DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Alta East Wind Project Eagle Conservation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Alta East Wind Project Eagle Conservation Plan Attachment 1 Final Environmental Assessment Alta East Wind Project Eagle Conservation Plan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Environmental Assessment Alta East Wind Project Eagle Conservation Plan California Docket Number FWS-R8-MB-2015-N183 FF08M00000-FXMB12310800000-145 Prepared by: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Region Migratory Birds and Habitats 2800 Cottage Way, W-2650 Sacramento, CA 95825 Contact: Heather Beeler, Eagle Permit Coordinator 916-414-6651 September 2016 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Contents Section Page Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. vii 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4 Regulatory Setting, Authorities, and Guidance ..................................................................... 1-6 1.4.1 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...................................................................... 1-6 1.4.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ......................................................................................... 1-7 1.4.3 Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds ......................................................................................................... 1-7 1.4.4 National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................... 1-7 1.4.5 Coordination with Tribal Governments .................................................................... 1-8 1.5 Scope of Analysis ................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.5.1 Geographic Extent .................................................................................................... 1-8 1.5.2 Permit Issuance Criteria .......................................................................................... 1-11 1.6 Previous Environmental Analysis ......................................................................................... 1-11 1.7 Scoping and Public Participation.......................................................................................... 1-11 1.7.1 Internal Scoping ...................................................................................................... 1-11 1.7.2 Public Participation ................................................................................................. 1-12 1.8 Tribal Trust Coordination ..................................................................................................... 1-12 1.8.1 Service Tribal Coordination ..................................................................................... 1-12 1.8.2 BLM Tribal Coordination ......................................................................................... 1-12 1.9 Service ESA Consultation ..................................................................................................... 1-13 2 Alternatives .............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Alternatives Analyzed in this FEA........................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action – Operation of the Project Without an Eagle Take Permit ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Alternative 2: Issue Permit for Applicant’s ECP ........................................................ 2-1 2.2.3 Alternative 3: Issue Permit for Applicant’s ECP with Additional Monitoring and Mitigation.................................................................................................................. 2-3 2.2.4 Alternative 4: Issue Permit for ECP with Curtailment of Four Ridgeline Turbines when Eagles Are Observed ........................................................................ 2-3 2.2.5 Alternative 5: Issue Permit for ECP with Radar Deployment, Curtailment when Eagles Are Detected ........................................................................................ 2-3 2.3 Key Elements of Alternatives ................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.1 Project Macro-siting ................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.2 Micro-siting of Project Features ............................................................................... 2-4 2.3.3 Minimizing Impacts ................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.4 Predicted Take .......................................................................................................... 2-5 2.3.5 Compensatory Mitigation ......................................................................................... 2-6 2.3.6 Post-Construction Monitoring .................................................................................. 2-9 2.3.7 Adaptive Management ........................................................................................... 2-10 2.4 Summary of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 2-10 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................. 2-10 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT III CONTENTS ALTA EAST WIND PROJECT 3 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Setting Discussions ................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2.2 Climate Change ......................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3 Biological Environment........................................................................................................... 3-4 3.3.1 Bald Eagle .................................................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.2 Golden Eagle .............................................................................................................. 3-4 3.3.3 Eagle Mortality Associated with Human Activity ...................................................... 3-6 4 Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 4.2 Impacts Analysis for Take of Golden Eagles ........................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Approach and Methods ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.3 Effects Common to Alternatives ............................................................................................ 4-1 4.3.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.3.2 Mortality and Demographics ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.3.3 Local Effects ............................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3.4 Cultural Effects .......................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.5 Other Priority Uses .................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3.6 Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................................... 4-3 4.4 Assessment of Alternatives .................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.1 Alternative 1: No Action – Operation of the Project Without an Eagle Take Permit ............................................................................................................... 4-8 4.4.2 Alternative 2: Issue Permit for Applicant’s ECP ....................................................... 4-11 4.4.3 Alternative 3: Issue Permit Based on Applicant’s ECP with Additional Monitoring and Mitigation ...................................................................................... 4-11 4.4.4 Alternative 4: Issue Permit Based on ECP with Curtailment of Four Ridgeline Turbines when Eagles are Observed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • WASHINGTON – the Energy Department Released Two New
    Wind Scalability and Performance in the real World: A performance analysis of recently deployed US Wind Farms G. Bothun and B. Bekker, Dept. of Physics, University of Oregon. Abstract We are engaged in researching the real world performance, costs, and supply chain issues regarding the construction of wind turbines in the United States for the purpose of quantitatively determining various aspects of scalability in the wind industry as they relate to the continued build out of wind energy in the US. Our analysis sample consists of ~600 individual wind farms that have come into operation as of January 2011. Individual unit turbine capacity in these farms ranges from 1-5 to 3 MW, although the bulk of the installations are ≤ 2.0 MW. Starting in late 2012, however, and continuing with current projects, turbines of size 2.5 – 3.0 MW are being installed. As of July 1, 2014 the Horse Hollow development in Texas has the largest individual wind farm nameplate capacity of 736 MW and 10 other locations have aggregate capacity that exceeds 500 MW. Hence, large scale wind farm operations are now here. Based on our analysis our overall findings are the following: 1) at the end of 2014, cumulative wind nameplate capacity in the US will be at ~ 70 GW or ~ 5% of total US electrical infrastructure 2) over the period of 2006—2012, cumulative wind capacity growth was sustained at a rate of 23.7% per annum, 3) production in 2013 was dramatically lower than in 2012 and was just starting to pick up in 2014 due to lingering uncertainty about the future of the
    [Show full text]
  • Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2014 and 2015 Q1 EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File Q1'2015 Q1'2014 State MW CF CF Arizona 227 15.8% 21.0% California 5,182 13.2% 19.8% Colorado 2,299 36.4% 40.9% Hawaii 171 21.0% 18.3% Iowa 4,977 40.8% 44.4% Idaho 532 28.3% 42.0% Illinois 3,524 38.0% 42.3% Indiana 1,537 32.6% 29.8% Kansas 2,898 41.0% 46.5% Massachusetts 29 41.7% 52.4% Maryland 120 38.6% 37.6% Maine 401 40.1% 36.3% Michigan 1,374 37.9% 36.7% Minnesota 2,440 42.4% 45.5% Missouri 454 29.3% 35.5% Montana 605 46.4% 43.5% North Dakota 1,767 42.8% 49.8% Nebraska 518 49.4% 53.2% New Hampshire 147 36.7% 34.6% New Mexico 773 23.1% 40.8% Nevada 152 22.1% 22.0% New York 1,712 33.5% 32.8% Ohio 403 37.6% 41.7% Oklahoma 3,158 36.2% 45.1% Oregon 3,044 15.3% 23.7% Pennsylvania 1,278 39.2% 40.0% South Dakota 779 47.4% 50.4% Tennessee 29 22.2% 26.4% Texas 12,308 27.5% 37.7% Utah 306 16.5% 24.2% Vermont 109 39.1% 33.1% Washington 2,724 20.6% 29.5% Wisconsin 608 33.4% 38.7% West Virginia 583 37.8% 38.0% Wyoming 1,340 39.3% 52.2% Total 58,507 31.6% 37.7% SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mojave Desert Wind Farm - Wind Farm 'Mega-Project' Underway in Mojave Desert - Los Angeles Times
    Mojave Desert Wind Farm - Wind farm 'mega-project' underway in Mojave Desert - Los Angeles Times ← Back to Original Article Wind farm 'mega-project' underway in Mojave Desert The Alta Wind Energy Center — with plans for thousands of acres of turbines to generate electricity for 600,000 Southern California homes — officially breaks ground Tuesday. July 27, 2010 | By Tiffany Hsu, Los Angeles Times It's being called the largest wind power project in the country, with plans for thousands of acres of towering turbines in the Mojave Desert foothills generating electricity for 600,000 homes in Southern California. And now it's finally kicking into gear. The multibillion-dollar Alta Wind Energy Center has had a tortured history, stretching across nearly a decade of ownership changes, opposition from local residents and transmission infrastructure delays. But on Tuesday, the project is officially breaking ground in the Tehachapi Pass, a burgeoning hot spot for wind energy about 75 miles north of Los Angeles. When completed, Alta could produce three times as much energy as the country's largest existing wind farm, analysts said. It's slated to be done in the next decade. The project will probably be a wind power bellwether, affecting the way renewable energy deals are financed, the development of new electricity storage systems and how governments regulate the industry, said Billy Gamboa, a renewable energy analyst with the California Center for Sustainable Energy. "It's a super-mega-project — it'll definitely set a precedent for the rest of the state and have a pretty large impact on the wind industry in general," he said.
    [Show full text]
  • Barren Ridge FEIS-Volume IV Paleo Tech Rpt Final March
    March 2011 BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PROJECT NUMBER: 115244 PROJECT CONTACT: MIKE STRAND EMAIL: [email protected] PHONE: 714-507-2710 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT Paleontological Resources Assessment Report PREPARED FOR: LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER 111 NORTH HOPE STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PREPARED BY: POWER ENGINEERS, INC. 731 EAST BALL ROAD, SUITE 100 ANAHEIM, CA 92805 DEPARTMENT OF PALEOSERVICES SAN DIEGO NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM PO BOX 121390 SAN DIEGO, CA 92112 ANA 032-030 (PER-02) LADWP (MARCH 2011) SB 115244 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 STUDY PERSONNEL ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2 1.2.1 Construction of New 230 kV Double-Circuit Transmission Line ........................................ 4 1.2.2 Addition of New 230 kV Circuit ......................................................................................... 14 1.2.3 Reconductoring of Existing Transmission Line .................................................................. 14 1.2.4 Construction of New Switching Station .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • EIA) 2011 December EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File
    SPREADSHEET PREPARED BY WINDACTION.ORG Based on U.S. Department of Energy - Energy Information Administration (EIA) 2011 December EIA-923 Monthly Time Series File NET State MWh in State MW in Plant ID Plant Name Operator Name MW Installed State Year GENERATION CF* Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec CF* CF* (mWh) 6304 Kotzebue Kotzebue Electric Assn Inc 3.0 AK 2011 1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57187 Pillar Mountain Wind Project Kodiak Electric Assn Inc 4.5 AK 2011 12,445 31.6% 418 59 1,564 438 936 1,090 1,300 1,429 753 1,154 1,682 1,621 7.5 12,445 12,445 4.5 31.6% 57098 Dry Lake Wind LLC Iberdrola Renewables Inc 63.0 AZ 2011 124,401 22.5% 4,340 13,601 15,149 18,430 17,297 16,785 7,124 5,735 4,036 6,320 11,154 4,430 57379 Dry Lake Wind II LLC Iberdrola Renewables Inc 65.1 AZ 2011 124,330 21.8% 4,340 13,789 16,021 19,219 16,686 16,398 6,345 5,569 3,743 6,281 11,579 4,360 57775 Kingman 1 Kingman Energy Corp 10.0 AZ 2011 6,848 7.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,026 1,663 2,999 1,160 138.1 255,579 248,731 128.1 22.2% 7526 Solano Wind Sacramento Municipal Util Dist 63.0 CA 2011 221,067 40.1% 6,705 12,275 17,464 27,415 29,296 29,128 24,813 25,928 14,915 11,870 12,233 9,025 10005 Dinosaur Point International Turbine Res Inc 17.4 CA 2011 23,562 15.5% 715 1,308 1,861 2,922 3,123 3,105 2,645 2,763 1,590 1,265 1,304 962 10027 EUIPH Wind Farm EUI Management PH Inc 25.0 CA 2011 46,718 21.3% 1,417 2,594 3,691 5,794 6,191 6,156 5,244 5,479 3,152 2,509 2,585 1,907 10191 Tehachapi Wind Resource I CalWind Resources Inc 8.7 CA 2011 15,402 20.2% 467 855
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet
    NPSForm10-900-a OMB Approval No. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet Section number Page SUPPLEMENTARY LISTING RECORD NRIS Reference Number: 99001263 Date Listed: 10/20/99 Tehachapi Railroad Depot Kern CA Property Name County State N/A Multiple Name This property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the attached nomination documentation subject to the following exceptions, exclusions, or amendments, notwithstanding the National Park Service certification included in the nomination documentation. / Signature^of Me Keeper Date of Action Amended Items in Nomination: Significance: The nomination incorrectly refers to the nearby Tehachapi "Loop" as a National Historic Landmark [8.1]. This information was confirmed with the California SHPO. DISTRIBUTION: National Register property file Nominating Authority (without nomination attachment) NFS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. 10-90) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM L. This form is for use in nominating or requesting c^ete: individual properties and districts. See instructions in the National Register of Historic Places Registral Register Bulletin 16A) . Complete each item by marking Tl x""™ii appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tehachapi News Presents
    The Tehachapi News presents IST OUR H ORY A Fourth of July parade, circa 1890, is seen here proceeding north along Curry Street. The building with the peaked roof is seen on the present-day location of the Talmarc Building. COURTESY TEHACHAPI HERITAGE LEAGUE A collection of historic photos, stories and personal memories of how Tehachapi became the community it is today. EarlyEarly settlers,settlers, PagesPages 2-32-3 City’sCity’s pathpath toto successsuccess followedfollowed ImpactImpact ofof thethe thethe railroad,railroad, 19521952 earthquake,earthquake, PagesPages 6-76-7 COURTESY OF THE TEHACHAPI HERITAGE LEAGUE PagesPages 8-98-9 John Brite erected the area’s first sawmill COURTESY OF KELCY’S CAFE ALEX HORVATH / THE CALIFORNIAN in 1860 in a canyon just south of his ranch The 1952 earthquake devastated Tehachapi’s commercial house (from the book “Images of America A BNSF freight train starts a slow trek around the Tehachapi district. TEHACHAPI,” by Gloria Hine Gossard). Loop, Oct. 23, 2018. A look at our history TEHACHAPI NEWS Today, Tehachapi News quake, our old cemeter- We’re often looking at takes a step back in time ies, the people who have what’s next — When do with this special history lived here for decades we have to drop the kids section. and more. off at school or shuttle We tapped local his- There’s something here them to their next ath- torians and our staff to to surprise and delight letic event? What’s for present key dates in local even those who are well- dinner? What preparation history. We’re taking a versed in local history.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Fe in Grapevine Canyon? an 1890 Plan to Enter Northern California Via Fort Tejon by Jack W.Kelly
    Santa Fe in Grapevine Canyon? An 1890 Plan to Enter Northern California via Fort Tejon By Jack W.Kelly he many stories about Santa Fe's on February 26, 1895. Construction south ation and by June, 1898 the 80.40 miles to efforts to achieve access to the Pa­ from Stockton commenced later that year Bakersfield had accomplished the creation T cific Ocean and Southern Pacific's and over 25 miles of track were in place of a competing railroad through the valley. strident efforts to deny Santa Fe that ac­ by December. By August 1896 the 123.44 The investors and shippers who owned cess have been told with so many different miles to Fresno were completed; by June, the SF&SJV Railway were not, and did not interpretations that, depending upon ones 1897 30.20 miles to Hanford were in oper- wish to be, railroad operators. Their rail- bias or loyalties, one may reach conflicting conclusions. However, there seems to be little disagreement about Southern Pacific's stranglehold on the San Joaquin Valley and the efforts of its captive customers to relieve themselves from "The Octopus," which held them captive. The recent (197 4) and perhaps most complete analysis of the Santa Fe is History ofthe Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company by Keith L. Bryant, Jr. Mr. Bry­ ant, a history professor, was given access to the files and corporate records of the Santa Fe. Beginning on page 173 he describes the frustrations of these captive customers and their decision to form The San Fran­ cisco Traffic Association in about 1891.
    [Show full text]
  • Operational Impacts to Raptors (PDF)
    To: John Ford, Director From: Bob Roy County of Humboldt Planning and Building Stantec Consulting Department 30 Park Drive 3015 H Street Topsham, ME 04222 Eureka, California 95501 [email protected] Date: August 23, 2019 Reference: Operational Impacts to Raptors Humboldt Wind has commissioned Western EcoSystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to review the draft EIR for the Humboldt Wind Project and provide a re-evaluation of the DEIR’s analysis of potential impacts to raptors. WEST is a firm that is expert in conducting ecological studies and analyzing complicated natural resource data. The attached memo provides WEST’s recommended analysis of the likely impacts of the project on raptors. As noted in WEST’s memo, the DEIR appears to overestimate what the likely impacts of the project will be on local and regional raptor populations. The DEIR reviews several data sets but does not set an explicit expectation of what the project’s likely impact will be. Rather, it reviews a range of potential impacts using different datasets and metrics, and then concludes that impacts will be significant and unavoidable after mitigation. However, WEST’s analysis provides compelling evidence that the DEIR’s analysis is flawed and that actual impacts at the project are likely to be significantly less than that stated in the DEIR and would not lead to local or regional populations of raptor species to fall below self-sustaining levels. Key to this analysis, or the difference between the two analyses, is that raptor impacts at the Humboldt project would not be similar to those documented at projects in central and southern California (where raptor use is far greater than at the project) and the fact that raptor use at the project site is very similar to that documented at Hatchet Ridge, where raptor fatalities have been found to be very low after three years of post-construction monitoring.
    [Show full text]
  • The California Deserts: an Ecological Rediscovery
    3Pavlik-Ch1 10/9/07 6:43 PM Page 15 Rediscovery Copyrighted Material 3Pavlik-Ch1 10/9/07 6:43 PM Page 16 Copyrighted Material 3Pavlik-Ch1 10/9/07 6:43 PM Page 17 Indians first observed the organisms, processes, and history of California deserts. Over millennia, native people obtained knowledge both practical and esoteric, necessitated by survival in a land of extremes and accumulated by active minds recording how nature worked. Such knowledge became tradition when passed across generations, allowing cul- tural adjustments to the changing environment. The depth and breadth of their under- standing can only be glimpsed or imagined, but should never be minimized. Indians lived within deserts, were born, fed, and raised on them, su¤ered the extremes and uncertainties, and passed into the ancient, stony soils. Theirs was a discovery so intimate and spiritual, so singular, that we can only commemorate it with our own 10,000-year-long rediscov- ery of this place and all of its remarkable inhabitants. Our rediscovery has only begun. Our rediscovery is not based upon living in the deserts, despite a current human pop- ulation of over one million who dwelling east of the Sierra. We do not exist within the ecological context of the land. We are not dependant upon food webs of native plants and [Plate 13] Aha Macav, the Mojave people, depicted in 1853. (H. B. Molhausen) REDISCOVERY • 17 Copyrighted Material 3Pavlik-Ch1 10/9/07 6:43 PM Page 18 Gárces 1776 Kawaiisu Tribal groups Mono Mono Tribe Lake Aviwatha Indian place name Paiute Inyo Owens Valley
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 124/Friday, June 26, 2020
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 124 / Friday, June 26, 2020 / Proposed Rules 38345 Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY among other things, prohibit consumer regulatory action. deception and the use of misleading Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade statements on labels and ensure that List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 Bureau labels provide the consumer with Airspace, Incorporation by reference, adequate information as to the identity 27 CFR Part 9 Navigation (air). and quality of the product. The Alcohol [Docket No. TTB–2020–0006; Notice No. and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau The Proposed Amendment 191] (TTB) administers the FAA Act pursuant to section 1111(d) of the In consideration of the foregoing, the RIN 1513–AC69 Homeland Security Act of 2002, Federal Aviation Administration codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as Proposed Establishment of the Tehachapi Mountains Viticultural Area Secretary has delegated the functions follows: and duties in the administration and AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and enforcement of these provisions to the PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, Trade Bureau, Treasury. TTB Administrator through Treasury B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Order 120–01, dated December 10, 2013 TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND (superseding Treasury Order 120–01, REPORTING POINTS SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax dated January 24, 2003). and Trade Bureau (TTB) proposes to Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR ■ 1. The authority citation for part 71 establish the approximately 58,000-acre part 4) authorizes TTB to establish continues to read as follows: ‘‘Tehachapi Mountains’’ viticultural definitive viticultural areas and regulate Authority: 49 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Construction Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring at the Alta X Wind Energy Project Kern County, California
    Post-Construction Avian and Bat Mortality Monitoring at the Alta X Wind Energy Project Kern County, California Final Report for the Second Year of Operation April 2015 – April 2016 Prepared for Alta Wind X, LLC 14633 Willow Springs Road Mojave, California 93501 Prepared by: Joel Thompson, Carmen Boyd, and John Lombardi Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. 415 West 17th Street, Suite 200 Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001 July 22, 2016 Alta X Year 2 Final Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alta Wind X, LLC (Alta Wind X) has constructed a wind energy facility in Kern County, California, referred to as the Alta X Wind Energy Project (“Alta X” or “Project”). Consistent with the Alta East Wind Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), Alta Wind X is committed to conducting avian and bat mortality monitoring at the Project during the first, second, and third years of operation. Following construction in the spring of 2014, Alta Wind X contracted Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) to develop and implement a study protocol for post- construction monitoring at the Project for the purpose of estimating the impacts of the wind energy facility on birds and bats. The following report describes the methods and results of mortality monitoring conducted during the second year of operation of the Project, April 2015 to April 2016. As stated in the DEIR, the goal of the mortality monitoring study is determine the level of incidental injury and mortality to populations of avian or bat species in the vicinity of the Project. To this end, WEST designed and implemented a 3-year study to determine the level of bird and bat mortality attributable to collisions with wind turbines at the facility on an annual basis.
    [Show full text]