sand hill wind repowering project environmental … · sand hill wind repowering project...

SAND HILL WIND REPOWERING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

P R E P A R E D B Y :

AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency224W.WintonAvenue,Room111Hayward,CA94544Contact:AndrewYoung510.670.5400

W I T H T E C H N I C A L A S S I S T A N C E F R O M :

ICF630KStreet,Suite400Sacramento,CA95814Contact:BradSchafer916.737.3000

September2018

AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentDepartment.2018.SandHillWindRepoweringProjectEnvironmentalAnalysis.September.(ICF00631.17.)Hayward,CA.WithtechnicalassistancefromICF,Sacramento,CA.

Sand Hill Wind Repowering Project Environmental Analysis

i September 2018

ICF 00631.17

Contents

List of Tables and Figures ...................................................................................................................... iii

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... iv

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1‐1

1.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1‐1

1.2 Relationship to the PEIR ................................................................................................... 1‐1

1.3 Changes Relevant to the PEIR Analysis ............................................................................ 1‐2

1.4 Organization of this Document ........................................................................................ 1‐6

1.5 References Cited .............................................................................................................. 1‐6

Chapter 2 Project Description ................................................................................................... 2‐1

2.1 Project Location and Land Ownership ............................................................................. 2‐1

2.2 Project Need, Goals, and Objectives ................................................................................ 2‐2

2.3 Existing Facilities .............................................................................................................. 2‐2

2.4 Proposed Project Features ............................................................................................... 2‐3

2.5 Project Construction ...................................................................................................... 2‐10

2.6 Operation and Maintenance Activities .......................................................................... 2‐17

2.7 Post‐Project Decommissioning ...................................................................................... 2‐18

Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................ 3‐1

3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ................................................................................... 3.1‐1

3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ............................................................................. 3.2‐1

3.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 3.3‐1

3.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 3.4‐1

3.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 3.5‐1

3.6 Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources ............................. 3.6‐1

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 3.7‐1

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................ 3.8‐1

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ....................................................................................... 3.9‐1

3.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................ 3.10‐1

3.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................... 3.11‐1

3.12 Population and Housing .............................................................................................. 3.12‐1

3.13 Public Services ............................................................................................................. 3.13‐1

3.14 Recreation ................................................................................................................... 3.14‐1

3.15 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................ 3.15‐1

3.16 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................... 3.16‐1

Chapter 4 List of Preparers ....................................................................................................... 4‐1


ii September 2018

ICF 00631.17

Appendix A Air Quality Technical Memorandum

Appendix B Biological Resources Evaluation Report

Appendix C Cultural Resources Survey Report

Appendix D Sound Technical Report


iii September 2018

ICF 00631.17

Tables and Figures

Table

1‐1 Turbine Specifications Contemplated in the PEIR and for Use with the Proposed Project .......... 1‐3

1‐2 Operational, Approved, or Foreseeable Projects in the APWRA .................................................. 1‐5

2‐1 Parcels and Proposed Uses ........................................................................................................... 2‐1

2‐2 Turbine Specifications ................................................................................................................... 2‐4

2‐3 Updated Alameda County Turbine Setback Requirements .......................................................... 2‐4

2‐4 Estimated Disturbance Associated with Project Construction (acres) ....................................... 2‐11

3.4‐1 Approximate Acreage of Land Cover Types ............................................................................... 3.4‐1

Figures appear at the end of the chapter or section in which they are referenced

1‐1 Project Location

2‐1 Parcel Boundaries

2‐2a Sand Hill Wind Repowering Project—Layout 1

2‐2b Sand Hill Wind Repowering Project—Layout 2

2‐2c Sand Hill Wind Repowering Project—Layout 3

3.1‐1 Visual Simulation Viewpoint Locations

3.1‐2 Viewpoint 1—Looking Southwest from California Aqueduct Bikeway at Bethany Reservoir

3.1‐3 Viewpoint 2—Looking East along Christensen Road near Bethany Reservoir Entrance Road

3.1‐4 Viewpoint 3—Looking South along Bruns Road from 0.15 mile South of Kelso Road

3.1‐5 Viewpoint 4—Looking Southwest along Mountain House Road from 1.4 miles South of Kelso

Road

3.1‐6 Viewpoint 5—Looking North by Northwest along Mountain House Road from North of West

Grant Line Road Intersection

3.1‐7 Viewpoint 6—Looking West by Northwest from California Aqueduct Bikeway at Grant Line

Road Crossing

3.1‐8 Viewpoint 7—Looking West by Northwest from Westbound I‐580 at the West Grant Line Road

Onramp

3.1‐9 Viewpoint 8—Looking Northeast from Altamont Pass Road at Unnamed Access Road


iv September 2018

ICF 00631.17

Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE areaofpotentialeffectsAPLIC AvianPowerLineInteractionCommitteeAPWRA AltamontPassWindResourceAreaBMPs bestmanagementpracticesCDFW CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlifeCEQA CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityActCNDDB CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabaseCounty AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgencyCRHR CaliforniaRegisterofHistoricResourcesCUP conditionalusepermitCUPA CertifiedUnifiedProgramAgencydBA A‐weighteddecibelEACCS EastAlamedaCountyConservationStrategyECAP EastCountyAreaPlanEIR environmentalimpactreportFAA FederalAviationAdministrationgen‐tie generation‐tieGHG greenhousegasH&S HealthandSafetyHDD horizontaldirectionaldrillingHMBP HazardousMaterialsBusinessPlanI‐ InterstatekV kilovoltMW megawattNAHC NativeAmericanHeritageCommissionNRHP NationalRegisterofHistoricPlacesO&M Operations&MaintenancePG&E PacificGasandElectricCompanyPRD PermitRegistrationDocumentProjectorproposedProject SandHillWindRepoweringProjectQA/QC qualityassurance/qualitycontrolRPS RenewablesPortfolioStandardSandHill SandHillWind,LLCSF6 sulfurhexafluorideSMARTS StormwaterMultipleApplicationandReportTrackingSystemSPCC SpillPreventionControlandCountermeasuresSWPPP stormwaterpollutionpreventionplan

Sand Hill Wind Repowering Project Analysis

Draft

1‐1 September 2018

ICF 00631.17

Chapter 1 Introduction

InNovember2014,theAlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency(County)certifiedtheAltamontPassWindResourceAreaRepoweringFinalProgramEnvironmentalImpactReport(PEIR).ThePEIRincludesadetailedaccountofthehistoryandlegalactivitiesculminatinginpreparationofthePEIR,andprovidesaframeworkforconsiderationofsubsequentprojects,providedtheyareconsistentwiththePEIRandwouldbedevelopedtobeconsistentwiththeCounty’sgoals,objectives,andconditionsassetforththerein.ThisanalysishasbeenpreparedspecificallytoaddresstheSandHillWindRepoweringProject(Project),inaccordancewiththepurposesofthePEIR.

LeadAgencyContactInformation ProjectSponsorContactInformation

AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency SandHillWind,LLC

Mr.AndrewYoung,SeniorPlanner KorinaCassidy

224WestWintonAvenue,Room111 2180South1300East,Suite600

Hayward,CA94544 SaltLakeCity,UT84106

510.670.5400 415.692.7727

1.1 Project Overview SandHillWind,LLC(SandHill)isproposingtheSandHillWindRepoweringProject(Projectorpro‐posedProject)on15privatelyownedparcelsintheAltamontPassWindResourceArea(APWRA)(Figure1‐1).TheproposedProjectwouldentailinstallationofupto40newwindturbinesandisexpectedtoutilizeturbineswithgeneratingcapacitiesbetween2.3and4.0megawatts(MW),allgenerallysimilarinsizeandappearance,todevelopupto144.5MW.Threeconceptualalternativelayoutsareproposed,eachusingupto40windturbines.Thelayoutsaresubstantiallysimilar,mainlyvaryingaccordingtothelocationof11turbinesinthecenteroftheProjectarea,southandwestofBethanyReservoirandtheirrelativedistancefromtheprimaryaccessroadfortheProject.Thefinallayoutwouldbeselectedbasedonsiteconstraints(e.g.,aviansitingconsiderations),dataobtainedfrommeteorologicalmonitoringofthewindresources,andturbineavailability.Eachofthesefactorswouldbeconsideredwhenmicrositingturbines,withthefinallayoutreflectingoneorsomecombinationofthealternativelayouts.Existingroadswouldbeusedwherepossible,andtemporarywideningandsomenewroadswouldbenecessary.TheProjectwouldalsorequirethreegeneration‐tie(gen‐tie)linesconnectingtheProjecttotwosubstations.

1.2 Relationship to the PEIR TheCountyhaspreparedthisanalysisandtheassociatedchecklisttovalidatetheproposedProject’sconformancewiththeanalysisandmitigationpresentedinthePEIR,andtoensurethattheSandHillProjectisincompliancewithrequirementsoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA).The

Alameda County Community Development Agency Introduction



ICF 00631.17

summaryanalysisinthechecklistisintendedtoinformdecisionmakersandthepublicoftheProject’sconformitywiththeanalysisinthePEIRandtoidentifythespecificimpactsandmitigationmeasuresrelevanttotheProject.ThisanalysisandchecklistsupportthedecisionnottoprepareasubsequentEIRpursuanttoSection15168(c)(2)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines.Therelationshipofthechecklist(supportedbythisanalysis)tothePEIRisconsistentwiththeintentofaprogramEIRasestablishedinStateCEQAGuidelinesSection15168(d),whichcallsforuseofaninitialstudytodeterminewhetheralater,directlyrelated(ortiered)projectwouldhavenewordifferentenvironmentaleffectsthatwerenotdisclosedinthePEIRorthatwouldwarrantanewEIR.TheenvironmentalchecklistpreparedfortheproposedProjectconstitutesaninitialstudyforthepurposeofSection15063,includingitsprovisionforusewithapreviouslypreparedEIR(Section15063(b)(1)(B)).Moreover,anypublicnoticerequiredbyCountyordinancewillstate,asrequiredbyStateCEQAGuidelinesSection15168(e),thattheactivitiesassociatedwiththeSandHillProjectarewithinthescopeofthePEIRandthatthePEIRadequatelydescribedandassessedtheseactivities.

AsshowninChapter3,EnvironmentalAnalysis,despitethechangesmentionedinthenextsection,theproposedProjectwouldnotresultinanyimpactsnotaddressedinthePEIR,norwoulditresultinimpactsofgreaterseveritythanthosepresentedinthePEIR.

1.3 Changes Relevant to the PEIR Analysis SincepreparationofthePEIR,fivefactorsrelevanttothePEIRanalysishaveemerged.First,someoftheturbinesunderconsiderationfortheproposedProject,whilemostlywithinthedimensionalspecificationsoftheturbinesanalyzedinthePEIR,exceedtheindividualnameplatecapacityoftheturbinesanalyzedinthePEIRbyasmallmargin.Theconsequencesofthischangearetwo‐fold:fewerturbineswouldberequiredtoachievethesameProject‐levelgenerationcapacity,andthelargerturbineswouldhavealargerrotor‐sweptarea.

ThesecondfactorinvolvesquestionsregardingthereliabilityofestimatedavianmortalityratesaspresentedinthePEIR.ThisissueisaddressedbrieflybelowandindetailinSection3.4.2,Environ‐mentalImpactsandMitigationMeasures.

Third,thesizeoftheproposedProject—144.5MW—islargerthantheoriginallyproposedSandHillProjectasconsideredinthePEIR.WhiletheoriginallyproposedSandHillProjectwas34MW,itoccupiedasmallerareathanthecurrentProject.TheproposedProjectnowencompassestheoriginalareaaswellasadditionalareasthatwereconsideredfordevelopmentinthePEIR.Overall,themixofforeseeablefuturewindprojectshaschangedfromthatcontemplatedinthePEIR,buttheoveralllevelofanticipatedwinddevelopmentremainsthesame.

Fourth,whilethePEIRdidnotincludediscussionofOperationsandMaintenance(O&M)(Project‐levelanalysesdidincludeO&Mbuildings),SandHillproposestoinstallsuchafacility.

Finally,theCountyisawarethatinformationregardingnighttimelightingduringoperationoftheturbines,aswellasFAArequirements,mayinfactbedifferentfromtheinformationinthePEIR.ThesefiveissuesaredescribedandevaluatedindetailinthefollowingsubsectionsandinChapter3,EnvironmentalAnalysis,ofthisdocument.




ICF 00631.17

1.3.1 Turbine Size

SandHillproposestwotypesofturbines:a2.3MWmodelanda3.6or3.8MWmodel.BecauseSandHillhasnotyetselectedthespecificturbinemodels,itretainstheoptionofusingturbinesupto4.0MW,dependingonproductavailabilityattimeofconstruction.However,regardlessoftheturbinemodelselected,theProjectwouldnotexceedtheproposed144.5MWcapacity,andtheoveralldimensionsofindividualturbineswouldnotexceedthosecurrentlyproposed.

ThePEIRanalyzedprojectswitharangeofturbinesizes.Table1‐1showsthemaximumdimensionsofthisrangeforcomparisonwiththelargestofthreeturbinetypesunderconsiderationfortheproposedProject.

Table 1‐1. Turbine Specifications Contemplated in the PEIR and for Use with the Proposed Project

TurbineModel PEIRMaximum—3.0MW GeneralElectric3.6MWa

Rotortype 3‐blade/horizontalaxis 3‐blade/horizontalaxis

Bladelength 62.5m(205ft) 67.2m(220ft)

Rotordiameter 125m(410ft) 137m(449ft)

Rotor‐sweptarea 12,259m2(131,955ft2) 14,741m²(158,671ft2)

Towertype Tubular Tubular

Tower(hub)height 96m(315ft) 83.6m(274ft)

Totalheight(fromgroundtotopofblade) 153m(502ft) 152m(499ft)

Bladeheight(fromgroundtobottomofblade)b 17.5m(57ft) 16.4m(54ft)aA3.8MWturbineandanas‐yet‐undeterminedturbinewithacapacityupto4.0MWhavealsobeenconsidered;however,the3.6MWturbineislargerinalldimensionsthanthe3.8MWandthe4.0MWturbines,andisthereforepresentedhereasthelargestoftheproposedturbinetypes.bThePEIRevaluatedhubheightsrangingfrom80to96metersandbladelengthsrangingfrom41.25to62.5meters.Measurementsassumingthelowestdistancefromthegroundsurfacetothebottomofthebladetiparepresentedhere.

Asshowninthetable,theproposedSandHillturbineswouldbewithinthespecificationsestablishedinthePEIRforrotortype,towertype,tower(hub)height,andtotalheight.However,bladelengthswouldbeupto15feet(approximately7%)longer,rotordiametersupto39feet(approximately9%)greater,androtor‐sweptareaupto2,482m2(approximately17%)larger.

BecausesomeoftheproposedProjectspecificationsexceedthosedescribedinthePEIR,additionalreviewofpotentiallyaffectedenvironmentalresourcesisprovidedinthisdocument.Largerturbinescouldaffectthreeresources:aesthetics(Section3.1),hazards(i.e.,setbacks)(Section3.8),andbiologicalresources(i.e.,birdsandbats)(Section3.4).Atthesametime,itshouldbeborneinmindthatwhilea3MWturbinewasthelargestconsideredinthePEIR,forpurposesoftheanalysisofavianmortality,theturbineusedasthebasisfordevelopingestimatesoffutureortypicalprojectimpactswastheVascoWinds2.3MWturbine.Theconsequenceoftheincreasednameplatecapacitytoa3.6,3.8oreven4.0MWturbine,however,wouldbelowerimpactsperMWforcertainenvironmentaltopicareas,becausea144.5MWprojectwouldrequire62turbinesofthecapacityoftheVascoWindsturbines,whereasthesame144.5MWcapacitywouldbeachievedwith40oftheturbinesproposedfortheSandHillProject.Thisdecreaseddensityofturbineswouldresultinproportionallylesserimpactsassociatedwithairqualityemissions,traffic,andgrounddisturbance.




ICF 00631.17

1.3.2 Avian Mortality Estimates

SubsequenttocertificationofthePEIR,thefirstrepoweringproject,GoldenHills,wascompletedaspartoftheoverallAPWRArepoweringeffort.Inlate2017,H.T.Harvey&AssociatespreparedtheGoldenHillsWindEnergyCenterPostconstructionFatalityMonitoringReport:Year1,presentingtheresultsofthefirstyear’smonitoringeffortandanalysisofthoseresults.ThemonitoringeffortindicatedpotentiallyhighermortalityratesthanthoseestimatedinthePEIR(particularlyforgoldeneaglesandred‐tailedhawks).However,asexplainedindetailinthediscussionofImpactBIO‐11inSection3.4.2,EnvironmentalImpactsandMitigationMeasures,theseresultsdonotindicatenewormoreseveresignificanteffectsbeyondthoseanticipatedinthePEIR.ThePEIRanalyzedeffectsonavianandbatspeciesusinginformationonmultiplerepoweredprojectscollectedovermultipleyears,notingthat“…fatalityratesintheAPWRAarehighlyvariable(thatisbecausetheydifferacrossyears,turbinetypes,geographies,andtopographies…”).Consequently,thenewinformationonavianandbatfatalitiesfrom1yearofmonitoringasingleprojectduringanabnormallywetyearwithinthelargerAPWRA—andsuggestingmoresevereimpactsonbirdsandbats—cannotbeextrapolatedtoimplythattheSandHillProjectwouldresultinnewsignificanteffectsorasubstantialincreaseintheseverityofeffects.Abodyofinformationspanningmultipleprojectsandmultipleyearsofmonitoringarenecessarytoformconclusionsregardingeffects.

1.3.3 Megawatt Cap

ThePEIRidentifiedtwoalternativesforrepoweringtheAPWRA,analyzingbothatanequallevelofdetail.BecausetheCountyadoptedandcertifiedthePEIRwithoutidentifyingapreferredalterna‐tive,theCountymayauthorizeeitheralternative.Alternative2wasthelargeralternative,assumingamaximumcapacityof450MWfortheAPWRAatfullrepowering.ThePEIRalsoanalyzedtwoprojects,GoldenHillsandPattersonPass,andconsideredfourotherfutureprojects(Table1‐2).WhilethePEIRdidnotcontemplatethesequencingofprojectsconsideredinthefuture,CountystaffconsiderthatthefutureprojectsidentifiedinthePEIRshouldbeconsideredfirstinallocatingthetotalnameplatecapacity.Subsequentprojectswouldbereviewedonafirst‐come,first‐servedbasis.AsoutlinedinTable1‐2,thetotalcapacityofapproved,operational,orforeseeablefutureprojectsconsideredinthePEIRis316.5MW.TheSandHillProjectwouldincreasethattotalto425MW.Becausethisislessthanthe450MWcapestablishedbyAlternative2,theproposedProjectwouldnotconflictwiththePEIR.However,theRooneyRanchProjectsite(alsoknownastheSantaClarasite)isalsounderconsiderationforrepowering;thisprojectwouldhavea25.1MWnameplatecapacity.IftheRooneyRanchProjectwereauthorizedunderthePEIR,thetotalcapacityoftheprogramareawouldincreaseto450.1MW,a0.02%exceedanceofthe450MWcontemplatedinAlternative2ofthePEIR.Forallresources,thisminordifferencecannotrealisticallybemeasuredandiswithintheroundingalreadyusedinthePEIR;itwouldnotresultinnewsignificanteffectsorasubstantialincreaseintheseverityofeffectsalreadydescribedinthePEIR.




ICF 00631.17

Table 1‐2. Operational, Approved, or Foreseeable Projects in the APWRAa

Project Owner/Operator Status TotalMW

PattersonPassb EDF Approved(PEIR) 19.8

GoldenHillsc NextEra Operational(PEIR) 85.9

GoldenHillsNorth NextEra Operational 40.8

SandHilld Ogin(nowsPower) Foreseeable(PEIR) 36

MulqueenyRanch Brookfield Foreseeable(PEIR) 80

SummitWinde AWI(nowSalka,LLC) Approved 54

Subtotal 316.5

SandHill(additional)d sPower CUPApplicationSubmitted 108.5

RooneyRanchf sPower Foreseeable 25.1

Total 450.1aCountyplanningstaffhasreceivedinformationfromtwoadditionalcompanies,DunoAir‐AltamontandNRG,indicatingtheyaredevelopingprojectsintheAPWRA.BecausethenumberofMWstobedevelopedundertheseprojectsisnotyetknowntheyarenotlistedinthistable.ReviewoftheseprojectsunderthePEIR,ifultimatelyproposed,wouldoccuratalaterdate.

bCountyplanningstaffhasindicatedthatthePattersonPassProjectisundernewownershipandisnolongerownedbyEDF.

c GoldenHillswasidentifiedinthePEIRasupto88.4MWbut85.9MWwereultimatelyconstructed.dTheSandHillProjectwasidentifiedinthePEIRasupto34MW.Underadditionalreview,itwasultimatelyapprovedforupto36MW.sPower,thecurrentprojectowner,hasappliedtoexpandtheProjecttoatotalof144.5MW(36MW+108.5MW=144.5MW).

e TheSummitWindProjectwasidentifiedinthePEIRasupto95MWbutwasapprovedin2016foratotalof54MW.

f TheRooneyRanchProjectproposedbysPowerwouldbesubjecttoapprovalbytheCityofSantaClara.

1.3.4 Operations and Maintenance Facility

ThePEIRdidnotaddressO&Mfacilitiesattheprogramlevel;however,thetwoindividualprojectsevaluatedinthatdocumentbothincludedO&Mfacilities,aswouldtheSandHillProject.WhilethePEIRstatedthatnosepticorotherwastewatertreatmentsystemswouldbepartofrepoweringprojects,SandHillproposestoinstallsuchasysteminconjunctionwithitsO&Mfacility.Inaccord‐ancewithlocalregulations,theinstallationofsuchasystemwouldbesubjecttoapprovalandpermittingbyAlamedaCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalHealth.Ifpreconstructioninvestigationsindicatethatthesoilsonsitearenotsuitabletosupportsuchasystem,portabletoilets,suppliedandservicedbyacommercialvendor,wouldbeusedinstead.

1.3.5 Turbine Lighting

TheCountyhasnotedthatalthoughthePEIRstatedthatlightingforrepoweredturbineswouldbesimilartothelightingofpreviouslyexistingturbines,infactthenewturbineshaveFAA‐mandatedlightingthatdiffersobservablyfromthelightingusedonpreviouslyexistingturbines.TheFAA‐mandatedlightingismorenoticeabletothepublic.Theanalysisevaluatesandsupportsadetermination,however,thatthischangeisnotcauseforpreparationofaSupplementalEIRtoaddressthechange.Thischangeinobservableeffectsisnottheconsequenceofafeatureofthe




ICF 00631.17

ProjectthatisdifferentfromtheanticipatedfeaturesdescribedinthePEIR,orinitscircumstances;itisinsteadsolelyachangeininformation.Inthiscase,CEQAprohibitsasupplementalreviewoftheissuebecausethecorrectinformationabouttherelativelightingimpactsofnewversusoldturbineswasreadilyavailableduringpreparationofthePEIR.Forexample,theVascoWindsProject,whichhasnighttimelighting,couldhavebeenobservedatthetimethePEIRwasprepared.Thus,CEQAprohibitstheCountyfrompreparingasupplementalEIRunderPublicResourcesCodeSection21166(c)andCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle14Section15162(a)(3)onthebasisofthelightingissuebecauseitconstitutesinformationthatcouldhavebeenknownwiththeexerciseofreasonablediligenceatthetimethepreviousEIRwascertifiedascomplete.

AsdiscussedinSection3.1.2,SandHillhasagreedtoworkwiththeCountytotheextentpossibletoimplementlightmanagementtechniquesaspartoftheProject.Consequently,consideringtheanalysisaboveandwithSandHill’scooperation,thisanalysisconfirmsthattheProjectwouldnotresultinanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarebeyondthatdescribedinthePEIR.

1.4 Organization of this Document ThisanalysishasbeenstructuredtoparallelthePEIR;accordingly,allresourcetopicsareaddressed—eventhosethatclearlywouldfallwithintheanalysisandconclusionsinthePEIR.Followingthisintroductorychapter,theanalysiscomprisesthechaptersandappendiceslistedbelow.

Chapter2,ProjectDescription,describestheProjectfeatures,sequenceofconstruction,anddetailsofoperationsandmaintenance.

Chapter3,EnvironmentalAnalysis,providestheanalysisofeachresourcetopicconsideredinthePEIR,withaconclusionregardinganydivergencefromtheconclusionspresentedinthePEIR.

Chapter4,ListofPreparers,identifiesthepersonsinvolvedinthepreparationofthisdocument.

AppendixA,AirQualityTechnicalMemorandum,providestheassumptionsandmodelingresultsusedtosupporttheairqualityanalysisfortheproposedProject.

AppendixB,BiologicalResourcesEvaluationReport,istheProject‐specificreportdetailingbiologicalconditionsintheProjectarea.

AppendixC,CulturalResourcesSurveyReport,isthereportpreparedbyICFculturalresourcesstafffortheproposedProject.

AppendixD,SoundTechnicalReport,isthereportdetailingthenoiseanalysispreparedfortheproposedProject.

1.5 References Cited AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency.2014.AltamontPassWindResourceArea

RepoweringFinalProgramEnvironmentalImpactReport.StateClearinghouse#2010082063.October.(ICF00323.08.)Hayward,CA.WithtechnicalassistancefromICFInternational,Sacramento,CA.




ICF 00631.17

H.T.Harvey&Associates.2017.GoldenHillsWindEnergyCenterPostconstructionFatalityMonitoringReport:Year1.December15.PreparedforGoldenHillsWind,LLC,Livermore,CA.

Livermore

Patterson Pass Rd

A l a m e d aA l a m e d aC o u n t yC o u n t y

C o n t r a C o s t aC o n t r a C o s t aC o u n t yC o u n t y

S a n J o a q u i nS a n J o a q u i nC o u n t yC o u n t y

GG2063

GG7827

GG2063

§̈¦205

§̈¦580 Midway Rd

Ames St

S Va

sco

Rd

W Byron Rd

N Vasco Rd

W Bethany Rd

Gree

nvill

e Rd

County Hwy J2

Mines Rd

Tesla Rd

W Grant Line Rd

Byron Hwy

Altamont Pass Rd

Vasco Rd

Figure 1-1 Project Location

Project Location

0 1 20.5Miles E

Imagery Source: ESRI/NAIP 2016

LegendProject Area

Path:

K:\Pr

ojects

_1\N

ew_D

imen

sion_

Energ

y\006

31_1

7\Figu

res\20

1801

10\Fi

gure_

1_Pr

oject_

Overv

iew.m

xd; A

uthor:

; Date

: 1/26

/2018


Draft


ICF 00631.17

Chapter 2 Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Land Ownership TheProjectareacomprises15parcels(Table2‐1andFigure2‐1),mostofwhichwerepreviouslyusedforwindproduction.LanduseintheProjectareaandthesurroundingAPWRAconsistslargelyofcattle‐grazedlandsupportingoperatingwindturbinesandancillaryfacilities.

Generallycharacterizedbyrollingfoothillsofannualgrassland,themostlytreelessregionissteeperonthewestandgraduallyflattertotheeastwhereitslopestowardtheflooroftheCentralValley.Elevationsinthearearangefromapproximately600to1,200feetabovesealevel.

SandHillhasleaseagreementswiththelandownerstoinstall,operate,andmaintaintherepoweredwindturbineswhilepermittingongoingagriculturalactivitiestocontinue.

Table 2‐1. Parcels and Proposed Usesa

Assessor’sParcelNumber Acreage ProposedUse

99B‐7750‐6 101 Windturbinesandassociatedfacilities

99B‐6325‐1‐4 69 Accessandsetback

99B‐6325‐1‐3 224 Windturbinesandassociatedfacilities













Total 2,595 aThegen‐tielinesandsubstationsarenotincludedinthislistbecausetheyareexistingfacilitiesthatwouldbeupgradedaspartoftheproposedProject.

Alameda County Community Development Agency Project Description



ICF 00631.17

2.2 Project Need, Goals, and Objectives TheProjectobjectiveistorepowertheexistingwindProjectonprivatelyownedlandtodevelopa144.5MWcommerciallyviablewindenergyfacilitythatwoulddeliverrenewableenergytotheelectricalgrid.

2.3 Existing Facilities

2.3.1 Wind Turbines and Foundations

TheproposedProjectmayincludetheremovalofoldturbinefoundationswheretheyconflictwiththelocationofrepoweredProjectcomponents(e.g.,roadwaysandgroundequipment).

2.3.2 Access Roads

PrimaryaccesstotheProjectareaisthroughlockedgatesoffAltamontPassRoadandMountainHouseRoad.Onsiteroadsaregraveledandvaryinwidthfrom12to20feet.

2.3.3 Meteorological Towers

Four50‐meter(164‐foot)meteorologicaltowersarepresentonsite.Thesetowersmonitorandrecordmeteorologicaldatasuchaswindspeed,winddirection,andatmosphericpressure.

2.3.4 Power Collection System

ElectricitygeneratedbyaportionofthepreviousprojectwascollectedfromeachwindturbineandtransmittedtotheAMLandDyerRoadsubstations,wherethevoltagewasincreasedforinterconnectionwiththePacificGasandElectricCompany’s(PG&E’s)transmissionlines.Thecollectionsystemcomprisespad‐mountedtransformers,undergroundcables,overheadcablesonwoodenpoles,assortedcircuitbreakersandswitches,electricalmetering/protectiondevices,andthesubstations.

2.3.4.1 Substations

ThepointofinterconnectionattheDyerRoadsubstationhasbeenrelocatedtotheSantaClarasubstation.TheexistingAMLsubstationencompasses0.6acrenorthofAltamontPassRoad;theexistingSantaClarasubstationencompasses0.2acresouthofAltamontPassRoad.

2.3.4.2 Transmission Lines

SeveralPG&EtransmissionlinesbisecttheProjectparcels.

2.3.5 Cattle Handling and Staging Areas

SeveralcattlehandlingandstagingareasarelocatedintheProjectarea.




ICF 00631.17

2.4 Proposed Project Features TheproposedProjectcharacteristicsarelistedbelow,illustratedinFigures2‐2athrough2‐2c,anddiscussedingreaterdetailinthefollowingsubsections.

Atotalnameplategenerationcapacityofupto144.5MW.

RemovalofoldwindturbinefoundationswheretheyconflictwithnewProjectcomponents.

Installationofupto40newwindturbinegenerators,towers,foundations,andpad‐mountedtransformers.

DevelopmentofProjectroadsandinstallationofapowercollectionsystem.

Useofexistingroadstotheextentpossible.

Useofexistingsubstations(withupgradestotheequipment).

Constructionofanoperationsandmaintenance(O&M)facility.

Installationofthreepermanentmeteorologicaltowers.

2.4.1 Wind Turbines

MostoftheturbinesbeingrepoweredintheAPWRAwereinstalledinthe1980sandrepresentfirst‐andsecond‐generationutility‐gradecommercialwindturbinetechnology,nowconsideredoldtechnology.Thetermsfirst‐generation,second‐generation,third‐generation,andfourth‐generationareusedtogroupwindturbinetypeswithsimilartechnologiescurrentlyinstalledortobeinstalledintheprogramarea.Inthiscontext,first‐generationwindturbinesarethosedesignedandinstalledduringthe1980s.Second‐generationturbinesarethosedesignedandinstalledinthe1990s.Third‐generationturbinesarethoseinstalledinpreviousrepoweringprojectsthatusesimilardesigntoturbinesproposedfortheProjectbutthatareofsmallersize(i.e.,upto1MW).Fourth‐generationturbines—suchasthoseproposedforinstallation,arelarge,1.6–4MWturbines.

TheproposedrepoweringProjectwouldentailinstallationofupto40fourth‐generationturbinesintheProjectarea.ArangeofturbinesisbeingconsideredfortheproposedProject.Turbinesbeingconsideredrangeinnameplatecapacityfrom2.3to4.0MW,arotordiameterof90–140meters(295–459feet),towerheightof80–110meters(262–361feet),andamaximumtotalturbineheightof152meters(499feet).ThecurrentProjectlayoutassumestheuseofturbineswiththespecificationspresentedinTable2‐2.




ICF 00631.17

Table 2‐2. Turbine Specificationsa

TurbineModel

TurbineCharacteristic GeneralElectric2.3‐116GeneralElectric3.6‐137

GeneralElectric3.8‐130

Rotortype 3‐blade/horizontalaxis 3‐blade/horizontalaxis

3‐blade/horizontalaxis

BladeLength 56.9m(187ft) 67.2m(220ft) 63.7m(209ft)

Rotordiameter 116m(381ft) 137m(449ft) 130m(427ft)

Rotor‐sweptarea 10,568m²(113,753ft2) 14,741m²(158,671ft2)

13,273m²(142,869ft2)

Rotationalspeed Variable:5.0–14.9rpm Variable:6.3–13.6rpm Variable:6.95–12.1rpm

Towertype Tubular Tubular Tubular

Tower(hub)height 80m(308ft) 83.6m(274ft) 85m(279ft)

Rotorheight(fromgroundtolowesttipofblade)

22m(72.2ft) 15.1m(49.5ft) 20m(65.6ft)

Totalheight(fromgroundtotopofblade)

138m(453ft) 152m(499ft) 150m(492ft)

aDependingonavailabilityatthetimeofconstruction,turbinesofupto4.0MWmaybeusedfortheproposedProject.TurbinedimensionswouldnotexceedthoseshowninthetableandtheProjectcapacitywouldnotexceed144.5MW.

2.4.1.1 Siting Requirements

SandHillwilladheretotherequirementsofAlamedaCountytomaintainconsistencywithregionalplanningthathasbeenconductedtodate.SetbackrequirementswereoriginallydevelopedforAlamedaCountywindfarmsinthe1980sand1990sinconsiderationofavarietyoffactors,suchasappropriatedistancebetweenupwindanddownwindturbinesforeffectivewindproduction,noiseeffectsonsensitivelanduses,visualimpactsresultingfromproximitytoresidencesandpossibleshadowflicker,concernswithtowercollapse,andbladethrowhazard(whereallorpartofarotorblademaybreakloosefromthenacelleandstrikeanoccupiedareaorinfrastructure).Setbackshavehistoricallybeendeterminedonaproject‐by‐projectbasisinaccordancewiththestandardconditionsofapprovalforaconditionalusepermit(CUP).However,whilethestandardconditionsappliedinthe1980sand1990swereappropriatefortheoldergenerationturbines,theymaynotsufficeforthefourth‐generationturbinesproposedforrepowering.Accordingly,theCountyhasdevelopedasetofupdatedstandardstobeusedforproposedrepoweringprojects.TheseareshowninTable2‐3.

Table 2‐3. Updated Alameda County Turbine Setback Requirements

AffectedLandUseorCorridor

GeneralSetback

SetbackAdjustmentforTurbineElevationAboveorBelowAffectedUsea AlternativeMinimumb

AdjacentparcelwithapprovedwindenergyCUPc

1.1timesrotorlength

1%TTHaddedorsubtractedper10ftofturbineelevation,respectively,aboveorbelowaffectedparcel

50%ofgeneralsetback




ICF 00631.17

AffectedLandUseorCorridor

GeneralSetback

SetbackAdjustmentforTurbineElevationAboveorBelowAffectedUsea AlternativeMinimumb

AdjacentparcelwithoutapprovedwindenergyCUP

1.25timesTTH

1%TTHper10ftaboveorbelowaffectedparcel

1.1timesrotorlength

Adjacentdwellingunit 3timesTTH

1%TTHper10ftaboveorbelowaffectedunit

50%ofgeneralorelevationdifferentialsetback

Publicroad(includingI‐580),trail,commercialorresidentialzoning

2.5timesTTH

1%TTHper10ftaboveorbelowaffectedright‐of‐way

50%ofgeneralsetbackwithreportbyqualifiedprofessional,approvedbyPlanningDirector

Recreationareaorproperty

1.25timesTTH

1%TTHper10ftaboveorbelowaffectedproperty

TTH

Transmissionlined 2timesTTH

1%TTHper10ftaboveorbelowpathofconductorlineatgroundlevel

50%ofgeneralsetbackwithreportbyqualifiedprofessional,approvedbyPlanningDirector

Note: TTH=totalturbineheight:theheighttothetopoftherotorat12:00position.Setbackdistancetobemeasuredhorizontallyfromcenteroftoweratgroundlevel.

a TheGeneralSetbackbasedonTTHwillbeincreasedorreduced,respectively,basedonwhole10‐ftincrementsinthegroundelevationoftheturbineaboveorbelowanaffectedparcel,dwellingunit,roadright‐of‐way,ortransmissioncorridorconductorline.Anyportionofa10‐ftincrementingroundelevationwillbedisregarded(orroundeddowntothenearest10‐ftinterval).

bAlternativeMinimumreferstoareducedsetbackstandard,includinganyadjustmentforelevation,allowedwithanotarizedagreementoraneasementontheaffectedproperty(ifapplicable),subjecttoapprovalofthePlanningDirector.

c CUP=conditionalusepermit.NosetbackfromparcellinesisrequiredwithinthesamewindenergyCUPboundary.KnowledgeofproposedwindenergyCUPsonadjacentparcelstobebasedonbestavailableinformationatthetimeofthesubjectapplication.

DMeasuredfromthecenteroftheconductorlinenearesttheturbine.

2.4.1.2 Wind Turbine Installation

Foundations

Thetypeofturbinefoundationuseddependsonterrain,windspeeds,andwindturbinetype.TwofoundationtypesmaybeusedinrepoweringAPWRAwindprojects:aninverted“T”slabfoundationoraconcretecylinderfoundation.AninvertedTslabfoundationisatypeofspreadfootingfoundation.Asingleconcretepadisplacedatgroundlevel,althoughpartofthepadmaybeplacedbelowgroundleveldependingontheslope.Atthecenterofthepadisacylindricalconcretepedestaltowhichthewindturbinetowerisbolted—hencethename,invertedT.

Aconcretecylinderfoundationisalargeconcretecylinderwithaconcretepedestalthatisslightlylargerthanthetowerbasediameter.Thesizeoftheconcretecylinderandpadisdeterminedbywindturbinesizeandsite‐specificconditions(e.g.,expectedmaximumwindspeeds,soilcharacteristics).Itsweightmustbesufficienttoholdthewindturbineinplace.




ICF 00631.17

Eithertypeoffoundationistypicallyformedbyplacingconcreteinanexcavatedfootingwithreinforcedsteel.Thefoundationwouldbeinstalledimmediatelywithintheturbineworkareaadjacenttothecranepad.Whilethefoundationtypeisdeterminedbyterrain,windspeeds,andturbinetype,ingeneral,thefoundationisformedbyplacingconcreteinanexcavatedfootingwithreinforcedsteel.Asmallgraveledareawouldencircleeachfoundationtofacilitatemaintenanceaccess.ThetotaldiameterofthefinalProjectfootprintforeachturbine,includingthegraveledarea,wouldbeapproximately60feet.

Construction

Repoweredturbineconstructionentailsplacementofafoundation,newtower,rotor,nacelle,andtransformer.ConstructionandinstallationofrepoweredturbinesisregulatedbyCountyconditionsofapproval,buildingpermitrequirements,andgradingpermitrequirements.

Ateachturbinesite,alevelturbineworkareawouldbegradedtosupporttheconstructionoftowerfoundationsandtosupporttheuseoflargecranestolifttheturbinecomponentsintoplace.Theextentandshapeofgradingateachturbinesitewoulddependonlocaltopography;however,eachsitewouldrequireapproximately2.9acresofgradedareatosupporttheconstructionoffoundationsandinstallationofturbines.Acranepadwouldbeleveledandgradedwithintheturbineworkareaateachturbinesite.Thecranepad—aflat,level,andcompactedarea—wouldprovidethebasefromwhichthecranewouldworktoplacetheturbine.Mostwindturbineconstructionactivitieswouldtakeplacewithintheturbineworkarea.Followingconstruction,theturbineworkareawouldbereclaimed.

ConstructionandinstallationofturbinesinthisareaisregulatedbytheCounty’sconditionsofapproval,buildingpermitrequirements,andgradingpermitrequirements.Theturbinetowers,nacelles,andbladesaredeliveredtoeachturbinelocationintheorderofassembly,oncetheconcreteofthefoundationhasbeenpouredandhascuredsufficiently.Largecranesarebroughttoeachsitetoliftandassembletheturbinecomponents.First,thebasesectionofthetowerissecuredtothefoundationusinglargebolts.Theremainingtowersectionsarethenliftedwiththecraneandconnectedtothebasesection.Afterthenacelleandrotoraredeliveredtotheturbinesite,theturbinebladesareboltedtotherotorhub,andthenacelleandrotorareliftedbyacraneandconnectedtothemainshaft.

Excessrockgeneratedbyfoundationconstructionwouldbespreadonexistingroadsandmaintenanceareassurroundingtheturbines.Oldfoundationsfromthepreviouswindprojectonsitemayberemovediftheyarewithinproposedconstructionareas,ifremovalisnecessaryfortheinstallationofnewturbines,ortocomplywithlandowneragreementsorCountyrequirements;suchremovalswouldinvolveworkersdemolishingthefoundationsusingjackhammersorsimilartools.ThematerialfromoldturbinefoundationsmaybereusedforroadbaseorhauledoffsitetotheAltamontLandfill.

2.4.2 Site Preparation and Access Roads

Fourth‐generationturbinetowersandbladesaresignificantlylongerthanolderturbinecomponentsandrequirelargerandlongertrucksandcranesfortransportandinstallation.ThesevehiclesrequirewiderroadswithshallowerturnsandgradientsthanarecurrentlypresentintheProjectarea.Consequently,theexistingroadinfrastructuremustbeupgradedtoaccommodateconstructionoftheturbines.Roadinfrastructureupgradeswouldincludegrading,widening,andre‐gravelingof




ICF 00631.17

theexistingroads.Existingroadwidthsvaryfrom12to20feet;futureroadsareexpectedtobeapproximately20feetwide.Newroadsmaybeneededinareaswhereexistingroadsdonotprovideaccesstoproposedturbinelocations.

MostroadsintheportionoftheProjectareawherenewturbineswouldbeinstalledwouldbetemporarilywidenedtoapproximately40feettoaccommodatelargertowersaswellasthelargerequipmentnecessarytoinstallthem.Itislikelythatthelocationswhereroadscurveastheyclimbhillstotheridgetopswouldrequiremoreroadworkandwouldbewidenedtomorethan40feetinsomespotstosafelyaccommodatethelargerequipment.Inaddition,accessroadentrancesfrommainroadsontotheProjectsitewouldneedtobewidenedtoprovidesufficientspacefortheminimumturningradiusofconstructioncranesandotherflatbeddeliverytrucks.Landssubjecttotemporaryroadwideningbeyonda20‐footpermanentwidthwouldbereclaimedafterconstruction.

Culverts aregenerally installedaspartof the roaddrainage systemon slopes, although someareinstalledatsmallstreamcrossings.Existingculvertsmayneedtobereplacedwithlargerculvertsorreinforcedtoprovideadequatesizeandstrengthforconstructionvehicles.

2.4.3 Staging Areas

Sevenstagingareasofvarioussizes,totalingupto34acres,wouldbeestablishedintheProjectarea.Theseareaswouldbeusedforthestorageofturbinecomponents,constructionequipment,watertanks,officetrailers,andothersuppliesneededforProjectconstruction.Thetrailerswouldbeusedtosupportworkforceneedsandsitesecurity,andwouldalsohouseafirstaidstation,emergencyshelter,andhandtoolstorageareafortheconstructionworkforce.Parkingareaswouldbelocatednearthetrailers.Vegetationwouldbeclearedandthestagingareaswouldbegradedlevel.Theseareaswouldusenativematerial,supplementedwithgravelorsoilstabilizer,ifneeded,andappropriateerosioncontroldevices(e.g.,earthberm,siltfences,strawbales)wouldbeinstalledtomanagewaterrunoff.Diversionditcheswouldbeinstalled,asnecessary,topreventstormwaterfromrunningontothesitefromsurroundingareas.Followingcompletionofconstructionactivities,thecontractorwouldrestorethetemporarystagingareas.Thegravelsurfacewouldberemoved,andtheareaswouldbecontourgraded(ifnecessaryandifenvironmentallybeneficial)toconformwiththenaturaltopography.Stockpiledtopsoilwouldbereplaced,andtheareawouldbestabilizedandreseededwithanappropriateseedmixture.

2.4.4 Meteorological Towers

Threepermanentmeteorologicaltowerswouldbeinstalledinstrategiclocationsonsitetomonitorwindspeedsandtocalibrateturbines.Thepermanentmeteorologicaltowerswouldbeafreestandingtowerdesignwithoutguywires,approximately80meterstall.Thepermanentmeteorologicaltowerswouldeachrequireasmallconcretefoundationandgraveledareaaroundthetower,aswellasanaccessroadtofacilitatemaintenanceactivities.Thesmallfoundationandgraveledareawouldbeapproximately30feetindiameter.

2.4.5 Power Collection System

Eachnewwindturbinemustbeconnectedtothemedium‐voltageelectricalcollectionsystemviaapad‐mountedtransformer.Thecollectionsystemcarrieselectricitygeneratedbytheturbinestoasubstation,wherethevoltagelevelofthecollectionsystemissteppeduptothatofthepowergrid.Fromthesubstation,electricityiscarriedthroughaninterconnectionpointtothetransmissionlines




ICF 00631.17

thatdistributeelectricitytothepowergrid.TransmissionlinesintheProjectvicinityaremaintainedbyPG&E.Eachofthecollectionsystemcomponentsisdiscussedbelow.

2.4.5.1 Collection Lines

Medium‐voltagecollectionlineswouldcollectpowerfromeachturbineforconveyancetothesubstation.Medium‐voltagelinesarenormallyupto35kilovolts(kV).Thenewmedium‐voltagecollectionlineswouldbeinstalledundergroundasclosetoProjectroadsaspossibletominimizegrounddisturbanceaswellastofacilitateaccessforanynecessaryO&Mactivitiesonthelines.

Installationofundergroundmedium‐voltagelinesisaccomplishedinmostcasesusingacut‐and‐coverconstructionmethod.Adisturbancewidthof20feetisgenerallystandardtoallowforthetrenchexcavationandequipment,butthiswidthmayvarydependingonthetopographyandsoiltype.Typically,thetopsoilisseparatedfromthesubsurfacesoilforlaterreplacement.A3‐foot‐widetrenchisthenplowedusingaspecialbulldozerattachmentthatburiesthelineinthesamepassinwhichitdigsthetrench.Oncethecollectionlinesareinplace,thetrenchispartiallybackfilledwithsubsurfacesoil.Typically,communicationlinesarethenplacedinthetrench.Thetrenchisthenbackfilledwiththeremainingsubsurfacesoil,compacted,andcoveredwiththereservedtopsoil.

Tominimizesurfacedisturbancewithinwetlandsandstreams,collectionlinesmaybeinstalledunderwetlandsandotherwatersusinghorizontaldirectionaldrilling(HDD)techniques,wherefeasible.HDDinvolvestheuseofasteereddrillinghead,whichallowstheboremachinetositatgroundlevel,boredownalongonthecollectionlineroute,andtodirecttheborebackuptothesurfaceatadistantpoint.Theboremachineusesadrillingfluidintheprocess,typicallyamixtureoffineclay(suchasbentonite)andfreshwater.Theclayandwatermixturecoatsthewalloftheboreholetohelpholditopenandtoprovidelubricationforthedrillstemandconduitbeinginstalled.Excessdrillingfluidistypicallycapturedusingavacuumtruck.

Collectionlineswouldterminateneartheedgeofthepropertywherepowerwouldbeconveyedoffsitetothesubstationsthroughgen‐tielines.Thegen‐tielineswouldbeinstalledundergroundoroverhead,makinguseofexistingoverheadpowerpoleswherepossible.Ifgen‐tielinesarecarriedonexistingpoles,theselineswouldneedtobestrungwithnewconductingwire(i.e.,reconductored),requiringworkareas(i.e.,pullsites)tostringtheupgradedpowerline.Additionally,somepowerpolesmayneedtobereplaced.Ifnewoverheadcollectionorgen‐tielinefacilitiesarerequired,theywouldbecompletedincompliancewiththelatestrecommendationsoftheAvianPowerLineInteractionCommittee(APLIC).

Threeoffsitegen‐tiecorridorswouldbeusedfortheProjectaslistedbelowandshowninFiguresFigure2‐2athrough2‐2c.

Gen‐tie1—HeadingwestfromtheProjectareaapproximately3.4milesadjacenttoAltamontPassRoad,0.14milesouthalongaprivateroad,intotheSantaClarasubstation.

Gen‐tie2—HeadingeastfromtheProjectareaapproximately1mileadjacenttoAltamontPassRoad,0.5milenorthandwestonprivateland,intotheAMLsubstation.

Gen‐tie3—HeadingsouthfromtheProjectareaapproximately0.4mileadjacenttoMountainHouseRoad,0.8milesouthwestadjacenttoGrantLineRoad,0.6milewestadjacenttoAltamontPassRoad,0.5milenorthandwestonprivateland,intotheAMLsubstation.




ICF 00631.17

Gen‐tie3maynotbeneededifcollectionlinesfromthenorthernandeasternparcelsarerouteddirectlyacrosstheCaliforniaAqueductwhereitbisectstheplanareaasopposedtothealignmentsdescribedabove.

2.4.5.2 Transformers and Power Poles

Transformersboostthevoltageoftheelectricityproducedbytheturbinestothevoltageofthecollectionsystem.Eachturbinewouldhaveitsowntransformeradjacenttoorwithintheturbine,eithermountedonasmallpadadjacenttotheturbineorwithinthetower.

Theinstallationofoverheadpowerlinesandpolesonsitewouldbelimitedtolocationswhereundergroundlinesareinfeasibleandlocationsimmediatelyoutsidethesubstationswhereundergroundmedium‐voltagelinescomeabovegroundtoconnecttothesubstations.

Toinstallpowerpoles,alaydownareaisrequired.Tomountthemedium‐voltagelinesonapowerpole,apullsiteandatensionsitearerequired.Polesites,pullsites,tensionsites,accessroads,andlaydownareasarecleared(i.e.,mowed)ifnecessary.Poleholesandanynecessaryanchorholesareexcavated.Wherepossible,amachineaugerisusedtoinstallpoles.Thewidthanddepthofthesettingholedependsonthesizeofthepole,soiltype,span,andwindloading.

Powerpolesareframed,devicesinstalled,andanyanchorsandguywiresareinstalledbeforethepoleisset.Anchorsandguywiresinstalledduringconstructionareleftinplace.Aftersettingthepole,conductorsarestrung.

2.4.5.3 Substations

Themainfunctionsofacollectorsubstationaretostepupthevoltagefromtheturbinecollectionlinestothetransmissionlevelandtoprovidefaultprotection.Thebasicelementsofthesubstationfacilitiesareacontrolhouse,abankofoneortwomaintransformers,outdoorbreakers,capacitorbanks,relayingequipment,high‐voltagebuswork,steelsupportstructures,anundergroundgroundinggrid,andoverheadlightning‐suppressionconductors.Themainoutdoorelectricalequipmentandcontrolhouseareinstalledonaconcretefoundation.TheProjectwouldconnecttotwoexistingsubstationsasdescribedbelow.

TheAMLsubstationservedasthecollectorsubstationforaportionofthepreviouswindproject.TheAMLsubstationconsistsofagraveledfootprintareaofapproximately0.6acre,a12‐footchain‐linkperimeterfence,andanoutdoorlightingsystem.TheAMLsubstationwouldnotbeexpanded;however,equipmentwithintheexistingfencemaybeupgradedfortherepoweringProject.Anynewlightswouldbeshieldedordirecteddownwardtoreduceglare.Theupgradedsubstationwouldremainfencedinkeepingwiththefencingaroundtheexistingsubstation(i.e.,12‐footchainlinkperimeterfencing).

TheSantaClarasubstationconsistsofagraveledfootprintareaofapproximately0.2acre,a12‐footchain‐linkperimeterfence,andanoutdoorlightingsystem.TheSantaClarasubstationwouldnotbeexpanded;however,equipmentwithintheexistingfencemaybeupgradedfortherepoweringProject.1Anynewlightswouldbeshieldedordirecteddownwardtoreduceglare.Theupgraded

1TheSantaClarasubstationistheconnectionpointfortheRooneyRanchWindRepoweringProject,proposedbythesamedeveloper.IftheRooneyRanchWindRepoweringProjectisconstructed,itwouldincludeanexpansionofthesubstationtoa0.3‐acrefootprint.




ICF 00631.17

substationwouldbefencedinkeepingwiththefencingaroundtheexistingsubstation(i.e.,12‐footchainlinkperimeterfencing).

2.4.6 Operations and Maintenance Facility

AnO&Mbuildingwouldbeconstructedonsite.Operations,storage,andrepairswouldtakeplaceatthefacility.Uponcompletionofconstruction,theO&MfacilitywouldreceivepowerfromtappingintotheexistingPG&Epowerlines.Thelinetapwouldbeundergroundedalongproposedaccessroads.Portablerestroomswouldbeusedduringtheconstructionphase,andtheO&Mbuildingrestroomfacilitieswouldbeusedduringoperation.AnonsitewastewatertreatmentsystemwouldberequiredforthepermanentrestroomfacilitiesandwouldbesubjecttopermittingbytheAlamedaCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalHealth.Ifanonsitewastewatertreatmentsystemisdeterminedtobeinfeasible,portabletoilets,servicedbyacontractor,wouldbeusedinstead.TheO&Mbuilding,parking,andequipmentstoragecouldoccupyapproximately2acres;thebuildingorbuildingswouldhavefloorspacenogreaterthan10,000squarefeet.TwolocationsarebeingconsideredfortheO&Mbuilding(Figures2‐2athrough2‐2c),referredtoasO&MOptionAandO&MOptionB.ThefinallocationwouldbeselectedbySandHillbasedonsiteconditionsandfinalleaseagreements.

2.5 Project Construction TurbineswouldbedeliveredtothesitefromthePortofStocktonorothernearbyportorrailtransferlocations.Towerassemblyrequirestheuseofonelargetrack‐mountedcraneandtwosmallcranes.Theturbinetowers,nacelles,androtorbladeswouldbedeliveredtoeachfoundationsiteandunloadedbycrane.Alargetrack‐mountedcranewouldbeusedtohoistthebasetowersectionverticallythenloweritoverthethreadedfoundationbolts.Thelargecranewouldthenraiseeachadditionaltowersectiontobeboltedthroughtheattachedflangestothetowersectionbelow.Thecranethenwouldraisethenacelle,rotorhub,andbladestobeinstalledatopthetower.Twosmallerwheeledcraneswouldbeusedtooffloadturbinecomponentsfromtrucksandtoassistintheprecisealignmentofthetowersections.EstimateddisturbanceareasassociatedwithProjectconstructionandwerecalculatedbyestimatingdisturbanceassociatedwitheachalternativelayout,andusingthescenariothatwouldresultinthemostextensiveimpacts(Table2‐4).




ICF 00631.17

Table 2‐4. Estimated Disturbance Associated with Project Construction (acres)a

ProjectComponent/Activity PermanentImpacts TemporaryImpacts

Powercollectionsysteminstallation 0.0 31.5

Gen‐tieinstallation 0.0 15.0

Stagingareasinstallation 0.0 34.5

O&Mfacilityinstallation 2.0 3.0

Newaccessroads 10.6 7.6

Accessroadexpansionb 7.9 24.3

Turbinefoundationinstallation 2.6 107.0

Meteorologicaltowerinstallation 0.2 0.6

Total 23.3 223.5a Threealternativelayoutsareproposed;theestimateddisturbancereflectsthelayoutwiththemostextensiveimpacts.

b Existingaccessroadswouldbereusedtotheextentpossible;however,somesectionsofnewaccessroadwouldberequired.

2.5.1 Schedule

Projectconstructionwouldproceedafterallconstruction‐relatedpermitsareissued.Theseactivitiesareanticipatedtoproceedaccordingtothesequencedescribedbelow.Construction‐relatedbestmanagementpractices(BMPs)wouldbeimplementedduringtheNovember–Aprilwetseason.ThefinalapprovedworkhourswouldbespecifiedintheproposedProject’sCUP.Ifextendedhoursarenecessaryordesired,theappropriateapprovalswouldbesought.

2.5.2 Construction Sequence

Typicalconstructionstepsarelistedbelow.

Demarcationofconstructionareasandanysensitivebiological,cultural,orotherresourcesneedingprotection.

Constructionoftemporarystagingareas.

Roadinfrastructureupgrades.

Erosionandsedimentcontrol.

Windturbineconstruction.

Finalsitepreparation.

Cranepadconstruction.

Foundationexcavationandconstruction.

Towerassembly.

Installationofnacelleandrotor.

Powercollectionsystemandcommunicationlineinstallation.




ICF 00631.17

Gen‐tieinstallation

Upgradestothesubstation.

Permanentmeteorologicaltowerinstallation.

Finalcleanupandrestoration.

ConstructionoftheO&MbuildingwouldnotdependonthesequenceofconstructionfortherestoftheProject.

TheconstructioncontractorswouldpreparetheProjectarea,deliverandinstalltheProjectfacilities,overseeconstruction,andcompletefinalcleanupandrestorationoftheconstructionsites.SandHillwouldimplementBMPsconsistentwithstandardpracticeandwiththerequirementsofthePEIRaswellasanystateorfederalpermitstominimizesoilerosion,sedimentationofdrainagesdownslopeoftheProjectarea,andanyotherenvironmentalimpacts.Examplesoflikelyerosioncontrolmeasuresarelistedbelow.

Useofstrawwattles,siltfences/strawbaledikes,andstrawbalestominimizeerosionandcollectsediment(toprotectwildlife,nomonofilament‐coveredsedimentcontrolmeasureswouldbeused).

Reseedingandrestorationofthesite.

Maintenanceoferosioncontrolmeasures.

Regularinspectionandmaintenanceoferosioncontrolmeasures.

Theconstructionactivitiesandtheapproximatedurationofeacharelistedbelow.

Stagingareas:2weeks.

Roadconstruction:8weeks.

Foundations/electrical:8weeks.

Turbinedeliveryandinstallation:12weeks.

Electricaltrenchingandsubstationupgrades:12weeks.

Cleanup:12weeks.

2.5.3 Demarcation of Sensitive Resources

Sensitiveresourcesinandadjacenttoconstructionareaswouldbemarkedtoensureadequateavoidance.Sensitiveareasidentifiedthroughtheenvironmentalapprovalandpermittingprocesseswouldbestakedandflagged.Priortoconstruction,theconstructioncontractorandanysubcontractorswouldconductawalk‐throughofareastobeaffected,orpotentiallyaffected,byconstructionactivities.Thepreconstructionwalk‐throughswouldbeconductedregularlytoidentifysensitiveresourcestobeavoided,limitsofclearing,locationofdrainagefeatures,andthelayoutforsedimentationanderosioncontrolmeasures.Followingidentificationofthesefeatures,specificconstructionmeasureswouldbereviewed,andanymodificationstoconstructionmethodsorlocationswouldbeagreeduponbeforeconstructioncouldbegin.




ICF 00631.17

2.5.4 Workforce

Basedondataprovided for typicalwindenergyprojectsof similarsize,anaverageof75workerswouldbeemployedduringconstruction,withapeakworkforceof150workers.Craftworkerswouldincludemillwrights,ironworkers,electricians,equipmentoperators,carpenters,laborers,andtruckdrivers.Localconstructioncontractorsandsupplierswouldbeusedtotheextentpossible.

2.5.5 Construction Equipment

Equipmentusedforconstructionofrepoweringactivitiesoftenincludesthetypeslistedbelow.

Cranes

Lowboys/trucks/trailers

Flatbedtrucks

Servicetrucks(e.g.,pickuptrucks)

Backhoes

Bulldozers

Excavators

Graders

Dumptrucks

Track‐typedozers

Rockcrushers

Watertrucks

Compactors

Loaders

Rollers

Drillrigs

Trenchingcable‐layingvehicles

Cementtrucks

Concretetrucksandpumps

Smallhydrauliccranes

Heavyandintermediatecranes

Forklifts

Generators

2.5.6 Hazardous Materials Storage

Hazardousmaterials(e.g,fuel,lubricants,otheroils)wouldbestoredatthestagingarea(useofextremelyhazardousmaterialsisnotanticipated).Tominimizethepotentialforharmfulreleasesof




ICF 00631.17

hazardousmaterialsthroughspillsorcontaminatedrunoff,thesesubstanceswouldbestoredwithinsecondarycontainmentareasinaccordancewithfederal,state,andlocalrequirementsandpermitconditions.Storagefacilitiesforpetroleumproductswouldbeconstructed,operated,andmaintainedinaccordancewiththeSpillPreventionControlandCountermeasures(SPCC)PlanthatwouldbepreparedandimplementedfortheproposedProject(Title40CodeofFederalRegulationsPart112).TheSPCCPlanwouldspecifyengineeringstandards(forexample,secondarycontainment);administrativestandards(forexample,trainingwithspecialemphasisonspillprevention,standardoperatingprocedures,inspections);andBMPs.

AHazardousMaterialsBusinessPlan(HMBP)wouldbedevelopedfortheproposedProject.TheHMBPwouldcontainspecificinformationregardingthetypesandquantitiesofhazardousmaterials,aswellastheirproduction,use,storage,spillresponse,transport,anddisposal.

2.5.7 Traffic and Parking

ConstructiontrafficroutingwouldbeestablishedinaConstructionTrafficPlan,whichwouldincludeatrafficsafetyandsigningplanpreparedbySandHillincoordinationwiththeCountyandotherrelevantagencies.Theplanwoulddefinehours,routes,andsafetyandmanagementrequirements.

Thisplanwouldincorporatemeasuressuchasinformationalsigns,trafficcones,andflashinglightstoidentifyanynecessarychangesintemporaryroadwayconfiguration.Flaggerswithtwo‐wayradioswouldbeusedtocontrolconstructiontrafficandreducethepotentialforaccidentsalongroads.Speedlimitswouldbesetcommensuratewithroadtype,trafficvolume,vehicletype,andsite‐specificconditionsasnecessarytoensuresafeandefficienttrafficflow.OnsiteconstructiontrafficwouldberestrictedtotheroadsdevelopedfortheproposedProject.Useofexistingunimprovedroadswouldberestrictedtoemergencysituations.

Vehicletripstothesiteduringconstructionwouldincludeoversizedvehiclesdeliveringwindturbinegeneratorandsubstationmaterials,heavyequipment,andotherconstruction‐relatedmaterials.ConstructionoftheproposedProjectcomponents(roads,turbines,substation,andelectrical/communicationlines)wouldtakeplaceconcurrently,usingindividualvehiclesformultipletasks.Therewouldalsobedailyroundtripsofvehiclestransportingconstructionpersonneltothesite.ThetotalnumberoftripswouldbeestimatedtosupportsubsequentanalysisbytheCounty.

Construction‐relatedparkingwouldbedirectedtotheconstructionstagingareas.Carpoolingwouldbeusedwheneverpossible.

Afterconstruction,O&MoftheproposedProjectwouldrequirefewertrips,consistingmostlyofpickupsorotherlight‐dutytrucks.

2.5.8 Water and Wastewater Needs

Waterforconstructionactivitieswouldbeprovidedthroughanagreementwithmunicipalorprivatesuppliers.Temporaryonsitewatertanksandwatertruckswouldbemadeavailableforfirewatersupport,dustsuppression,andconstructionneeds.Dailywaterusewouldvary,dependingontheweatherconditionsandtimeofyear,bothofwhichaffecttheneedfordustcontrol.Hot,dry,windyconditionswouldnecessitategreateramountsofwater.Tankertruckswouldapplywatertoconstructionareaswhereneededtoaidinroadcompactionandreduceconstruction‐generated




ICF 00631.17

dust.Aminimalamountofwaterwouldberequiredforconstructionworkerneeds(drinkingwater,sanitationfacilities).Thiswaterwouldbetruckedinordeliveredasbottleddrinkingwater.Alocalsanitationcompanywouldprovideandmaintainappropriateconstructionsanitationfacilities.Portabletoiletswouldbeplacedateachofthestagingareas.Whennecessary,additionalfacilitieswouldbeplacedatspecificconstructionlocations.AppropriateBMPtrainingwouldbeprovidedtotruckoperatorstopreventrunofffromdustsuppressionandcontrolactivities.Waterusedforcementmixingandtruckwashingwouldbemanagedinaccordancewithapplicablepermitconditions(andBMPs).

WhiletheproposedProjectwouldrequireonlyaminimalamountofwateronatemporarybasisduringconstruction,andanevensmalleramountofwaterduringoperationsfortheO&Mbuilding,SandHillhasvoluntarilypreparedawatersupplyassessment(WSA)forthepurposeofensuringthatsufficientwatersupplyisavailablefortheproposedProject.Waterforconstruction(primarilyfordustcontrol)wouldbeobtainedfromZone7WaterAgency,Byron‐BethanyIrrigationDistrict,theCityofLivermore,orotherapprovedwaterdistrictoragencyifavailable.Waterforoperationswouldbeobtainedfromagroundwatersourcebyinstallinganonsitewell.TheWSAconcludesthatthereisanadequatewatersupplyavailabletomeettheneedsoftheproposedProjectforbothconstructionactivitiesandoperations.

2.5.9 Inspection and Startup Testing

Priortooperation,eachcompletedturbinewouldbeinspectedandcheckedformechanical,electrical,andcontrolfunctionsinaccordancewiththemanufacturer’sspecificationsbeforebeingreleasedforstartuptesting.Aseriesofstartupprocedureswouldthenbeperformedbythemanufacturer’stechnicians.Electricaltestsonthetransformers,undergroundpowerlines,andcollectorsubstationswouldbeperformedbyqualifiedengineers,electricians,andtestpersonneltoensurethatelectricalequipmentisoperatingwithintolerancesandthattheequipmenthasbeeninstalledinaccordancewithdesignspecifications.TheabovegroundpowerlinesinterconnectingtothePG&Esystemwouldbetestedandinspectedasrequired.

2.5.10 Restoration

Clearinganddisposingoftrash,debris,andscrubonthoseportionsofthesitewhereconstructionwouldoccurwouldbeperformedattheendofeachworkdaythroughallstagesofconstruction.Existingvegetationwouldbeclearedonlywherenecessary.Allexcavationswouldbebackfilledwithcompactedearthandaggregateassoonascableinfrastructureistested.Disposalofcuttingsanddebriswouldbeinanapprovedfacilitydesignedtohandlethewaste.

Beforeconstructioniscomplete,allremainingtrashanddebriswouldberemovedfromthesite.AnydebriswouldbeproperlydisposedofoffsiteconsistentwithrestorationrequirementsfornearbyprojectsanddescribedinaReclamationPlan,whichwouldbedevelopedpriortoconstructionaspartoftheconstructionplanningandpermittingprocess.Anymaterialplacedintheareasofthefoundationsorroadswouldbecompactedasrequiredforsoilstability.




ICF 00631.17

2.5.11 Safety and Environmental Compliance Programs

2.5.11.1 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Aqualityassurance/qualitycontrol(QA/QC)programwouldbeimplementedtoensurethatconstructionandstartupofthefacilityarecompletedasspecified.SandHillwouldberesponsibleforensuringimplementationoftheQA/QCprogrampriortoconstruction.TheprogramwouldspecifyimplementingandmaintainingQA/QCprocedures,environmentalcomplianceprogramsandprocedures,andhealthandsafetycomplianceprogramsandprocedures,andwouldintegrateSandHill’sactivitieswiththecontractorsduringProjectconstruction.Theengineeringprocurementandconstructioncontractorandturbinesupplierwouldberesponsibleforenforcingcompliancewiththeconstructionproceduresprogramforalloftheirsubcontractors.

2.5.11.2 Environmental Compliance

OrientationofconstructionstaffwouldincludeeducationonthepotentialenvironmentalimpactsofProjectconstruction.Theconstructionmanagerwouldestablishproceduresforstafftoformallyreportanyissuesassociatedwiththeenvironmentalimpacts,tokeepmanagementinformed,andtofacilitaterapidresponse.

2.5.11.3 Stormwater Control

BecausetheProjectwoulddisturbmorethan1acre,itwouldrequirecoverageunderthestate’sGeneralPermitforStormWaterDischargesAssociatedwithConstructionandLandDisturbanceActivities(Order2010‐0014‐DWQ)(ConstructionGeneralPermit).Permitcoveragewouldbeobtainedbysubmittingpermitregistrationdocuments(PRDs)totheStateWaterResourcesControlBoardthroughitsStormwaterMultipleApplicationandReportTrackingSystem(SMARTS)website.ThePRDsincludeanoticeofintent,sitemaps,astormwaterpollutionpreventionplan(SWPPP),arisklevelassessment,andothermaterials.TheSWPPPwouldincludetheelementsdescribedinSectionAoftheConstructionGeneralPermitandmapsthatshowthelocationandtypeoferosioncontrol,sedimentcontrol,andnon‐stormwaterBMPs,allofwhichareintendedtopreventsignificantwaterqualityimpactsonreceivingwaters.TheSWPPPwouldalsodescribesiteinspection,monitoring,andBMPmaintenanceproceduresandschedules.

2.5.11.4 Safety Compliance

SandHillanditsconstructioncontractorsandsubcontractorswouldberesponsibleforconstructionhealthandsafetyissues.Thecontractorwouldprovideahealthandsafety(H&S)coordinator,whowouldensurethatapplicablelaws,regulations,ordinances,andstandardsconcerninghealthandsafetyarefollowedandthatanyidentifieddeficienciesarecorrectedasquicklyaspossible.TheH&Scoordinatorwouldconductonsiteorientationandsafetytrainingforcontractandsubcontractemployeesandwouldreportbacktotheonsiteconstructionmanager.Uponidentificationofahealthandsafetyissue,theH&Scoordinatorwouldworkwiththeconstructionmanagerandresponsiblesubcontractorordirecthireworkerstocorrecttheviolation.

2.5.11.5 Emergency Situations

Ifseverestormsresultinadownedpowerline,standardO&Mprocedureswouldbeapplied.Theturbineswouldbeequippedwithinternalprotectivecontrolmechanismstosafelyshutthemdown




ICF 00631.17

intheeventofahigh‐voltagegridoutageoraturbinefailurerelatedtofireormechanicalproblems.Aseparatelow‐voltagedistributionservicefeedmightbeconnectedtothelow‐voltagesideofthecollectorsubstationsasabackupsystemtoprovideauxiliarypowertoProjectfacilitiesincaseofoutages.Forsafety,thecollectorsubstationswouldbefenced,locked,andproperlysignedtopreventaccesstohigh‐voltageequipment.Safetysignagewouldbepostedaroundturbines,transformers,andotherhigh‐voltagefacilitiesandalongroads,asrequired.

2.5.11.6 Public Access and Security

TheProjectwouldbelocatedentirelyonpropertieswithrestrictedpublicaccess.OnlyauthorizedaccesstotheProjectsitewouldbeallowed.Thesiteisfencedandthecollectorsubstationswouldbefencedwithanadditional12‐foot‐highchain‐linkfencetopreventpublicandwildlifeaccesstohigh‐voltageequipment.Safetysignswouldbepostedinconformancewithapplicablestateandfederalregulationsaroundallturbines,transformers,andotherhigh‐voltagefacilitiesandalongaccessroads.VegetationclearancewouldbemaintainedadjacenttoProjectingressandegresspointsandaroundthecollectorsubstations,transformers,andinterconnectionriserpoles.

2.5.11.7 Hazardous Materials Storage and Handling

TheCounty’sHazardousMaterialsProgramDivisionistheCertifiedUnifiedProgramAgency(CUPA)forallareasofAlamedaCounty.ManagementofhazardousmaterialswouldbeconductedinaccordancewithaCounty‐approvedHMBPdevelopedfortheproposedProjectpursuanttotherequirementsoftheCUPA.HazardousmaterialsusedduringO&MactivitieswouldbestoredwithintheproposedO&MbuildinginabovegroundcontainerswithappropriatespillcontainmentfeaturesasprescribedbythelocalfirecodeortheSPCCPlanfortheO&Mbuildingasstipulatedbytheappropriateregulatoryauthority.SuchmaterialswouldbesimilarintypeandamounttothosecurrentlystoredandusedforO&Mfortheexistingfacility.

Lubricantsusedintheturbinegearboxarepotentiallyhazardous.Thegearboxwouldbesealedtopreventlubricantleakage.Thegearboxlubricantwouldbesampledperiodicallyandtestedtoconfirmthatitretainsadequatelubricatingproperties.Whenthelubricantshavedegradedtothepointwheretheyarenolongeradequate,thegearboxwouldbedrained,newlubricantadded,andtheusedlubricantsdisposedofatanappropriatefacilityinaccordancewithallapplicablelawsandregulations.

Transformerscontainoilforheatdissipation.Thetransformersaresealedandcontainnopolychlorinatedbiphenylsormovingparts.Thetransformeroilwouldnotbesubjecttoperiodicinspectionanddoesnotneedreplacement.

O&Mvehicleswouldbeproperlymaintainedtominimizeleaksofmotoroil,hydraulicfluid,andfuel.Duringoperation,O&MvehicleswouldbeservicedandfueledattheproposedO&Mbuilding(usingmobilefueltanks)oratanoffsitelocation.Nostoragetanksarelocatedattheexistingproject,andnoneareproposed.

2.6 Operation and Maintenance Activities Maintenanceofturbinesandassociatedinfrastructureincludesawidevarietyofactivities.Routinemaintenanceinvolvesactivitiessuchascheckingtorqueontowerboltsandanchors;checkingfor




ICF 00631.17

cracksandothersignsofstressontheturbinemainframeandotherturbinecomponents;inspectingforleakageoflubricants,hydraulicfluids,andotherhazardousmaterialsandreplacingthemasnecessary;inspectingthegroundingcables,wireropesandclips,andsurgearrestors;cleaning;andrepainting.Mostroutinemaintenanceactivitiesoccurinandaroundthetowerandthenacelle.CleanupfromroutinemaintenanceactivitieswouldbeconductedatthetimemaintenanceisperformedbytheO&Mpersonnel.Whileperformingmostroutinemaintenanceactivities,O&Mstaffwouldtravelbypickuporotherlight‐dutytrucks.Inaddition,nonroutinemaintenancesuchasrepairorreplacementofrotorsorothermajorcomponentscouldbenecessary.Suchmaintenancewouldinvolveuseofoneormorecranesandequipmenttransportvehicles.

MonitoringofProjectoperationswouldbecomputer‐based;computersinthebaseofeachturbinetowerwouldbeconnectedtotheO&Mfacilitythroughfiber‐opticorwirelesstelecommunicationlinks.

TheO&Mworkforcewouldconsistofturbinetechnicians,operationspersonnel,administrativepersonnel,andmanagementstaff.O&Mstaffwouldmonitorturbineandsystemoperation,performroutinemaintenance,shutdownandrestartturbineswhennecessary,andprovidesecurity.AllO&MstaffwouldbetrainedregularlytoobserveBMPs.Approximatelyfourtosixfull‐timestaffwouldberequiredtoconductO&Mactivities.

2.7 Post‐Project Decommissioning Theanticipatedlifeofthewindfarmismorethan30years,asupgradingandreplacingequipmentcouldextendtheoperatinglifeindefinitelywithappropriatepermitapprovals.However,thelifeoftheProjectforCEQApurposeswouldbe35years.

Decommissioningwouldinvolveremovingtheturbines,transformers,andrelatedinfrastructureinaccordancewithlandowneragreements.Substationsandmettowersmayberemovedandthesitesreclaimed;alternatively,thesitescouldberetainedforcontinueduse.Asinglelargecranewouldbeusedtodisassembletheturbines,andsmallercraneswouldliftthepartsontotruckstobehauledaway.Generally,turbines,electricalcomponents,andtowerswouldeitherberefurbishedandresoldorrecycledforscrap.Allunsalvageablematerialswouldbedisposedofatauthorizedsitesinaccordancewithfederal,state,andlocallaws,regulations,ordinances,andadoptedpoliciesineffectatthetimeoffinaldecommissioning.Existingserviceroadswouldbeused.Roadreclamationwouldbeaccomplishedusingscrapersandgraveltrucks.Sitereclamationafterdecommissioningwouldbesubjecttoalocallyapprovedreclamationplan.Basedonsite‐specificrequirements,thereclamationplanwouldincluderegrading,spotreplacementoftopsoil,andrevegetationofdisturbedareaswithanapprovedseedmix.

Mountain House Creek

Bethany Reservoir

Ca l i f o r n i a A q u e du c t

Delta

Men

d o t a C a n a l

§̈¦580

A l t a m o n t P a s s R d

Mou

n ta i

nH

ous

eR

d

G r a n t L i n e R d

Chr istensen Rd

99B-7750-6

99B-6325-1-4

99B-6325-1-3

99B-7375-1-799B-7400-1-5

99B-7300-1-5

99B-7050-4-6

99B-7050-1-9

99B-7350-2-1

99B-7350-2-15

99B-7350-2-5

99B-7500-3-2

99B-7500-3-1

99B-7600-1-1

99B-7050-4-1

0 2,500 5,0001,250Feet

E

Imagery Source: ESRI/NAIP 2016

Figure 2-1 Parcel Boundaries

LegendParcel Boundaries

Path:

K:\Pr

ojects

_1\N

ew_D

imen

sion_

Energ

y\006

31_1

7\Figu

res\Pr

ojectD

escri

ption

\Figu

re_2_

Parce

l_Bou

ndari

es.m

xd; A

uthor:

; Date

: 4/16

/2018

")

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*

#*

#*

Delta-Mendota Canal

California Aquaduct

BethanyReservoir

W Grant Line Rd

Altamont Pass Rd

Moun

tain

Hou

se R

d

Grant Line Rd

Christensen Rd

California Aqueduct Bikeway

Midway Rd

§̈¦580

§̈¦205

2

3

4

10

23

40

39

38

37

1

5

6

7

8

9

11

12-B

13-B

14-B

15-B

16-B

17-B

18-B

19-B

20-B

21-B

22-B

27

28

32

33

34

35

36

2425

26

29

30

31

0 2,000 4,0001,000Feet E

Base Map Source: ICF (2013);SPower (2017)

Imagery Source: NAIP (2016)

Figure 2-2cSand Hill Wind Repowering Project—Layout 3

Project AreaProposed ProjectComponents!( Turbine (2.3MW)!(

Turbine (3.6 MW or3.8MW)

") AML Substation")

Santa ClaraSubstation

#*PermanentMeteorological TowerAccess Roads*Gen-tie 1Gen-tie 2

Gen-tie 3Electrical CollectionLinesO&M Building - OptionAO&M Building - OptionB

Temporary Work AreasO&M Building WorkArea - Option AO&M Building WorkArea - Option BLaydown AreaTurbine Work Area ")

Altamont Pass Rd

Driveway

Main

View

Match

line

Inset

Map M

atchli

ne

Main View Matchline

* Existing roads will be temporarily widenedand reused for the repowering project. Other existing roads will be abandoned.

Path:

\\PDC

CITR

DSGI

S1\Pr

ojects

_1\N

ew_D

imen

sion_

Energ

y\006

31_1

7\Figu

res\C

EQA\F

igure2

c_X_

Proje

ct_Dis

turba

nceA

ll201

8061

9_Alt

3.mxd

; Auth

or: ; D

ate: 6

/20/20

18

")

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*

#*

#*

Delta-Mendota Canal

California Aquaduct

BethanyReservoir

W Grant Line Rd

Altamont Pass Rd

Moun

tain

Hou

se R

d

Grant Line Rd

Christensen Rd


Midway Rd

§̈¦580

§̈¦205

2

3

4

10

23

40

39

38

37

1

5

6

7

8

9

11

12-A

13-A

14-A

15-A

16-A

17-A

18-A

19-A

20-A

21-A22-A

27

28

32

33

34

35

36

2425

26

29

30

31

0 2,000 4,0001,000Feet E



Figure 2-2bSand Hill Wind Repowering Project—Layout 2



") AML Substation")





Altamont Pass Rd

Driveway

Main

View

Match

line

Inset

Map M

atchli

ne

Main View Matchline


Path:

\\PDC

CITR

DSGI

S1\Pr

ojects

_1\N

ew_D

imen

sion_

Energ

y\006

31_1

7\Figu

res\C

EQA\F

igure2

b_X_

Proje

ct_Dis

turba

nceA

ll201

8061

9_Alt

2.mxd

; Auth

or: ; D

ate: 6

/20/20

18

")

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

#*

#*

#*

Delta-Mendota Canal

California Aquaduct

BethanyReservoir

W Grant Line Rd

Altamont Pass Rd

Moun

tain

Hou

se R

d

Grant Line Rd

Christensen Rd


Midway Rd

§̈¦580

§̈¦205

2

3

4

10

23

1

5

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 22

27

28

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

2425

26

29

30

31

0 2,000 4,0001,000Feet E



Figure 2-2a Sand Hill Wind Repowering Project—Layout 1



") AML Substation")





Altamont Pass Rd

Driveway

Main

View

Match

line

Inset

Map M

atchli

ne

Main View Matchline


Path:

\\PDC

CITR

DSGI

S1\Pr

ojects

_1\N

ew_D

imen

sion_

Energ

y\006

31_1

7\Figu

res\C

EQA\F

igure2

a_X_

Proje

ct_Dis

turba

nceA

ll201

8061

9_Alt

1.mxd

; Auth

or: ; D

ate: 6

/20/20

18


Draft


ICF 00631.17

Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis

AsdiscussedinChapter1,Introduction,theanalysisinthisdocumentparallelstheorganizationofthePEIR.Whilesomeresourcetopicsmighthavebeensummarilydismissed,itwasdeemedpreferabletoprovideabriefargumentsupportingthedecisiontoomitamoredetailedanalysis.

Theresourcediscussionsareorganizedasshownbelow.Wherereferencesarecited,theyareprovidedattheendofeachsection.

Section3.1—AestheticsandVisualResources

Section3.2—AgriculturalandForestryResources

Section3.3—AirQuality

Section3.4—BiologicalResources

Section3.5—CulturalResources

Section3.6—Geology,Soils,MineralResources,andPaleontologicalResources

Section3.7—GreenhouseGasEmissions

Section3.8—HazardsandHazardousMaterials

Section3.9—HydrologyandWaterQuality

Section3.10—LandUseandPlanning

Section3.11—Noise

Section3.12—PopulationandHousing

Section3.13—PublicServices

Section3.14—Recreation

Section3.15—Transportation/Traffic

Section3.16—UtilitiesandServiceSystems

Alameda County Community Development Agency Environmental Analysis

Agricultural and Forestry Resources


3.1‐1 September 2018

ICF 00631.17

3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ThePEIRpresentedabroadandthoroughanalysisoftheimpactsonaestheticsandvisualresourcesthatwouldresultfromrepoweringtheprogramarea,selectingkeyviewpointstodevelopphotosimulationscomparingtheviewunderexistingconditionswiththesameviewunderrepoweredconditions.ToconducttheProject‐levelanalysis,analystsselectedeightProject‐specificviewpointstocharacterizevisualchangesthatwouldresultfromProjectimplementation(Figure3.1‐1).

Viewpoint1—LookingsouthwestfromtheCaliforniaAqueductBikewayonthenorthshoreofBethanyReservoir.

Viewpoint2—LookingeastalongChristensenRoadneartheBethanyReservoirentranceroad.

Viewpoint3—LookingsouthalongBrunsRoadfrom0.15milesouthoftheKelsoRoadintersection.

Viewpoint4—LookingsouthwestalongMountainHouseRoadfrom1.4milessouthoftheKelsoRoadintersection.

Viewpoint5—LookingnorthbynorthwestalongMountainHouseRoadfromjustnorthoftheGrantLineRoadintersection.

Viewpoint6—LookingwestbynorthwestfromtheCaliforniaAqueductBikewayattheGrantLineRoadcrossingoftheCaliforniaAqueduct.

Viewpoint7—LookingwestbynorthwestfromwestboundInterstate(I‐)580attheWestGrantLineRoadonramp.

Viewpoint8—LookingnortheastfromAltamontPassRoadatanunnamedaccessroad.

Areviewofeachofthealternativelayoutswasconductedtodetermineifanyparticularlayoutwassubstantiallydifferentfromavisualanalysisperspective.Theresultsofthatreviewindicatedthatthelayoutswerenotsubstantiallydifferent;Layout2wasselectedforthevisualsimulations(thelayoutwiththe“middle”groupofturbines).Asnotedpreviously,the“middle”groupof11turbineslocatedsouthofBethanyReservoirhavedifferentlocationsineachofthethreelayouts.Visualsimulationswerepreparedforeachviewpointusingthelargestandtallestturbinesconsideredtoensurethatthemostseverevisualimpactswouldbeconsidered.

3.1.1 Existing Conditions

AsdescribedinthePEIR,theProjectvicinity,inthenortheasternportionoftheAWPRA,ismostlycharacterizedbygrass‐covered,rollinghills,withroadcutstoaccommodateruralroadsandI‐580.Stringsofturbines,powerlines,transformers,accessroads,andsubstationsarethemostvisuallydistinctartificialfeaturesthroughoutmostthevicinity.Ruralresidencesdotthevicinitysurround‐ingtheProjectarea,butonlyasingleresidenceiswithinit.TheCaliforniaAqueduct,theCaliforniaAqueductBikeway,andBethanyReservoirliebetweentheeasternandwesternportionsoftheProjectarea.TheeasternterminusoftheBrushyPeakRegionalPreservetoBethanyReservoirregionalmultiusetrailisimmediatelyoutsidethenorthwesternboundaryoftheProjectarea.

MountainHouseRoad,aCounty‐designatedscenicroadway,passesthroughtheeasternportionoftheProjectarea(Figure3.1‐1).Theareanorthwestoftheroadiscurrentlyundeveloped,althoughit





ICF 00631.17

supportedwindturbinesinthepast.Numerousoldergenerationturbinesarepresentonthesoutheastsideoftheroad.

3.1.2 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

TheProject‐levelanalysiswasbasedonreviewofthePEIRandonthevisualphotosimulationslistedabove.ThesephotosimulationsarepresentedinFigures3.1‐2through3.1‐9.

ThePEIRreliedonaqualitativeevaluationofthevisualimpactsofrepoweringtheprogramareaoverall.Ingeneral,thePEIRcharacterizedthenewrepoweredturbinesacrosstheprogramareaincomparisonwiththeexistingold‐generationturbines.TheSandHillProject’sturbineswouldhaveaslightlylongerbladelength(i.e.,15feet)androtor‐sweptareathantheturbinesevaluatedinthePEIR,buttheProjectwouldrequirefewerturbinesbecauseeachwouldhaveahighercapacitythanthosecontemplatedinthePEIR.ThelongerbladelengthisnotexpectedtobevisuallynoticeablefromnearbyroadsorresidencesbecausetheproposedturbinesareconsistentwiththeoveralldimensionsofthoseevaluatedinthePEIR;consequently,theanalysisinthePEIRisrelevantandappropriatefortheProject.Accordingly,theapplicant’sproposaltouseslightlylargerturbineswouldnotconstituteanewsignificanteffectorasubstantialincreaseintheseverityofeffectsonvisualresourcescomparedtothosedescribedinthePEIR.AdditionalanalysisspecifictotheProjectisprovidedbelow.

ImpactAES‐1:Temporaryvisualimpactscausedbyconstructionactivities(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatconstructionactivitiescouldresultinasignificantimpact,particularlyforhighlysensitiveviewerssuchasresidentsandrecreationists.TheanalysisspecificallycalledoutBethanyReservoir,whichissurroundedbytheSandHillProjectarea,aswellasscenicroadwaysandrecreationaltrails.Accordingly,thepotentialvisualimpactsassociatedwithconstructionasaddressedinthePEIRwouldapplytotheProject;asconcludedinthePEIR,implementationofMitigationMeasureAES‐1,Limitconstructiontodaylighthours,wouldreducetheseimpactstoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactAES‐2:Haveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatwhilethenew,largeturbinesmaybemorevisuallyevidentthantheolder,smallerturbines,theirwidespacingonthelandscapewouldbelessdisruptiveofthelandscapefeatures.Theprogram‐levelanalysisraisedthegreatestconcernforareaswithoutturbines;intheProjectarea,suchconditionsexistonlyoncertainparcelseastandsouthofBethanyReservoir.MitigationMeasureAES‐2a,Requiresitedevelopmentreview,specificallystates:

Newturbinesalongridgelinesorhilltopsthathavenotpreviouslybeendevelopedwithcommercial‐scalewindturbineswillnotbeallowed,unlessaseparateSiteDevelopmentReviewiscompletedthatdeterminesthatthevisualeffectswillbesubstantiallyavoidedbydistancefrompublicviewpoints(e.g.,morethan2,000feet),interveningterrain,screeninglandscaping,orcompensatoryimprovementstoequivalentandnearby(radiusof1mile)scenicfeatures,asapprovedbythePlanningDirector.

Accordingly,whileaportionoftherepoweringProjectisbeingplannedinanareathatwaspreviouslydevelopedwithwindturbines,thoseturbineswereremovedpriortoissuanceofthe





ICF 00631.17

NoticeofPreparationforthePEIRin2010.TheProjectwouldintroducesubstantialchangestocurrentviewswithinandoftheProjectareaalongMountainHouseRoadbyconstructingnewturbineswherenonehavebeensincebefore2010.Forthepurposesoffullandconservativedisclosure,anddespitethefactthattheareawasdevelopedwithwindturbinesinthepast,theconstructionofturbinesinthisareacouldhaveasubstantialadverseeffectonascenicvista;thisimpactisconsideredpotentiallysignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureAES‐2a,Requiresitedevelopmentreview,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.VisualimpactsfromotherareasoftheProjectarealsoconsideredpotentiallysignificantforthereasonscommontootherwindrepoweringprojects—specifically,theappearanceofmultiplepiecesofconstructionequipment.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresAES‐2b,Maintainsitefreeofdebrisandrestoreabandonedroadways,andAES‐2c,Screensurpluspartsandmaterials,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.TheseconclusionsareconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddresstheseimpacts.

ImpactAES‐3:Substantiallydamagescenicresources,includingbutnotlimitedtotrees,rockoutcroppings,andhistoricbuildingsalongascenichighway(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Asdescribedabove,MountainHouseRoadintheeasternportionoftheProjectareaisaCounty‐designatedscenicroadway.AsstatedinthePEIR:

TherearealsoportionsofI‐580,AltamontPassRoad,FlynnRoad,MountainHouseRoad,PattersonPassRoad,andtheproposedRoute239Freeway…wherenoturbinescurrentlyexist,butmotoristsontheseroadsareaccustomedtoseeingwindturbinesalongtheroute,sotheywouldnotbeadverselyaffected.

AlthoughtheareanorthwestofMountainHouseRoaddoesnotcurrentlysupportturbinedevelopment,ithasdonesointhepast.Moreover,theoppositesideoftheroadwayisheavilydevelopedwitholdergenerationturbines,whichwillberemovedin2018.Althoughtheseconsiderationsservetominimizetheseverityofthisimpact,thePEIRconcludedthatitwaslessthansignificantwithmitigation.Accordingly,thisanalysisconcludesthatimplementationofMitigationMeasuresAES‐2a,AES‐2bandAES‐2cwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactAES‐4:Substantiallydegradetheexistingvisualcharacterorqualityofthesiteanditssurroundings(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthat,ingeneral,replacingnumeroussmallturbineswithfewer,muchlargerturbineswouldnotdegradetheexistingvisualcharacteroftheareabutratherwouldimprovethevisualquality.Theanalysisraisedconcernsaboutareaswhereturbinesdonotcurrentlyexist,butasdisclosedinthediscussionofImpactAES‐3,theareanorthwestofMountainHouseRoadwasconsideredtohavepotentiallysignificantimpactstriggeringsitedevelopmentreviewunderMitigationMeasureAES‐2a.WhileitmightbearguedthatthisimpactasitpertainstotheSandHillProjectmightbeconsideredlessthansignificantbecausetheareawasdevelopedwithwindturbinesinthepast(priortodevelopmentofthePEIR),forpurposesoffullandconservativedisclosure,thisimpactisconsideredpotentiallysignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresAES‐2a,AES‐2bandAES‐2wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.





ICF 00631.17

ImpactAES‐5:Createanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarethatwouldadverselyaffectdaytimeornighttimeviewsinthearea(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatlightingrequiredbytheFederalAviationAdministration(FAA)intheProjectareaandvicinityandlightingassociatedwiththesubstationswouldbeshieldedanddirecteddownwardtoreduceglare,andthatthecolorofnewtowersandrotorswouldbeneutralandnon‐reflective.SincethepreparationofthePEIR,theCountyhasnotedthatlightingassociatedwiththeturbinesmayhaveeffectsbeyondthosedescribedinthePEIR.However,asdiscussedinSection1.3.5,TurbineLighting,theseeffectscouldhavebeenknownwhenthePEIRwasprepared.Consequently,thisanalysisconfirmsthattheProjectwouldnotresultinanewsourceofsubstantiallightorglarebeyondwhatisdescribedinthePEIR.

However,thePEIRalsoconcludedthatshadowflicker—causedbybladerotation—couldcreateadisruptivevisualintrusiontoresidentswhoareexposedtotheconditionforextendedperiods:morethan30minutesinagivendayor30hoursinagivenyear.InaccordancewithMitigationMeasureAES‐5,Analyzeshadowflickerdistanceandmitigateeffectsorincorporatechangesintoprojectdesigntoaddressshadowflicker,SandHillwillretainaqualifiedengineeringfirmtoconductashadowflickeranalysis.ThetermsofthemitigationmeasurerequirethatSandHillimplementmeasurestominimizetheeffectinconsultationwiththeowneroftheaffectedresidence.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureAES‐5wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactAES‐6:Consistencywithstateandlocalpolicies(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

AsdisclosedinthePEIR,theCountywouldbeobligatedtocomplywithmeasuressetforthtoprotectvisualresourcesalongscenicroadwaysandopenspaceareasidentifiedforprotection,asdetailedintheScenicRouteandOpenSpaceElementsoftheAlamedaCountyGeneralPlan(AlamedaCounty1966).Inaddition,theCountyisobligatedtocomplywithmeasuressetforthintheEastCountyAreaPlan(ECAP)toprotectvisualresourcessuchassensitiveviewsheds,streetsandhighways,scenichighways,andareasaffectedbywindfarms(AlamedaCounty2000).TheproposedProjectissimilarlysubjecttotheserequirements.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresAES‐2b,AES‐2c,AES‐3,andAES‐5wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

3.1.3 References Cited

AlamedaCounty.1966.ScenicRouteElementoftheGeneralPlan.May.ReprintedJune1974,AmendedMay5,1994.

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

BethanyReservoir SRA

Ala

med

a C

ount

ySa

n Jo

aqu

in C

ount

y

Grant Line Rd

Christensen Rd

Burn

s Rd

Kelso Rd

Midway Rd

N Midway Rd

Mountain House Rd

Jess

Ranch Rd

Altamont Pass Rd

580

1

10

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

27

28

2425

26

38

39

40

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

23

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

R2

1

3

2

4

87

6

5

LEGEND

Simulation Viewpoint Locations with Direction and Number

1

Proposed 2.3 MW Turbine Locations, Layout 2

Receptor

Proposed 3.6 MW Turbine Locations, Layout 2

Scenic Routes

Sand Hill Project Area

0 0.25

Miles

0.5

Figure 3.1-1Visual Simulation Viewpoint Locations

ICF

Gra

phic

s …

000

66.1

7 (5

-1-2

018)

tm

1

3

ICF

Gra

phic

s …

006

31.1

7 (5

-1-2

018)

tm

Figure 3.1-2Viewpoint 1—Looking Southwest from California Aqueduct Bikeway

at Bethany Reservoir

Existing View

Simulation

Figure 3.1-3Viewpoint 2—Looking East along Christensen Road

near Bethany Reservoir Entrance Road

Existing View

Simulation

ICF

Gra

phic

s …

006

31.1

7 (5

-1-2

018)

tm

ICF

Gra

phic

s …

006

31.1

7 (5

-1-2

018)

tm

Figure 3.1-4Viewpoint 3—Looking South along Bruns Road

from 0.15 mile South of Kelso Road

Existing View

Simulation

ICF

Gra

phic

s …

006

31.1

7 (5

-1-2

018)

tm

Figure 3.1-5Viewpoint 4—Looking Southwest along Mountain House Road

from 1.4 miles South of Kelso Road

Existing View

Simulation

ICF

Gra

phic

s …

006

31.1

7 (5

-1-2

018)

tm

Figure 3.1-6Viewpoint 5—Looking North by Northwest along Mountain House Road

from North of West Grant Line Road Intersection

Existing View

Simulation

ICF

Gra

phic

s …

006

31.1

7 (5

-1-2

018)

tm

Figure 3.1-7Viewpoint 6—Looking West by Northwest from California Aqueduct Bikeway

at Grant Line Road Crossing

Existing View

Simulation

ICF

Gra

phic

s …

006

31.1

7 (5

-1-2

018)

tm

Figure 3.1-8Viewpoint 7—Looking West by Northwest from Westbound I-580

at the West Grant Line Road Onramp

Existing View

Simulation

Image source: Google Street View, 10/2017.

ICF

Gra

phic

s …

006

31.1

7 (5

-1-2

018)

tm

Figure 3.1-9Viewpoint 8—Looking Northeast from Altamont Pass Road

at Unnamed Access Road

Existing View

Simulation

Image source: Google Street View, 8/2015.





ICF 00631.17

3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ThePEIRidentifiedapproximately24acresofPrimeFarmlandintheextremenortheastcorneroftheprogramareaandfoundthatconversionofthisagriculturallandwouldconstituteasignificantimpact,whichcouldbemitigatedtoaless‐than‐significantlevel.However,becausethePrimeFarmlandisoutsidetheSandHillProjectarea,therewouldbenoimpact.Similarly,thePEIRfoundthatbecausewindturbinesareaconditionallypermitteduseongrazinglandunderWilliamsonActcontract,therewouldbenoimpactpertainingtoconflictswithexistingzoning.Finally,thereisnoforestlandintheprogramarea.Accordingly,agriculturalandforestryresourcesarenotdiscussedfurtherinthisanalysis.


Air Quality



ICF 00631.17

3.3 Air Quality ThePEIRevaluatedimpactsassociatedwithdevelopmentofupto450MWincombinednameplatecapacitywithintheprogramarea.Project‐levelcriteriapollutantemissionsandassociatedairqualityimpactswereassessedusingmanyofthesamemethodsandmodelsasdescribedinthePEIR.Specifically,analystsestimatedcombustionexhaustandfugitivedustbasedonProject‐specificconstructionandoperatingdata(e.g.,schedule,equipment,truckvolumes)providedbytheProjectengineerandacombinationofemissionfactorsandmethodologiesfromCalEEMod,version2016.3.2;CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard’s(ARB’s)EMFAC2017model;theU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency’s(EPA’s)AP‐42CompilationofAirPollutantEmissionFactors,andseveralotherindustry‐acceptedtools.AppendixAprovidesadditionalmodelingdetail,includingequipmentandvehicleassumptions.


AsdescribedinthePEIR,theproposedProjectislocatedinAlamedaCounty,whichisintheBayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict(BAAQMD).Concentrationsofozone,carbonmonoxide(CO),nitrogendioxide(NO2),sulfurdioxide(SO2),lead(Pb),andparticulatematter(PM10andPM2.5)arecommonlyusedasindicatorsofambientairqualityconditions.ThesepollutantsareknownascriteriapollutantsandareregulatedbyEPAandARBthroughnationalandCaliforniaambientairqualitystandards(NAAQSandCAAQS),respectively.TheNAAQSandCAAQSestablishlimitsofcriteriapollutantconcentrationstoprotecthumanhealthandpreventenvironmentalandpropertydamage.OtherpollutantsofconcernintheProjectareaarenitrogenoxides(NOX)andreactiveorganicgases(ROG),whichareprecursorstoozone,anddieselparticulatematter(DPM),whichcancausecancerandotherhumanhealthailments.Ingeneral,theProjectareaisgenerallywellventilatedbywinds,resultinginrelativelygoodambientairqualityconditions.


ConstructionemissionswouldprimarilyoccurintheProjectareaintheBAAQMD.However,someequipmentandmaterialswouldoriginatefromthePortofStocktonandthecityofTracy,bothofwhicharewithintheSanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict(SJVAPCD).Accordingly,heavy‐dutytrucktripexhaustemissionsthatwouldbegeneratedintheSJVAPCDhavebeenquantifiedandincludedintheconstructionanalysis.OperationalemissionswouldoccurexclusivelyintheBAAQMD.ConsistentwiththePEIR,thresholdsdevelopedbytheBAAQMDandSJVAPCDareusedtoevaluatethesignificanceoftheProject’semissionsandassociatedairqualityimpacts(SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict2015;BayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict2017).

ImpactAQ‐1:Conflictwithorobstructimplementationoftheapplicableairqualityplan(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRconcludedthatrepoweringprojectsunderbothalternativeswouldnotconflictwiththegoalsofBAAQMD’sCleanAirPlanorSJVAPCD’sairqualityattainmentplans.Accordingly,becausetheSandHillProjectisconsistentwiththeassumptionsusedinthePEIR,thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.


Air Quality



ICF 00631.17

ImpactAQ‐2:Violateanyairqualitystandardorcontributesubstantiallytoanexistingorprojectedairqualityviolation(significantandunavoidable)

ThePEIRconcludedthatmaximumdailyunmitigatedROGandNOXfromconstructionofrepoweringprojectswouldexceedBAAQMD’ssignificancethresholds,resultinginasignificantimpact.FugitivedustwouldalsoconstituteasignificantimpactwithoutapplicationofBMPs.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresAQ‐2a,Reduceconstruction‐relatedairpollutantemissionsbyimplementingapplicableBAAQMDBasicConstructionMitigationMeasures,andAQ‐2b,Reduceconstruction‐relatedairpollutantemissionsbyimplementingmeasuresbasedonBAAQMD’sAdditionalConstructionMitigationMeasures,wouldensurethatimpactsrelatedtofugitivedustwouldbelessthansignificant.However,implementationofthesemeasureswouldnotreduceROGorNOXemissionstoaless‐than‐significantlevel.Accordingly,theimpactofconstruction‐relatedROGandNOXemissionswouldbesignificantandunavoidableintheBAAQMD.Neitherlong‐termoperationoftheProjectnormaterialhaulinginSJVAPCDduringconstructionwouldexceedanyairdistrictthresholds,andimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.TheseconclusionsareconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactAQ‐3:Resultinacumulativelyconsiderablenetincreaseofanycriteriapollutantforwhichtheprojectregionisanonattainmentareaforanapplicablefederalorstateambientairqualitystandard(includingreleasingemissionsthatexceedquantitativethresholdsforozoneprecursors)(significantandunavoidableforconstructionandlessthansignificantforoperation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatconstructionofrepoweringprojectswouldexceedBAAQMD’sROGandNOXthresholdsevenafterimplementationoffeasiblemitigation.Accordingly,thePEIRdeterminedthatcumulativeconstructionimpactsintheBAAQMDwouldbesignificantandunavoidable.Long‐termoperationoftherepoweredprojectswasfoundtohavealess‐than‐significantcumulativeairqualityimpact.

AsdiscussedunderImpactAQ‐2,neitherlong‐termoperationoftheproposedProjectnormaterialhaulinginSJVAPCDduringconstructionwouldexceedairdistrictthresholds.Accordingly,cumulativeimpactsduringconstructionintheSJVAPCDandduringoperationintheBAAQMDwouldbelessthansignificant.Construction‐relatedNOxandPMemissionsintheBAAQMDwouldexceedtheairdistrict’sthresholds,resultinginapotentiallysignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresAQ‐2aandAQ‐2bwouldensurethatimpactsrelatedtofugitivedustwouldbelessthansignificant.However,NOXemissionswouldremainsignificantandunavoidableandcumulativelyconsiderable.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactAQ‐4:Exposesensitivereceptorstosubstantialpollutantconcentrations(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatreceptorexposuretoDPMfromconstructionoftherepoweringprojectswouldbelessthansignificantwithimplementationofMitigationMeasuresAQ‐2aandAQ‐2b,whichwouldreducebothcriteriapollutantsandDPMemissions.

Long‐termoperationoftheproposedProjectwouldnotresultinasignificantnewsourceofemissions.Offsitetrucktripsduringconstructionwouldbetransitory,usingmultipleroadsoverawidespreadarea,therebyhelpingtodispersetoxicpollutantsandminimizeexposure.OnsiteconstructionactivitieswouldgenerateDPM,butthesewouldoccuroverarelativelyshortperiod—approximately1year,farlessthantheexposuredurationof30yearsthatistypicallyassociated


Air Quality



ICF 00631.17

withchroniccancerrisk(OfficeofEnvironmentalHealthHazardAssessment2015).EmissionswouldalsobespatiallydispersedthroughouttheProjectareaandatmultipleturbinelocations.

WhileexposuretoDPMemissionswouldbeofshortduration,tworeceptorsarewithin1,000feetofturbineworkareas.Thesereceptorsmaybeexposedtoincreasedhealthrisksduringconstructionattheseindividuallocations.Accordingly,thisimpactisconservativelyconcludedtobepotentiallysignificant.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresAQ‐2aandAQ‐2bwouldreduceDPMemissionsandassociatedhealthriskstosensitivereceptors.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantwithmitigation.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactAQ‐5:Createobjectionableodorsaffectingasubstantialnumberofpeople(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRconcludedthatneitherconstructionnoroperationoftherepoweringprojectswouldresultinsignificantodorimpacts.OdoremissionsundertheproposedProjectwouldbesimilartothoseevaluatedattheprogramlevel;theywouldbeprimarilylimitedtotheconstructionperiod.Sourcesofodorsduringconstructionwouldbediesel‐poweredtrucksandvehicles.Potentialodorsfromthesesourceswouldbetemporary(1year)andspatiallydispersedovertheProjectarea.Accordingly,theproposedProjectisnotanticipatedtocreateobjectionableodorsthatwouldviolateairdistrictnuisancerules.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.


BayAreaAirQualityManagementDistrict.2017.AirQualityGuidelines.May.

OfficeofEnvironmentalHealthHazardAssessment.2015.AirToxicsHotSpotProgramRiskAssessmentGuidelinesGuidanceManualforPreparationofHealthRiskAssessments.February.

SanJoaquinValleyAirPollutionControlDistrict.2015.GuidanceforAssessingandMitigatingAirQualityImpacts.March.


Biological Resources



ICF 00631.17

3.4 Biological Resources ToevaluatethepotentialProject‐specificimpactsonbiologicalresources,ICFpreparedtheBiologicalResourcesEvaluationfortheSandHillWindRepoweringProject(AppendixB).InadditiontoreviewingpreviousworkconductedinsupportofthePEIRandtheEastAlamedaConservationStrategy(EACCS),aswellassurveysconductedinportionsoftheProjectareaforanearlierwindproject,ICFbiologistssearchedtheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife’s(CDFW’s)CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase(CNDDB)(CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife2018)andtheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceIPaCTrustResourceReportspecieslistfortheProjectarea(U.S.FishandWildlifeService2018).

Inaddition,ICFbotanists/wetlandecologistsconductedaquaticresourcedelineationsurveysinOctoberandNovember2017andJanuary2018.ThesewereformaldelineationsundertakenwiththepurposeofcharacterizingpotentialwatersoftheUnitedStates,includingwetlands,intheProjectarea.

Biologistsconductedhabitatsurveysofthebiologicalstudyarea(i.e.,theProjectareaplusa1.24‐milebufferaroundittoaccountforthepossibledispersaldistanceofCaliforniatigersalamandersfromaquaticbreedinghabitat).ICFalsoconductedasiteassessmentforCaliforniatigersalamanderandCaliforniared‐leggedfrog.


3.4.1.1 Land Cover Types

NotallthelandcovertypesdescribedinthePEIRwerefoundtobepresentintheProjectarea.ThelandcovertypesandtheextentofeachidentifiedthroughthesurveyeffortsareshowninTable3.4‐1.

Table 3.4‐1. Approximate Acreage of Land Cover Types

LandCover/HabitatType Acres

Nonnativeannualgrassland 2,604.7

Alkaliwetland/drainage 20.1

Vernalpool 0.3

Perennialwetlanddrainage 9.7

Pond 6.3

Ephemeraldrainage 3.7

Canal(aqueducts) 1.0

Developed/existinginfrastructure 54.7

Total 2,700.5





ICF 00631.17

3.4.1.2 Special‐Status Plants

AccordingtotheBiologicalResourcesEvaluation,the10special‐statusplantspecieslistedbelowhavebeenidentifiedashavingthepotentialtooccurintheProjectarea.AllthesespecieswereconsideredinthePEIR,althoughadditionalspeciesthatcouldoccurintheprogramareaweredeterminednottooccurintheProjectareaduetomicrohabitatconditionsorrangeconstraints.

Large‐floweredfiddleneck(Amsinckiagrandiflora)—state‐andfederallylistedasendangered.

SanJoaquinspearscale(Atriplexjoaquiniana)—CRPR1B.2.2

Bigtarplant(Blepharizoniaplumosa)—CRPR1B.11.

Round‐leavedfilaree(Californiamacrophylla)—CRPR1B.11.

Lemmon’sjewelflower(Caulanthuslemmonii)—CRPR1B.21.

Recurvedlarkspur(Delphiniumrecurvatum)—CRPR1B.21.

Diamond‐petaledCaliforniapoppy(Eschscholziarhombipetala)—CRPR1B.11.

Shiningnavarretia(Navarretianigelliformisssp.radians)—CRPR1B.21.

Raylessragwort(Senecioaphanactis)—CRPR2.21.

Caper‐fruitedtropidocarpum(Tropidocarpumcapparideum)—CRPR1B.11.

Fourofthesespecies—SanJoaquinspearscale,caper‐fruitedtropidocarpum,round‐leavedfilaree,anddiamond‐petaledCaliforniapoppy—havebeenpreviouslydocumentedwithinoradjacenttothestudyarea.

3.4.1.3 Special‐Status Wildlife

AccordingtotheBiologicalResourcesEvaluation,thespecial‐statuswildlifespecieslistedbelowhavebeenidentifiedashavingthepotentialtooccurintheProjectarea.AllthesespecieswereconsideredinthePEIR,althoughadditionalspeciesthatcouldoccurintheprogramareaweredeterminednottooccurintheProjectareaduetomicrohabitatconditionsorrangeconstraints.

Vernalpoolfairyshrimp(Branchinectalynchi)—federallylistedasthreatened.

Vernalpooltadpoleshrimp(Lepiduruspackardi)—federallylistedasendangered.

Californiatigersalamander(Ambystomacaliforniense)—state‐andfederallylistedasthreatened.

Californiared‐leggedfrog(Ranadraytonii)—federallylistedasthreatened.

Westernspadefoot(Speahammondii)—CDFWspeciesofspecialconcern.

Westernpondturtle(Actinemysmarmorata)—CDFWspeciesofspecialconcern.

SanJoaquincoachwhip(Masticophisflagellumruddocki)—CDFWspeciesofspecialconcern.

2CRPR = CaliforniaRarePlantRank. 1B.1= rare,threatenedorendangeredinCaliforniaandelsewhere,seriouslyendangeredinCalifornia. 1B.2= rare,threatenedorendangeredinCaliforniaandelsewhere,fairlyendangeredinCalifornia. 2.2 = rare,threatenedorendangeredinCalifornia,butmorecommonelsewhere,fairlyendangeredin

California.





ICF 00631.17

Blainville’shornedlizard(Phyrnosomablainvillii)—CDFWspeciesofspecialconcern.

White‐tailedkite(Elanusleucurus)—Californiafullyprotected.

Northernharrier(Circuscyaneus)—CDFWspeciesofspecialconcern.

Baldeagle(Haliaeetusleucocephalus)—federallyde‐listed;state‐listedasendangered,fullyprotected.

Goldeneagle(Aquilachrysaetos)—Californiafullyprotected.

Swainson’shawk(Buteoswainsoni)—state‐listedasthreatened.

Westernburrowingowl—CDFWspeciesofspecialconcern.

Loggerheadshrike(Laniusludovicianus)—CDFWspeciesofspecialconcern.

Tricoloredblackbird(Agelaiustricolor)—state‐listedasthreatened.

Americanbadger(Taxideataxus)—CDFWspeciesofspecialconcern.

SanJoaquinkitfox(Vulpesmacrotismutica)—state‐listedasthreatened;federallylistedasendangered.

Californiared‐leggedfrog,burrowingowls,andforaginggoldeneagleswereobservedinthestudyareaduringtheOctober2017surveysaswellasduring2012surveyspreviouslyconductedforanotherwindproject(ICFInternational2013).


ImpactBIO‐1:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultinadverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsorhabitatoccupiedbyspecial‐statusplants(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatground‐disturbingactivitiesassociatedwithProjectconstructioncouldresultinadverseimpactsonspecial‐statusplantsandtheirhabitat.BecausetheactivitiesassociatedwiththeSandHillProjectandthespecial‐statusplantspecieswithpotentialtooccurintheProjectareaareunchangedfromthosecontemplatedinthePEIR,theimpactwouldbecomparabletothatpresentedinthePEIR,andthesamemitigationmeasureswouldapply.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1a,Conductsurveystodeterminethepresenceorabsenceofspecial‐statusplantspecies;BIO‐1b,Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusspecies;BIO‐1c,Avoidandminimizeimpactsonspecial‐statusplantspeciesbyestablishingactivityexclusionzones;BIO‐1d,Compensateforimpactsonspecial‐statusplantspecies;andBIO‐1e,Retainabiologicalmonitorduringground‐disturbingactivitiesinenvironmentallysensitiveareas,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐thansignificantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐2:Adverseeffectsonspecial‐statusplantsandnaturalcommunitiesresultingfromtheintroductionandspreadofinvasiveplantspecies(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThepotentialfortheintroductionandspreadofinvasiveplantspeciesintheProjectareaasaresultofconstructionactivitieswouldbethesameasdescribedinthePEIRforrepoweringprojects





ICF 00631.17

overall.Theintroductionofinvasivenonnativeplantspecieswouldconstituteasignificantindirectimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b;BIO‐2,Preventintroduction,spread,andestablishmentofinvasiveplantspecies;BIO‐5c,Restoredisturbedannualgrasslands;andWQ‐1,ComplywithNPDESrequirements,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐3:Potentialmortalityoforlossofhabitatforvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatrepoweringprojectscouldresultinhabitatlossforanddirectmortalityofindividualvernalpoolbranchiopodaswellascurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetles(Hygrotuscurvipes).TheBiologicalResourcesEvaluationdeterminedthatnopotentialhabitatforlonghornfairyshrimp(Branchinectalongiantenna)ispresentintheProjectarea.However,becausepotentialhabitatforvernalpoolfairyshrimp,vernalpooltadpoleshrimp,andcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetleispresentinandneartheProjectarea,mortalityandhabitatlossarepotentiallysignificantimpacts.ThePEIRconcludedthatimplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b;BIO‐1e;BIO‐3a,Conductpreconstructionsurveysforhabitatforspecial‐statuswildlifespecies;andBIO‐3b,Implementmeasurestoavoid,minimize,andmitigateimpactsonvernalpoolbranchiopodsandcurved‐footedhygrotusdivingbeetle,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐4:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle(noimpact)

AlthoughthePEIRidentifiedthepotentialforimpactsonvalleyelderberrylonghornbeetle(Desmoceruscalifornicus)inportionsoftheprogramarea,noelderberryshrubs(thespecies’hostplant)havebeenidentifiedintheProjectarea;accordingly,therewouldbenoimpactandnomitigationwouldberequired.

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

ThePEIRconcludedthatconstructionaswellasoperationandmaintenanceactivitiescouldresultinhabitatlossforCaliforniatigersalamander,westernspadefoot,Californiared‐leggedfrog,andfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog,aswellasmortalityofindividuals.SiteassessmentsconductedfortheBiologicalResourcesEvaluationfoundnosuitablehabitatforfoothillyellow‐leggedfrog;however,becausesuitablehabitatfortheotherthreespeciesispresentintheProjectarea,theProjectcouldresultinsignificantimpacts.ThePEIRconcludedthatimplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b;BIO‐1e;BIO‐3c;BIO‐5a,Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeeffectsonspecial‐statusamphibians;BIO‐5b,Compensateforlossofhabitatforspecial‐statusamphibians;andBIO‐5cwouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.





ICF 00631.17

ImpactBIO‐6:Potentialdisturbanceormortalityofandlossofsuitablehabitatforwesternpondturtle(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatconstructionactivitiescouldresultindirecteffectsonwesternpondturtlesandtheirhabitat.BecausetheBiologicalResourcesEvaluationidentifiedsuitablehabitatforthisspeciesintheProjectarea,suchimpactscouldresultfromProjectconstruction.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b;BIO‐1e;BIO‐3a;andBIO‐6,Conductpreconstructionsurveysforwesternpondturtleandmonitorconstructionactivitiesifturtlesareobserved,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

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

ThePEIRconcludedthatconstructionactivitiesand,toalesserextent,operationandmaintenanceactivitiescouldresultinhabitatlossforandindividualfatalitiesofBlainville’shornedlizard,Alamedawhipsnake,andSanJoaquincoachwhip.TheBiologicalResourcesEvaluationfoundthatAlamedawhipsnakehadlittletonolikelihoodtooccurintheProjectarea;however,thepotentialremainsfordirectimpactsontheothertwospeciesofspecial‐statusreptiles.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b;BIO‐1e;BIO‐3a;BIO‐5c;BIO‐7a,Implementbestmanagementpracticestoavoidandminimizeeffectsonspecial‐statusreptiles;andBIO‐7b,Compensateforlossofhabitatforspecial‐statusreptiles,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

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

ThePEIRconcludedthatconstructionactivitiesduringthenestingseasonofwhite‐tailedkite,baldeagle,northernharrier,Swainson’shawk,goldeneagle,westernburrowingowl,loggerheadshrike,andtricoloredblackbirdcouldresultindirecteffectsonthesespecies,aswellasonnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds,iftheyarenestingintheprogramarea.BecauseofthescarcityoftreesintheProjectarea,particularlynearproposedturbinesitesandroadways,thereislimitedpotentialforconstructionactivitiestoaffectnestingeaglesortree‐nestspecies(e.g.,Swainson’shawks,goldeneagles,kites).However,shrub‐andground‐nestingspecies(e.g.,tricoloredblackbird,westernburrowingowl)couldbeaffectedbyconstructionactivities.BecauseconstructionactivitiesdescribedinthePEIRarethesameasthoseanticipatedfortheSandHillProject,theimpactswouldbethesame.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b;BIO‐1e;BIO‐3a;BIO‐5c;BIO‐8a,Implementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusnestingbirds;andBIO‐8b,Implementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonwesternburrowingowl,wouldreducetheseimpactstoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

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





ICF 00631.17

ThePEIRconcludedthatrepoweringprojectswouldresultinthetemporaryandpermanentlossofgrasslandthatissuitableforaginghabitatforburrowingowlsandotherspecial‐statusandnon–special‐statusmigratorybirds.However,thePEIRelectednottoproposecompensatorymitigationforlossofSwainson’shawkforaginghabitat,becausethatspeciesrarelyusesgrasslandintheprogramarea.BecausegrasslandhabitatintheProjectareaisconsistentwiththatthroughouttheprogramarea,thesameimpactswouldapply.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐5b;BIO‐5c;andBIO‐9,Compensateforthepermanentlossofoccupiedhabitatforwesternburrowingowl,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐10:PotentialinjuryormortalityofandlossofhabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatrepoweringprojectscouldresultintemporaryandpermanentlossofgrasslandhabitatthatcouldsupportSanJoaquinkitfoxesandAmericanbadgers,aswellasindirectmortalityofindividuals.TheBiologicalResourcesEvaluationconcludedthatbadgershaveahighlikelihoodtooccurintheProjectarea,whileSanJoaquinkitfoxesareunlikelytousetheareabuthaveaslightlikelihoodofmovingthroughitbetweenothermoresuitableareas.Becauseofdeclinesinbothspecies,anyimpactswouldbesignificant,especiallyiftheyresultinfatalities.BecauseProjectactivitiesandProjectareaconditionsareconsistentwiththosecontemplatedinthePEIR,theimpactswouldbethesame.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b;BIO‐1e;BIO‐3a;BIO‐5c;BIO‐10a,ImplementmeasurestoavoidandminimizepotentialimpactsonSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger;andBIO‐10b,CompensateforlossofsuitablehabitatforSanJoaquinkitfoxandAmericanbadger,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐11:Avianmortalityresultingfrominteractionwithwindenergyfacilities(significantandunavoidable)

ThePEIRconcludedthatrepoweringwouldresultinsignificantandunavoidableimpactsassociatedwithavianmortality,althoughitanticipatedthatmortalityrateswoulddecreasewiththetransitionfromold‐generationtonew‐generationturbines.ThisexpectationwasbasedoncombinedestimatesofavianmortalityfromthreedifferentrepoweringprojectsintheAPWRA,givenasarateofxnumberofbirddeathsperMWperyear,invariouscombinationsofspecies(allraptorspecies,eachofeightindividualraptorspecies,andallnativenon‐raptorspecies).Theseestimatesindicatedreductionsof32–83%inraptorfatalities(e.g.,31–79%fewerAmericankestrelfatalitiesforbuildoutof450MWintheAPWRA.ThePEIRacknowledged,however,thattheavianmortalityestimateswereuncertain,statingthat(AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency2014:3.4‐103):

…whilerepoweringisintendedtoreducefatalities,enoughuncertaintyremainsinlightofproject‐andsite‐specificdatatowarrantaconservativeapproachintheimpactanalysis.Accordingly,thecontinuedorincreasedlossofbirds(includingspecial‐statusspecies)ataratepotentiallygreaterthantheexistingbaselinefatalityratesisconsideredasignificantandunavoidableimpact[emphasisadded].3

3SimilarstatementsarerepeatedthroughoutthePEIR;seepage3.4‐121:





ICF 00631.17

AsnotedinSection1.3.2,AvianMortalityEstimates,ofthisanalysis,earlymonitoringresultsfromtheGoldenHillsrepoweringprojectthatbeganoperationsinDecember2015,numerousvariablesandinconsistenciesinthemethodsofpreviousmonitoringeffortsintheAPWRAraisequestionsregardingtheaccuracyoftheavianmortalityestimatespresentedinthePEIR.

TheGoldenHillsdatareflectasingleyearofmonitoringduringnorthernCalifornia’swettestyearonrecord,usingsearchmethods(i.e.,searchdogsandshorter,7‐daysearchintervals)thatwerenotusedformostofthebaseline(andrepower)mortalityestimatespresentedinthePEIR.Theshort,1‐yeardurationduringunusuallyhighrainfallconditionsandtheuseofdifferentsearchmethodsmakecomparisonwiththePEIR’sbaselinedatadifficult(H.T.Harvey&Associates2017:51–52).Whiletheinformationinthereportisrelevant,itdoesnotchangethefindingsorconclusionsofthePEIRwithrespecttoavianandbatfatalities—namely,thatimpactswillbesignificantandunavoidableaftermitigation—forthereasonsdiscussedbelow.

TheGoldenHillsestimatedmortalityrateforallraptorscombined(theprimarycriterionforAPWRAavianimpactmeasurement)wassignificantlylowerthanthepre‐repoweringaveragefromtheAPWRA‐wideavianmonitoringstudy(whichalreadyreflectedsignificantmortalityreductionsresultingfromseasonalshutdownandtheremovalofhigh‐riskturbinesinaccordancewiththe2007agreement)(H.T.Harvey&Associates2017:51).APWRA‐widenonrepoweredaveragemortalityratesforallraptorscombinedwas2.43/MW/year.Theall‐raptorscombinedmortalityrateforGoldenHillsinitsfirstyearofoperationwas1.56/MW/year,36%lessthantheaverageAPWRA‐widerateeventhoughthelatterincludedseasonalshutdownsandhigh‐riskturbineremovals.

TheprimarymortalitymodelusedintheH.T.Harveyreportestimatedhighergoldeneaglemortalityratesthanbaseline,nonrepoweredconditions(H.T.Harvey&Associates2017:50).However,theauthorsexplainedthatthemodel“inflate[d]theestimatebyincorporatingsearcherefficiencyandcarcasspersistenceparametersthatrepresentmedium/largebirdsasagroupratherthaneaglesspecifically.”OthermodelsusedintheH.T.Harveyreportthatdidnotincorporatetheseparametersyieldedresultsthatwere“closertoreality.”Thosemodelsestimatedgoldeneaglemortalityratesnearlymatching(0.09/MW/year)orslightlybelow(0.07/MW/year)baselineconditions(0.08/MW/year)(H.T.Harvey&Associates2017:50).AlltheseratesarehigherthantheratesofthethreerepoweredprojectsusedtogenerateestimatesinthePEIR.ButthereportobservedthatallofitsgoldeneaglemortalityratesmaybeoverstatedasaconsequenceofbiasattributabletothepresenceofoldturbinesneartheGoldenHillssitethatprovidedperchingandnestingopportunitiesforraptors,includinggoldeneagles,seenperchingonthemonseveraloccasions(H.T.Harvey&Associates2017:46,50).

Red‐tailedhawkmortalityratesobservedinthefirst‐yearstudybyH.T.HarveyalsoexceededboththeratesofthethreerepoweringprojectsusedtogeneratethePEIR’sestimatesforGoldenHillsand

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





ICF 00631.17

theAPWRA‐wideestimates,buttheH.T.Harveyreportobservedthatadditionalyearsofstudywouldbeneededtodeterminewhetherthiswasananomalyorastandardpattern(H.T.Harvey&Associates2017:50).Asstatedinthereport,red‐tailedhawkresultsmayalsohavebeenskewedbyperchingandnestingopportunitiescreatedbynearbyoldturbines,theremovalofwhichwouldlikelyreducefatalityrates.TheotherraptorspeciesanalyzedintheH.T.Harveyreport,Americankestrelandburrowingowl,revealedsignificantlylowermortalityratesthanwereestimatedinthePEIR(H.T.Harvey&Associates2017:50).

Batfatalities(499.2at5.81/MW/year)werehigherthanestimatedforGoldenHillsinthePEIR(from148at1.68/MW/yearto347at3.9/MW/year),but,asexplainedintheH.T.Harveyreport,thePEIR’sestimateswerefaultybecauseVascoWind’sbatmortalityratesinthefirstandsecondyearswereinfact5.76/MW/yearand6.69/MW/year,not1.68/MW/year;accordingly,GoldenHills’batmortalityratesforthefirstyearwereinlinewiththecorrectmortalityratesatVascoWinds(H.T.Harvey&Associates2017:52).

ThedifferencesbetweentheH.T.HarveyreportandthemortalityestimatesofthePEIRdonotindicateanewormoreintensesignificantimpactbeyondthescopeofthePEIR.ThePEIRrecognizedtheuncertaintyofitsavianmortalityestimatesandconcludedthatmortalityratesunderthe450MWrepoweringprogramcouldexceedbaseline,nonrepoweredmortalityrates(AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency2014).Morespecifically,whilethePEIRusedthe“bestavailable”datafromthreerepoweringprojectstoestimateapossiblereductionoffatalitiesundertherepoweringprogram,thePEIR’simpactconclusionforthe450MWrepoweringprogramexpresslyacknowledgedtheuncertaintyinherentinsuchdata.

Thus,whilethePEIRpresentedmortalityestimatesthatlookedpromising,thoseestimateswereuncertainandultimatelywerenotrelieduponasthebasisforitsimpactconclusion.LiketheH.T.Harveyreport,thePEIRconcludedthatmoredatawereneeded:“[p]ostconstructionmonitoring,oncetheturbinesareinoperation,willprovidedatatoquantifytheactualextentofchangeinavianfatalitiesfromrepoweringandtheextentofavianfatalityforprojectsintheprogramarea…”(AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency2014:3.4‐119).Inlightofthisuncertainty,thePEIRrequiresadaptivemanagementforanyrepoweringprojectwhere“…fatalitymonitoring…resultsinanestimatethatexceedsthepreconstructionbaselinefatalityestimates(i.e.,estimatesatthenonrepoweredturbinesasdescribedinthisPEIR)…toensurethatthebestavailablescienceisusedtominimizeimpactstobelowbaseline”(AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency2014:3.4‐116).ThePEIRdrewasimilarconclusionandrequiredasimilaradaptivemanagementprogramforimpactsonbats(AlamedaCountyCommunityDevelopmentAgency2014:3.4‐133,3.4‐136).Therefore,eventhoughsomeofthefirst‐yearresultsfromtheGoldenHillsprojectexceedthemortalityestimatesofthePEIR,thoseimpactsarestillwithinthescopeofthePEIR’simpactconclusionsandassociatedmitigationmeasures.

WhilethePEIRsetforthmultiplemeasurestoaddressavianmortality,itconcludedthatthesemeasureswouldnotreducetheimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionholdstruefortheSandHillProject,andalthoughitremainsdifficulttoestimatemortalityrateswithcertainty,continuedmonitoringwillcontributetothebodyofknowledgeinformingthiseffort.ImplementationofthecombinedprogramofMitigationMeasures,BIO‐11a,Prepareaproject‐specificavianprotectionplan;BIO‐11b,Siteturbinestominimizepotentialmortalityofbirds;BIO‐11c,Useturbinedesignsthatreduceavianimpacts;BIO‐11d,Incorporateavian‐safepracticesintodesignofturbine‐relatedinfrastructure;BIO‐11e,Retrofitexistinginfrastructuretominimizerisktoraptors;BIO‐11f,Discouragepreyforraptors;BIO‐11g,Implementpostconstructionavianfatalitymonitoring





ICF 00631.17

forallrepoweringprojects;BIO‐11h,Compensateforthelossofraptorsandotheravianspecies,includinggoldeneagles,bycontributingtoconservationefforts;andBIO‐11i,Implementanavianadaptivemanagementprogram,wouldreducethisimpactbutnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐12:Potentialmortalityordisturbanceofbatsfromroostremovalordisturbance(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRidentifiedtwospecial‐statusbatspecies—pallidbat(Antrozouspallidus)andTownsend’sbig‐earedbat(Corynorhinustownsendii)—ashavingthepotentialtoroostintheprogramarea.However,theBiologicalResourcesEvaluationfoundthatnosuitableroostinghabitatispresentintheProjectarea.Accordingly,thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.

ImpactBIO‐13:Potentialforconstructionactivitiestotemporarilyremoveoralterbatforaginghabitat(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRconcludedthatwhileconstructionactivitiescoulddegradeforaginghabitat,theoverallrepoweringeffort,bydecommissioningnumerousold‐generationturbines,wouldoffsetthelossofhabitatassociatedwithinstallationofnewturbinesandinfrastructure.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactBIO‐14:Turbine‐relatedfatalitiesofspecial‐statusandotherbats(significantandunavoidable)

ThePEIRconcludedthatrepoweringwouldresultinturbine‐relatedfatalitiesofspecial‐statusandotherbats.WhiletheBiologicalResourcesEvaluationfoundthattheProjectareadidnotsupportroostinghabitatforspecial‐statusbats,special‐statusandotherbatsareassumedtomigrateandforageintheProjectareaastheydothroughouttheprogramarea.

ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐14a,Siteandselectturbinestominimizepotentialmortalityofbats;BIO‐14b,Implementpostconstructionbatfatalitymonitoringprogramforallrepoweringprojects;BIO‐14c,PrepareandpublishannualmonitoringreportsonthefindingsofbatuseoftheProjectareaandfatalitymonitoringresults;BIO‐14d,Developandimplementabatadaptivemanagementplan;andBIO‐14e,Compensateforexpensesincurredbyrehabilitatinginjuredbats,wouldreducetheseverityofthisimpact,butnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐15:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonalkalimeadow(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatroadinfrastructureupgrades—especiallythoseinvolvingcrossings—couldresultinadverseeffectsonalkalimeadow.TheaquaticresourcesdelineationsurveysconductedinsupportoftheProjectidentifiedatotalof20.1acresofalkalimeadowinthestudyarea;Projectroadswouldcrosssomeoftheseareas.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐15,Compensateforthelossofalkalimeadowhabitat,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.This





ICF 00631.17

conclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐16:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonriparianhabitat(noimpact)

WhilethePEIRidentifiedseveralcategoriesofriparianhabitatintheprogramarea,thesurveysconductedinsupportoftheBiologicalResourcesEvaluationidentifiednoriparianhabitatintheProjectarea.Therewouldbenoimpact,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactBIO‐17:Potentialforground‐disturbingactivitiestoresultindirectadverseeffectsoncommonhabitats(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRconcludedthatground‐disturbingactivitieswouldresultinthepermanentandtemporarylossofcommonhabitats—primarilyannualgrasslands.However,becauseoftheextentofthesehabitatsregionallyavailableandthereclamationactivitiesthatarepartoftheProject,thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactBIO‐18:Potentialforroadinfrastructureupgradestoresultinadverseeffectsonwetlands(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatroadinfrastructureupgradeswouldresultinplacementoffillatcrossings,aswellaspossiblehydrologicalteration.ThisconclusionistrueoftheSandHillProjectaswell,particularlyinassociationwiththeaquaticresourcesdiscussedinImpactBIO‐15.Thiswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureBIO‐18,Compensateforthelossofwetlands,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐19:Potentialimpactonthemovementofanynativeresidentormigratorywildlifespeciesorestablishednativeresidentormigratorywildlifecorridors,andtheuseofnativewildlifenurserysites(significantandunavoidable)

ThePEIRconcludedthatconstructionactivitiescouldinterferewithwildlifemovementthroughintroductionofbarrierstopassage;moreover,asdiscussedinImpactsBIO‐11andBIO‐14,turbineoperationscouldinterferewithmovementofbirdsandbatsthroughturbine‐relatedmortality.Thiswouldconstituteasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1b,BIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐5a,BIO‐5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,BIO‐10a,BIO‐11b,BIO‐11c,BIO‐11d,BIO‐11e,BIO‐11i,BIO‐12a,BIO‐12b,BIO‐14a,andBIO‐14dwouldreducethisimpactbutnottoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactBIO‐20:Conflictwithlocalplansorpolicies(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

AsdescribedinthePEIR,theECAPhasseveralpoliciesrelatedtowindfarms,includingestablishingamitigationprogramtominimizetheimpactsofwindturbineoperationsonbirdpopulations.Lossofspecial‐statusspeciesandtheirhabitat,lossofalkalimeadow,lossofriparianhabitat,andlossofexistingwetlandsasaresultofimplementingtheprogramwouldbeinconflictwiththesepolicies.





ICF 00631.17

BecausetheconditionsintheProjectareaandfeaturesandcharacteristicsoftheSandHillProjectareconsistentwiththosecontemplatedinthePEIR,theimpactwouldbethesame,exceptthatriparianhabitatisnotpresentintheProjectarea.Thisimpactwouldbesignificant;however,implementationofMitigationMeasuresBIO‐1athroughBIO‐1e,BIO‐3a,BIO‐4a,BIO‐4b,BIO5athrough5c,BIO‐7a,BIO‐7b,BIO‐8a,BIO‐8b,BIO‐9,BIO10a,BIO‐10b,BIO‐15,BIO‐16,andBIO‐18wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

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

BecausetherearenoadoptedHCP/NCCPsfortheprogramareaandtheprogramwouldnotconflictwiththeEACCS,therewouldbenoimpact.ThesameistruefortheProjectarea.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.


CaliforniaDepartmentofFishandWildlife.2018.CaliforniaNaturalDiversityDatabase,RareFind5,July2018.SearchoftheMidwayandCliftonCourtForebayUSGS7.5‐minuteQuadranglesand10surroundingquadrangles.Sacramento,CA.

ICFInternational.2013.BiologicalResourcesTechnicalReportfortheSandHillProject.February.(ICF00456.12.)Sacramento,CA.PreparedforFloDesignWindTurbineCorporation,Waltham,MA.

U.S.FishandWildlifeService.2018.IPaCTrustResourceReport.ListofFederalEndangeredandThreatenedSpeciesThatOccurinorMayBeAffectedbytheProject.Available:http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists.cfm.Accessed:January2018.


Cultural Resources



ICF 00631.17

3.5 Cultural Resources ThefollowinganalysisisbasedonculturalresourcesinvestigationsconductedfortheproposedProject(AppendixC).ImpactsrelativetoculturalresourcesdependprimarilyonProjectscopeandarea.ThefootprintofindividualturbineswouldbethesameasdescribedinthePEIR.


AsdirectedbyMitigationMeasureCUL‐2a,Conductapreconstructionculturalfieldsurveyandculturalresourcesinventoryandevaluation,inthePEIR,investigationswereconductedfortheproposedProject.Theseinvestigationsidentifiedthreepreviouslydocumentedresourceswithintheareaofpotentialeffects(APE).

P‐01‐010613—AsegmentofGrantLineRoad(P‐01‐010613)alongtherouteoftheoriginalLincolnHighway,thefirstpavedtranscontinentalroad,constructedaround1870.

P‐01‐010947—ThePittsburg‐Tesla230kVtransmissionlineconstructedbyPG&Ein1959–1960.

P‐01‐011395—A6‐milesegmentofthePG&ETracy–Tesla230kVtransmissionlinebuiltbetween1949and1953.

Resourceslocatedwithin0.25mileoftheAPEincludeahistoric‐periodranchcomplex,apossibleboundarymarker/fence,andtwosandstonemillingstations.

AportionoftheCaliforniaAqueductmainlineintersectswiththeProjectAPEattwolocationssouthofBethanyReservoir.SegmentsoftheCaliforniaAqueductinotherlocationshavebeenevaluatedforeligibilityforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces(NRHP)/CaliforniaRegisterofHistoricResources(CRHR),andthefullextentoftheaqueducthasbeendeterminedeligibleforlistingintheNRHPandCRHR.

Reviewofhistoricliteratureandmapsrevealsthat,withtheexceptionofconstructionoftheCaliforniaAqueductandwindturbines,limiteddevelopmenthasoccurredintheAPE;rather,thevicinityhasbeenusedprimarilyascattlerangeland.WiththeexceptionoftheCaliforniaAqueduct—whichwouldnotbeaffectedbytheProject—theAPEisnotexpectedtocontainhistoricbuiltresources.

TheNativeAmericanHeritageCommission(NAHC)wascontactedthreetimesinJanuaryandFebruary2018torequestasacredlandsfiledatabasesearchandtosolicitanynewinformationsincethePEIRculturalresourcesinvestigationswereconducted.Todate,noresponsehasbeenreceived.


ImpactCUL‐1:Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofahistoricalresource(noimpact)

ThePEIRidentified19historicarchitecturalculturalresourcesintheprogramarea,andconcludedthatrepoweringprojectscouldresultinanadversechangeonsuchresourcesintheprogramarea.


Cultural Resources



ICF 00631.17

ThreehistoricresourceswereidentifiedwithintheProjectarea:P‐01‐010613(GrantLineRoad)andP‐01‐010947andP‐01‐011395(bothhistorictransmissionlines).TheseresourceswerenotformallyevaluatedforeligibilityineithertheNRHPortheCRHR.However,GrantLineRoadisanactivelyusedroadwayandthetransmissionlinesconsistofoverheadpowerlines,noneofwhichwouldbeaffectedbyProjectactivities.Similarly,whileasegmentoftheCaliforniaAqueductintersectswiththeAPE,Project‐relatedactivitiesarenotanticipatedtodisturbtheseresources.TheProjectwouldnotchangeormodifytheaqueduct.TheProjectwouldincludeagen‐tielinethatwouldcrossovertheaqueductusinganoverheadelectricallineonpolesorconnectingconduittoanexistingbridge,oritwouldcrossundertheaqueductusingdirectionalboring.Directionalboringwouldnotaffecttheaqueduct.Attachingconduittoanexistingbridgewouldnotchangethefunctionordesignofthebridgeandthereforewouldnotaffecttheintegrityoftheoverallaqueduct.Becauseanoverheadelectricallineisalreadypresent,thegen‐tielinewouldnotchangetheexistingconditionsandwouldnotchangetheintegrityoftheoverallaqueduct.Accordingly,theProjectwouldnotcauseasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofahistoricalresource.Therewouldbenoimpact,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactCUL‐2:Causeasubstantialadversechangeinthesignificanceofanarchaeologicalresource(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

OfthefourpreviouslydocumentedresourceslocatedneartheAPE,two—P‐01‐000163(ranchcomplex)andP‐01‐011596(millingstation)—weredocumentedasbeinglocateddirectlyadjacenttotheAPE.PedestriansurveyrelocatedbothresourcesoutsidetheAPE,andtheywouldnotbeaffectedbytheProject.NopreviouslyundocumentedarchaeologicalresourceswereidentifiedwithintheAPEduringthepedestriansurvey.

AlthoughtheAPEandvicinitywereusedbyprehistoricpeoples,thenatureofthislandusewouldprimarilyhavebeenresourcecollection.Consequently,theexpectedrangeofprehistoricartifactandfeaturetypesintheAPEwouldincludeprojectilepointsandlithictools,lithicdebitage,bedrockmortars,andgrindingstones.Althoughtheareacouldhavebeenusedforuplandresourcecollectionactivities,theAPEislocatedfarfrompermanentwatersourcesandis,therefore,expectedtohavemoderatetolowpotentialtocontainprehistoricarchaeologicalresources.

IntheeventthatarchaeologicalresourcesareinadvertentlyuncoveredduringProjectconstruction,implementationofMitigationMeasuresCUL‐2b,Developatreatmentplanforanyidentifiedsignificantculturalresources;CUL‐2c,Conductworkerawarenesstrainingforarchaeologicalresourcespriortoconstruction;andCUL‐2d,Stopworkifculturalresourcesareencounteredduringground‐disturbingactivities,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactCUL‐3:Disturbanyhumanremains,includingthoseinterredoutsideofformalcemeteries(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatalthoughthereisnoindicationthattheprogramareahasbeenusedforhumanburials,becauseprehistoricsitesareknowntobepresentintheprogramarea,thepossibilitycannotbediscountedentirely.IntheunanticipatedeventthathumanremainsareencounteredduringProjectconstruction,implementationofMitigationMeasureCUL‐3,Stopworkifhumanremainsareencounteredduringground‐disturbingactivities,wouldreducethisimpacttoa


Cultural Resources



ICF 00631.17

less‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

Alameda County Community Development Agency

Environmental AnalysisGeology, Soils, Mineral Resources, and

Paleontological Resources



ICF 00631.17

3.6 Geology, Soils, Mineral Resources, and Paleontological Resources

AsdescribedinthePEIR,therearenoknownmineralresourcesintheprogramareaanditwasconcludedthattheprogramwouldnotaffectmineralresources.Accordingly,mineralresourcesarenotfurtherconsideredinthisanalysis.


AsdescribedinthePEIR,theprogramarea,knownforthefrequentoccurrenceofearthquakesandpotentialgroundshaking,containstwoactivefaults,whicharezonedundertheAlquist‐PrioloAct.Theprogramareaisinsteep,hillyterrainknowntobesusceptibletoearthquake‐inducedlandsliding.Althoughthepotentialforliquefactionislikelylowbecauseofthedepthtogroundwaterandtheageofthegeologicunitsintheprogramarea,theriskoflateralspreadanddifferentialsettlementisnotknown.Expansivesoilsoccurinmuchoftheprogramarea,particularlyintheFontana‐Diablo‐Altamontsoilassociation,whichcharacterizestheSandHillProjectarea.Geologicunitsintheprogramareahavethepotentialtocontainpaleontologicalresources;however,mostoftheProjectareaisnotwithintheNerolyFormation,ageologicunitparticularlysensitiveforfossilmaterial.


AsdisclosedinSection1.3.4,OperationsandMaintenanceFacility,thePEIRdidnotaddressO&Mfacilitiesattheprogramlevel,andthetwoProject‐levelanalysesassumedthatnosepticorotherwastewatertreatmentsystemwouldbenecessary.However,SandHillproposestoinstallsuchasysteminconjunctionwithitsO&Mfacility.Inaccordancewithlocalregulations,theinstallationofsuchasystemwouldbesubjecttoapprovalandpermittingbyAlamedaCountyDepartmentofEnvironmentalHealth.Ifpreconstructioninvestigationsindicatethatthesoilsonsitearenotsuitabletosupportsuchasystem,portabletoilets,suppliedandservicedbyacommercialvendor,wouldbeusedinstead.BecausethisimpactwasdismissedinthePEIR,nonewimpactnumberhasbeenintroducedforthisanalysis;moreover,becauseasystemwouldonlybeinstalledifitcomplieswithlocalregulations,itwouldnotpresentanewsignificantimpact.Inaddition,theuseofportabletoiletswouldnotconstituteasignificantimpactinthecontextofsoilsbecauseoftheirownregulatoryrequirements.Accordingly,thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificantandwouldnotentailanewsignificantimpactoroneofgreaterseveritythanwasdisclosedinthePEIR.

ImpactGEO‐1:Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeath,asaresultofruptureofaknownearthquakefault(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRidentifiedthreeactivefaultsintheprogramarea;however,onlyasmallportionoftheMidwayfault,designatedaspotentiallyactive,approachestheProjectarea.Ifaturbinewereconstructedonornearafault,ruptureofthatfaultcoulddamageaturbineorcauseharmtopersonnelonthesite.Theturbinecouldbedamagedorcollapseandpossiblyinjurepersonnelorpropertyintheimmediatearea.However,becausetheProjectareaismoreremovedfromidentified






ICF 00631.17

faultsthanmuchoftheprogramarea,noimpactsbeyondthoseidentifiedinthePEIRwouldresult.ImplementationofMitigationmeasureGEO‐1,Conductsite‐specificgeotechnicalinvestigationandimplementdesignrecommendationsinsubsequentgeotechnicalreport,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactGEO‐2:Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeath,asaresultofstrongseismicgroundshaking(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

AsdisclosedinthePEIR,constructionofturbinesorpowercollectionsystemsinareaswiththepotentialtoexperiencestronggroundshakingcouldexposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects.Theturbinecouldbedamagedorcollapseandpossiblyinjurepersonnelordamagepropertyintheimmediatearea.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureGEO‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactGEO‐3:Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeath,asaresultofseismic‐relatedgroundfailure,includinglandslidingandliquefaction(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

AsdisclosedinthePEIR,ifturbinefoundationsorpowercollectionsystemsarenotproperlydesignedandsitedfortheearthquake‐inducedgroundfailureconditionspresentintheprogramarea,theycouldfailandcausedamagetoorcollapseoftheturbinetowersorcollectionsystem.Thisdamageorcollapsecouldcauseharmtopersonnelorpropertyintheimmediatearea.Althoughthepotentialforliquefactionislikelylowbecauseofthedepthtogroundwaterandtheageofthegeologicunitsintheprogramarea,theriskoflateralspreadanddifferentialsettlementisunknown.Thepotentialdamageandharmthatcouldresultfromlandsliding,lateralspread,ordifferentialsettlementwouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureGEO‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactGEO‐4:Exposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects,includingtheriskofloss,injury,ordeath,asaresultoflandsliding(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

AsdisclosedinthePEIR,inadditiontoseismic‐relatedgroundfailurediscussedinprecedingimpacts,constructionofturbinesorpowercollectionsystemsinareaswithpotentialtoexperiencenon‐seismic‐relatedlandslidingcausedbyheavyprecipitationcouldalsoexposepeopleorstructurestopotentialsubstantialadverseeffects.Damageorcollapseresultingfromlandslidingcouldcauseharmtopersonnelorpropertyintheimmediatearea.

WhiletheProjectmustcomplywithexistingregulatoryrequirements(buildingsafetyrequirements),theserequirementsmaynotaddressallgroundfailureissues.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureGEO‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.






ICF 00631.17

ImpactGEO‐5:Resultinsubstantialsoilerosionorthelossoftopsoil(lessthansignificant)

AsdisclosedinthePEIR,decommissioningandProjectconstructioncouldcausesurfacedisturbanceandvegetationremovalresultinginsoilerosion.However,compliancewithfederalandlocalerosion‐relatedregulations(e.g.,theSWPPPdevelopedfortheProject,requirementsofthecounty’sStormwaterQualityManagementPlan)wouldensurethatground‐disturbingactivitiesdonotresultinsignificanterosion.Moreover,thePEIRrequiresareclamationplanwithspecificmeasurestakentoensurethatrepoweringsitesareregradedandseededtopre‐Projectconditions.Theserequirementswouldensurethatpotentialimpactsofsoilerosionwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactGEO‐6:Belocatedonexpansivesoil,creatingsubstantialriskstolifeorproperty(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRdisclosedthatexpansivesoilsoccurinmuchoftheprogramarea,particularlyintheFontana‐Diablo‐Altamontsoilassociation,whichcharacterizestheProjectarea.Turbinefoundationsbuiltonexpansivesoilswouldbesubjecttotheshrinkandswellofthesesoils,whichcoulddamagestructuresifthesubsoil,drainage,andfoundationarenotproperlyengineered.However,soilsamplingandtreatmentproceduresareaddressedbystateandlocalbuildingcodes.CompliancewiththesecodesandimplementationofMitigationMeasureGEO‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactGEO‐7:Directlyorindirectlydestroyauniquepaleontologicalresourceorsiteoruniquegeologicfeature(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

AccordingtothePEIR,sedimentaryrocks—geologicunitswithpotentialtocontainpaleontologicalresources—includemostunitsintheprogramarea.Becausemostoftheprogramareaischaracterizedbygeologicunitsconsideredtobesensitiveforpaleontologicalresources,thisanalysisassumesthesametobetrueoftheProjectarea.Substantialdamagetoordestructionofsignificantpaleontologicalresourceswouldbeasignificantimpact.ImplementationofMitigationMeasuresGEO‐7a,Retainaqualifiedprofessionalpaleontologisttomonitorsignificantground‐disturbingactivities;GEO‐7b,MitigationMeasureGEO‐1g:Retainaqualifiedprofessionalpaleontologisttomonitorsignificantground‐disturbingactivities;andGEO‐7c,Stopworkifsubstantialfossilremainsareencounteredduringconstruction,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.


Greenhouse Gas Emissions



ICF 00631.17

3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions TheproposedProjectisasubsetoftheAPWRA‐widerepoweringevaluatedinthePEIR.Project‐levelgreenhousegas(GHG)emissionsandassociatedimpactswereassessedusingthesamemethodsasdescribedaboveinSection3.3,AirQuality.RefertoAppendixAforadditionalmodelingdetail,includingequipmentandvehicleassumptions.


BecauseGHGemissionsresultinglobalimpacts,andbecauseProject‐specificactivitiesarecommensuratewiththoseevaluatedinthePEIR,thedescriptionofexistingconditionspresentedinthePEIRisincorporatedherebyreference.NotethatsincepublicationofthePEIR,thestatehasadoptedSenateBill(SB)32,whichrequiresARBtoensurethatstatewideGHGemissionsarereducedtoatleast40percentbelow1990levelsby2030.The2017ClimateChangeScopingPlanpresentsmeasuresthestatewillimplementtoachievethisgoal,includingfurtheringtherenewablesportfoliostandard(RPS)torequirethat50%ofretailelectricitysalesoriginatefromrenewableresourcesby2030.


ImpactGHG‐1:Generategreenhousegasemissions,eitherdirectlyorindirectly,thatmayhaveasignificantimpactontheenvironment(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRconcludedthatwhilerepoweringtheAPWRA(anaggregateofalltheanticipatedrepoweringprojectsproposedwithintheprogramarea)wouldresultinshort‐termemissionsofGHGs,primarilyassociatedwithconstructionactivities,andthepotentialoperationalemissionofsulfurhexafluoride(SF6),therepoweringprojectscollectivelywouldresultinanannualnetreductionofmorethan100,000tonsofcarbondioxideequivalentemissions(CO2e).Thisbeneficialimpactwouldbelessthansignificant.

AsdetailedinAppendixA,thewindenergygeneratedbytheproposedProjectwouldreduceGHGemissionsbyapproximately50,000metrictonsCO2eperyear.ThiswouldmorethanoffsetemissionsgeneratedbyProjectconstructionandO&M.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactGHG‐2:Conflictwithanapplicableplan,policy,orregulationadoptedforthepurposeofreducingtheemissionsofgreenhousegases(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRevaluatedtherepoweringoftheprogramareaforconsistencywiththefollowingmeasuresrelevanttoGHGemissions.

AssemblyBill(AB)32ScopingPlanMeasureT‐7:Heavy‐DutyVehicleGHGEmissionReduction(AerodynamicEfficiency)—DiscreteEarlyAction.

AB32ScopingPlanMeasureE‐3:RenewablesPortfolioStandard(RPS)

AB32ScopingPlanMeasureH‐6:HighGlobalWarmingPotentialGasReductionsfromStationarySources–SF6LeakReductionandRecyclinginElectricalApplications.


Greenhouse Gas Emissions



ICF 00631.17

AlamedaCountyClimateActionPlan(CAP)MeasureE‐10:Requirenewconstructiontousebuildingmaterialscontainingrecycledcontent.

AlamedaCountyCAPMeasureWS‐2:StrengthentheConstructionandDemolitionDebrisManagementOrdinance.

WiththeexceptionofScopingPlanMeasureE‐3,thePEIRconcludedthattherepoweringprojectscouldpotentiallyconflictwithallthesemeasures.However,implementationofMitigationMeasuresGHG‐2a,Implementbestavailablecontroltechnologyforheavy‐dutyvehicles;GHG‐2b,InstalllowSF6leakratecircuitbreakersandmonitoring;GHG‐2c,Requirenewconstructiontousebuildingmaterialscontainingrecycledcontent;andGHG‐2d,Complywithconstructionanddemolitiondebrismanagementordinance,wouldreducethispotentialimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.

Inconcept,theproposedProjectisbeingpursuedtopromotesustainabilityandfurtheralternativeenergy.AlthoughthemeasuresincludedintheAB32ScopingPlan,2017ClimateChangeScopingPlan,andAlamedaCountyCAParenecessarilybroad,theproposedProjectisgenerallyconsistentwiththegoalsanddesiredoutcomesoftheplans.TheadditionalwindenergygeneratedbytheProjectwilldirectlysupportthedecarbonizationoftheelectricpowersector,helpingCaliforniatomeetitsGHGgoalsinSB32andExecutiveOrderS‐3‐05.4Nevertheless,emissionsgeneratedbytheProjectcouldpotentiallyconflictwithapplicablemeasuresintheAB32ScopingPlan,2017ClimateChangeScopingPlan,andAlamedaCountyCAP.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

4CaliforniaEOS‐03‐05seekstoreduceemissionstoatleast80percentbelow1990levelsby2050.


Hazards and Hazardous Materials



ICF 00631.17

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ThePEIRevaluatedthepotentialforimpactsrelatingtohazardsandhazardousmaterials.BecausethecharacteristicsoftheProjectareaandtheactivitiesassociatedwithProjectconstructionandoperationarethesameasthosecontemplatedinthePEIR,existinghazardsandhazardousconditionsintheProjectareaaregenerallythesameasthoseanalyzedinthePEIR.TheuseofhazardousmaterialsduringProjectconstruction,operations,andmaintenanceactivitieswouldbesimilar.IssuesrelatedtotheProject’sproximitytoschoolsandairportsarecoveredunderthePEIRasarewildlandfirerequirements.DuetothelargergenerationcapacityoftheProject’sproposedturbines,fewerturbineswouldberequired.However,theywouldbelargerandwould,likeallrepoweringprojects,besubjecttoCountyreview.


TheProjectareaisinthenortheastportionoftheprogramareanorthofI‐580neartheTownofByron.TheconditionsdescribedinthePEIRalsopertaintotheProjectarea.ThecharacteristicsoftheProjectregardingthetypeofpotentialhazardsintheareaandthetypeanduseofhazardousmaterialswouldnotdifferfromthoseaddressedinthePEIR.Thepotentialforandtypeofbladethrow,addressedinthediscussionofImpactHAZ‐9,wouldnotdifferfromthosehazardsconsideredinthePEIR;however,discussionofthelargerturbinesisincludedforpurposesoffulldisclosure.


ImpactHAZ‐1:Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughtheroutinetransport,use,ordisposalofhazardousmaterials(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRconcludedthatProjectconstructionwouldinvolvesmallquantitiesofcommonlyusedmaterials,suchasfuelsandoils,tooperateconstructionequipment.TheProjectwouldimplementstandardconstructionBMPs,asrequiredbytheSWPPP,toreducepollutantemissionsduringconstruction.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactHAZ‐2:Createasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughreasonablyforeseeableupsetandaccidentconditionsinvolvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment(lessthansignificant)

TheProjectwouldnotinvolveactivitiesormaterialsbeyondthosedescribedinthePEIR.Further,theProjectwouldnotcreateasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironmentthroughreasonablyforeseeableupsetoraccidentconditionsinvolvingthereleaseofhazardousmaterialsintotheenvironment.Thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.





ICF 00631.17

ImpactHAZ‐3:Emithazardousemissionsorinvolvehandlinghazardousoracutelyhazardousmaterials,substances,orwastewithin0.25mileofanexistingorproposedschool(noimpact)

TherearenopublicorprivateK–12schoolswithin0.25mileoftheProjectarea.Thenearestschool,MountainHouseElementarySchool,isapproximately0.54mileeastofthenearestProjectfacilitiesanditisunlikelythathazardousmaterialswouldbeemittedorreleasedwithin0.25mileofanyschools.Therewouldbenoimpact,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactHAZ‐4:Locationonahazardousmaterialssite,creatingasignificanthazardtothepublicortheenvironment(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

TheProjectwouldinvolvesoildisturbanceand,asoutlinedinthePEIR,forallprojectsrequiringaCUP,theCountywouldrequirethataPhaseIEnvironmentalSiteAssessment(andremediation,ifnecessary)beconductedpriortoconstructionactivitiesasastandardconditionofapprovalfortheCUP.Accordingly,implementationofMitigationMeasureHAZ‐4,PerformaPhaseIEnvironmentalSiteAssessmentpriortoconstructionactivitiesandremediateifnecessary,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactHAZ‐5:Locationwithinanairportlanduseplanareaor,wheresuchaplanhasnotbeenadopted,within2milesofapublicairportorpublicuseairport,resultinginasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

TheclosestpublicairporttotheProjectareaistheByronAirport,approximately2.7milesnorthoftheProjectarea.LivermoreMunicipalAirportisapproximately11.4milessouthwestoftheProjectarea,andTracyMunicipalAirportisapproximately8milessoutheastoftheProjectarea.BecausetheProjectareaisnotwithin2milesofapublicairport,implementationoftheProjectwouldnotnormallyresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheProjectarea.However,accordingtothePEIR,projectswithfacilitiesintheinfluenceareazonesoflocalairportsarerequiredtosubmitaNoticeofProposedConstructionorAlterationformtotheFAAforreviewandtoimplementallFAArequirementstoreducepotentialaviationimpacts.AreviewoftheByronAirportinfluenceareazoneindicatesthattheProjectisoutsideallinfluenceareazones.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureHAZ‐5,CoordinatewiththeContraCostaALUC[AirportLandUseCommission]priortofinaldesign,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactHAZ‐6:Locationwithinthevicinityofaprivateairstrip,resultinginasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheprojectarea(lessthansignificant)

TheclosestprivateairportisMeadowlarkAirfield,6.25milessouthwestoftheProjectarea.BecausetheProjectareaisnotwithin2milesofaprivateairport,implementationoftheProjectwouldnotresultinasafetyhazardforpeopleresidingorworkingintheProjectarea.AdherencetotherequirementsdescribedinImpactHAZ‐5wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.





ICF 00631.17

ImpactHAZ‐7:Impairimplementationoforphysicallyinterferewithanadoptedemergencyresponseplanoremergencyevacuationplan(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatimpactsassociatedwithemergencyresponseplanswouldbetemporary,occurringprimarilyduringconstruction,withthepotentialtocauseasubstantialtrafficincreaseonlocalcountyroads.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1,Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactHAZ‐8:Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolvingwildlandfires,includingwherewildlandsareadjacenttourbanizedareasorwhereresidencesareintermixedwithwildlands(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRconcludedthatwhilewindturbinescancausefireignitions,sufficientfireresponseprovidersarealreadyinplace.Moreover,fewerturbinesandtheimprovedsafetyofnewermodelsassociatedwithrepoweredprojectsareanticipatedtoresultinareductionofpotentialfireignitions.ThePEIRconcludedthatthefire‐relatedimpactofindividualrepoweringprojectswouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactHAZ‐9:Duringnormaloperation,theeffectsofbendingandstressonrotorbladesovertimecouldleadtobladefailureandbecomeapotentialbladethrowhazard(lessthansignificant)

BladethrowimpactsasassessedinthePEIRrelylargelyontheUpdatedAlamedaCountyTurbineSetbackRequirements(Table2‐3),whicharecalculatedbasedonrotor(blade)length,totalturbineheight,orapercentageofthegeneralsetback,withsomesetbacksalsoadjustedforelevation.TheproposedturbineswouldbewithinthePEIRspecificationsforrotortype,towertype,tower(hub)height,andtotalturbineheight.However,bladelengthswouldbeupto15feetlongerthanthebladescontemplatedinthePEIR.Thegeneralandalternativeminimumsetbacksthatuserotorlengthtoapplyasetbackstandardwouldonlyapplytoadjacentparcels(withorwithoutapprovedwindenergyCUPs).Sincethebladelengthsonlydifferby15feet,thischangewouldaddanadditionalsetbackdistanceof16.5feet(1.1timesbladelength)whenapplyingthesetbackrequirements—agreater(i.e.,moreprotective)setbackthanthatbasedonthebladelengthsenvisionedinthePEIR.PriortofinalProjectdesign,theCountywouldensurethatallsetbackrequirements,whethergeneraloralternativeminimum,aremet.SandHillwouldberequiredtoeithermeettheCounty’sgeneralsetbacksormeettheconditionsrequiredtoimplementalternativeminimumsetbacks.AdherencetoCountyrequirementswouldensurethatimpactsrelatedtobladethrowaremaintainedataless‐than‐significantlevel,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.Thus,thechangetoalargerturbinewouldhavenochangetotheapproachorfindingsregardingsetbacksandhazards.Therewouldbenonewsignificanteffectsorsubstantialincreaseintheseverityofeffectsforhazards.


Hydrology and Water Quality



ICF 00631.17

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ThePEIRcontemplatedtheimpactsonhydrologyandwaterqualitythatcouldresultfromconstructionandoperationofwindrepoweringprojectsthroughouttheprogramarea.TheonlychangerelevanttothisresourcetopicfromtheprojectsconsideredinthePEIRisthelargercapacityoftheturbinesproposedforuseintheSandHillProject:3.6–3.8MWturbinescontrastedwithamaximumof3MWconsideredinthePEIR.TheconsequenceofthischangewouldbeatleasteightfewerturbinesundertheSandHillProjectthanwouldhavebeennecessarytoachievethesamenameplatecapacity(i.e.,144.5MW)undertheturbinespecificationsconsideredinthePEIR.DespitethelargergenerativecapacityoftheSandHillturbines,theiroveralldimensionswouldbewithintheparametersestablishedinthePEIR—mostimportantly(pertainingtotheintroductionofimpervioussurfaces),thefootprintofindividualturbineswouldbethesameasdescribedinthePEIR.


AsdisclosedinthePEIR,theProjectareaissouthwestoftheSanJoaquin–SacramentoDeltaintheCliftonCourtForebaywatershed,andisintheTracygroundwatersubbasin.TheconditionsdescribedinthePEIRpertaintotheProjectarea.


ImpactWQ‐1:Violateanywaterqualitystandardsorwastedischargerequirements(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

TheProjectwouldentailthesametypesofconstructionactivitiesasdisclosedinthePEIR,andtheseactivitieswouldpotentiallyresultinthesamerangeofimpacts.Trenchingandsitepreparationcreateareasofbaresoilthatcanincreasesedimentdischargetoreceivingwaters.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureWQ‐1,ComplywithNPDESrequirements,(e.g.,erosioncontrolBMPs,implementationofastormwaterpollutionpreventionplan[SWPPP]),wouldreducetheseimpactstoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactWQ‐2:Substantiallydepletegroundwatersuppliesorinterferesubstantiallywithgroundwaterrecharge,resultinginanetdeficitinaquifervolumeoraloweringofthelocalgroundwatertablelevel(e.g.,theproductionrateofpre‐existingnearbywellswoulddroptoalevelthatwouldnotsupportexistinglandusesorplannedusesforwhichpermitshavebeengranted)(lessthansignificant)

AsdisclosedinthePEIR,ProjectconstructionandoperationwouldentailminimaluseofwaterbeyondstandardBMPssuchasroadandworksitedustcontrolmeasures.Accordingly,demandongroundwatersupplieswouldbenegligible.ThePEIRalsoconcludedthattherelativelysmallfootprints(approximately2.6acresforthe40turbinesoftheSandHillProject)ofthewindturbineswouldnotinterferewithgroundwaterinfiltration.Moreover,whilethePEIRassumedamaximumindividualturbinecapacityof3MW,theSandHillProjectcontemplates3.8MWturbines,requiring40turbinestoachievetheProject’s144.5MWcapacitycomparedtothe48turbinesthatwouldhave





ICF 00631.17

beenrequiredunderthePEIRassumptions.Thedecreaseofeightturbineswouldequatetoapproximately0.5acrelessofimpermeablesurfacethanthatconsideredinthePEIR.Theimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactWQ‐3:Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,inamannerthatwouldresultinsubstantialerosionorsiltationonsiteoroffsite(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

AsdisclosedinthePEIR,noturbineswouldbeconstructedwithinexistingdrainageareas,andProjectfacilitieswouldbedesignedtoavoidanydownstreamerosionduringtherainyseason.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureWQ‐1wouldensurethatprogram‐relatedstormwaterrunoffwouldnotresultinsubstantialerosionordownstreamsiltation.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactWQ‐4:Substantiallyaltertheexistingdrainagepatternofthesiteorarea,includingthroughthealterationofthecourseofastreamorriver,orsubstantiallyincreasetherateoramountofsurfacerunoffinamannerthatwouldresultinfloodingonsiteoroffsite(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

TheanalysisinthePEIRconcludedthatthemostextensiveincreaseinimpervioussurfaceswouldresultfromroadimprovementsnecessarytoaccommodatethenew,largerturbines.However,asdisclosedinthePEIR,thesoilsunderlyingtheprogramareaoverallarehighrunoffsoils,witharunoffpotentialcomparabletothatofcompactedgravelroads.Becausetheroadsthemselveswouldnotconsequentlyentailintroductionofnewimpervioussurfaces,andbecausetheNPDESstormwaterConstructionGeneralPermitrequirespostconstructionrunoffmanagementmeasuresbeimplementediftheSWPPPdeterminesthattheProjectcouldcauseanincreaseinpeakrunoffflows,implementationofMitigationMeasureWQ‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactWQ‐5:Createorcontributerunoffwaterthatwouldexceedthecapacityofexistingorplannedstormwaterdrainagesystemsorprovidesubstantialadditionalsourcesofpollutedrunoff(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

AsestablishedinthePEIR,theprogramareadoesnotcurrentlyhaveexistingorplannedstorm‐waterdrainagefacilities;accordingly,theProjectwouldnotexceedcapacitiesofsuchfacilities.Moreover,aspreviouslydiscussed,implementationofMitigationMeasureWQ‐1wouldensurethattherewouldbenoincreaseintherateofpollutedrunoff.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactWQ‐6:Otherwisesubstantiallydegradewaterquality(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Because,asdisclosedinthePEIR,theprogramareadoesnotcurrentlyhaveanysubstantialwaterqualityissuesordrainagesthatcouldcarryasubstantialamountofpollutedrunofftoreceivingwaters,Projectconstructionisnotanticipatedtosubstantiallydegradewaterquality.Moreover,Projectoperationwouldnotresultinasubstantialamountofadditionalrunoff.Implementationof





ICF 00631.17

MitigationMeasureWQ‐1wouldreducethepotentialimpactsofconstruction‐relateddischargestoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactWQ‐7:Placehousingwithina100‐yearfloodhazardarea,asmappedonafederalFloodHazardBoundaryorFloodInsuranceRateMaporotherfloodhazarddelineationmap(noimpact)

NoportionoftheProjectareaiswithina100‐yearfloodhazardarea.

ImpactWQ‐8:Placewithina100‐yearfloodhazardareastructuresthatwouldimpedeorredirectfloodflows(noimpact)

NoportionoftheProjectareaiswithina100‐yearfloodhazardarea.

ImpactWQ‐9:Exposepeopleorstructurestoasignificantriskofloss,injury,ordeathinvolvingflooding,includingfloodingasaresultofthefailureofaleveeordam(lessthansignificant)

AsdisclosedinthePEIR,becausetheProjectareaisinrollinghillsandthereareno100‐yearfloodplains,thelikelihoodofafloodeventintheareaisconsideredminimal.Inaddition,becausetheProjectwouldnotinvolveconstructionofhousing,ifBethanyReservoirDamweretofail,thelikelihoodofsignificantriskorlossisconsideredminimal.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactWQ‐10:Contributetoinundationbyseiche,tsunami,ormudflow(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

AsthePEIRconcluded,thelikelihoodofseicheortsunamiisconsideredminimal.Amudflowisalsohighlyunlikely,butsuchaneventcouldbepossibleinrollinghillsifproperBMPsarenotusedduringtheconstructionprocess.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureWQ‐1wouldensurethatProject‐relatedstormwaterrunoffwouldbeproperlycontainedandwoulddrainappropriatelytoprecludebuilduportocauserillsandsedimentationthatcouldresultinthepotentialforamudflow.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

Alameda County Community Development Agency Environmental AnalysisLand Use and Planning



ICF 00631.17

3.10 Land Use and Planning Becausetherearenoestablishedcommunitiesintheprogramareathatwouldbebisectedbyanyproposedrepoweringproject,windenergyproductionisanestablishedandpermittedusethroughouttheAPWRA,andtheprogramareaisnotwithinanHCPorNCCParea,thePEIRconcludedthattherewouldbenoimpactsonlanduseandplanningassociatedwithrepoweringprojectswithintheprogramarea.BecausetheProjectareaisasubsetoftheprogramarea,theanalysisremainsvalid.Accordingly,thisresourcetopicisnotaddressedfurtherinthisanalysis.


Noise



ICF 00631.17

3.11 Noise ICFconductedshort‐andlong‐termnoisemonitoringnearresidentialusesinsupportofapreviousProjectinportionsoftheProjectareainJanuary2016(ICFInternational2016).TheresultsoftheanalysisconductedforthecurrentSandHillProjectarepresentedinSoundTechnicalReportfortheSandHillWindRepoweringProject,AlamedaCounty,California(SoundTechnicalReport)(AppendixD).


TheProjectvicinityisprimarilyagriculturalwithsomescatteredruralresidences.SoundsourcesintheProjectareaareprimarilytrafficonlocalanddistantroadwaysandnaturalsourcessuchasbirdsandwindblowingthroughtallgrass.TheolderexistingturbinesintheProjectareahaveeitherbeenremovedorarenonoperational.NewturbinesthathavebeeninstalledonadjacentpropertiesareasourceofsoundbutarenotdominantinthesoundenvironmentoftheProjectarea.


ImpactNOI‐1:Exposureofresidencestonoisefromnewwindturbines(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

TheSoundTechnicalReportidentifiedtwosensitivereceptorsthatwouldbeexposedtonoiselevelsinexceedanceofthe55A‐weighteddecibel(dBA)thresholdestablishedbytheCounty:oneonAltamontPassRoadinthesouthernportionoftheProjectarea,andoneonMountainHouseRoadintheeasternportion.ThePEIRconcludedthatsuchexceedanceswouldbepossibleasprojectsaredesignedandconstructed,andthatsuchexceedanceswouldconstituteasignificantimpact.Accordingly,thefindingsoftheSoundTechnicalReportareconsistentwiththeconclusionsofthePEIR.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureNOI‐1,Performproject‐specificnoisestudiesandimplementmeasurestocomplywithCountynoisestandards,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactNOI‐2:Exposureofresidencestonoiseduringdecommissioningandnewturbineconstruction(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatsomeresidencesintheprogramareawouldbewithindistancesofconstructionactivitiesthatcouldexposethemtonoiselevelsinexceedanceofAlamedaCountynoiseordinancestandards.ThereceptoridentifiedasR1intheSoundTechnicalreportiswithin550feetofalaydownareaandwithin1,000feetofthenearestturbine;R3iswithin1,000feetofthenearestturbine.ThenoiselevelstowhichthesereceptorscouldbeexposedduringremovalofsomeoldturbinefoundationsandconstructionofProjectfacilitiesandinfrastructurewouldconstituteasignificantimpact.AsdisclosedinthePEIR,implementationofMitigationMeasureNOI‐2,Employnoise‐reducingpracticesduringdecommissioningandnewturbineconstruction,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.


Noise



ICF 00631.17


ICFInternational.2016.SoundTechnicalReportfortheSandHillProposedWindProject,AlamedaCounty,California.March.(ICF00716.15.)Sacramento,CA.PreparedforOgin,Inc.,Waltham,MA.

Alameda County Community Development Agency Environmental AnalysisPopulation and Housing



ICF 00631.17

3.12 Population and Housing ThePEIRanticipatedcontinuinggrowthinAlamedaCounty.However,itconcludedthattherepoweringprojectsconstitutingtheoverallAPWRArepoweringeffortwouldnotinducepopulationgrowtheitherdirectlyorindirectly.BecausetheProjectisasubsetofthisanalysis,theanalysisremainsvalid.TheProjectwouldnotinvolvecreationofanyhousingunits,norwoulditdisplaceanyexistinghousingunitsorpeople.Therewouldbenoimpactandnomitigationisrequired;accordingly,thisresourcetopicisnotaddressedfurtherinthisanalysis.


Public Services



ICF 00631.17

3.13 Public Services ThePEIRconcludedthattherewouldbenoimpactsonpublicservices.Becausethereductioninthenumberofturbinesandtheimprovedsafetyofnewermodelswouldresultinareductionofpotentialfireignitions,therewouldbenoincreaseinthedemandforfireprotectionservices.Policeprotectionfacilitiesandinfrastructurerequiredtoprotecttheprogramareaarealreadyinplacetoprotecttheexistingwindenergyfacilities.Noresidenceswouldbeconstructed,noschoolsarepresentintheProjectarea,andbecausethePEIRconcludedthatrepoweringtheAPWRAwouldnotinducegrowth,therewouldbenoincreaseddemandonschoolsorrecreationalfacilities.Therewouldbenoimpactandnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.BecausetheProjectareaisasubsetoftheprogramarea,theanalysisremainsvalid.Accordingly,thisresourcetopicisnotaddressedfurtherinthisanalysis.


Recreation



ICF 00631.17

3.14 Recreation Becausetherearenorecreationalfacilitiesintheentireprogramareaandbecausetherepoweringprogramoverallwouldnotleadtoanincreaseinuseofnearbyfacilities,thePEIRfoundthattherewouldbenoimpactonrecreationalfacilitiesandnomitigationisrequired.BecausetheProjectareaisasubsetoftheprogramarea,theanalysisremainsvalid.Accordingly,recreationisnotfurtherconsideredinthisanalysis.

Alameda County Community Development Agency Environmental AnalysisTransportation/Traffic



ICF 00631.17

3.15 Transportation/Traffic ThePEIRevaluatedtrafficimpactsforageneric80MWprojectaswellasfortwospecificprojectsintheprogramarea.NoProject‐specifictrafficanalysiswasnecessaryfortheSandHillProjectbecausetheimpactsidentifiedaspotentiallysignificantinthePEIR(e.g.,increasedtrafficcongestionandtraffichazards)wouldalsoapplytotheProject,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthoseimpacts.


TheroadnetworkandotherexistingconditionspertainingtotrafficandtransportationwasdescribedinthePEIRfortheentireprogramarea,ofwhichtheProjectareaisasubset.MostoftheProjectareawouldbeaccessedusingroadsasdescribedinthePEIR(e.g.,I‐580,AltamontPassRoad),butsomeoftheturbinesontheeastsideofBethanyReservoirandtheCaliforniaAqueductwouldbeaccessedfromMountainHouseRoad,whichwasnotspecificallyaddressedinthePEIR.However,theprogram‐levelanalysisadequatelydisclosesthepotentialimpactsassociatedwiththeproposedProject.


ImpactTRA‐1:Conflictwithanapplicableplan,ordinance,orpolicyestablishingmeasuresofeffectivenessfortheperformanceofthecirculationsystem,takingintoaccountallmodesoftransportation,includingmasstransitandnon‐motorizedtravelandrelevantcomponentsofthecirculationsystem,including,butnotlimitedto,intersections,streets,highwaysandfreeways,pedestrianandbicyclepaths,andmasstransitorconflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatconstructionactivitiescouldcauseasubstantialtrafficincreaseonlocalcountyroadsthatprovidedirectaccesstoProjectconstructionsites,becausetheseroadsgenerallyhavelowtrafficvolumes.However,theseincreases,whiletheycoulddegradetrafficoperations,wouldbeoftemporaryduration.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1,Developandimplementaconstructiontrafficcontrolplan,wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactTRA‐2:Conflictwithanapplicablecongestionmanagementprogram,including,butnotlimitedto,level‐of‐servicestandardsandtraveldemandmeasuresorotherstandardsestablishedbythecountycongestionmanagementagencyfordesignatedroadsorhighways(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRconcludedthatProject‐relatedtrafficwouldnotsubstantiallydegradethelevelofserviceonacongestionmanagementprogram–designatedroadway(i.e.,I‐580)becauseitwouldcontributesuchasmallpercentageoftotaltraffic.Accordingly,thisimpactwouldbelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

Alameda County Community Development Agency Environmental AnalysisTransportation/Traffic



ICF 00631.17

ImpactTRA‐3:Resultinachangeinairtrafficpatterns,includingeitheranincreaseintrafficlevelsorachangeinlocationthatresultsinsubstantialsafetyrisks(lessthansignificant)

ThePEIRconcludedthatrepoweringintheprogramareawouldnotresultinachangeinairtrafficpatternsoranyincreaseinrelatedsafetyrisks.BecausetheProjectwouldbewithintheareaanalyzed,theProject‐levelimpactwouldalsobelessthansignificant,andnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.

ImpactTRA‐4:Substantiallyincreasehazardsbecauseofadesignfeature(e.g.,sharpcurvesordangerousintersections)orincompatibleuses(e.g.,farmequipment)duetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatthepresenceoflarge,slow‐movingconstructionanddeliveryvehiclescouldincreasetrafficsafetyhazards.Additionally,someofthesevehiclescouldexceedroadwayloadandsizelimits.PermitsfromCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportationDistrict4andotherrelevantjurisdictionswouldberequiredforsuchvehicles.CompliancewithpermitrequirementsandimplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactTRA‐5:Resultininadequateemergencyaccessduetoconstruction‐generatedtraffic(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

Large,slow‐movingconstructionanddeliveryvehiclesandtemporaryroadandlaneclosurescoulddelayorobstructthemovementofemergencyvehicles,asdisclosedinthePEIR.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.

ImpactTRA‐6:Conflictwithadoptedpolicies,plans,orprogramsregardingpublictransit,bicycleorpedestrianfacilities,orotherwisedecreasetheperformanceorsafetyofsuchfacilities(lessthansignificantwithmitigation)

ThePEIRconcludedthatnopublictransitservicesorpedestrianfacilitiesarepresentontheProjectaccessroutesintheprogramarea.However,oversizedconstructionvehiclescouldpotentiallydisruptthemovementofbicyclestravelingontheshouldersofsomelocalaccessroads(e.g.,AltamontPassRoad,WestGrantLineRoad,MountainHouseRoad),andlaneorroadclosuresassociatedwithmaterialdeliveriescouldtemporarilydisruptbicycleaccess.ImplementationofMitigationMeasureTRA‐1wouldreducethisimpacttoaless‐than‐significantlevel.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR,andthemitigationmeasuressetforthinthePEIRwouldadequatelyaddressthisimpact.


Utilities and Service Systems



ICF 00631.17

3.16 Utilities and Service Systems ThePEIRanalyzedpotentialimpactsonutilitiesandservicesystemsanddeterminedthattherewouldbenoimpactsorthatimpactswouldbelessthansignificant.Similarly,asdescribedinthePEIRwastewatergenerationanddrainagefortheProjectwouldnotaffectcapacityofawaterorwastewatertreatmentfacility.Becauseofthereducednumberofturbines,waterneedsfortheProjectwouldbeequaltoorlessthanthoseanalyzedforthePEIR.Waterforconstructionactivitieswouldbeprovidedthroughanagreementwithmunicipalorprivatesuppliersandwouldthereforenotaffectanywatersupplyorrequireexpandedentitlements.SolidwastewouldbegeneratedprimarilyduringProjectconstructionandwouldnotexceedthecapacityoflandfills.TheProjectwouldberequiredtocomplywithlocal,state,andfederalsolidwasteregulations.Therewouldbenoimpactandnomitigationisrequired.ThisconclusionisconsistentwiththeanalysispresentedinthePEIR.Accordingly,thisresourcetopicisnotaddressedfurtherinthisanalysis.



ICF 00631.17

Chapter 4 List of Preparers

Thefollowingindividualsparticipatedinthepreparationofthisanalysis.

Lead Agency (Alameda County Community Development Agency)

AndrewYoung,SeniorPlanner

SandiRivera,DeputyDirector

Technical Assistance (ICF)

AngelaAlcala,Biologist

LarryGoral,TechnicalWriter

TimMessick,GraphicArtist

BradNorton,ProjectDirector

BradSchafer,ProjectManager

DanSchiff,GISanalyst

TinaSorvari,EnvironmentalPlanner

SusanSwift,SeniorReviewer

Appendix A Air Quality Technical Memorandum

Appendix B Biological Resources Evaluation Report

Appendix C Cultural Resources Survey Report

Appendix D Sound Technical Report

sand hill wind repowering project environmental … · sand hill wind repowering project...

Documents