated with perching on a wind turbine has yet to be determined, it is clear that raptors, especially Red-tailed Hawks and kestrels will perch on turbines, if the

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 67

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT opportunity is provided. The perching platform of choice in the APWRA is the lattice type tower on which most of the turbines are installed. In addition, the older model tubular towers with good perching locations such as partial ladders, railings and other external features not found on modern turbines and towers being installed today are a powerful attractant in the APWRA. The older tubular towers deployed in the Altamont are not comparable to the modern turbine designs currently used by the industry in new projects. Turbine towers with readily accessible perch sites afford the raptors three important elements: an opportunity to rest; a hunting platform (generally accessible only by flying through the plane of the rotor swept area); and, not insignificantly, a vehicle for becoming habituated to and therefore becoming more comfortable and possibly careless around the turbines.

Shiloh III turbines are not expected to provide perching opportunities and, therefore, they will be expected to pose little or no risk that will be attributable to perching on turbines at this project site.

Topography. Kenetech KCS-56 turbines in the APWRA that are situated at the end of turbine strings/rows, especially on steep hills, and turbines situated in dips and canyon bottoms experience risk that is double that of turbines not situated in these locations (Kerlinger and Curry 1997, Orloff and Flannery 1992, 1996). Howell and DiDonato (1991) did not find a relationship between fatality rate and position of a turbine in a row in the APWRA, but they did find a relationship between fatalities and topographic conditions in the APWRA. The Alameda County EIR/Biological Resource Management Plan (Alameda County Community Development Agency 1998) for the repowering in the APWRA includes an entire section on avoidance of high risk topographic sites, based on a fatality analysis of more than 12 years of data from 3,400 existing turbines (Curry & Kerlinger, 1998 report to the FWS). A similar conclusion was reached for a site in Wyoming, where potential risk to soaring raptors was believed to occur along a steep escarpment on which wind turbines were situated (Strickland et al. 2000). In pre development surveys, raptors were observed soaring along the face of this escarpment/ridge, so turbines were set back from the edge to reduce potential risk. To date, the numbers of raptor fatalities at this installation has been demonstrated to be minimal (Appendix III), despite high use of the area by these species. The CMHWRA has more gentle topography than the APWRA, though there is some steep terrain. The Shiloh III wind project site has the gentlest topography in the CMHWRA. In addition, the proposed turbines will not be located on steep hillsides or through valleys, so risk is expected to be low. Micro siting decisions regarding turbine locations for both the High Winds project and the Shiloh I and II projects utilize data upon which the Alameda and Contra Costa siting guidelines were based.

Tower Lighting. Because collisions of night migrating birds with communication towers have been linked to lighting of those towers, presence and type of lighting is a risk factor on towers. Avery et al. (1980) and others (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2000) have reviewed and made recommendations regarding the relationship between lighting and collisions of nocturnally migrating birds, although there is no consensus about this recommendation among the scientific community. Suggested guidelines proposed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service include white strobes at night (as opposed to red incandescent lights), but there is little to support this recommendation (also see Appendix II).

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 68

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

For both bats and birds, there is no evidence that FAA lighting in the form of L-864 and L-810 flashing red lights attracted birds to towers and that the presence of those lights cause large scale fatality events at wind turbines.

In the High Winds study (Kerlinger et al. 2006) an examination of the numbers of night migrating bird (songbirds, rails, common moorhen, and coots) and bat fatalities at turbines with FAA lights vs. turbines without such lights did not reveal a significant difference. Of the 31 night migrating birds (22 songbirds and 9 other birds), 32.25% were found dead at turbines with either L-864 or L-810 flashing red lights as opposed to 67.75% being found at turbines that did not have FAA lights. These percentages are roughly equal to the representation of the percentage of towers with and without FAA lights (28.9% had FAA lights and 71.1% did not have lights). A chi-square test revealed that there was not a significant deviation from the expected number of fatalities at lit turbines as opposed to unlit turbines (χ2 = 0.181,df = 1, P>0.10, ns). If the red flashing lights attracted birds to turbines, a disproportionately greater number of these fatalities would have been found at turbines with lights, which was not the case. The fatality rate of night migrants was low at the Shiloh I facility during the three years of study. The numbers were especially small in comparison with fatality rates of these birds at taller, guyed communication towers in the Midwestern and eastern United States where fatalities involving hundreds or even thousands of birds in a single night have been found dead in a single migration season. Those towers are usually equipped with two types of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) lighting (steady burning and flashing lights), multiple sets of guy wires, and are almost always in excess of 500 feet (152 m). For example, a study in Michigan demonstrated that fatalities at guyed communication towers in excess of 305 m (1,000 feet) in height revealed that such towers kill 300+ birds per tower per year (calculated from data in Gehring et al. 2009). For guyed towers 450-475 feet in height, the data in Gehring et al. (2009) suggest that fatality rates are about 65-70 birds per tower per year. A vast majority of these birds are night migrants, so most guyed communication towers have been shown to kill orders of magnitude more birds on a per structure basis than wind turbines. Thus, guyed communication towers of the same height or taller kill about 13 or 14 times per structure to more than 60 times more per structure than do the wind turbines at Shiloh.

An examination of the fatality rates of night migrating bird (songbirds, rails, common moorhen, coots, and herons) and bat fatalities found during fall (August through November) and spring (mid-February through May) at turbines with flashing red FAA lights versus turbines without such lights did not reveal a significant difference (Table 23). There was also almost no difference between the fatality rates of incidents of night migrant species and non-night migrant species at lit towers versus those that were not lit. Of the 50 night migrating bird species (39 songbirds and 11 waterfowl and water birds), 34% were found dead at turbines equipped with flashing red lights as opposed to 66% being found at turbines that did not have FAA lights. These percentages are close to the percentages of towers with and without FAA lights (36% had FAA lights and 64% did not have lights). A chi-square test revealed no deviation from expected numbers of night migrant fatalities at lit turbines as opposed to unlit turbines (Chi-square test, χ2 = 0.005, df = 1, P = 0.94, ns). If the red flashing lights attracted birds to turbines, a disproportionately greater number of these fatalities would have been found at turbines with lights, which was not the case.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 69

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

A similar examination of the numbers of bat fatalities at turbines with FAA lights versus turbines without such lights reveals a similar relation. Of all wind turbine related bat fatalities that occurred during fall or spring migrations, 38% were found at turbines with FAA lights and 62% were found at turbines without such lights. These proportions do not deviate from those expected if bats collided with towers randomly (Chi-square test, χ2 = 0.04, df = 1, P = 0.84, ns).

Table 23. The number of incidents of night migrating birds and bats, and non-migrating birds, found during fall (August - November) and spring (mid-February - May) migrations during the three years of standardized surveys, at towers with and without FAA red- blinking lights.

NO LIGHT RED BLINKING LIGHT Total # % # % #

Wind Turbines Surveyed* 32 64% 18 36% 50*

Night Migrant Incidents Bats 78 62% 47 38% 125 Passerine 26 67% 13 33% 39 Waterbird/Waterfowl 7 64% 4 36% 11 Night Migrant Subtotal 111 63% 64 37% 175

Non-Night Migrant Incidents 112 67% 54 33% 166 Non-Night Migrant Subtotal 112 67% 54 33% 166

Total # Incidents 223 65% 118 35% 341 * The number of wind turbines searched during the 3 years of this study with and without lights was calculated based on the proportion of rounds conducted at each tower type (lit or not).

The fact that the Shiloh I and most other western turbines are only 339.5 feet (103.5 m) in height, do not have guy wires, and have only flashing red strobe-like lights may explain the low rate of night migrant fatalities at those turbines. Gehring et al. 2009 has recently demonstrated that flashing red, strobe-like lights (L-864) of the type recommended by FAA and used most often on wind turbines do not appear to attract night migrants like the utilization of the same lights (L- 864) in combination with L-810 steady burning red lights. In the Shiloh I project, the L-810 units were modified from steady burning to blinking lights. These results continue to suggest that wind turbines in the western United States do not appear to kill large or significant numbers of night migrants. Determining the exact number of night migrants is difficult, however, as some of the birds involved may have been resident breeders.

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 70

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

Avian Fatalities in the CMHWRA

High Winds Project

A two year post-construction study has been completed at the adjacent High Winds project (Kerlinger et al. 2006). A total of 163 avian incidents were recorded by searchers during standardized surveys, representing 35 species (including one unidentified species of Empidonax flycatcher which was considered a separate species) and 10 unidentified birds (4 of these were songbirds not identified to species, 6 were bird remains not identifiable to a taxonomic group; (Table 24). Of the 35 species, 7 were raptor species including American Kestrel, Red-tailed Hawk, Ferruginous Hawk, Rough-legged Hawk, White-tailed Kite, Golden Eagle, and Barn Owl. Owls were included as “raptors” in analyses because they are predatory birds in behavior, and therefore may be vulnerable to turbine strikes similarly to hawks and other raptor species. There were a total of 71 raptor incidents found during this two year study. There were 60 incidents of songbirds identified to 17 different species plus unidentified species (3 warblers, 1 blackbird). Other avian species found included a mixed group of vultures, pheasants, doves, rails, flickers, swifts and one cormorant, comprising 11 species and 22 incidents.

Of all 163 (excluding 20 incidental finds) avian incidents registered, 31 were night migrating birds representing a variety of species groups, including 19 passerines (12 species; 1 individual found incidentally), and 11 non-passerines (rails, moorhen, coot and Northern Flicker. Eight specimens were European Starlings and Rock Doves, neither of which is a protected species. In other words, 16.9% of all carcasses located at the High Winds project were night migrants and only 9.4% were night migrating passerines.

Table 24. Number of incidents per species per year and per total installed megawatt capacity at the Montezuma Hills WRA High Winds Company, August 2003 – July 2005, found during standardized surveys (Incidental finds are noted separately).

YEAR ONE YEAR TWO # Incidents # Incidents Ave. 86.3 Ave. 89.6 Incidental Species Name Turbines Turbines Total per Mw/Year per Turbine/Year ** Birds (163) American Kestrel 29 16 45 0.1422 0.25591 7 Red-tailed Hawk * 10 8 18 0.0569 0.10237 2 White-tailed Kite 2 1 3 0.0095 0.01706 Ferruginous Hawk *** 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Rough-legged Hawk 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Golden Eagle *** 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 1 Turkey Vulture 1 1 2 0.0063 0.01137 2 Double-crested Cormorant 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Ring-necked Pheasant 2 2 0.0063 0.01137 1 Canada Goose* 1 Snow Goose* 1 Mallard 1 Common Moorhen 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 American Coot 1 1 2 0.0063 0.01137 1 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 71

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

YEAR ONE YEAR TWO # Incidents # Incidents Ave. 86.3 Ave. 89.6 Incidental Species Name Turbines Turbines Total per Mw/Year per Turbine/Year ** Virginia Rail 1 2 3 0.0095 0.01706 Sora 1 2 3 0.0095 0.01706 Mourning Dove 2 2 0.0063 0.01137 Rock Dove 2 2 0.0063 0.01137 Barn Owl * 2 2 0.0063 0.01137 2 White-throated Swift 2 2 0.0063 0.01137 Northern Flicker 1 1 2 0.0063 0.01137 Western Wood-Pewee 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Empidonax species 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Warbling Vireo 1 1 2 0.0063 0.01137 Horned Lark 10 7 17 0.0537 0.09668 Tree Swallow 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Ruby-crowned Kinglet 2 2 0.0063 0.01137 European Starling 4 2 6 0.0190 0.03412 American Pipit 2 2 0.0063 0.01137 Orange-crowned Warbler 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Yellow Warbler *** 1 1 2 0.0063 0.01137 Townsend's Warbler 2 1 3 0.0095 0.01706 Wilson's Warbler 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Common Yellowthroat *** 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 1 Unidentified Warbler 2 1 3 0.0095 0.01706 Lincoln's Sparrow 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Western Meadowlark 2 1 3 0.0095 0.01706 Red-winged Blackbird 2 12 14 0.0442 0.07962 Brewer's Blackbird 2 2 0.0063 0.01137 Unidentified Blackbird 1 1 0.0032 0.00569 Unidentified Bird 6 6 0.0190 0.03412 Total Birds 96 67 163 0.5167 0.9301 20 Bats (116) Hoary Bat 45 17 62 0.1959 0.35259 1 Mexican Free-tailed Bat 22 26 48 0.1517 0.27298 1 Western Red Bat 3 1 4 0.0126 0.02275 0.01137 Silver-haired Bat 2 2 0.0063 Total Bats 70 46 116 0.3679 0.6623 2 Grand Total 166 113 279 0.8815 1.58667 22 The average number of wind turbines searched per year is given under the date ranges. A total installed megawatt capacity of 158.3 MW was calculated by multiplying individual turbine MW of 1.8 by the average number of wind turbine towers surveyed throughout the two year survey of 87.92

*One or more of the individuals of this species was found on "SITE" and was not associated with a wind turbine tower **Number of individuals found incidentally and not during standardized surveys. NOT included in the Total for that species ***Denotes California Species of Special Concern (CSC)

Shiloh I Project

A three year post-construction study has been completed at the adjacent Shiloh I project (Kerlinger, et al, 2009). A total of 379 wind turbine-related avian incidents were recorded by searchers during standardized surveys, representing 54 species and 22 unidentified birds (2 of CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 72

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT these were blackbirds, 3 were sparrows, 1 a swallow, and 14 were not identified to species but classified as passerines, and 1 unknown bird species; Table 25). Of the 54 avian species, 9 were raptor species including American Kestrel (27), Merlin (1), Peregrine Falcon (1), Red-tailed Hawk (15), Ferruginous Hawk (2), Northern Harrier (2), Golden Eagle (1), Barn Owl (2), and Great Horned Owl (4), comprising a total of 55 raptor incidents found during the 3 year study period. The largest number of carcasses found were songbirds, this group comprised 247 incidents identified to 32 different species plus unidentified species. There were a total of 6 waterfowl incidents, (4 Mallards and 1 unidentified Goose spp.). Water bird species comprised 19 incidents, including 10 American Coots, 1 Sora, 2 Virginia Rails, 4 Killdeer, 1 Common Moorhen and 1 Black-crowned Night-Heron. Other avian species included a mixed group of Mourning Doves, Rock Pigeons, Turkey Vultures, Ring-necked Pheasants, a Chukar, and Northern Flickers (Tables 2 and 3), comprising 6 species involved in 51 incidents. There was 1 unidentified bird, classified as a large non-passerine. One hundred thirty-two (132)) bat carcasses were found by searchers, representing 4 different species including Hoary Bat (64), Mexican Free-tailed Bat (63), Silver-haired Bat (3), and Western Red Bat (2).

The number of wind turbine related incidents found per total installed megawatt capacity per year was calculated to provide a comparable metric between different wind power projects. The individual wind turbine MW of 1.5 was multiplied by the number of wind turbine towers (50) searched during the course of this three year study to yield a total installed megawatt capacity of 75.0 MW for turbines being searched. Another unit for comparison purposes, the number of incidents per turbine tower per year, was also calculated (Table 25). The highest fatality rates occurred in the Western Meadowlark and Hoary Bat, followed by Mexican Free-tailed Bat, Red- winged Blackbird, American Kestrel, and Mourning Dove. About 2.5 birds and 0.9 bats per tower per year were found at wind turbine towers during this project.

Table 25. Unadjusted number of incidents per species during the 3 years of surveys per total installed megawatt capacity* per year, and per turbine per year, at the Shiloh I Project Area, April 2006 – April 2009, found during standardized surveys.

# Incidents # Incidents

per per Species Name Total Mw/Year Turbine/Year Incidental**

Bird Species American Coot 10 0.0444 0.066 American Goldfinch 1 0.0044 0.006 American Kestrel 27 0.12 0.18 1 American Pipit 9 0.04 0.06 Barn Owl 2 0.0088 0.013 5 Black-crowned Night Heron 1 0.0044 0.006 Black-headed Grosbeak 1 0.0044 0.006 Black-throated Gray Warbler 4 0.0177 0.026 Brewer's Blackbird 15 0.0666 0.1 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 73

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

# Incidents # Incidents

per per Species Name Total Mw/Year Turbine/Year Incidental** Chukar 4 0.0177 0.027 Common Moorhen 1 0.0044 0.006 Dark-eyed Junco, slate 1 0.0044 0.006 European Starling 6 0.0266 0.04 Ferruginous Hawk 2 0.0088 0.013 Golden Eagle 1 0.0044 0.006 2 Golden-crowned Kinglet 1 0.0044 0.006 Golden-crowned Sparrow 1 0.0044 0.006 Great Horned Owl 4 0.0177 0.027 Hammond's Flycatcher 1 0.0044 0.006 Horned Lark 21 0.0933 0.14 1 House Finch 1 0.0044 0.006 House Sparrow 1 0.0044 0.006 Killdeer 4 0.0177 0.027 2 Lincoln's Sparrow 2 0.0088 0.013 MacGillivray's Warbler 2 0.0088 0.013 1 Mallard 5 0.0222 0.033 Merlin*** 1 0.0044 0.006 Mourning Dove 26 0.1155 0.173 2 Northern Flicker 2 0.0088 0.013 Northern Harrier*** 2 0.0088 0.013 Northern Mockingbird 1 0.0044 0.006 Orange-crowned Warbler 1 0.0044 0.006 1 Pacific Slope Flycatcher 3 0.0133 0.02 Peregrine Falcon 1 0.0044 0.006 Prairie Falcon*** 0 0 1 Red-tailed Hawk 15 0.0666 0.1 8 Red-winged Blackbird 42 0.1866 0.28 5 Ring-necked Pheasant 8 0.0355 0.0533 2 Rock Pigeon 9 0.04 0.06 2 Ruby-crowned Kinglet 1 0.0044 0.006 Savannah Sparrow 7 0.0311 0.047 Sora 1 0.0044 0.006 1 Swainson's Thrush 1 0.0044 0.006 1 Townsend's Warbler 3 0.0133 0.02 Tree Swallow 4 0.0177 0.027 1 Tricolored Blackbird*** 2 0.0088 0.013 Turkey Vulture 2 0.0088 0.013 1 Virginia Rail 2 0.0088 0.013 Warbling Vireo 3 0.0133 0.02 1 Western Meadowlark 76 0.3377 0.51 1 CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 74

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

# Incidents # Incidents

per per Species Name Total Mw/Year Turbine/Year Incidental** Western Wood Pewee 0 0 1 White-crowned Sparrow 2 0.0088 0.013 White-throated Swift 2 0.0088 0.013 Wilson's Warbler 7 0.0311 0.047 1 Winter Wren 0 0 1 Yellow Warbler*** 4 0.0177 0.027 Yellow-breasted Chat*** 1 0.0044 0.006 Yellow-rumped Warbler 1 Unidentified Blackbird spp. 2 0.0088 0.013 1 Unidentified Goose spp. 1 0.0044 0.006 Unidentified Passerine spp. 14 0.0622 0.093 Unidentified Sparrow spp. 3 0.0133 0.02 Unidentified Swallow spp. 1 0.006 Unknown bird spp. 1 0.0044 0.006 Subtotal Avian Species 379 1.6768 2.5113 44

Bat Species Hoary Bat 64 0.2844 0.436 2 Mexican Free-tailed Bat 63 0.28 0.42 2 Silver-haired Bat 3 0.0133 0.02 Western Red Bat 2 0.0088 0.0133 Subtotal Bat Species 132 0.5865 0.8893 4

Grand Total 511 2.2633 3.4006 48

* A total installed megawatt capacity of 75.0 MW was calculated by multiplying individual turbine MW of 1.5 by the number of wind turbine towers surveyed per round **Number of individuals found incidentally and not during standardized surveys. NOT included in the Total for that species *** Denotes California Species of Special Concern (CSC)

Site Comparison: Shiloh I and High Winds

It is recognized that the number of carcasses found under the towers is lower than the total number of birds and bats likely to have been killed. There are at least two factors that need to be accounted for. The first is the possibility that the searchers will miss carcasses due to the amount of ground cover or the size and coloration of the species making it difficult to spot them. A second possibility is that the carcasses are removed prior to the time the searchers arrive on location after the collision event occurred.

By dividing the estimated number of birds/bats by the number of turbines searched in each year, a rate of kills/turbine can be calculated, allowing comparisons between wind farms of different sizes (different numbers of towers).

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 75

SHILOH III WIND PROJECT

We compare unadjusted and adjusted results between the two adjacent wind projects to gain a more comprehensive understanding of turbine related collision events in the region (Table 26).

CURRY & KERLINGER, LLC 76

Appendix C2 Biological Resources Report and Evaluation

This page intentionally left blank Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California

November 2009

Prepared for: Prepared by: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT AND EVALUATION

FOR THE

PROPOSED SHILOH III PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

P REPARED FOR:

enXco 4000 Executive Parkway, Suite 100 San Ramon, CA 94583 Contact: Dick Timmons 925/354-6576

P REPARED BY:

ICF Jones & Stokes 630 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Brad Schafer 916/737-3000

November 2009

ICF Jones & Stokes. 2009. Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California. November. (ICF J&S 00051.09) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for: enXco, San Ramon, CA. Contents List of Tables and Figures ...... iii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... iv

Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 Introduction ...... 1-1 Summary of Results ...... 1-1 Summary of Recommendations ...... 1-2 Project Overview ...... 1-2 Regional Setting and Current Land Use ...... 1-3 Area Subject to Study ...... 1-3 Regulatory Considerations ...... 1-4 Federal Endangered Species Act ...... 1-4 California Endangered Species Act ...... 1-4 California Fish and Game Code ...... 1-5 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 1-5 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ...... 1-6 Regional Water Quality Control Board ...... 1-6 Solano County Department of Resource Management ...... 1-6 Chapter 2 Terminology ...... 2-1 Special-Status Species ...... 2-1 Habitat ...... 2-1 Sensitive Natural Communities ...... 2-2 Waters of the United States ...... 2-2 Wetlands ...... 2-2 Project Components ...... 2-2 Chapter 3 Methods ...... 3-1 Prefield Investigation...... 3-1 Field Surveys ...... 3-1 General Vegetation ...... 3-2 Special-Status Wildlife ...... 3-2 Special-Status Plants ...... 3-2 Waters of the United States ...... 3-3 Chapter 4 Results ...... 4-1 Biological Communities ...... 4-1 Agricultural Lands ...... 4-1

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 i Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

Annual Grassland ...... 4-1 Eucalyptus and Ornamental Trees ...... 4-2 Wetlands and Other Waters ...... 4-2 Special-Status Species ...... 4-5 Wildlife ...... 4-5 Plants...... 4-8 Waters of the United States (Including Wetlands) ...... 4-9 Chapter 5 Effects of the Proposed Project and Recommendations ...... 5-1 Impact Assessment ...... 5-1 Special-Status Species ...... 5-1 Sensitive Natural Communities ...... 5-3 Waters of the United States (Including Wetlands) ...... 5-3 Wildlife Nursery Sites or Migratory Corridors ...... 5-4 Local Policies or Ordinances ...... 5-4 Habitat Conservation Plans ...... 5-4 Recommendations...... 5-4 Chapter 6 References Cited ...... 6-1 Chapter 7 Preparers ...... 7-1

Appendix A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special-Status Species List Appendix B California Tiger Salamander Site Assessment

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 ii Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

Tables Follows Page

1 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Montezuma Hills Region, Solano County ...... 3-2

2 Special-Status Plants Potentially Occurring in the Montezuma Hills Region, Solano County ...... 3-2

Figures Follows Page

1 Shiloh III Project Location ...... 1-2

2 Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area ...... 1-2

3a–c Project Layout ...... 1-4

4 Land Cover ...... 4-2

5a–c Special Status Wildlife and Habitat for Special Status Wildlife in the Project Area ...... 4-2

6a–c Potential Waters of the U.S...... 4-2

7 Special Status Plants in the Project Area ...... 4-10

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 iii Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AMMs avoidance and minimization measures BO biological opinion CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CTS California tiger salamander CWA Clean Water Act DFG California Department of Fish and Game DRM Solano County Department of Resource Management EIR environmental impact report EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act GIS geographic information system HCP habitat conservation plan HDD horizontal directional drilling MW megawatt NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan RWCQB regional water control quality board Shiloh III Project Shiloh III Wind Plant Project SR-12 State Route 12 SWANCC Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VELB Valley elderberry longhorn beetle WDR waste discharge requirements WRA Wind Resource Area WTG wind turbine generator

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 iv Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

Chapter 1 Introduction

Introduction

This report presents the methods and results of biological resource surveys conducted by ICF Jones & Stokes for the proposed Shiloh III Wind Plant Project (Shiloh III Project) located in the Collinsville–Montezuma Hills Wind Resource Area (WRA) of Solano County, California (Figure 1). This biological resources study was initiated by enXco, the project proponent, in order to identify biological resources affecting the siting of the proposed project components and to provide baseline studies useful for the preparation of the environmental impact report (EIR) that will be prepared by Solano County. The biological study area (discussed in greater detail below) comprises the area within the project boundary and a 250-foot buffer around it.

It is ICF Jones & Stokes’ understanding that information in this report will be incorporated as appropriate into the EIR that will be prepared by Solano County. This report provides an initial evaluation of the effects of the project on biological resources and feasible avoidance and minimization measures (AMMs) to reduce potential effects to a level typically considered less than significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Potential effects on avian and bat species that may occur as a result of construction activities are discussed in this report. It is assumed that operational effects (i.e., potential collisions and mortality) on avian and bat species will be addressed in a separate report by Curry and Kerlinger.

Summary of Results

ICF Jones & Stokes has reached the following conclusions regarding the presence of sensitive biological resources in the study area.

 The study area supports limited potential habitat for valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), a species listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). No beetles have been identified onsite or anywhere in the WRA.

 The study area supports potential habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), species listed as threatened and endangered, respectively, under ESA. The project would not affect vernal pools.

 The study area supports potential aquatic and upland habitat for California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (CTS), a species listed as threatened under ESA. CTS is also a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). CTS has not been observed in the project area.

 The study area supports potential habitat for western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), a California species of special concern. Burrowing owl has been observed onsite.

 The study area supports potential habitat for several nesting raptor and special-status bird species known to be present in or adjacent to the project area. Some special-status bird species have been observed onsite.

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 1-1 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

enXco Introduction

 The study area supports three species of special-status plants—bearded popcornflower (Plagiobothrys hystriculus), Carquinez goldenbush (Isocoma arguta), and pappose spikeweed (Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi)—that are considered rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), as well as potential habitat for several other special-status plants. The project would avoid these populations to the extent feasible.

 The study area supports alkali meadows and other wetlands considered sensitive natural communities (as defined by the California Department of Fish and Game [DFG]). The project would avoid these wetlands.

 The study area supports waters of the United States (including wetlands) that would likely be subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The project would avoid these wetlands.

Summary of Recommendations

Based on ICF Jones & Stokes’ surveys and initial assessment of the proposed project, implementation of AMMs will be necessary to avoid and minimize effects on sensitive biological resources. These AMMs are discussed in detail in Section 5, Effects of the Project and Recommendations. These recommended AMMs are listed below.

 AMM-1: Avoid Impacts on Habitat for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle.

 AMM-2: Avoid Impacts on Habitat for Special-Status Invertebrate Species.

 AMM-3: Avoid, Minimize, and Mitigate Impacts on California Tiger Salamander.

 AMM-4: Avoid Impacts on Western Burrowing Owl.

 AMM-5: Avoid Impacts on Nesting Raptors and Special-Status Birds.

 AMM-6: Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Special-Status Plants.

 AMM-7: Avoid Impacts on Sensitive Natural Communities and Waters of the United States (including Wetlands).

Project Overview

enXco, headquartered in Escondido, California, proposes to install wind turbine generators (WTGs) in the Montezuma Hills in Solano County, California. The project would have an installed capacity of up to approximately 167.5 megawatts (MW) of electrical energy production, generating electricity for distribution to customers throughout northern California. The proposed project is located in the Collinsville–Montezuma Hills WRA immediately adjacent to the recently constructed Shiloh 2 project (Figure 2), and near other existing wind energy projects that have been in operation since the 1980s.

To achieve a nameplate generation capacity of up to 167.5 MW, enXco is proposing to install approximately 68 wind turbines, each with a rated capacity of up to 2.5 MW, depending on the make and model of wind turbine ultimately selected. The turbines consist of three horizontal rotor blades with a maximum rotor diameter of 93 meters (304 feet). The WTGs would be mounted on either 68- or 80-meter (223- or 262-foot) galvanized steel tubular towers. Total maximum height of the towers

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 1-2 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE 0 2 4

Miles

Project Location

RIO VISTA

PITTSBURG

ANTIOCH Sacramento Fair eld Solano County

San Francisco Project Location CONCORD

CALIFORNIA Graphics … 00051.09 (8-09) Graphics Figure 1 Shiloh lll Project Location !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

Rio Vista Flannery Flannery !

! Figure 2 !

Haven Goose

Island Montezuma Hills ! Liberty

Rio Vista ! ! ! !

!Junction B and R Wind Resource Area

! Canright !

! ! !

Mauds Island

113 Liberty

·|}þ McCormack McCormack McCormack Shiloh

Canright !

! !

! ! Shiloh III Wind Plant Project

Liberty ! Island !

! Baumann 12! !

McClosky Legend

·|}þ Airport !

Island

Liberty Ryer Little Honker Bay City/Community !

! 12 Cedar !

! ! ·|}þ Ridge ! ! Regional Transmission Line

Airport ! !

River State Highway ! Harris ! !

Brookside River

Azevedo

! ! County Road St ! !

Montezuma Currie Parcel Francis

! ! ! River Virginia

! Amerada Water

Olsen Emigh ! Emigh

! Wind Projects !

! Amador Rio Existing ! ! Vista

! SMUD! Phase 1 & 2

! ! Shiloh ! Emigh enXco V 4th

! !

Emigh Shiloh I

! ! Anderson

! Shiloh II ! High Winds

! ! ! Birds Landing ! Montezuma Hills Planned

Boscoe ! ! Montezuma I

! Boscoe ! SMUD Phase 3 Collinsville ! !Birds ! Shiloh III !

Landing ! ! Conserved Lands

! ! Solano Land Trust Collinsville Montezuma Hills ! ! Agricultural Area

Molena ! ! Collinsville Montezuma Hills !

! ! !

Toland ! ! !

! ! !

! ! ± Dutton 160 ·|}þ 1 0.5 0 1

! Montezuma Slough ! Collinsville Stewart ! Toland Miles

Grizzly ! !

Island !

! Talbert ! 113

! ·|}þ ! ! !! ! ! !

! Montezuma ! ! !

! ! Toland ! Landing ! ! 80 113

Collinsville ! ·|}þ

! ! ¨¦§ HORSESHOE! BEND

! 12

Stratton ! ·|}þ12 ·|}þ

! !

! ! !

! 80

!Collinsville ! ! ¨¦§

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

SACRAMENTO RIVER ! !

! ! !

Spoonbill ! !

Q: \ PROJECTS \ ENXCO \ 00051_09_SHILO_3_TECH_STUDIES \ MAPDOC \ FIG2_MONTE_HILLS_WRA.MXD SS (11-12-09) SS \ FIG2_MONTE_HILLS_WRA.MXD \ MAPDOC ENXCO \ 00051_09_SHILO_3_TECH_STUDIES \ \ PROJECTS Q: ! ! !

! !

! ! ! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! ! !

! !

! ! !

! !

! ! enXco Introduction

plus wind turbine would be 126.5 meters (415 feet). Meteorological towers, service roads, an electrical collection system, and a new substation would be included as necessary support facilities. Maintenance facilities, storage, and parking areas would also be included to provide for operational access to the project. To the extent possible, physical access to the project would be constructed from existing roads—specifically Little Honker Bay Road, Olsen Road, Currie Road, Emigh Road, and Azevedo Road.

The power generated by the turbines would be conveyed to a power substation off Olsen Road by an electrical power collection system that would be installed as part of the proposed project. The system would comprise pad-mounted transformers, buried cables, and junction boxes. The pad- mounted transformers would be connected to each turbine by buried power cables. Junction boxes are part of the buried cable system; they house cable splices and allow access to the cable. The cables would be buried between turbines and transformers and between transformers and the new substation. The general layout of the project (i.e., the preliminary conceptual site plan) is shown in Figures 3a–3c.

Regional Setting and Current Land Use

The Collinsville–Montezuma Hills WRA is characterized by relatively uniform treeless rolling hills with a relatively constant crest elevation between 150 and 280 feet above mean sea level. The Montezuma Hills are separated by narrow valleys and drainages; the valleys transition to sloped hillsides with relatively flat ridgelines. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers lie to the south. The topographic and meteorological conditions of the Montezuma Hills area and their location in the Carquinez Straits consistently produce strong, steady winds ideal for wind farm development.

The project area comprises a number of privately owned properties in the Montezuma Hills totaling approximately 4,560 acres. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 110 to 250 feet above mean sea level. The rolling topography is similar to most other locations in the Montezuma Hills, although the topography becomes less pronounced near the northern boundary of the WRA near State Route 12 (SR 12).

Current land uses in the project area include grazing, dryland farming, and rural residential development. Farmers in the Montezuma Hills typically use a 1- to 3-year crop rotation cycle, where grazing and fallow years follow planting and harvesting. Land in the project area is zoned A-160 (Exclusive Agriculture, 160-acre minimum new parcel size) according to the Code of Solano County, Zoning Regulations. Wind farms are allowed as conditional uses in Exclusive Agricultural zone designations.

Area Subject to Study

The project area is in a rural agricultural area, bordered by several other existing (enXco V, High Winds, Shiloh I, and Shiloh II) or planned (Montezuma Wind and SMUD Phase 3) wind energy projects. The project area comprises a number of privately owned properties in the Montezuma Hills totaling approximately 4,560 acres. Turbines, access roads, power collection systems, and a proposed substation would be located within this area. A proposed power collection route would deliver project-generated power from the proposed Shiloh III substation to the PG&E 230kV line

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 1-3 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

enXco Introduction

near Olsen Road, a distance of approximately 0.25 mile. The power collection route and the proposed substation location were included in the project area for the purposes of this study.

In addition to the area described above, an additional 250-foot area (buffer area) surrounding the project boundaries was evaluated for certain special-status wildlife species (e.g., vernal pool invertebrate species) to address potential indirect effects. Collectively, the project area and the additional 250-foot buffer area comprise the study area for the purposes of this report.

Regulatory Considerations

This section provides an overview of the laws and regulations that influence the management of biological resources in the project vicinity. While many of these regulations may not apply to the proposed project if the resources in question are avoided as part of the project, they are discussed here for context in determining which biological resources are considered sensitive for the purposes of this report and to discuss the effects the proposed project may have on them. Regulations whose sole purpose is to protect avian species (i.e., the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) are not discussed in this section. Federal Endangered Species Act

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over species listed as threatened or endangered under Section 9 of the ESA. The ESA protects listed species from harm, or take, which is broadly defined as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” For any project involving a federal agency in which a listed species could be affected, the federal agency must consult with USFWS in accordance with Section 7 of ESA. USFWS issues a biological opinion (BO) and, if the project does not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species, issues an incidental take permit. When no federal context is present, proponents of a project affecting a listed species must consult with USFWS and apply for an incidental take permit under Section 10 of the ESA. Section 10 requires an applicant to submit a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that specifies project impacts and mitigation measures.

Because there is no federal nexus for the proposed project, consultation with USFWS, including preparation of an HCP for potential impacts on CTS (federally listed as threatened), has begun as of the date of this report. Consultation for impacts on other federally listed species is not expected to be necessary if potential habitat is adequately avoided through implementation of the AMMs discussed in Section 5.0. California Endangered Species Act

CESA prohibits the take of endangered and threatened species; however, habitat destruction is not included in the state’s definition of take. Section 2090 of CESA requires state agencies to comply with endangered species protection and recovery and to promote conservation of these species. DFG administers CESA and authorizes take through Section 2081 agreements (except for species designated as fully protected). Currently, CTS is a candidate for listing as endangered under CESA (California Fish and Game Commission 2009) with a determination expected in February 2010. If CTS is listed under CESA at that time, consultation with DFG, and authorization of take through Section 2081, may be required for potential impacts on CTS.

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 1-4 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

Figure 3a Project Layout

s s d

u Shiloh III Wind Plant Project

a M

·113|}þ Legend

Shiloh III Project Area

!. Proposed Turbine Location

Electrical Collection Line

Little Honker Bay Rd Proposed Roads ·|}þ12 12 ·|}þ Laydown Yard

A12 !. Substation

A10 !. Match Line

!. A13 B13 !.

B17 !. !. A11 A14 !. !. B20 B14 !.

B15 !. !. B18 !. A15

B19 B16 !. !.

R ±

g g

i 1,500 750 0 1,500

a Feet

s s

3a 3b

Olsen Rd 3c

Base Map: Bird's Landing USGS 7.5' series quadrangle Q: \ PROJECTS ENXCO\ \ 00051_09_SHILO_3_TECH_STUDIES \ MAPDOC \ FIG_3A_3B_3C_PROJECT_LAYOUT.MXD SS (10-29-09) Figure 3b

t t Project Layout

a C Shiloh III Wind Plant Project

d Canright Rd

y y

l Legend

M d Shiloh III Project Area

d d

a l !.

s Proposed Turbine Location

y y

r e Electrical Collection Line

d Proposed Roads R et

AzevedoRd s 12 er ·|}þ mm Su Laydown Yard Substation

Match Line

!. C33 C24 !. !. C43 !. C25 C44 !.

!. C26 C34 !. C41 !.

!. C42 C35 !. !. C27

!. C37!. d C36 R !. F4

e e

r !. u C28

C !.

!. C29 C38 d ± !.

C39 R 1,500 750 0 1,500 !. F7 a d ra Feet !. !. e C30 F6 m !. A C31 !. C40

F5!. 3a 3b !. F8 C32!. 3c

d !. R E1 igh Em E6 Base Map: Bird's Landing USGS 7.5' series quadrangle A !.

r s E10 o

n !.

R !. d E2 E7 Q: \ PROJECTS ENXCO\ \ 00051_09_SHILO_3_TECH_STUDIES \ MAPDOC \ FIG_3A_3B_3C_PROJECT_LAYOUT.MXD SS (10-29-09) !. !. !.

!. C38

!. C29 ·|}þ12 Figure 3c C39!. d

R Project Layout !. F7 a d ra !. C30 F6!. e m A !. C31 Azevedo Rd Shiloh III Wind Plant Project C40!.

!. F5 Legend !. F8 C32 !. Shiloh III Project Area

Ci !. Proposed Turbine Location or Amad S d !. E h R s a Electrical Collection Line igh E1 p s Em e ta rs o D E6 n r Proposed Roads !. C t Laydown Yard E10 !. !. E2 Substation E7 !. Match Line E11 E8 !. !. !. E12

E3!. !. !. E13 E9 E4 E !. !. m E14 ig h R !. d E16

!. E5 !. E15

A n d d e R r l s s il o H n a R m ± zu d te B n !. o o s 1,500 750 0 1,500 M E21 c o e Feet !. E22 R d

E17 !. E23 !. B o s 3a 3b co e R !. E18 d !. E24 3c !. E19

!. E25

E20 Base Map: Bird's Landing USGS 7.5' series quadrangle !. Q: \ PROJECTS ENXCO\ \ 00051_09_SHILO_3_TECH_STUDIES \ MAPDOC \ FIG_3A_3B_3C_PROJECT_LAYOUT.MXD SS (10-29-09) enXco Introduction

California Fish and Game Code Fully Protected Species The California Fish and Game Code provides protection from take for a variety of species, referred to as fully protected species. Section 5050 lists fully protected amphibians and reptiles; Section 3515 lists fully protected fish; Section 3511 lists protected birds; and Section 4700 lists protected mammals. The California Fish and Game Code defines take as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Except for take related to scientific research, all take of fully protected species is prohibited.

Sections 3503 and 3503.5 Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the killing of birds and/or the destruction of bird nests. Section 3503.5 prohibits the killing of raptor species and/or the destruction of raptor nests.

Section 1600: Streambed Alteration Agreements In addition to its regulation of listed and special-status species, DFG also regulates activities that would interfere with the natural flow of, or substantially alter the channel, bed, or bank of a lake, river, or stream. These activities are regulated under California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600– 1616 and require a streambed alteration agreement. Requirements to protect the integrity of biological resources and water quality are often conditions of streambed alteration agreements. Conditions that DFG may require include avoidance or minimization of vegetation removal, use of standard erosion control measures, limitations on the use of heavy equipment, limitations on work periods to avoid impacts on fisheries and wildlife resources, and requirements to restore degraded sites or compensate for permanent habitat losses. If the project will not affect a streambed, a streambed alteration agreement will not be required.

enXco does not propose activities that would substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any rivers, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material into any river, stream, or lake. Horizontal directional drilling (HDD) activities similar to those proposed for Shiloh III have proceeded in the past in the Montezuma Hills without obtaining streambed alteration agreements. California Environmental Quality Act

CEQA is the regulatory framework by which California public agencies identify and mitigate significant environmental impacts. A project normally will have a significant environmental effect (in the context of biological resources) if it substantially affects a rare or endangered species or the habitat of that species; substantially interferes with the movement of resident or migratory fish or wildlife; or substantially diminishes habitat for fish, wildlife, or plants. The State CEQA Guidelines define rare, threatened, or endangered species as those listed under ESA and CESA as well as any other species that meet the criteria of the resource agencies or local agencies—for example, the DFG-designated species of special concern and plant species identified by the CNPS as being of conservation interest. The State CEQA Guidelines specify that the lead agency (in this case Solano County) preparing an EIR must consult with and receive written findings from DFG concerning project impacts on species that are listed as endangered or threatened. Special-status species and

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 1-5 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

enXco Introduction

sensitive habitats occurring on the project site are described in Section 4, Results; the effects of the proposed project on these species and habitats are important in determining whether the project has significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act USACE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA. Project proponents must obtain a permit from USACE for all discharges of fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed action. Biological communities on the project site that could qualify as waters of the United States are described in Section 4, Results.

Although a majority, if not all, of the wetlands in the project area would likely be considered jurisdictional by USACE, relatively recent federal rulings (January 9, 2001, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County [SWANCC] vs. United States Army Corps of Engineers (121 S.CT. 675, 2001)]) may affect whether some wetlands are considered jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA. However, for the purposes of this report and when determining effects on waters of the United States, it is assumed that all potential waters would be considered jurisdictional by USACE. If the project would affect potential waters, a final determination on the jurisdiction of those waters must be made through consultation with USACE. Regional Water Quality Control Board

Water Code Section 13260 requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the state to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements).” Under the Porter-Cologne Act definition, the term waters of the state is defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.”

If the project will require the disturbance of a wetland, and USACE determines that the wetland is not subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA, then Section 401 water quality certification is not required. However, the Regional Water Control Quality Board (RWCQB) may require waste discharge requirements (WDR) if fill material is placed into waters of the state. If all wetlands cannot be avoided as part of the project, enXco would be required to file an application for WDR with the RWQCB. Solano County Department of Resource Management The Solano County Department of Resource Management (DRM) requires information to be submitted for all projects in Solano County that require a permit (in this case, a conditional use permit is required) and that DRM determines are subject to review pursuant to CEQA. For the proposed project, DRM has determined that the project is subject to review under CEQA and has begun preparation of an EIR under contract with an environmental consultant.

Solano County has completed several EIRs for adjacent wind energy projects during the past several years and has consistently adopted avoidance measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts on biological resources. Where possible, the recommendations in this report are based on similar avoidance measures.

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 1-6 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

Chapter 2 Terminology

Throughout this report various terms relating to biological resources are used. This section defines the key terms.

Special-Status Species

Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under ESA, CESA, or other such regulations, as well as species considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to quality for such listing. For the purposes of this report, special-status species are those species that meet any of the requirements listed below.

 Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 [listed plants], 50 CFR 17.11 [listed animals], and various notices in the Federal Register [proposed species].

 Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008).

 Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (14 CCR 670.5).

 Species that meet the definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380).

 Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.).

 Plants considered by the CNPS to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” (Lists 1B and 2 in California Native Plant Society 2009).

 Plants listed by CNPS as plants about which more information is needed to determine their status and plants of limited distribution (Lists 3 and 4 in California Native Plant Society 2009), which may be included as special-status species on the basis of local significance or recent biological information.

 Animal species of special concern to DFG (California Department of Fish and Game 2009).

 Animals fully protected in California (California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [amphibians and reptiles]).

Habitat

Habitat is the place or type of site where a plant or animal naturally or normally lives and/or grows. Habitats can be further classified for some species depending on specific ecology or life history factors. For example, a species such as CTS has both an upland habitat requirement and an aquatic habitat requirement.

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 2-1 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

enXco Terminology

Sensitive Natural Communities

Sensitive natural communities are communities that are especially diverse; regionally uncommon; or of special concern to local, state, or federal agencies. Elimination or substantial degradation of these communities would constitute a significant impact under CEQA. For the purposes of this report, sensitive natural communities include areas that provide habitat for special-status species.

Waters of the United States

Waters of the United States are defined in the CFR as: (1) all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters…; (4) all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)–(4) of this section; (6) the territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1)–(6) of this section (33 CFR § 328.3).

Wetlands

Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes in the CFR as areas “inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3, 40 CFR 230.3). To be considered subject to federal jurisdiction, a wetland must normally exhibit positive indicators for three distinct features: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology (Environmental Laboratory 1987; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008).

Project Components

The term project components as used in this report includes all aspects of the proposed project, such as wind turbine generators, access roads, electrical transmission lines, collector lines staging areas, and substations.

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 2-2 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

Chapter 3 Methods

This biological resources study entailed a prefield investigation and field surveys to identify and describe biological resources in the project area.

Prefield Investigation

An investigation was conducted to review existing information and to prepare lists of special-status plant and wildlife species known to occur or with potential to occur in the project region. ICF Jones & Stokes botanists and wildlife biologists reviewed the information listed below to develop lists of special-status species that could occur in the project region.

 A records search of DFG’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2009) for the Birds Landing and surrounding 7.5-minute U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps (quads).

 CNPS’s (2009) 7th Edition Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California.

 USFWS lists of endangered and threatened species for Solano County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2009) (Appendix A).

A number of wind energy projects have been constructed or permitted or are in the planning phase in the Collinsville–Montezuma Hills WRA. Environmental documentation available for each of these projects addressed potential impacts on biological resources, and each report was reviewed as part of this study. These projects are listed below.

 High Winds LLC (Environmental Science Associates 2001).

 SMUD–Solano Wind (Sacramento Municipal Utility District 2003).

 Shiloh I (Ecology and Environment 2005).

 Shiloh II (Ecology and Environment 2007a).

 Montezuma Wind (Ecology and Environment 2007b).

Of these information sources, data on the biological resources present in the Shiloh 1 and Shiloh II project areas were used extensively because the proposed Shiloh III project area partially overlaps both these project areas. All the information sources described above were used to develop lists of special-status species that could occur in the project area (Table 1 and Table 2).

Field Surveys

ICF Jones & Stokes conducted field studies to map and describe the biological resources present in the project area. Each of these studies is described below.

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 3-1 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

enXco Methods

General Vegetation

Field surveys to identify and map the general vegetation types (i.e., habitats) present in the project area were conducted between March and September 2009. Habitats were visually inspected in the field, mapped on aerial photographs at a scale of 1 inch = 400 feet, and digitized into a geographic information system (GIS) format. Special-Status Wildlife ICF Jones & Stokes wildlife biologists conducted surveys in March, April, May, and August 2009 for special-status wildlife species and/or their habitats in the project area. The surveys focused on locating the species or habitat for the species identified as potentially occurring in the project area. This method of conducting reconnaissance-level surveys and a habitat-based assessment and then developing appropriate AMMs for implementation during the EIR process has been used successfully in the past on other wind energy projects in the Montezuma Hills. With the exception of CTS surveys, protocol-level surveys (i.e., formal surveys conducted to DFG and/or USFWS standards) were not conducted as part of this study and are not required to describe the biological resources in the project area. Preconstruction surveys conducted according to these standards are recommended for some species in Section 5, Effects of the Project and Recommendations.

As the first step in reaching a determination on the presence of CTS in the project area, a site assessment (Appendix B) was conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander (interim guidance) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game 2003). The interim guidance describes two components to the assessment process: an assessment of potential habitat and documented CTS occurrences in and around the project site, and protocol-level field surveys of breeding pools and associated uplands to determine presence or absence.

Based on the results of the site assessment, USFWS recommended surveys for CTS only in the eastern portion of the project area (the area roughly to the east of Birds Landing Road), assuming presence within the western portion of the project area based on nearby records. Surveys for CTS, conducted according to the interim guidance, were initiated in March 2009 by ICF Jones & Stokes biologists in suitable aquatic habitat in the eastern portion of the project area. As of the date of this report, the first year of aquatic surveys have been completed and upland surveys have begun. The second and final year of aquatic surveys are planned for spring 2010. Special-Status Plants

ICF Jones & Stokes botanists conducted floristic surveys in October 2009 for late-blooming special- status plants with potential to occur in the project area. Surveys employed floristic methods recommended by DFG (California Department of Fish and Game 2000) and CNPS guidelines. The guidelines specify that all plants be identified to the level necessary to determine whether they qualify as special-status plants or plant species with unusual or significant range extensions. Floristic surveys are conducted to ensure that special-status plant species are not inadvertently overlooked merely because they were not expected in the region. The general purpose of the floristic surveys was to locate and map occurrences of special-status plants and to further characterize plant communities.

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 3-2 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09

Table 1. Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in the Montezuma Hills Region, Solano County Page 1 of 6

Status Common Name Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Project Area Insects Delta green ground T/– Restricted to Olcott Lake and other vernal Sparsely vegetated edges of vernal lakes None; no suitable habitat beetle pools at Jepson Prairie Preserve, Solano and pools; occurs up to 250 ft from pools present; species occurs only Elaphrus viridus County at Jepson Prairie Valley elderberry T/– Streamside habitats below 3,000 ft Riparian and oak savanna habitats with Low; potential habitat is longhorn beetle throughout the Central Valley elderberry shrubs; elderberry is the host present (single elderberry Desmocerus californicus plant shrub) but there are no dimorphus nearby records and shrub is likely on the edge of species’ range. Callippe silverspot E/– Occurs at only two locations, near Oakland Annual grassland habitats around the None; no suitable habitat butterfly and on San Bruno Mountain. northern San Francisco Bay. Larvae feed on present. Speyeria callippe callippe their host plant, a Violet (Viola pedunculata). Adults feed on floral nectar. Crustaceans Conservancy fairy shrimp E/– Disjunct occurrences in Solano, Merced, Large, deep vernal pools in annual None; no suitable habitat Branchinecta conservatio Tehama, Ventura, Butte, and Glenn Counties grasslands present. Vernal pool fairy shrimp T/– Central Valley, central and south Coast Common in vernal pools; also found in Low; potential habitat present Branchinecta lynchi Ranges from Tehama to Santa Barbara sandstone rock outcrop pools adjacent to the project area Counties; isolated populations in Riverside County Vernal pool tadpole E/– Shasta to Merced Counties Vernal pools and ephemeral stock ponds Low; potential habitat present shrimp adjacent to the project area Lepidurus packardi Reptiles and Amphibians California tiger T/C Central Valley, including Sierra Nevada Small ponds, lakes, or vernal pools in High; potential habitat salamander foothills to approximately 1,000 ft, and grasslands and oak woodlands for larvae; present in project area Ambystoma californiense coastal region from Butte to northeastern rodent burrows, rock crevices, or fallen logs San Luis Obispo Counties for cover for adults and for summer dormancy Table 1. Continued Page 2 of 6

Status Common Name Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Project Area Western spadefoot –/SSC Sierra Nevada foothills, Central Valley, Shallow streams with riffles and seasonal None; no suitable habitat Spea hammondii Coast Ranges, coastal counties in southern wetlands such as vernal pools in annual present; study area is outside California grasslands and oak woodlands the current range of the species; species is not known to occur in Solano County California red-legged frog T/SSC Along the coast and coastal mountain Permanent and semipermanent aquatic None; project area is outside Rana draytonii ranges of California from Marin to San habitats, such as creeks and cold-water species’ range Diego Counties and in the Sierra Nevada ponds, with emergent and submergent from Tehama to Fresno Counties vegetation; may aestivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry periods Western pond turtle –/SSC From Oregon border of Del Norte and Ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and Low; potential habitat present Actinemys marmorata Siskiyou Counties south along the coast to irrigation canals with muddy or rocky in the project area, although San Francisco Bay, inland through the bottoms and with watercress, cattails, no known records nearby, Sacramento Valley and on western slope of water lilies, or other aquatic vegetation in and species has not been Sierra Nevada woodlands, grasslands, and open forests observed in the Montezuma Hills during multiple years of monitoring. Giant garter snake T/T Central Valley from the vicinity of Burrel in Sloughs, canals, low-gradient streams and None; project area is outside Thamnophis gigas Fresno County north to near Chico in Butte freshwater marsh habitats with prey base species’ range County; has been extirpated from areas of small fish and amphibians; irrigation south of Fresno ditches and rice fields; requires grassy banks and emergent vegetation for basking and areas of high ground protected from flooding during winter Birds American white pelican –/SSC Historically, nested at large lakes Freshwater lakes with islands for breeding; High; observed in project area Pelecanus throughout California; only breeding inhabits river sloughs, freshwater marshes, erythrorohynchos colonies in the state occur at lower Klamath salt ponds, and coastal bays during the rest (nesting colony) National Wildlife Refuge, Siskiyou County, of the year and at Clear Lake, Modoc County; winters along the California coast Table 1. Continued Page 3 of 6

Status Common Name Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Project Area Bank swallow –/T Much of the state, less common in Nests in bluffs or banks, usually adjacent to None; no suitable habitat Riparia riparia mountainous areas of the north coast and in water, where soil consists of sand or sandy present; species not observed coniferous or chaparral habitats loam during last 3 years of monitoring in Montezuma Hills California clapper rail E/E/FP Marshes around San Francisco Bay and east Restricted to salt marshes and tidal None; no suitable habitat Rallus longirostris through Sacramento–San Joaquin River sloughs; usually associated with heavy present; species not observed obsoletus Delta to Suisun Marsh growth of pickleweed; feeds on mollusks in during last 3 years of sloughs monitoring in Montezuma Hills California black rail –/T/FP Permanent resident in San Francisco Bay Tidal salt marshes associated with heavy None; no suitable habitat Laterallus jamaicensis and east through Delta into Sacramento and growth of pickleweed; also brackish present; species not observed coturniculus San Joaquin Counties; small populations in marshes or freshwater marshes at low during last 3 years of Marin, Santa Cruz, San Luis Obispo, Orange, elevations monitoring in Montezuma Riverside, and Imperial Counties Hills Golden eagle –/FP Foothills and mountains throughout Nests on cliffs and escarpments or in tall High; observed in project area Aquila chrysaetos California; uncommon nonbreeding visitor trees overlooking open country; forages in to lowlands (e.g., Central Valley) annual grasslands, chaparral, and oak woodlands with plentiful medium and large-sized mammals Loggerhead shrike –/SSC Resident and winter visitor in lowlands and Prefers open habitats with scattered High; observed in project area Lanius ludovicianus foothills throughout California; rare on shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or coastal slope north of Mendocino County, other perches occurring only in winter Mountain plover PT/SSC Does not breed in California; in winter, Open plains or rolling hills with short None; no suitable habitat Charadrius montanus found in Central Valley south of Yuba grasses or very sparse vegetation; nearby present; species not observed County; along coast in parts of San Luis bodies of water not needed; may use newly during at least 3 years of Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San plowed or sprouting grain fields monitoring in Montezuma Diego Counties; parts of Imperial, Riverside, Hills Kern, and Los Angeles Counties Northern harrier –/SSC Throughout lowland California; has been Grasslands, meadows, marshes, and High; observed in project area Circus cyaneus recorded in fall at high elevations seasonal and agricultural wetlands Table 1. Continued Page 4 of 6

Status Common Name Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Project Area Short-eared owl –/SSC Permanent resident along coast from Del Freshwater and salt marshes, lowland Low; observed only twice at Asio flammeus (nesting) Norte to Monterey Counties although very meadows, and irrigated alfalfa fields; needs High Winds in 2000–2001 rare in summer north of San Francisco Bay, dense tules or tall grass for nesting and in Sierra Nevada north of Nevada County, in daytime roosts plains east of the Cascades, and in Mono County; small, isolated populations Suisun song sparrow –/SSC Restricted to the extreme western edge of Brackish and tidal marshes supporting None; no suitable habitat Melospiza melodia the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta cattails, tules, various sedges, and present; species not observed maxillaris between Vallejo and Pittsburg near Suisun pickleweed during at least 3 years of Bay monitoring in Montezuma Hills Swainson’s hawk –/T Lower Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, Nests in oaks or cottonwoods in or near High; observed in project area Buteo swainsoni Klamath Basin, and Butte Valley; highest riparian habitats; forages in grasslands, nesting densities near Davis and Woodland, irrigated pastures, and grainfields Yolo County Tricolored blackbird –/SSC Permanent resident in Central Valley from Nests in dense colonies in emergent marsh High; observed in project area Agelaius tricolor Butte to Kern Counties; breeds at scattered vegetation, such as tules and cattails, or coastal locations from Marin to San Diego upland sites with blackberries, nettles, Counties and at scattered locations in Lake, thistles, and grainfields; habitat must be Sonoma, and Solano Counties; rare nester large enough to support 50 pairs; probably in Siskiyou, Modoc, and Lassen Counties requires water at or near the nesting colony Yellow-brested chat –/SSC Nests locally in coastal mountains and Nests in dense riparian habitats dominated None; no suitable habitat Icteria virens Sierra Nevada foothills, east of Cascades in by willows, alders, Oregon ash, tall weeds, present; species not observed northern California, along Colorado river, blackberry vines, and grapevines during at least 3 years of and very locally inland in southern monitoring in Montezuma California Hills California yellow warbler –/SSC Nests over all California except Central Nests in riparian areas dominated by None; no suitable habitat Dendroica petechia Valley, Mojave Desert region, and high willows, cottonwoods, sycamores, or alders present; species not observed brewsteri altitudes in Sierra Nevada; winters along or in mature chaparral; may also use oaks, during at least 3 years of Colorado River and in parts of Imperial and conifers, and urban areas near stream monitoring in Montezuma Riverside Counties courses Hills Table 1. Continued Page 5 of 6

Status Common Name Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Project Area Western burrowing owl –/SSC Lowlands throughout California, including Level, open, dry, heavily grazed or low- High; observed in project area Athene cunicularia Central Valley, northeastern plateau, stature grassland or desert vegetation with hypugea southeastern deserts, and coastal areas; available burrows rare along south coast White-tailed kite –/FP Lowland areas west of Sierra Nevada from Low foothills or valley areas with valley or High; observed in project area Elanus leucurus head of Sacramento Valley south, including live oaks, riparian areas, and marshes near coastal valleys and foothills, to western San open grasslands for foraging Diego County at Mexico border Mammals Salt marsh harvest E/E, FP San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays; Salt marsh with a dense plant cover of None; no suitable habitat mouse Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta pickleweed and fat hen; adjacent to an present or nearby Reithrodontomys upland site raviventris Pallid bat –/SSC Throughout California except high Sierra Variety of habitats from desert to Low; may forage over project Antrozous pallidus from Shasta to Kern Counties and coniferous forest; most closely associated area. Not observed during northwest coast, primarily at lower and with oak, yellow pine, redwood, and giant operational surveys. mid-elevations sequoia habitats in northern California and oak woodland, grassland, and desert scrub in southern California; relies heavily on trees for roosts Western red bat –/SSC Occurs throughout California at lower Found primarily in riparian and wooded High; observed during Lasiurus blossevillii elevations habitats. May occur in urban areas. operational surveys. Suisun ornate shrew –/SSC Restricted to San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay, Tidal, salt, and brackish marshes containing None; no suitable habitat is Sorex ornatus sinuosus both in Solano County pickleweed, grindelia, bulrushes, or cattails; present or nearby requires driftwood or other objects for nesting cover Status explanations: Federal E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. PT = proposed for federal listing as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. — = no listing. Table 1. Continued Page 6 of 6

Status Common Name Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Federal/State Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Project Area State E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. T = listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act. C = candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. FP = fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code. SSC = species of special concern in California. — = no listing. Potential Occurrence in the Project Area: High: California Natural Diversity Database (or other documents) records the known occurrence of the species within a 10-mile radius of the project area. Suitable habitat is present within the project area. Moderate: California Natural Diversity Database (or other documents) records the known occurrence of the species within a 10-mile radius of the project area. Poor quality suitable habitat is present within the project area. Low: California Natural Diversity Database (or other documents) does not record the occurrence of the species within a 10-mile radius of the project area. Suitable habitat is present within the project area. None: California Natural Diversity Database (or other documents) does not record the occurrence of the species within a 10-mile radius of the project area. Suitable habitat is not present in the project area.

Table 2. Special-Status Plants Potentially Occurring in the Montezuma Hills Region, Solano County Page 1 of 5

Legal Statusa Common Name Blooming Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Fed/State/CNPS Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Period Project Areab Mt. Diablo manzanita –/–/1B.3 Endemic to Contra Costa County, Chaparral in canyons and on Jan–Mar None; no habitat is present Arctostaphylos auriculata especially Mt. Diablo area, San Francisco slopes on sandstone; 490–1,650 in the project area. Bay Area ft Alkali milk-vetch –/–/1B.2 Alameda, Merced, Napa, Solano, and Alkali playa, valley and foothill Mar–Jun Moderate; alkali grassland Astragalus tener var. tener Yolo Counties grassland, vernal pools; below habitat is present but no 200 ft nearby records. Heartscale –/–/1B.2 Western Central Valley and valleys of Alkali grassland, alkali meadow, May–Oct None; not located in the Atriplex cordulata adjacent foothills alkali scrub; below 660 ft project area during surveys. Brittlescale –/–/1B.2 Sacramento Valley and valleys of Alkali grassland, alkali meadow, May–Oct None; not located in the Atriplex depressa adjacent foothills on west side of San alkali scrub, chenopod scrub, project area during surveys. Joaquin Valley playas, valley and foothill grasslands on alkaline or clay soils; below 660 ft San Joaquin spearscale –/–/1B.2 Western edge of Central Valley from Alkali grassland, alkali scrub, Apr–Sep Moderate; alkali grassland Atriplex joaquiniana Glenn to Tulare Counties alkali meadows, saltbush scrub; habitat is present but no below 1,000 ft nearby records. Big tarplant –/–/1B.1 Interior Coast Range foothills; Alameda, Annual grassland on dry hills Jul–Oct Not located in the project Blepharizonia plumosa Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Stanislaus*, and plains; 50–1,500 ft area during surveys. and Solano* Counties Pappose spikeweed –/–/1B.2 Solano County Meadows and seeps, marshes May–Nov High; known to occur in the Centromadia parryi ssp. and swamps, coastal prairie, project area. parryi grassland; moist, alkaline; below 1,000 ft Pappose spikeweed –/–/4.2 Solano County Meadows and seeps, marshes May–Nov Not located in the project Centromadia parryi ssp. and swamps, coastal prairie, area during surveys. rudis grassland; moist, alkaline; below 1,000 ft Suisun thistle E/–/1B.1 Known only from the Suisun Marsh in Salt marshes and swamps; Jul–Sep None; no habitat is present Cirsium hydrophilum var. Solano County below 3 ft in the project area. hydrophilum Hispid bird’s-beak –/–/1B.1 Central Valley; Alameda, Kern, Merced, Meadow, grassland, playa, on Jun–Sep None; no habitat is present Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Placer, and Solano Counties alkaline soils; below 500 ft in the project area. hispidus Table 2. Continued Page 2 of 5

Legal Statusa Common Name Blooming Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Fed/State/CNPS Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Period Project Areab Soft bird’s-beak E/R/1B.2 San Francisco Bay region; Suisun Marsh; Tidal salt marsh Jul–Sep None; no habitat is present Cordylanthus mollis ssp. Contra Costa, Marin*, Napa, Solano, in the project area. mollis Sacramento*, and Sonoma* Counties Hoover’s cryptantha –/–/1A Northern and central San Joaquin Coarse sandy soil in grassland Apr–May Low; habitat quality is poor Cryptantha hooveri Valley; Alameda, Contra Costa, Madera, and no nearby records Merced, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus Counties Dwarf downingia –/–/2.2 California Central Valley and South Vernal pools and mesic valley Mar–May Low; habitat quality is poor Downingia pusilla America and foothill grasslands, 1,500 ft and no nearby records Round-leaved filaree –/–/1B.1 Sacramento Valley, northern San Open sites, dry grasslands, and Mar–May Low; habitat quality is poor Erodium macrophyllum Joaquin Valley, central western shrublands; below 4,000 ft and no nearby records California, South Coast Ranges, and northern Channel Islands (Santa Cruz Island) Contra Costa wallflower E/E/1B.1 Contra Costa County Inland dunes Mar–Jul None; no habitat is present Erysimum capitatum ssp. in the project area. angustatum Diamond-petaled –/–/1B.1 Interior foothills of South Coast Ranges Grassland, chenopod scrub, on Mar–Apr Low; habitat quality is poor California poppy from Contra Costa to Stanislaus clay soils, where grass cover is and no nearby records Eschscholzia Counties; Carrizo Plain in San Luis sparse enough to allow growth rhombipetala Obispo County of low annuals Fragrant fritillary –/–/1B.2 Coast Ranges from Marin to San Benito Adobe soils of interior foothills, Feb–Apr Low; habitat quality is poor Fritillaria liliacea Counties coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and no nearby records annual grassland, often on serpentinite; below 1,350 ft Brewer’s western flax –/–/1B.2 Southern inner North Coast Ranges, Serpentine slopes in chaparral May–Jul None; no habitat is present Hesperolinon breweri northeast San Francisco Bay region, and grasslands; 100–2,300 ft in the project area. especially Mt. Diablo. Known only from Contra Costa, Napa, and Solano Counties Carquinez goldenbush –/–/1B.1 Deltaic Sacramento Valley, Suisun Annual grassland on alkaline Aug–Dec High; known to occur in the Isocoma arguta Slough, Contra Costa and Solano soils and flats; generally below project area. Counties 70 ft Table 2. Continued Page 3 of 5

Legal Statusa Common Name Blooming Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Fed/State/CNPS Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Period Project Areab Contra Costa goldfields E/–/1B.1 Scattered occurrences in Coast Range Alkaline or saline vernal pools Mar–Jun None; no habitat is present Lasthenia conjugens valleys and southwest edge of and swales; below 700 ft in the project area. Sacramento Valley; Alameda, Contra Costa, Mendocino, Napa, Santa Barbara*, Santa Clara*, and Solano Counties; historically distributed through the north coast, southern Sacramento Valley, San Francisco Bay region, and south coast Delta tule pea –/–/1B.2 San Francisco Bay region; Alameda, Coastal and estuarine marshes; May–Sep None; no habitat is present Lathyrus jepsonii var. Contra Costa, Fresno, Marin, Napa, below 1,000 ft in the project area. jepsonii Sacramento, San Benito, Santa Clara*, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties Legenere –/–/1B.1 Primarily lower Sacramento Valley; also Deep, seasonally wet habitats May–Jun Low; habitat quality is poor Legenere limosa North Coast Ranges, northern San such as vernal pools, ditches, and no nearby records Joaquin Valley, and Santa Cruz marsh edges, and riverbanks; mountains. below 500 ft Heckard’s pepper-grass –/–/1B.2 Southern Sacramento Valley; Glenn, Annual grassland on margins of Apr–May Low; habitat quality is poor Lepidium latipes var. Solano, and Yolo Counties alkali scalds; below 660 ft and no nearby records heckardii Woolly-headed lessingia –/–/3.1 Southern North Coast Ranges; southern Clay or serpentinite soils of Jun–Oct Not located in the project Lessingia hololeuca Sacramento Valley; northern San coastal scrub, lower montane area during surveys. Francisco Bay region; Alameda, coniferous forest, valley and Monterey, Marin, Napa, Santa Clara, San foothill grassland; below 1,000 Mateo, Solano, Sonoma, and Yolo ft Counties Mason’s lilaeopsis –/R/1B.1 Southern Sacramento Valley; Freshwater and intertidal Apr–Nov None; no habitat is present Lilaeopsis masonii Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta; marshes, streambanks in in the project area. northeast San Francisco Bay area; riparian scrub; generally at sea Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin*, Napa, level Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties Table 2. Continued Page 4 of 5

Legal Statusa Common Name Blooming Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Fed/State/CNPS Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Period Project Areab Showy madia –/–/1B.1 Scattered populations in interior Oak woodland, grassland, Mar–May Low; habitat quality is poor Madia radiata foothills of South Coast Ranges; Contra slopes; below 3,000 ft and no nearby records Costa, Fresno, Kings, Kern, Monterey, Santa Barbara, San Benito, San Joaquin, and San Luis Obispo Counties Robust monardella –/–/1B.2 North Coast Ranges and eastern San Oak woodland and grassy Jun–Jul None; no habitat is present Monardella villosa ssp. Francisco Bay Area; Alameda, Contra openings in chaparral in the project area. globosa Costa, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, and Sonoma Counties Little mousetail –/–/3.1 Central Valley, San Francisco Bay Alkaline vernal pools and Mar–Jun Low; habitat quality is poor Myosurus minimus ssp. region, outer South Coast Ranges, south marshes; below 5,000 ft and no nearby records apus coast. Alameda, Butte, Contra Costa, Colusa, Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Solano, and Stanislaus Counties Baker’s navarretia –/–/1B.1 Inner North Coast Ranges, western Vernal pools and swales in May–Jul Low; habitat quality is poor Navarretia leucocephala Sacramento Valley; Colusa, Lake, woodland, lower montane and no nearby records ssp. bakeri Mendocino, Marin, Napa, Solano, coniferous forest, mesic Sonoma, and Tehama Counties meadows, and grassland; generally below 5,600 ft Colusa grass T/–/1B.1 Central Valley: Colusa, Glenn, Merced, Adobe soils of vernal pools, May-Sep None; no habitat is present Neostapfia colusana Solano, Stanislaus, and Yolo Counties generally below 650' in the project area. Antioch Dunes evening- E/E/1B.1 Northeast San Francisco Bay region, Inland dunes; generally below Mar–Sep None; no habitat is present primrose known from three native occurrences; 330 ft in the project area. Oenothera deltoides ssp. Contra Costa and Sacramento Counties howellii Gairdner’s yampah –/–/4.2 Kern, Los Angeles*, Mendocino, Broadleaved upland forest, Jun–Oct Known to occur in the Perideridia gairdneri ssp. Monterey, Marin, Napa, Orange*, San chaparral, coastal prairie, valley Montezuma Hills but not gairdneri Benito, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San and foothill grassland, vernal located in the project area Diego*, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo*, pools, in mesic areas during surveys. Solano, and Sonoma Counties Bearded popcornflower –/–/1B.1 Endemic to Solano* County, previously Mesic grassland, vernal pools Apr–May High; known to occur in the Plagiobothrys hystriculus presumed extinct project area. Table 2. Continued Page 5 of 5

Legal Statusa Common Name Blooming Potential Occurrence in the Scientific Name Fed/State/CNPS Geographic Distribution Habitat Requirements Period Project Areab Blue skullcap –/–/2.2 Northern San Joaquin Valley; east of the Mesic meadows, marshes and Jul–Sep Low; habitat quality is poor Scutellaria lateriflora Sierra Nevada; Inyo and San Joaquin swamps; generally below 1,640 and no nearby records Counties; New Mexico, Oregon ft Suisun Marsh aster –/–/1B.2 Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta; Suisun Brackish and freshwater marsh; Aug–Nov None; no habitat is present Symphyotrichum lentum Marsh; Suisun Bay; Contra Costa, Napa, below 500 ft in the project area. Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Solano Counties Solano grass E/–/1B.1 Southwestern Sacramento valley: Vernal pools, mesic grassland, Apr-Jul None; no habitat is present Tuctoria mucronata Solano and Yolo Counties below 500' in the project area. a Status explanations: Federal E = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. – = no listing. State R = Listed as Rare under the Native Plant Protection Act E = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act – = no listing. California Native Plant Society 1A = List 1A species: presumed extinct in California. 1B = List 1B species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2 = List 2 species: rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. 3 = List 3 species: plants about which more information is needed to determine their status. 4 = List 4 species: plants of limited distribution. – = no listing. * = known populations believed extirpated from county b Definitions of Levels of Potential Occurrence (prior to field surveys): High: California Natural Diversity Database (or other documents) records known occurrence of plant in the project vicinity; or presence of suitable habitat conditions and suitable microhabitat conditions. Moderate: California Natural Diversity Database (or other documents) records known occurrence of plant in the project vicinity; or presence of suitable habitat conditions but suitable microhabitat conditions are not present. Low: California Natural Diversity Database (or other documents) records no known occurrence of plant in the project vicinity; or habitat conditions of poor quality. None: California Natural Diversity Database (or other documents) records no known occurrence of plant in the project vicinity; or suitable habitat not present in any condition.

enXco Methods

Surveys for spring-blooming special-status plants have been conducted in a portion of the project area that overlaps with the recently constructed Shiloh II project. ICF Jones & Stokes is under contract with enXco to conduct surveys in the Shiloh III area for spring blooming special-status plants during the appropriate time in 2010 (anticipated to be April or early May, depending on the timing and abundance of rainfall events). The results of these surveys will be provided to enXco and Solano County in a separate technical memorandum once the surveys are complete. A summary of the spring-blooming species known to occur and a habitat assessment for the remaining spring- blooming special-status plants are included in Table 2. Waters of the United States ICF Jones & Stokes botanists and wetland ecologists conducted field surveys between April and August 2009 to identify and map potential waters of the United States in the project area. A formal wetland delineation using the methods outlined in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Arid West Supplement to the Manual (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008) was not conducted in the project area as part of this study because there are no plans to place place fill in any of these features. Potential waters of the United States were identified and mapped on the basis of the presence of observable indicators such as wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology, a defined channel, or a defined bed and bank. An effort was made to be as conservative as possible when assessing whether a particular area would be considered a water of the United States and when mapping its boundaries.

Potential waters of the United States were mapped in the field on aerial photographs at a scale of 1 inch = 400 feet and then digitized into a GIS format.

Biological Resources Report and Evaluation for the November 2009 3-3 Proposed Shiloh III Project, Solano County, California ICF J&S 00051.09