southern california edison’s devers-mirage 115 kv … · 2010-04-07 · 1. introduction...
TRANSCRIPT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON’S DEVERS-MIRAGE 115 KV SUBTRANSMISSION SYSTEM SPLIT PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Report (Response to Comments) CPUC A.08-01-029 SCH#: 2008041087
Prepared for April 2010 California Public Utilities Commission
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON’S DEVERS-MIRAGE 115 KV SUBTRANSMISSION SYSTEM SPLIT PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Report (Response to Comments) CPUC A.08-01-029 SCH#: 2008041087
Prepared for: April 2010California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102
225 Bush Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Olympia
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
207059
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project i ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS Southern California Edison’s Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report (Response to Comments)
Page
1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Organization of the Final EIR ............................................................................. 1-2 2. Introduction to Comments and Responses 2-1 2.1 Opportunities for Public Comment on the Draft EIR .......................................... 2-1 2.2 Comments on the Draft EIR ............................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Responses to Comments .................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 List of Commenters and Comment Letters on the Draft EIR .............................. 2-2 3. Comment Letters 3-1 4. Responses to Comments 4-1 5. Revisions to the Draft EIR 5-1 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Text Changes .................................................................................................... 5-1 6. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons that Received the Final EIR 6-1
Revised Draft EIR Figures ES-1 Proposed Project and Alternatives Electrical Needs Area ............................. 5-3 ES-2 Alternatives Overview .................................................................................... 5-4 4.1-1 Visual Simulation Viewpoints ...................................................................... 5-14
Final EIR Tables 2(RTC)-1 Organizations that Submitted Comments on the Draft EIR ........................... 2-3 6(RTC)-1 Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Sent the Final EIR
via Overnight Delivery Service ................................................................... 6-1 6(RTC)-2 Agencies and Individuals Sent A Compact Disc (CD) of Final EIR
via United States Postal Service ................................................................ 6-2
Table of Contents
Page
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project ii ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Revised Draft EIR Tables ES-4 Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project vs.
Alternatives Summary of Environmental Impact Conclusions .................... 5-6 5-2 Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project vs.
Alternatives Summary of Environmental Impact Conclusions .................. 5-31
Appendices A. Notice of Availability A-1 B. Draft EIR Newspaper Legal Advertisements B-1 C. CPUC Project Website C-1 D. Public Meeting Presentation D-1 E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program E-1 F. Certificate of Service F-1
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 1-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
CHAPTER 1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose This Response to Comments document is the finalizing addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for consideration of Southern California Edison’s (SCE’s) application to construct the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (Proposed Project).
The Draft EIR detailed the Proposed Project, evaluated and described the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of SCE’s Proposed Project, identified those impacts that could be significant, and presented mitigation measures, which, if adopted by the CPUC or other responsible agencies, could avoid or minimize these impacts. The Draft EIR also evaluated alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Proposed Project would serve projected electrical demand in the Electrical Needs Area, which includes the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the Thousand Palms community. The primary components of the Proposed Project include two new 115 kV subtransmission line segments and a loop-in of the existing Devers-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line into Mirage Substation. Other components include rearrangements and modifications of subtransmission line connections, construction of substation modifications in the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the Thousand Palms community, and minor modifications to existing telecommunications equipment at the Edom Hill Communications site and the Palm Springs Service Center.
This Response to Comments document, together with the January 2010 Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the Proposed Project. The CPUC, as the Lead Agency for this process, is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15089 to prepare a Final EIR. The Final EIR will be used by the CPUC as part of its application approval process, which includes selecting project alternatives, adopting mitigation measures, and reviewing project costs.
1. Introduction
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 1-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
1.2 Organization of the Final EIR As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following elements:
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
(b) Comments received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary;
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR;
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.
The Final EIR for the Proposed Project contains information in response to concerns that were raised during the public comment period (January 8, 2010 through February 22, 2010).
This Response to Comments document consists of the following six chapters.
• Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter that describes the purpose as well as the organization of the Final EIR.
• Chapter 2 describes the organization of the comment letters, and the coding system used to identify individual comments. It also describes the organization of the responses to the comments received on the Draft EIR, and includes a list of all organizations and agencies that submitted comments.
• Chapter 3 contains copies of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR after publication of the Draft EIR.
• Chapter 4 contains responses to comments and also contains text changes to the Draft EIR that resulted from changes made in response to comments.
• Chapter 5 contains all text changes to the Draft EIR which include both (1) changes to correct errors or to clarify information presented in the Draft EIR, and (2) text changes as a result of responding to comments, as presented in Chapter 4.
• Chapter 6 lists all agencies, organizations, and persons that are receiving the Final EIR. This includes all those that submitted comments on the Draft EIR.
• Appendices, provides supporting documentation for information presented in the Response to Comments Document. A digital copy of the Draft EIR, published January 2010, and this Response to Comments document is included on a compact disc (CD) at the end of this document.
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 2-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
CHAPTER 2 Introduction to Comments and Responses
2.1 Opportunities for Public Comment on the Draft EIR
Notification On January 7, 2010, the CPUC published and distributed the Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft EIR to advise interested local, regional, State, and federal agencies, and the interested public, that a Draft EIR had been prepared and published for the Proposed Project. The NOA solicited both written and verbal comments on the Draft EIR during a 45-day comment period (January 8, 2010 through February 22, 2010), and provided information on a forthcoming public comment meeting. Additionally, the NOA presented the background, purpose, description, and location of the Proposed Project, as well as the contact name for additional information regarding the project.
In addition to the NOA, the CPUC notified the public about the public comment meeting through two newspaper legal advertisements and the project website. The NOA, newspaper legal advertisements, and the project website are presented in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively. Notifications provided basic project information, the date, time, and location of the public comment meeting, and a brief explanation of the public meeting process.
The CPUC published legal advertisements in The Desert Sun on January 9 and January 16, 2010. Additionally, an electronic copy of the NOA and the Draft EIR were posted on the CPUC’s website at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/esa/devers-mirage/deir_toc.html.
The public was encouraged to submit written comments and concerns regarding the Proposed Project and the adequacy of the Draft EIR by mail, facsimile, or electronic mail to the CPUC.
Public Comment Meeting The CPUC conducted a public comment meeting on Friday, January 29, 2010, from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. at the California State University San Bernardino (CSUSB) Palm Desert Campus, at 37-500 Cook Street, Palm Desert, California. Three agency representatives attended the public meeting, including Eric Chiang of the CPUC, and Doug Cover and Matthew Fagundes of Environmental Science Associates. A presentation (Appendix D) was prepared that included an overview of the environmental review process, the regional context, project background, project objectives, project description, project alternatives, and role of the public comments. No members of the public attended the comment meeting.
2. Introduction to Comments and Responses
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 2-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
2.2 Comments on the Draft EIR
Written Comments Two (2) comment letters were received during the Draft EIR public review period, one from the Native American Heritage Commission and one from Southern California Edison. These comment letters were designated as letter O1 and O2, respectively, with the ‘O’ indicating that the letter was from an organization. Individual comments within letter O1 are marked sequentially with numbers, such as O1-1, O1-2, etc. Comments from letter O2 are divided into two sections; the first includes global comments that are marked alphabetically (e.g., O2-a, O2-b, etc.) and the second includes discrete comments on the document that are marked numerically (e.g., O2-1, O2-2, etc.). Copies of both letters are provided in Chapter 3.
Public Meeting Comments As noted above, a public meeting was held on Friday, January 29, 2010, at the CSUSB Palm Desert Campus in Palm Desert, California. No members of the public attended and therefore no comments were received at the meeting.
2.3 Responses to Comments As required by Section 15132 of the Guidelines for CEQA, the responses in Chapter 4 address issues raised by commenters during the review period. They are intended to provide clarification and refinement of information presented in the Draft EIR and, in some cases, to correct or update information in the Draft EIR. In some instances, the text of the Draft EIR has been revised in response to a comment, and the revised text is included as part of the response. Where responses have resulted in changes to the text of the Draft EIR, these changes are shown within the Draft EIR text using the following conventions:
1) Text added to the wording in the Draft EIR is shown in underline, 2) Text deleted from the wording in the Draft EIR is shown in strikeout, and 3) Text changes are shown in indented paragraphs.
These text changes also appear in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this document.
2.4 List of Commenters and Comment Letters on the Draft EIR
The following table provides a list of all organizations that provided written comments on the Draft EIR during the public comment period (January 8, 2010 through February 22, 2010). No late comments or comments from public members were received.
2. Introduction to Comments and Responses
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 2-3 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
TABLE 2(RTC)-1 ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
Comment Letter ID Name of Commenter Title Organization/Affiliation
Copy of Letter on
Page
O1 Dave Singleton Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission
3.1-1
O2 Milissa Marona Project Manager Southern California Edison 3.1-3
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 3-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
CHAPTER 3 Comment Letters
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3-2
Comment Letter O1
3-3
Comment Letter O1
3-4
February 22, 2010 Page 1 of 10 To: Eric Chiang
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project c/o Environmental Science Associates 1425 N. McDowell Boulevard, Suite 200 Petaluma, CA 94954
From: Milissa Marona, Project Manager RE: Southern California Edison’s Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (A.08-01-029) Dear Mr. Chiang: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (A.08-01-29) (Project). This letter and attachments contain Southern California Edison’s (SCE’s) comments on the DEIR. SCE’s comments are divided into two parts: Global Comments and Specific Comments. The Global Comments, included in the text of this letter, contain a general discussion of SCE’s views regarding the DEIR selection of the environmentally superior alternatives. These Global Comments apply generally to the DEIR. Specific Comments, attached to this letter in table format, apply to specific portions of the document. (Please see attached Specific Comments.)
Comment Letter O2
3-5
February 22, 2010 Page 2 of 10 GLOBAL COMMENT: AS COMPARED TO ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 5,1 SCE’S PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT RESULT IN MORE LONG-TERM, LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS; IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR; IS APPROXIMATELY 20-24 MILLION DOLLARS LESS COSTLY AND SHOULD BE THE ROUTE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION. SCE disagrees with the DEIR’s analysis and conclusion that Alternatives 3 and 5 are the environmentally superior routing options. First, although the DEIR analysis concludes that Alternatives 3 and 5 have greater air quality impacts than the Proposed Project, the analysis gives short shrift to the fact that Alternatives 3 and 5 result in much greater land disturbance than the Proposed Project. Although air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable for both Alternatives 3 and 5 and the Proposed Project, it is SCE’s position that the Proposed Project is preferred because of the much less land disturbance that would be required. Second, the DEIR asserts that Alternatives 3 and 5 would have fewer long-term impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biology, and cultural resources and are thus environmentally preferred. SCE does not believe that the Proposed Project would result in more long term impacts in these areas, and, in fact, likely has fewer long-term aesthetic impacts and potentially fewer cultural resource impacts than Alternatives 3 and 5. In any event, all long-term impacts other than air quality are all less than significant. Further, SCE believes that the Proposed Project is the preferable alternative in the resource areas of noise, public services, traffic and transportation, and utilities and service systems. Finally, it should be noted that Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost approximately five times more than the Proposed Project, approximately $20-24 million dollars greater cost. As referenced above, the DEIR acknowledges that air quality impacts would be worse for Alternatives 3 and 5 as compared to the Proposed Project because of the trenching needed for the underground portions of those alternatives, but nevertheless concludes that the “varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.” (DEIR, p. 5-9.) Further, the DEIR states that since all alternatives have significant unmitigable impacts on air quality during construction, the “selection of the
1 Alternative 3: The Alternative 3 route between Farrell Substation and Garnet Substation would be comprised of both an underground and overhead portion. Approximately 3.6 miles of new underground facilities would be constructed from Farrell Substation along Vista Chino, Sunrise Way, San Rafael Drive, and a portion of Indian Canyon. Approximately 2.9 miles of subtransmission overhead facilities would be constructed along Indian Canyon Drive into Garnet Substation; this overhead section would be constructed in an area that has existing distribution, but no existing subtransmission. The Alternative 3 proposed overhead facilities would be approximately 80-to-90-feet in height as compared to the approximately 34-to-48-foot-height of the existing facilities. Alternative 3 would also require a 95-foot-tall riser pole at the transition from overhead to underground on Indian Canyon. In contrast, the Proposed Project between Farrell-Garnet would be constructed by replacing/reconfiguring existing overhead subtransmission facilities. Alternative 5: The Alternative 5 route would consist of approximately 3.1 miles of underground facilities along Varner Road, Monterey Avenue, and Ramon Road into the Mirage Substation. In comparison, the Proposed Project would require only 1.5 miles of reconfiguration on existing subtransmission overhead facilities, adjacent to existing access roads.
Comment Letter O2
3-6
February 22, 2010 Page 3 of 10 environmentally superior alternative is based on differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation.” (DEIR, p. 5-3, emphasis added.) The DEIR further states that for several resources “there are no material environmental impact differences between the Proposed Project and alternatives including : agricultural resources; air quality; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, planning and policies; mineral resources; noise; population and housing; public services; recreation; and utilities and service systems.” (DEIR, p. 5-3, emphasis added.) Even though the DEIR states that (1)Alternatives 3and 5 have greater air quality impacts than the Proposed Project; (2) the Proposed Project has the least traffic impacts compared to either Alternative 3 or 5; and that (3) there are no material differences between environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 5, the DEIR nevertheless concludes that Alternatives 3 and 5,2 as compared to the Proposed Project, will result in fewer already less than significant impacts, and are thus environmentally superior. Specifically, the DEIR asserts that Alternative 3 would result in fewer long-term aesthetics and biological impacts3 and that Alternative 5 would result in less-intense, less-than-significant long-term impacts as compared to the Proposed Project in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources. SCE disagrees with this analysis and with the selection of Alternatives 3 and 5 as the environmentally superior routes. SCE believes that a review of the differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation reveals that the Proposed Project does not result in more long-term, less than significant impacts and also reveals that the Proposed Project should be selected as the environmentally superior route. In addition to these reasons, SCE believes that the Proposed Project should be approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for construction because it is also $20-24 million dollars less costly for ratepayers than Alternatives 3 and 5. SCE’s Proposed Project does not result in more long-term, less-than-significant impacts as compared to Alternatives 3 and 5. As stated above, the DEIR asserts that, as compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative 3 would result in fewer long-term less-than-significant aesthetics and biological impacts and that Alternative 5 would result in fewer long-term less-than-significant impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources. SCE disagrees with these assertions. Aesthetics
For Alternative 3, the new overhead line would be constructed along Indian Canyon Drive, where there are only existing distribution lines but no existing subtransmission
2 The DEIR selected Alternative 3 for the Farrell-Garnett portion of the route and Alternative 5 for the Mirage-Santa Rosa portion of the route. (DEIR, p. 5-10.) 3 Note that the DEIR states that Alternative 7 would have fewer cultural impacts than either Alternative 3 or the Proposed Project, but due to the length of the line, Alternative 3 was chosen as the environmentally superior alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area. (DEIR, p. 5-10.)
Comment Letter O2
3-7
February 22, 2010 Page 4 of 10
line. According to the DEIR, Alternative 3 would require removing existing distribution facilities on wooden poles that are approximately 34-to-48-feet high and installing approximately 96 new LWS poles and 10 TSP structures, approximately 80-to-98-feet high and a 95-foot-tall-riser pole. However, construction of the overhead portion of Alternative 3 might require the use of single circuit TSPs due to the number of distribution circuits that would be installed on these facilities. Also, Indian Canyon Drive is the main entrance into Palm Springs, and therefore viewers from the road would be visually sensitive. There is also a neighborhood bordering Indian Canyon Drive that would be able to see the new subtransmission conductor and the new 95-foot-tall riser pole. In contrast, the Proposed Project would likely result in fewer long-term visual impacts because the new facilities would be constructed within an existing corridor, replacing an existing subtransmission line on similar facilities. Since the Proposed Project would be collocated with an existing subtransmission line with similar visual elements, contrast, or discernable change to the landscape, would be substantially less when compared to Alternative 3, where the project would be constructed immediately adjacent to Indian Canyon Drive overbuilt above a smaller scale distribution line. Therefore, the construction and operation of Alternative 3 may result in substantially more long-term, less-than-significant visual impacts when compared to the Proposed Project.
With Alternative 5, there would be two new 95-foot-tall-riser poles, one inside of Mirage Substation and one at the intersection of Varner Road and Vista De Oro. (DEIR, p. 3-22.)
In contrast to Alternatives 3 and 5, where Alternative 3 would result in new, larger structures close to a major road and neighborhood and Alternative 5 that would include construction of two 95-foot riser poles, the Proposed Project would rebuild/reconfigure existing lines on the Farrell-Garnet and the Mirage-Santa Rosa portions. Both of these areas of the Proposed Project have existing SCE subtransmission lines that SCE would rebuild/reconfigure and then string a new set of conductors on. In other words, it would be very difficult to tell the difference between pre- and post- project visual conditions for a majority of the Proposed Project. It is therefore, SCE’s belief that the Proposed Project would not result in more long-term less-than significant impacts as compared to Alternatives 3 and 5, but in fact, could result in fewer.
Biological Resources
The DEIR concludes that Alternatives 3 and 5 would result in fewer long-term less than significant impacts as compared to the Proposed Project. Alternative 3 contains potential habitat for the fringe-toed lizard, but surveys did not find the area occupied. However, Alternative 3 would still require mitigation for loss of habitat, but, like the Proposed Project in this area, would also be less than significant. Further, if Alternative 3 were approved for construction, the existing line traversing BLM would remain, and SCE would need to still maintain the line and replace deteriorated poles; a few of these poles
Comment Letter O2
3-8
February 22, 2010 Page 5 of 10
would likely need to be replaced in the near future.4 The Proposed Project along the Farrell-Garnet portion of the route traversing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land is confirmed that it is occupied for fringe-toed lizard; however, all impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and the actual impact would be primarily construction-related rather than long-term. For the Proposed Project, SCE would be replacing poles in areas that poles already exist. Further, the replacement of poles would take place in areas alongside an existing road where the habitat is already somewhat degraded. For these reasons, SCE does not believe that the Proposed Project would result in more long-term biological resources as compared to Alternative 3.
The DEIR concludes that because Alternative 5 would result in only a short span of overhead line across I-10 and the UPRR, compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would include approximately 1.5 miles of overhead line, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line for biological impacts. (DEIR, p. 5-9.) However, both options, Alternative 5 and the Proposed Project, have very limited biological impacts that are less-than-significant. For these reasons, SCE does not believe that the Proposed Project would result in more long-term biological resources as compared to Alternative 5.
Cultural Resources
The Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet 115kV line would be built in the existing alignment of the Devers-Farrell-Wildland 115kV subtransmission line along the north side of Garnet Hill. The line is currently in an existing easement which is at least 30-feet wide. SCE would utilize an existing access road already in place. No new roads would need to be cut through Garnet Hill and any necessary grading would be minimal. The Proposed Farrell-Garnet overhead line would have point-specific paleontology impacts and non-physical impact on Native American topographical resource Hoon wit ten ca va /Garnet Hill. Similarly, the overhead segment of Alternative 3 would also have point-specific paleontology impacts where poles would be located and non-physical impact on Native American topographical resource Hoon wit ten ca va /Garnet Hill . Further, the underground segment would have greater paleontological impacts and possibly archaeological impacts to currently unknown resources than the overhead Farrell-Garnet line because Alternative 3 involves a trench that would potentially intrude below existing disturbed areas. In addition, Alternative 3 would still require SCE to install poles through a portion of the Garnet Hill in areas where new access roads may be required. For this reason, the DEIR states that the “ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least
4 SCE has been in the process for the past few years of working with BLM to obtain necessary environmental approvals. Please note that if Alternative 3 is approved for construction, it could result in a delay in this process, as BLM would no longer be involved in the project.
Comment Letter O2
3-9
February 22, 2010 Page 6 of 10
favorable) is as follows: Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, the Proposed Project Farell-Garnet line, and Alternative 2.” (DEIR, p. 5-9.)
With the exception of two locations, the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would be built in the existing Mirage-Tamarisk 115kV and/or the existing Mirage-Concho 115kV alignments.5 The Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would have point specific paleontological impacts where poles would be located and physical impacts to one archaeological site (CACRV 785). Sites 33-15430 and 33-15429 might be avoidable or could potentially not be impacted by the Proposed Project. Alternative 5, in contrast, would have physical impacts on Varner Road, cultural resource 33-8408, due to linear trenching within the length of roadway. Alternative 5 would also result in potentially greater paleontological impacts and possibly archaeological impacts to currently unknown resources due to the trenching required for the 3.1 miles of undergrounding that might intrude below currently disturbed areas. Therefore, it is not likely that the Proposed Project would have more long-term, less-than-significant impacts as compared to Alternative 5, and could result in fewer long-term impacts. (DEIR, pp. 5-6, 5-9.)
In sum, the DEIR asserts that one of the main reasons Alternatives 3 and 5 were chosen over the Proposed Project as environmentally superior, is due to increased long-term, less-than-significant impacts of the Proposed Project as compared to Alternatives 3 and 5, particularly in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources. As discussed above, SCE disagrees with this determination. The Proposed Project would result in very similar or even fewer long-term visual/aesthetics impacts; similar long-term biological impacts, and similar or potentially fewer long-term cultural impacts. In any event, all of these impacts are less-than-significant and the minute differences between them do not justify the choice of Alternatives 3 and 5 environmentally superior.
SCE’s Proposed Project is the environmentally superior routing option because it is less impactful than Alternatives 3 and 5 in several resource areas. Air Quality
The DEIR acknowledges that the Proposed Project would have fewer significant air quality impacts than Alternatives 3 and 5 due to the extensive trenching required for Alternatives 3 and 5, yet the DEIR concludes this difference is “not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective” and concludes that there is “no preference” between the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 5 regarding air quality impacts. (DEIR, pp. 5-9 and 5-4.) SCE disagrees with this analysis and believes that there is a difference material enough to determine that the Proposed Project is the preferred alternative regarding air quality.
5 Exception 1: a new single circuit pole line will be built west of the existing Mirage-Concho 115kV line adjacent to an existing access road and further west of the culturally sensitive areas adjacent to the existing Mirage-Concho 115kV line. Exception 2: a new single circuit wood pole line would be built east of the existing double circuit wood pole line through the Tri-Palms Estates Country Club. No cultural resources appear to be within the golf course as it is on developed property.
Comment Letter O2
3-10
February 22, 2010 Page 7 of 10
The 5.8 miles of overhead line that would be constructed for the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line would result in approximately 116,790 cubic feet of ground disturbance.6 In contrast, the 3.6 miles of underground construction and 2.9 of overhead construction required for Alternative 3 would result in approximately 320, 288 cubic feet of disturbance, nearly three times the disturbance of the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line, with correlating increases in fugitive dust.7 This is material enough in SCE’s opinion to determine that the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line is superior to Alternative 3.
The 1.5 miles of overhead line that would be constructed for the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would result in only 5,633 cubic feet of disturbance, due in part to this portion being constructed on existing alignments, and no new access roads would be required.8 In contrast, the 3-foot-wide, at least 5.5-foot-deep, 3.1-mile long trench that would be required for Alternative 5 would result in a total of 270,072 cubic feet of land disturbance, approximately 48 times the disturbance and corresponding fugitive dust impacts as compared to the Proposed Project.9 In SCE’s opinion, this is a material-enough difference in disturbance area to determine that the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line is superior to Alternative 5.
Noise
Construction of underground facilities requires approximately 100-days per mile to complete. In comparison, construction of overhead facilities requires approximately 30-days-per mile to complete. Thus, the estimated construction time for the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line would be approximately 6 months (roughly one month per mile on a total of approximately 5.8 mile-long route). In contrast, the construction of Alternative 3 would be approximately 100 days per mile of undergrounding, which would be about 360 days, or approximately one year. The overhead portion of Alternative 3 would take approximately 3 months construction time, which could possibly be performed in parallel with the underground construction work. Similarly, the estimated construction time for the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would also be less than Alternative 5. The 1.5-mile-long Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would take approximately 1.5 months to construct, while the construction of Alternative 5 would be approximately 10 months (roughly 100 days per mile for 3.1
6 Calculations for volume of earth disturbed are back-of-the-envelope estimates used to demonstrate quantitative differences in earth disturbance. For the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line: 142 LWS poles x area disturbance (пr2 ; where r= 1 foot) x depth of disturbance = 10ft; disturbed volume = 4460ft3 ; 15 TSPs x пr2 (r=2.5 ft) x 30 ft deep= 8840 ft3 ; 0.7 miles access road x 5280 x 14 ft wide x 2 ft deep= 103490 ft3 ; Total Volume Disturbed= 116790 ft3. 7 Disturbance calculations for Alternative 3: 3 ft wide underground trench x 5.5 feet deep x 3.6 miles x 5280 = 313632 ft3 ; 2.90 miles overhead= ½ disturbance of 5.8 miles of proposed overhead without access road= 6650 ft3 ; Total Disturbance= 320288 ft3 . 8 Disturbance calculations for Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa: 37 LWS + 11 wood poles x area of disturbance x depth of disturbance= 10ft; Disturbed volume = 1508 ft3 ;7 TSPs x пr2 (r=2.5ft) x 30 ft deep= 4125 ft3 ; 0.0 new access roads; Total Disturbance= 5633 ft3. 9 Disturbance calculations for Alternative 5: 3 ft wide underground trench x 5.5 ft deep x 3.1 miles x 5280=270072 ft3 .
Comment Letter O2
3-11
February 22, 2010 Page 8 of 10
miles underground construction). In other words, construction of Alternatives 3 and 5 would require significantly longer construction times than the Proposed Project.
The DEIR acknowledges that “underground portions would have greater noise and vibration impacts from construction” and asserts that Alternatives 3 and 5 would result in “less impacts from corona noise.” (DEIR, p. 5-7.) First, SCE agrees that the underground portions would result in greater noise and vibration from construction and would like to reiterate that these portions would take a 100-days-per-mile to construct, compared to a lesser construction period for the Proposed Project. Second, as acknowledged in the DEIR regarding the overhead construction associated with the Proposed Project, “because newer conductors typically have less surface imperfections than aging conductors, the conductors associated with the new circuit would likely result in lower corona noise levels than the existing circuit.”10 (DEIR, p. 4.11-16.) Further, the DEIR states that in any event, most sensitive receptors for the Proposed Project are between 100-to-150-feet away from the proposed alignment. (DEIR, p. 4.11-16.) Finally, the DEIR concludes that corona noise impacts of the Proposed Project would be a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.11-17.) SCE, therefore, disagrees with the conclusion in the DEIR that there is no preference between the alternatives regarding noise impacts. Because of the greater noise impacts from underground construction, the increased construction related to underground routing, because the Proposed Project would likely result in lower corona noise levels as compared to the existing baseline and because most sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are at least 100-feet away from the alignment, SCE concludes that the Proposed Project should be the preferred route regarding noise impacts.
Public Services
The DEIR acknowledges that the “additional lane closure required for the underground portion[s of Alternatives 3 and 5] could lead to slightly higher impacts to emergency response times.” (DEIR, p. 5-8.) The DEIR nonetheless concludes that there is no preference between alternatives for public service impacts. SCE disagrees with this conclusion and believes that due to the additional potential for disruption to public services from extensive, prolonged road/lane closures, even though these impacts would remain less than significant, the Proposed Project is superior to Alternatives 3 and 5 in this area.
Traffic and Transportation
The DEIR acknowledges that as “[c]ompared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least amount of construction work within or above roads. Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 3 would result in the most amount of underground line construction within roads” and that as “[c]ompared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in no underground line
10 Please note that the noise level analysis for corona noise may be assuming corona noise levels for 220 kV facilities rather than levels for 115 kV facilities, which are normally less.
Comment Letter O2
3-12
February 22, 2010 Page 9 of 10
work, Alternative 5 would result in approximately three miles of underground line.” (DEIR, pp.5-9 to 5-10.) Therefore, the DEIR concludes that the Proposed Project is more favorable than either Alternative 3 or 5. SCE agrees and believes that this is an additional reason that the Proposed Project is the environmentally superior alignment. Alternatives 3 and 5 would require significantly more traffic control measures than the Proposed Project does. Both Alternatives 3 and 5 would require various lane closures for the duration of the underground portions, approximately 12 months for Alternative 3 and 10 months for Alternative 5. The lane closures associated with Alternative 3 may affect access for nearby residential area. Additionally, the route along Alternative 5 has been recently widened by the County of Riverside and may be subject to a moratorium on any street projects for five years. In order for SCE to be able to obtain permission to install the underground system along this portion of the route, it is possible that SCE may be required to grind and recap the entire street from curb to curb. Also, SCE would need to update information regarding buried utilities/services in order to determine where, if at all, the underground facilities could be placed. It is possible that additional services have been recently added to this area (e.g., potential water line along Monterey). This could result in a non-linear pattern of undergrounding, with corresponding lane/road closures, or the potential that the underground portions would need to be trenched deeper than expected, or, worst-case, that there might not be room for the underground facilities in some areas due to constraints of existing underground utilities/services. In comparison, a portion of the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line might require a two-week lane closure, but would be intermittent and would not disturb road service; other portions of the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line are on access roads or off major roadways and would not require lane closures. Similarly, the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would result in temporary road closures and limited lane closures, but would not disturb roads themselves.
Utilities and Service Systems
The DEIR determines that impacts to Utilities and Service Systems for Alternatives 3 and 5 are “similar to the Proposed Project” and that there is no preference between Alternatives 3 and 5 as compared to the Proposed Project. SCE disagrees with this conclusion. Because Alternatives 3 and 5 both require construction of substantial underground portions, approximately 6.7 miles total undergrounding for both alternatives, a greater potential for hitting, disrupting utilities and service systems exist than compared to the Proposed Project. In order to avoid existing underground utilities when trenching, SCE might be required to construct deeper trenches, which would likely increase air impacts as well. In comparison, the Proposed Project, with no underground portions, would be less likely to disrupt utilities and service systems. Thus, SCE believes that the Proposed Project is superior to Alternatives 3 and 5 in this resource area as well.
Comment Letter O2
3-13
February 22, 2010 Page 10 of 10 Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost approximately five times more than SCE’s Proposed Project. The overhead portions of the Proposed Project would cost approximately $627,000 dollars per mile.11 For the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line and the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line, this would result in approximately $4.5 million dollars total for these overhead portions of the project.12 In comparison, the approximate cost for undergrounding is $3.5 million per mile. The cost for Alternatives 3 and 5 would be approximately $25-28 million. 13 In addition to these costs, there are possible moratoriums in place on roads that have been recently repaved, such as Monterey Road. If such moratoriums are in place at the time SCE would need to construct in those areas, it is possible that SCE would be required to repave the entire road from curb-to-curb, rather than just repaving the trenching area. This could result in additional cost to the project. In sum, Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost at least approximately five times more (between $20-24 million dollars) than the Proposed Project and, as discussed above, would not result in any material environmental benefits as compared to the Proposed Project. In conclusion, the Proposed Project does not result in more long-term, less-than-significant impacts as compared to Alternatives 3 and 5, and in fact, likely results in fewer long-term impacts in the areas of aesthetics and cultural resources. Further, the Proposed Project is environmentally superior to Alternatives 3 and 5 in the areas of air quality, noise, public services, traffic and transportation, and utilities and service systems. Finally, the cost of the Proposed Project is approximately $20-24 million dollars less than that of Alternatives 3 and 5. For all of these reasons, SCE believes that the differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant justify choosing the Proposed Project as the environmentally superior and approving the Proposed Project for construction. Sincerely, /s/Milissa Marona Milissa Marona 11 Please note that these cost estimates are conceptual estimates without the benefit of final engineering. 12 Approximate cost calculations for the Proposed Project. For the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line (5.8 miles of overhead x $627,000 per mile = $3.6 million). For the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line (1.5 miles of overhead x $627,000 per mile = $940,500). The total for the overhead portions of the Proposed Project would be $3.6 million + $940,500= $4.5 million. 13 Approximate cost calculations for Alternatives 3 and 5: Alternative 3 (2.9 miles of overhead (between $2million and $5 million per mile [depending on final engineering] + 3.6 miles of underground x $3.5 million per mile=range between $14 million and $18 million). Alternative 5 (3.1 miles of underground x $3.5 million per mile= $10.8 million). For Alternative 3 ($14-18 million) and Alternative 5 ($10.8 million) the total cost for the undergrounding portion would be a range between $25 million and $28 million. Therefore, Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost approximately 5 times more than the Proposed Project, approximately $20-24 dollars more.
Comment Letter O2
3-14
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 1 -
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
Gen
eral
1
For r
esou
rce
chap
ters
that
incl
ude
disc
ussi
on o
f loc
al p
lans
, pol
icie
s, or
dina
nces
, etc
., pl
ease
incl
ude
the
GO
131
-D p
reem
ptio
n la
ngua
ge a
s w
ell (
e.g.
Air
Qua
lity,
Cul
tura
l, et
c).
Gen
eral
Ord
er 1
31-D
cla
rifie
s tha
t loc
al ju
risdi
ctio
ns a
ctin
g pu
rsua
nt to
loca
l aut
horit
y ar
e pr
eem
pted
from
regu
latin
g el
ectri
c po
wer
line
pro
ject
s, di
strib
utio
n lin
es, s
ubst
atio
ns, o
r ele
ctric
fa
cilit
ies c
onst
ruct
ed b
y pu
blic
util
ities
subj
ect t
o th
e C
omm
issi
on’s
ju
risdi
ctio
n. H
owev
er, i
n lo
catin
g su
ch p
roje
cts,
the
publ
ic u
tiliti
es
shal
l con
sult
with
loca
l age
ncie
s reg
ardi
ng la
nd u
se m
atte
rs.
In
inst
ance
s whe
re th
e pu
blic
util
ities
and
loca
l age
ncie
s are
una
ble
to
reso
lve
thei
r diff
eren
ces,
the
Com
mis
sion
shal
l set
a h
earin
g no
la
ter t
han
30 d
ays a
fter t
he u
tility
or l
ocal
age
ncy
has n
otifi
ed th
e C
omm
issi
on o
f the
inab
ility
to re
ach
agre
emen
t on
land
use
m
atte
rs.
Exe
cutiv
e Su
mm
ary
2 ES
-1
The
prop
osed
pro
ject
incl
udes
seve
n 11
5 kV
reco
nfig
urat
ions
rath
er th
an
thre
e. P
leas
e re
vise
the
first
sent
ence
un
der E
S.1.
1 to
cla
rify
this
fact
and
to
clar
ify li
ne ty
pes.
The
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
con
sist
s of a
num
ber o
f dis
tinct
pro
ject
co
mpo
nent
s tha
t tog
ethe
r mak
e up
the
entir
e Pr
opos
ed P
roje
ct,
incl
udin
g tw
o ne
w 1
15 k
V su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
nes,
thre
e se
ven
115
kV su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne re
conf
igur
atio
ns, a
220
kV
tran
smis
sion
lin
e lo
op-in
, sub
stat
ion
mod
ifica
tions
….
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-15
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 2 -
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
3 ES
-9/F
ig.
ES-2
Th
e fig
ure
show
s Alte
rnat
ive
3 st
oppi
ng w
here
it m
eets
Alte
rnat
ive
2.
The
figur
e sh
ould
dep
ict A
ltern
ativ
e 3
turn
ing
alon
g A
ltern
ativ
e 2
and
runn
ing
adja
cent
to it
unt
il it
reac
hes
the
Farr
ell S
ubst
atio
n ic
on.
Plea
se a
men
d Fi
gure
ES-
2 to
refle
ct th
e fa
ct th
at A
ltern
ativ
e 3
cont
inue
s int
o Fa
rrel
l sub
stat
ion.
4 ES
-4
Orig
inal
ly it
was
thou
ght t
hat f
ive
new
circ
uit b
reak
ers w
ould
be
need
ed
to a
ccom
mod
ate
a ne
w li
ne p
ositi
on.
How
ever
, a m
ore
effic
ient
co
nfig
urat
ion
has b
een
inco
rpor
ated
in
to th
e de
sign
and
inst
ead
of fi
ve
circ
uit b
reak
ers,
only
thre
e w
ill b
e ne
eded
. Pl
ease
revi
se th
e la
ngua
ge
unde
r Mira
ge S
ubst
atio
n to
refle
ct
this
con
figur
atio
n.
In
stal
l fiv
e ne
w 2
20kV
circ
uit b
reak
ers a
nd fi
ve th
ree
new
11
5kV
circ
uit b
reak
ers
5 ES
-5
In o
rder
to p
rovi
de a
mor
e de
taile
d ex
plan
atio
n of
the
wor
k at
San
ta R
osa
Subs
tatio
n an
d to
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
othe
r sub
stat
ion
desc
riptio
ns, p
leas
e re
plac
e th
e fir
st b
ulle
t und
er S
anta
R
osa
subs
tatio
n w
ith th
e tw
o bu
llets
pr
ovid
ed.
C
onve
rt th
e ex
istin
g Sa
nta
Ros
a-G
arne
t 115
kV
su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne to
the
new
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a-Ta
mar
isk
115
kV su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne
C
onve
rt th
e ex
istin
g Sa
nta
Ros
a-Ta
mar
isk
115
kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
to th
e ne
w M
irage
-San
ta R
osa
115k
V
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-16
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 3 -
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
6 ES
-5
In o
rder
to p
rovi
de a
mor
e de
taile
d ex
plan
atio
n of
the
wor
k at
Tho
rnhi
ll Su
bsta
tion
and
to b
e co
nsis
tent
with
ot
her s
ubst
atio
n de
scrip
tions
, ple
ase
repl
ace
the
first
bul
let u
nder
Tho
rnhi
ll su
bsta
tion
with
the
bulle
t pro
vide
d.
C
onve
rt th
e ex
istin
g Th
ornh
ill-T
amar
isk
115k
V
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
to th
e ne
w D
ever
s-Ei
senh
ower
-Th
ornh
ill 1
15kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
7 ES
-4
Mor
e ex
tens
ive
engi
neer
ing
has
indi
cate
d th
at w
ork
at th
e M
irage
Su
bsta
tion
shou
ld in
clud
e th
e re
loca
tion
of th
e M
irage
-Tam
aris
k lin
e. T
here
fore
, ple
ase
amen
d th
e bu
llete
d te
xt a
s sho
wn.
In
stal
l the
new
Mira
ge- S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
lin
e an
d re
loca
te th
e M
irage
-Con
cho
and
Mira
ge-T
amar
isk
115
kV su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
nes
8 ES
-22
Plea
se re
vise
the
Exec
utiv
e Su
mm
ary
to re
flect
the
pote
ntia
l im
pact
s to
pale
onto
logi
cal,
cultu
ral,
and
arch
aeol
ogic
al re
sour
ces d
ue to
un
derg
roun
ding
.
Pl
ease
see
Atta
chm
ent 1
, Cul
tura
l Com
paris
on T
able
.
Intr
oduc
tion
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-17
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 4 -
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
9 1-
2/1.
2 Th
e w
ork
allu
ded
to re
gard
ing
Dev
ers-
Cap
win
d- C
onch
o-M
irage
on
page
2-2
of t
he P
EA w
as c
ondu
cted
in
200
8 w
hen
the
Dev
ers-
Cap
win
d-C
onch
o M
irage
line
was
loop
ed in
to
Mira
ge .
The
refo
re, p
leas
e am
end
the
text
in th
e fir
st p
arag
raph
, thi
rd
sent
ence
, as s
how
n to
refle
ct th
e na
me
chan
ge th
at re
sults
from
the
prev
ious
w
ork.
Split
ting
the
exis
ting
115
kV sy
stem
is n
eces
sary
to re
lieve
ther
mal
ov
erlo
ad c
ondi
tions
on
the
exis
ting
Mira
ge-C
onch
o le
g of
the
Dev
ers-
Cap
win
d-C
onch
o-M
irage
115
kV
and
Mira
ge-T
amar
isk
115
kV su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
nes a
nd th
e M
irage
-Tam
aris
k 11
5kV
su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne.”
Proj
ect D
escr
iptio
n
10
2-13
/ B
ulle
t 2
As a
resu
lt of
mor
e ex
tens
ive
engi
neer
ing,
gro
undi
ng lo
catio
n w
as
chan
ged.
Th
eref
ore,
ple
ase
revi
se th
e se
cond
bul
let a
s fol
low
s:
Sp
lit th
e Sa
nta
Ros
a-Ta
mar
isk
at th
e sa
me
inte
rsec
tion
by
dead
-end
ing
and
grou
ndin
g th
e Sa
nta
Ros
a le
g at
the
north
wes
t sou
thea
st c
orne
r pol
e. T
he p
ortio
n of
the
Sant
a R
osa-
Tam
aris
k lin
e be
twee
n B
ob H
ope
Driv
e ea
st to
Po
rtola
Ave
nue
wou
ld b
ecom
e id
le.
11
2-13
/ B
ulle
t 3
As a
resu
lt of
mor
e ex
tens
ive
engi
neer
ing,
pol
e co
nfig
urat
ion
has
been
cha
nged
. Th
eref
ore,
ple
ase
revi
se th
e th
ird b
ulle
t as f
ollo
ws:
Con
nect
the
open
Tam
aris
k le
g of
the
exis
ting
Sant
a R
osa-
Tam
aris
k 11
5 kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
to th
e op
en G
arne
t leg
of t
he
exis
ting
Gar
net-S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
at t
he
north
east
sout
heas
t cor
ner p
ole
of B
ob H
ope
Driv
e an
d D
inah
Sh
ore
Driv
e.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-18
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 5 -
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
12
2-13
/ B
ulle
t 1
As a
resu
lt of
mor
e ex
tens
ive
engi
neer
ing
and
to e
nhan
ce th
e ap
pear
ance
of t
he p
ole,
the
pole
co
nfig
urat
ion
was
cha
nged
.
Ther
efor
e, p
leas
e re
vise
the
first
bu
llet a
s fol
low
s:
Sp
lit th
e ex
istin
g G
arne
t-San
ta R
osa
115
kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
at t
he in
ters
ectio
n of
Bob
Hop
e D
rive
and
Din
ah S
hore
Driv
e by
rem
ovin
g th
e sp
an o
f wire
that
co
nnec
ts th
e so
uthw
est a
nd n
orth
east
cor
ner p
oles
and
tra
nsfe
r it t
o th
e so
uthe
ast c
orne
r pol
e (s
ee F
igur
e 2-
5,
Exis
ting
and
Prop
osed
115
kV
Lin
e C
onfig
urat
ions
at B
ob
Hop
e an
d D
inah
Sho
re D
rives
).
13
2-14
/ Fig
. 2-
5 B
ased
on
upda
ted
engi
neer
ing
info
rmat
ion,
ple
ase
chan
ge p
ropo
sed
cond
ucto
r con
figur
atio
n to
look
like
th
e at
tach
ed d
raw
ing:
See
Atta
chm
ent 2
, U
pdat
ed S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on L
ine
Con
figur
atio
ns
14
2-18
/ B
ulle
t 1
Bas
ed o
n up
date
d en
gine
erin
g in
form
atio
n, p
leas
e re
vise
bul
let t
o th
e fo
llow
ing:
“…
at th
e so
uthe
ast
corn
er…
”
“Ins
tall
a sp
an o
f con
duct
or b
etw
een
the
exis
ting
north
segm
ent o
f th
e G
arne
t-San
ta R
osa
115
kV su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne a
nd th
e ex
istin
g w
est s
egm
ent o
f the
San
ta R
osa-
Tam
aris
k 11
5 kV
su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne a
t the
nor
thw
est s
outh
east
cor
ner o
f Bob
Hop
e D
rive
and
Din
ah S
hore
Driv
e.”
15
2-21
/ Fig
. 2-
8 B
ased
on
upda
ted
engi
neer
ing
info
rmat
ion,
ple
ase
chan
ge F
igur
e 2-
8 to
the
atta
ched
figu
re:
See
Atta
chm
ent 3
, Bob
Hop
e D
r. TS
P Pr
ofile
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-19
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 6 -
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
16
2-22
/ 3rd
Pa
ragr
aph
2nd li
ne
Dep
endi
ng o
n so
il co
nditi
ons,
foot
ings
may
ext
end
up to
40
feet
de
ep.
Ther
efor
e pl
ease
revi
se te
xt in
th
e th
ird p
arag
raph
to b
e co
nsis
tent
w
ith la
ngua
ge e
lsew
here
in th
e do
cum
ent :
The
TSPs
wou
ld b
e in
stal
led
on to
p of
cyl
indr
ical
con
cret
e fo
otin
gs
appr
oxim
atel
y si
x to
eig
ht fe
et in
dia
met
er a
nd a
ppro
xim
atel
y 20
to
25 a
t lea
st 2
2 fe
et d
eep.
17
2-22
/ 4th
Pa
ragr
aph
The
PEA
inco
rrec
tly d
escr
ibes
the
asse
mbl
y m
etho
d. E
diso
n’s a
ssem
bly
met
hod
for L
WS
pole
s and
TSP
s is a
s fo
llow
s. P
leas
e re
plac
e th
e fo
urth
pa
ragr
aph,
afte
r the
seco
nd se
nten
ce,
with
the
follo
win
g te
xt:
Whi
le o
n th
e gr
ound
the
top
and
botto
m se
ctio
ns o
f the
LW
S po
les
wou
ld b
e pu
lled
toge
ther
and
pre
conf
igur
ed w
ith th
e ne
cess
ary
insu
lato
rs a
nd w
ire st
ringi
ng h
ardw
are.
For
LW
S po
les a
line
truc
k w
ith a
boo
m o
n it,
wou
ld b
e us
ed to
pos
ition
eac
h po
le in
to
prev
ious
ly a
ugur
ed h
oles
.
The
TSPs
will
requ
ire a
cra
ne to
set t
he p
ole
base
s on
top
of
prev
ious
ly in
stal
led
conc
rete
foun
datio
ns.
Onc
e se
cure
d th
e to
p an
d, if
nec
essa
ry m
iddl
e, se
ctio
ns o
f the
TSP
will
then
be
set o
n th
e ba
se o
f the
TSP
. Fo
r bot
h st
ruct
ures
, all
sect
ions
may
be
spot
w
elde
d to
geth
er fo
r add
ed st
abili
ty.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-20
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 7 -
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
18
2-23
/ C
ondu
ctor
Pu
lling
Pa
ragr
aph
1
Nei
ther
cro
ssar
ms n
or su
spen
sion
as
sem
blie
s will
be
utili
zed,
exc
ept o
n TS
Ps.
Ther
efor
e, p
leas
e re
vise
the
text
in th
e fir
st p
arag
raph
und
er
Con
duct
or P
ullin
g as
follo
ws:
Con
duct
ors w
ould
be
inst
alle
d on
115
kV
pol
ymer
insu
lato
r as
sem
blie
s atta
ched
to e
ach
cros
sarm
in a
hor
izon
tal c
onfig
urat
ion
or su
spen
sion
ass
embl
ies c
onsi
stin
g of
sing
le p
olym
er in
sula
tors
at
tach
ed to
eac
h cr
ossa
rm in
a v
ertic
al c
onfig
urat
ion.
Ove
rhea
d gr
ound
wire
s wou
ld b
e in
stal
led
on th
e to
p of
the
stee
l pol
es.
Con
duct
ors w
ould
be
atta
ched
to 1
15kV
pol
ymer
pos
t sty
le
insu
lato
rs w
hich
are
atta
ched
to e
ach
pole
hea
d fo
r LW
S po
les,
and
susp
ende
d, o
r dea
d en
ded,
to st
eel c
ross
arm
s mou
nted
on
TSPs
. D
epen
ding
on
loca
tion,
the
insu
lato
r con
figur
atio
ns m
ay b
e m
ount
ed v
ertic
ally
, or i
n a
trian
gula
r pat
tern
. W
ith th
e ex
cept
ion
of c
erta
in lo
catio
ns n
ear s
ubst
atio
ns, t
he o
verh
ead
grou
nd w
ire
wou
ld b
e in
stal
led
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith G
.O. 9
5 Ta
ble
II.
Dis
tribu
tion
lines
tran
sfer
red
to th
e ne
w st
eel p
oles
wou
ld
typi
cally
be
inst
alle
d on
stan
dard
woo
d cr
ossa
rms w
ith p
olym
er
insu
lato
rs.
19
2-23
/ C
ondu
ctor
Pu
lling
Pa
ragr
aph
2
Vib
ratio
n da
mpe
ners
or w
eigh
ts w
ill
not b
e ut
ilize
d be
caus
e th
e sp
ans a
re
not l
ong
enou
gh a
nd c
onst
ruct
ion
does
not
cal
l for
it.
Ther
efor
e, p
leas
e re
vise
the
text
in th
e se
cond
par
agra
ph
unde
r Con
duct
or P
ullin
g as
follo
ws:
Con
duct
or p
ullin
g in
clud
es a
ll ac
tiviti
es a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith th
e in
stal
latio
n of
con
duct
ors o
nto
the
LWS
and
woo
d po
les a
nd T
SPs.
Th
ese
activ
ities
incl
ude
inst
allin
g th
ree
115
kV 9
54 S
AC
co
nduc
tors
, one
221
kcm
il A
CSR
gro
und
cond
ucto
r, gr
ound
wire
, vi
brat
ion
dam
pene
rs, w
eigh
ts, a
nd p
ost,
susp
ensi
on a
nd o
r dea
d-en
d ha
rdw
are
asse
mbl
ies f
or th
e en
tire
leng
th o
f the
pro
pose
d su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
nes.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-21
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 8 -
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
20
2-41
Pl
ease
revi
se th
e fir
st p
arag
raph
to
incl
ude
addi
tiona
l det
ail.
Dev
ers S
ubst
atio
n is
staf
fed,
500
/220
/115
kV
subs
tatio
n lo
cate
d in
th
e un
inco
rpor
ated
are
a of
Riv
ersi
de C
ount
y, n
orth
of t
he C
ity o
f Pa
lm S
prin
gs. T
he p
ropo
sed
impr
ovem
ents
at D
ever
s Sub
stat
ion
incl
ude
the
conv
ersi
on o
f Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 2
20 k
V tr
ansm
issi
on li
ne
to D
ever
s-M
irage
No.
1 2
20kV
tran
smis
sion
line
and
re
conf
igur
atio
n of
the
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y-D
ever
s 220
kV
tra
nsm
issi
on li
ne to
the
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge N
o 2
220k
V tr
ansm
issi
on
line
and
rela
y up
grad
es, r
epla
cem
ent o
f tw
o …
…
21
2-41
K
iloan
num
is n
ot th
e co
rrec
t ter
m;
ther
efor
e, p
leas
e re
vise
the
first
bu
llete
d te
xt a
s fol
low
s:
Fo
ur 1
15 k
V 1
,200
Am
p., 4
0 ki
loan
num
kilo
Am
pere
s (kA
) du
ty, b
reak
ers
22
2-42
Th
e ex
istin
g la
ngua
ge re
fers
to
inst
alla
tion
of o
ne b
reak
er a
nd-a
-hal
f co
nfig
urat
ion
posi
tion
for t
wo
new
lin
es; h
owev
er, t
he p
roje
ct c
onsi
sts o
f re
loca
ting
two
exis
ting
lines
to th
is
new
pos
ition
. T
here
fore
, ple
ase
revi
se th
e te
xt u
nder
Eng
inee
ring
Plan
, sec
ond
sent
ence
, as
follo
ws:
The
prop
osed
impr
ovem
ents
at M
irage
Sub
stat
ion
incl
ude
the
inst
alla
tion
of o
ne 2
80 M
VA
, 220
/115
KV
tran
sfor
mer
ban
k, o
ne
new
220
KV
ban
k po
sitio
n, o
ne n
ew 1
15 K
V b
ank
posi
tion,
and
on
e ne
w 2
20 K
V b
reak
er-a
nd-a
-hal
f con
figur
atio
n po
sitio
n fo
r tw
o ne
w 2
20 k
V li
ne p
ositi
ons,
and
the
relo
catio
n of
the
exis
ting
Mira
ge R
amon
220
kV
tran
smis
sion
line
.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-22
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 9 -
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
23
2-42
Pl
ease
revi
se th
e la
st se
nten
ce o
f the
sa
me
para
grap
h (s
ee c
omm
ent a
bove
) to
incl
ude
furth
er d
etai
l now
av
aila
ble.
…re
loca
tion
of e
xist
ing
Mira
ge-C
onch
o 11
5 K
V su
btra
nsm
issi
on
line,
rena
min
g th
e ex
istin
g M
irage
-Cap
win
d- D
ever
s 115
kV
su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne to
Mira
ge-C
apw
ind-
Tam
aris
k-D
ever
s 115
kV
su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne, r
enam
ing
the
Mira
ge-C
onch
o 11
5 kV
su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne to
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a-Ta
mar
isk
115
kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
, and
inst
alla
tion
of n
ew p
rote
ctio
n re
lays
.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-23
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 10
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
24
2-42
O
rigin
ally
it w
as th
ough
t tha
t fiv
e ne
w 1
15 k
V c
ircui
t bre
aker
s wou
ld b
e ne
eded
to a
ccom
mod
ate
a ne
w li
ne
posi
tion.
How
ever
, a m
ore
effic
ient
co
nfig
urat
ion
has b
een
inco
rpor
ated
in
to th
e de
sign
. Th
eref
ore,
inst
ead
of
five
circ
uit b
reak
ers,
only
thre
e w
ill
be n
eede
d. A
dditi
onal
ly, f
urth
er
deta
il is
ava
ilabl
e re
gard
ing
the
220
kV e
quip
men
t and
is re
flect
ed in
the
lang
uage
pro
vide
d. P
leas
e re
vise
the
text
as f
ollo
ws:
O
ne 2
80 M
VA
220
/115
kV
tran
sfor
mer
ban
k;
Fi
ve 2
20 k
V, 3
,000
am
p, 5
0 K
A d
uty,
circ
uit b
reak
ers;
Te
n 22
0 kV
3,0
00 a
mp,
cen
ter-
side
-bre
ak d
isco
nnec
t sw
itche
s;
Fi
fteen
Eig
htee
n 22
0 kV
stat
ion
post
insu
lato
rs;
Si
x 22
0 kV
met
erin
g po
tent
ial t
rans
form
ers;
Thr
ee 2
20 k
V
coup
ling
capa
cito
r vol
tage
tran
sfor
mer
s;
Th
ree
220
kV m
eter
ing
units
Tw
o 11
5 kV
, 3,0
00 a
mp,
40
KA
dut
y ci
rcui
t bre
aker
;
Th
ree
One
115
kV
, 2,0
00 a
mp,
40
KA
dut
y ci
rcui
t bre
aker
;
Fo
ur 1
15 k
V, 3
,000
am
p, c
ente
r-si
de-b
reak
dis
conn
ect
switc
hes;
Si
x Tw
o 11
5 K
V, 2
,000
am
p, C
ente
r-si
de-b
reak
dis
conn
ect
sw
itche
s;
N
ine
Six
115
KV
, pot
entia
l tra
nsfo
rmer
; and
Tw
enty
-sev
en T
wel
ve 1
15 K
V p
ost i
nsul
ator
s.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-24
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 11
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
25
2-42
A
s a re
sult
of m
ore
exte
nsiv
e en
gine
erin
g, m
ore
deta
iled
switc
hrac
k co
nfig
urat
ion
is a
vaila
ble.
Ple
ase
revi
se th
e te
xt u
nder
Maj
or
Equi
pmen
t, in
serti
ng te
xt a
fter t
he
seco
nd b
ulle
t und
er S
witc
hrac
k C
onfig
urat
ions
as f
ollo
ws:
R
enam
ing
the
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 2
20 k
V tr
ansm
issi
on li
ne to
D
ever
s-M
irage
No.
1 tr
ansm
issi
on li
ne
26
2-43
A
s a re
sult
of m
ore
exte
nsiv
e en
gine
erin
g, m
ore
deta
iled
switc
hrac
k co
nfig
urat
ion
is a
vaila
ble.
The
refo
re,
plea
se re
vise
the
text
und
er M
ajor
Eq
uipm
ent o
n pa
ge 2
-42
as fo
llow
s:
(Ins
ert a
fter t
he fi
rst b
ulle
t on
Page
2-
43)
Ex
istin
g Ta
mar
isk
115
kV su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne w
ould
be
relo
cate
d to
line
pos
ition
1N
to c
reat
e th
e D
ever
s-C
apw
ind-
Mira
ge-T
amar
isk
115
kV su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne
V
acat
ed e
xist
ing
line
posi
tion
No.
1S
wou
ld b
e fo
r the
new
M
irage
-San
ta R
osa-
Tam
aris
k 11
5 kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-25
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 12
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
27
2-43
M
ore
exte
nsiv
e en
gine
erin
g re
sulte
d in
a d
eter
min
atio
n th
at th
e lin
e po
sitio
n re
fere
nced
in th
e th
ird b
ulle
t on
pag
e 2-
43 is
no
long
er n
eces
sary
. A
dditi
onal
ly, m
ore
deta
iled
proj
ect
info
rmat
ion
is a
vaila
ble.
Ple
ase
revi
se th
e te
xt to
incl
ude
thes
e sp
ecifi
cs.
“O
ne n
ew 1
15K
V li
ne p
ositi
on (N
o. 7
N) d
esig
ned
with
do
uble
-bre
aker
con
figur
atio
n”; a
nd a
dded
the
trans
form
er
bank
”.
C
onve
rt ex
istin
g 11
5 kV
line
pos
ition
(No.
4) f
rom
dou
ble-
brea
ker c
onfig
urat
ion
to a
bre
aker
-and
-a-h
alf c
onfig
urat
ion
for r
eloc
ated
Con
cho
115
kV li
ne P
ositi
on (N
o. 4
S) a
nd
new
San
ta R
osa
115
kV li
ne P
ositi
on (N
o. 4
N)
In
stal
l one
220
/115
kV
tran
sfor
mer
ban
k
28
2-59
B
ecau
se II
D’s
equ
ipm
ent a
nd c
ircui
t in
stal
latio
n lo
catio
n is
not
cer
tain
, we
reco
mm
end
utili
zing
orig
inal
la
ngua
ge p
rovi
ded
in th
e PE
A.
IID
equ
ipm
ent a
nd c
ircui
t ins
talla
tion
wou
ld o
ccur
at i
s exp
ecte
d to
be
in II
D’s
mec
hani
cal-e
lect
rical
equ
ipm
ent r
oom
(MEE
R)
29
2-60
Ty
pogr
aphi
cal c
orre
ctio
n:
Tabl
e 2-
7, I
ndia
n W
ells
, Eq
uipm
ent/C
ircui
t Ins
talla
tion,
ch
ange
the
valu
e in
the
num
ber o
f da
ys c
olum
n
Cha
nge
“35”
to “
5”
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-26
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 13
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
30
2-62
W
rong
not
atio
n fo
r the
app
endi
x-“A
dditi
onal
info
rmat
ion
on e
lect
ric
and
mag
netic
fiel
ds g
ener
ated
by
trans
mis
sion
line
s is p
rese
nted
in
App
endi
x D
.”
Cha
nge
to:
“App
endi
x B
”
31
2-62
A
dditi
onal
rese
arch
org
aniz
atio
n sh
ould
be
adde
d-“M
ost r
ecen
tly th
e In
tern
atio
nal A
genc
y fo
r Res
earc
h on
C
ance
r (IA
RC
)…”
Cha
nge
to:
Con
side
r rev
isio
n-“M
ost r
ecen
tly th
e W
orld
Hea
lth O
rgan
izat
ion
(WH
O),
Inte
rnat
iona
l Age
ncy
for R
esea
rch
on C
ance
r (IA
RC
)…”
Alte
rnat
ives
and
Cum
ulat
ive
Proj
ects
32
3-13
/ 3.
4.2
D
ue to
FA
A re
gula
tions
it w
ill b
e ne
cess
ary
for t
he ri
ser p
ole
refe
renc
ed
in th
e fir
st p
arag
raph
, sec
ond
sent
ence
, to
be se
t fur
ther
nor
th.
Ther
efor
e, p
leas
e re
vise
the
text
in th
e fir
st p
arag
raph
as f
ollo
ws:
At S
unris
e W
ay, t
he li
ne w
ould
turn
nor
th, a
nd p
roce
ed a
long
Su
nris
e W
ay to
app
roxi
mat
ely
1,26
5 fe
et n
orth
of F
our S
easo
ns
Blv
d, w
here
the
unde
rgro
und
segm
ent w
ould
end
and
the
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
wou
ld tr
ansi
tion
to o
verh
ead
at a
rise
r pol
e…
Aes
thet
ics
33
4.1-
44
SCE
is c
once
rned
that
a 9
0-da
y re
view
and
app
rova
l per
iod
coul
d ha
ve n
egat
ive
impa
cts o
n sc
hedu
le.
Plea
se re
vise
to re
duce
revi
ew a
nd
appr
oval
per
iod
to 3
0 da
ys.
“….a
Con
stru
ctio
n Li
ghtin
g M
itiga
tion
Plan
to th
e C
PUC
for
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val a
t lea
st 9
0 30
day
s prio
r to
the
star
t of
nigh
ttim
e co
nstru
ctio
n or
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-27
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 14
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
34
4.1-
46
To a
llow
for o
ther
met
hods
of g
lare
re
duct
ion,
ple
ase
revi
se M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.1
-8 a
s ind
icat
ed.
“A n
on-r
efle
ctiv
e or
wea
ther
ed fi
nish
shal
l be
appl
ied
to a
ll ne
w
stru
ctur
es a
nd e
quip
men
t ins
tall
at…
..”
All
new
stru
ctur
es a
nd e
quip
men
t sha
ll be
non
-spe
cula
r (re
duce
d gl
are)
to th
e de
gree
feas
ible
. Pl
ease
not
e: so
me
equi
pmen
t may
not
be
ava
ilabl
e in
non
-spe
cula
r fin
ish.
35
4.1-
2 Pl
ease
incl
ude
a de
scrip
tion
of In
dian
C
anyo
n D
rive
in th
e lo
cal M
ajor
R
oadw
ays s
ectio
n.
Indi
an C
anyo
n D
rive
is a
n ex
istin
g no
rth-s
outh
road
way
into
Pal
m
Sprin
gs w
ith a
cces
s fro
m/to
the
I-10
. V
iew
s fro
m th
is ro
adw
ay
incl
ude
open
spac
e an
d th
e Sa
n Ja
cint
o M
ount
ains
.
36
4.1-
4 D
eser
t Hig
hlan
d Pa
rk, l
ocat
ed
appr
oxim
atel
y .5
mile
wes
t of
Alte
rnat
ive
3 m
ay h
ave
dire
ct a
nd
unob
stru
cted
vie
ws o
f the
pro
pose
d st
ruct
ures
alo
ng In
dian
Can
yon
Roa
d.
Plea
se a
ddre
ss a
ffec
ts to
this
sens
itive
vie
win
g lo
catio
n an
d up
date
ro
ute
com
paris
on
37
Figu
re
4.1-
1 M
ap c
larif
icat
ion
need
ed.
Plea
se la
bel S
R 1
11 (V
ista
Chi
no);
Add
sym
bolo
gy th
at in
dica
tes
the
unde
rgro
und
porti
ons;
off
set t
he a
ltern
ativ
es so
that
the
read
er
can
tell
whe
re th
ey o
verla
p in
stea
d of
just
seei
ng th
e to
p m
ost
laye
r.
Air
Qua
lity
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-28
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 15
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
38
4.3-
37
SCE
conc
urs w
ith th
e st
atem
ent o
n pa
ge 4
-37
that
“th
e SC
AQ
MD
’s
met
hod
is th
e be
st a
vaila
ble
met
hod
to
dete
rmin
e G
HG
sign
ifica
nce
asso
ciat
ed w
ith th
e Pr
opos
ed P
roje
ct”.
Th
e So
uth
Coa
st A
QM
D h
as d
rafte
d th
eir a
ir qu
ality
gui
delin
es to
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith A
B 3
2. H
owev
er, t
he
DEI
R d
oes n
ot fo
llow
the
SCA
QM
D
met
hodo
logy
.
The
SCA
QM
D m
etho
dolo
gy is
a 5
tie
r sys
tem
, eac
h tie
r rep
rese
nts a
pr
ogre
ssiv
ely
mor
e di
ffic
ult p
ass/
fail
sign
ifica
nce
test
. Tie
r 3 is
a
com
paris
on o
f the
pro
ject
’s G
HG
em
issi
ons w
ith n
umer
ic th
resh
olds
. If
the
emis
sion
s do
not e
xcee
d th
e th
resh
olds
then
the
proj
ect i
s co
nsid
ered
to b
e le
ss th
an si
gnifi
cant
. If
the
emis
sion
s exc
eed
the
thre
shol
d th
en th
e m
etho
dolo
gy re
quire
s a T
ier
4 ev
alua
tion
that
incl
udes
a “
busi
ness
as
usu
al”
anal
ysis
.
The
CPU
C c
oncl
uded
that
the
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
em
issi
ons w
ould
be
“sub
stan
tially
less
” th
an th
e nu
mer
ic
Plea
se d
elet
e th
e la
st p
arag
raph
on
page
4.3
-37
and
repl
ace
with
“T
he a
nnua
lized
GH
G e
mis
sion
s ass
ocia
ted
with
the
Prop
osed
Pr
ojec
t wou
ld b
e su
bsta
ntia
lly le
ss th
an th
e SC
AQ
MD
Tie
r 3
thre
shol
ds o
r CA
RB
’s p
relim
inar
y dr
aft t
hres
hold
s” a
nd d
elet
e M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.3
-6.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-29
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 16
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
38 (c
ont).
thre
shol
ds b
ut th
en c
ontin
ued
to
cond
uct a
“bu
sine
ss a
s usu
al”
anal
ysis
. The
SC
AQ
MD
met
hodo
logy
cl
early
stat
es th
at if
the
Tier
3 th
resh
olds
are
met
then
the
proj
ect i
s le
ss th
an si
gnifi
cant
. Th
eref
ore,
no
miti
gatio
n is
requ
ired.
Bio
logi
cal R
esou
rces
39
4.4.
10
The
four
th c
olum
n of
Tab
le 4
.4.1
sh
ould
als
o sa
y th
at th
e pr
opos
ed
proj
ect a
rea
is w
ell a
way
(mor
e th
an 5
m
iles)
from
the
prop
osed
crit
ical
ha
bita
t for
the
Cas
ey Ju
ne B
eetle
.
Plea
se a
dd u
nder
the
four
th c
olum
n un
der C
asey
’s Ju
ne b
eetle
that
“t
he p
ropo
sed
criti
cal h
abita
t for
the
Cas
ey Ju
ne B
eetle
is
appr
oxim
atel
y 5
mile
s aw
ay”.
40
4.4.
11
The
flat-t
aile
d ho
rned
liza
rd st
atus
has
re
cent
ly b
een
chan
ged
to a
Fed
eral
C
andi
date
End
ange
red
Spec
ies.
Tabl
e 4.
4.1
and
the
disc
ussi
on fo
r the
sp
ecie
s doe
s not
indi
cate
its c
hang
e in
st
atus
.
Plea
se a
dd F
CE
to th
e se
cond
col
umn.
41
4.4.
15
The
flat-t
aile
d ho
rned
liza
rd st
atus
has
re
cent
ly b
een
chan
ge to
a F
eder
al
Can
dida
te E
ndan
gere
d Sp
ecie
s.
Plea
se c
hang
e th
e di
scus
sion
to re
flect
the
chan
ge in
stat
us o
f the
fla
t-tai
led
horn
ed li
zard
to fe
dera
l can
dida
te st
atus
. Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-30
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 17
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
42
4.4.
17
The
flat-t
aile
d ho
rned
liza
rd st
atus
has
re
cent
ly b
een
chan
ge to
a F
eder
al
Can
dida
te E
ndan
gere
d Sp
ecie
s. Pl
ease
add
to d
iscu
ssio
n.
Plea
se c
hang
e th
e di
scus
sion
of t
he fl
at-ta
iled
horn
ed li
zard
to
refle
ct it
s cha
nge
in st
atus
43
4.4.
47
2nd a
nd 3
rd p
arag
raph
s reg
ardi
ng C
V
milk
-vet
ch o
ccur
renc
e al
ong
Var
ner
Roa
d an
d al
ong
Mira
ge S
anta
Ros
a sa
ys th
ere
is a
pot
entia
l for
the
plan
t to
occ
ur a
long
the
rout
es e
ven
thou
gh
the
area
is d
istu
rbed
. In
itial
surv
eys
did
not f
ind
the
spec
ies i
n th
ose
loca
tions
.
Plea
se a
dd to
the
disc
ussi
on th
at n
o C
V m
ilk v
etch
wer
e fo
und
durin
g sp
ring
and
sum
mer
200
9 su
rvey
s.
44
4.4.
48
Miti
gatio
n ra
tio fo
r CV
-milk
-vet
ch o
f 3:
1 fo
r tem
pora
ry im
pact
and
9:1
for
perm
anen
t los
s of h
abita
t see
ms
exce
ssiv
e gi
ven
the
exte
nsiv
e di
stur
banc
e in
the
area
. N
o ra
tiona
le
is g
ive
for t
hese
miti
gatio
n ra
tios.
SC
E w
ill p
rovi
de re
plac
emen
t hab
itat
as re
quire
d by
the
appr
opria
te a
genc
y.
Plea
se re
vise
to re
flect
that
SC
E w
ill p
rovi
de a
ppro
pria
te
com
pens
atio
n as
requ
ired
by o
r neg
otia
ted
with
the
appr
opria
te
reso
urce
age
ncy.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-31
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 18
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
45
4.4.
50
SCE
will
reta
in th
e se
rvic
es o
f a
qual
ified
and
per
mitt
ed (w
here
re
quire
d) b
iolo
gist
to p
erfo
rm th
e du
ties o
f the
bio
logi
cal m
onito
r; th
eref
ore,
it is
unn
eces
sary
to re
quire
th
at th
e m
onito
r sha
ll be
a C
PUC
-au
thor
ized
bio
logi
st.
Plea
se c
hang
e te
xt u
nder
seco
nd b
ulle
t as f
ollo
ws:
SCE
and/
or it
s con
stru
ctio
n co
ntra
ctor
s sha
ll re
tain
and
hav
e av
aila
ble,
the
serv
ices
of a
n C
PUC
aut
horiz
ed b
iolo
gist
who
shal
l pe
rfor
m th
e du
ties o
f the
bio
logi
cal m
onito
r.
46
4.4.
51
Miti
gatio
n ra
tio fo
r CV
-frin
ge-to
ed
lizar
d of
3:1
for t
empo
rary
impa
ct a
nd
9:1
for p
erm
anen
t los
s of h
abita
t se
ems e
xces
sive
giv
en th
e ex
tens
ive
dist
urba
nce
in th
e ar
ea p
lus t
he o
ther
ex
tens
ive
miti
gatio
n.
No
ratio
nale
is
give
n fo
r the
se m
itiga
tion
ratio
s.
Plea
se re
vise
miti
gatio
n m
easu
re to
del
ete
the
ratio
s and
indi
cate
th
at S
CE
will
pro
vide
app
ropr
iate
com
pens
atio
n as
requ
ired
by o
r ne
gotia
ted
with
the
appr
opria
te re
sour
ce a
genc
y.
47
4.4-
56
Sand
fenc
es a
lso
exis
t in
the
area
that
pr
ovid
e pe
rchi
ng h
abita
t for
lo
gger
head
shrik
e an
d ot
her s
peci
es.
Sa
nd fe
nces
pro
vide
mor
e su
itabl
e ro
ostin
g ha
bita
t tha
n ov
erhe
ad li
nes.
Th
is m
ay b
e a
sign
ifica
nt fa
ctor
for
roos
ting
of p
reda
tors
redu
cing
the
impa
cts o
f the
pro
pose
d pr
ojec
t
Plea
se in
clud
e a
disc
ussi
on o
f the
role
of e
xist
ing
sand
fenc
es a
s pe
rchi
ng h
abita
t.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-32
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 19
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
48
4.4.
58
Alth
ough
ther
e m
ay b
e O
ther
Wat
ers
of th
e U
nite
d St
ates
, the
pro
pose
d pr
ojec
t doe
s not
con
tain
wet
land
s.
The
term
wet
land
s is m
isle
adin
g as
th
e pr
opos
ed p
roje
ct ro
ute
does
not
co
ntai
n w
etla
nds a
s def
ined
by
the
Arm
y C
orps
of E
ngin
eers
.
We
reco
mm
end
chan
ging
wet
land
s to
juris
dict
iona
l wat
ers.
49
4.4-
50
4.4-
51
Ten
year
s of m
onito
ring
is e
xces
sive
; fiv
e ye
ars i
s con
sist
ent w
ith p
ast
mon
itorin
g re
quire
men
ts.
Plea
se
revi
se th
e la
ngua
ge a
s fol
low
s:
“Eac
h pl
ant t
hat i
s des
troye
d du
e to
con
stru
ctio
n in
the
RO
W a
long
th
e ea
st a
nd w
est s
ide
of G
ene
Aut
ry T
rail
road
way
shal
l be
repl
aced
and
mon
itore
d fo
r at l
east
10
year
s fiv
e ye
ars o
r as
appr
oved
by
USF
WS…
”
50
4.4-
58
SCE
will
pro
vide
app
ropr
iate
W
etla
nds m
itiga
tion
and
repl
acem
ent,
if ap
plic
able
, as
requ
ired
by o
r ne
gotia
ted
with
the
appr
opria
te
wild
life
agen
cy.
Plea
se re
vise
text
as
indi
cate
d:
“If r
esto
ratio
n is
ava
ilabl
e an
d fe
asib
le, t
hen
a m
itiga
tion
repl
acem
ent r
atio
of a
t lea
st 2
:1 sh
all b
e us
ed.
If a
wet
land
s nee
ds
to b
e cr
eate
d, a
t lea
st a
3:1
ratio
shal
l be
impl
emen
ted
to o
ffse
t lo
sses
. W
here
pra
ctic
al a
nd fe
asib
le, o
nsite
miti
gatio
n sh
all b
e im
plem
ente
d. W
etla
nds m
itiga
tion
and
repl
acem
ent,
if ap
plic
able
, sh
all b
e pr
ovid
ed a
s req
uire
d or
neg
otia
ted
with
the
appr
opria
te
wild
life
agen
cy.to
off
set l
osse
s.”
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-33
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 20
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
51
4.4-
65
Miti
gatio
n fo
r CV
frin
ge-to
ed li
zard
an
d C
V m
ilk v
etch
are
not
dis
cuss
ed
for
Alte
rnat
ive
3 as
to ra
tios a
nd th
e ty
pe o
f miti
gatio
n.
Due
to th
e di
stur
bed
natu
re o
f the
alte
rnat
ive,
the
ratio
of m
itiga
tion
shou
ld b
e le
ss th
an th
e pr
opos
ed p
roje
ct.
This
shou
ld b
e di
scus
sed
unde
r thi
s alte
rnat
ive.
Cul
tura
l Res
ourc
es
52
4.5-
7 Th
e pr
opos
ed F
arre
ll-G
arne
t 115
kV
lin
e w
ould
be
inst
alle
d ov
erhe
ad o
n to
wer
s con
stru
cted
alo
ng a
n ex
istin
g di
rt ro
ad n
orth
of G
arne
t Hill
, pla
cing
th
e re
sour
ce w
ithin
vie
wsh
ed b
ut
outs
ide
the
Are
a of
Pot
entia
l Eff
ects
(A
PE) i
n te
rms o
f phy
sica
l im
pact
; w
heth
er b
eing
with
in v
iew
shed
wou
ld
cons
titut
e an
am
bien
ce im
pact
to th
is
reso
urce
is n
ot c
lear
at t
his t
ime.
Plea
se re
plac
e fir
st se
nten
ce w
ith th
e fo
llow
ing:
H
oon
wit
ten
ca v
a (G
arne
t Hill
). T
his r
esou
rce
is lo
cate
d w
ithin
th
e vi
ewsh
ed b
ut o
utsi
de th
e ph
ysic
al A
PE fo
r the
pro
pose
d ov
erhe
ad F
arre
ll-G
arne
t 115
kV
alig
nmen
t. [B
alan
ce o
f par
agra
ph
rem
ains
unc
hang
ed.]
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-34
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 21
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
53
4.5-
8 Th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-Cap
win
d-D
ever
s-Ta
mar
isk
115
kV li
ne
reco
nfig
urat
ion
wou
ld in
volv
e ch
ange
s to
exis
ting
stru
ctur
es, a
nd
wou
ld n
ot p
hysi
cally
aff
ect V
arne
r ro
ad. T
he p
ropo
sed
over
head
Mira
ge-
Sant
a R
ose
115
kV li
ne w
ould
be
over
head
and
run
para
llel t
o, b
ut a
way
fr
om, V
arne
r Roa
d; a
ccor
ding
ly, t
here
w
ould
be
no p
hysi
cal i
mpa
cts t
o th
e ro
adw
ay.
Plea
se re
plac
e th
e fir
st se
nten
ce w
ith th
e fo
llow
ing:
33
-840
8 (V
arne
r R
oad)
. Th
is re
sour
ce is
loca
ted
with
in th
e vi
ewsh
ed, b
ut o
utsi
de th
e ph
ysic
al A
PE fo
r the
pro
pose
d ov
erhe
ad
reco
nfig
ured
Mira
ge-C
apw
ind-
Dev
ers-
Tam
aris
k 11
5 kV
line
and
th
e pr
opos
ed o
verh
ead
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
lin
e al
ignm
ent.
[Bal
ance
of p
arag
raph
rem
ains
unc
hang
ed.]
54
4.5-
8 Th
e pr
opos
ed F
arre
ll-G
arne
t 115
kV
lin
e w
ould
be
inst
alle
d ov
erhe
ad o
n to
wer
s con
stru
cted
par
alle
l to,
but
aw
ay fr
om th
e ra
ilroa
d lin
e, p
laci
ng
the
reso
urce
with
in v
iew
shed
but
ou
tsid
e th
e A
rea
of P
oten
tial E
ffec
ts
(APE
) in
term
s of p
hysi
cal i
mpa
ct.
The
prop
osed
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
line
wou
ld b
e ov
erhe
ad a
nd
term
inat
e at
a ri
ser p
ole
situ
ated
no
rthea
st o
f the
railr
oad
line,
and
th
eref
ore
wou
ld n
ot p
hysi
cally
impa
ct
it.
Plea
se re
plac
e th
e fir
st se
nten
ce w
ith th
e fo
llow
ing:
33-9
498/
CA
-RIV
-638
1H (S
outh
ern
Paci
fic R
ailr
oad/
Uni
on
Paci
fic R
ailr
oad
line)
. Th
is re
sour
ce is
with
in th
e vi
ewsh
ed o
f, bu
t out
side
the
phys
ical
APE
for t
he p
ropo
sed
over
head
Far
rell-
Gar
net 1
15 k
V a
lignm
ent a
nd th
e pr
opos
ed o
verh
ead
Mira
ge-S
anta
R
osa
115
kV a
lignm
ent.
[Bal
ance
of p
arag
raph
unc
hang
ed.]
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-35
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 22
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
55
4.5-
9 Th
e ar
chae
olog
ical
surv
ey p
erfo
rmed
fo
r thi
s pro
ject
iden
tifie
d su
rfac
e ar
tifac
ts d
esig
nate
d as
site
P33
-154
29
at a
loca
tion
east
of t
he e
xist
ing
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
and
eas
t of t
he
prop
osed
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne a
lignm
ent,
and
sugg
este
d th
at a
pos
sibl
e su
bsur
face
co
mpo
nent
mig
ht e
xten
d w
estw
ard
into
a p
revi
ousl
y im
pact
ed a
rea
with
in
the
prop
osed
pro
ject
’s A
PE. A
fiel
d re
view
con
duct
ed o
n 4
Febr
uary
201
0 by
SC
E ar
chae
olog
ist D
avid
Han
na,
M.A
., R
PA, t
oget
her w
ith th
e SC
E de
sign
er a
nd h
is n
ewly
com
plet
ed
100%
pla
ns, r
evea
led
that
site
P33
-15
429
is si
tuat
ed a
t the
pre
viou
sly
reco
rded
UTM
coo
rdin
ates
and
abo
ut
40 m
eter
s (13
1 fe
et) e
ast o
f the
pol
es
that
cur
rent
ly c
arry
the
Mira
ge-
Tam
aris
k an
d M
irage
-Con
cho
lines
, w
hich
in th
is a
rea
wou
ld b
e re
conf
igur
ed w
ithou
t pol
e re
plac
emen
t. W
est o
f the
reco
rded
site
lim
its, n
o su
rfac
e ar
tifac
ts o
r rea
son
to
susp
ect t
he p
rese
nt o
f sub
surf
ace
artif
acts
wer
e no
ted
desp
ite n
ear-
Plea
se re
plac
e th
e fir
st se
nten
ce w
ith th
e fo
llow
ing:
33
-154
29.
This
reso
urce
is k
now
n to
be
loca
ted
adja
cent
to a
nd
outs
ide
of th
e A
PE fo
r the
pro
pose
d M
irage
-San
ta R
osa
115
kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
alig
nmen
t. [B
alan
ce o
f par
agra
ph u
ncha
nged
.]
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-36
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 23
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
55 (c
ont)
10
0% g
roun
d su
rfac
e vi
sibi
lity.
Th
eref
ore,
sinc
e th
e pr
opos
ed n
ew
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a lin
e w
ould
be
wes
t of t
he d
irt a
cces
s roa
d, si
te P
-33-
1542
9 is
wel
l out
side
the
Prop
osed
Pr
ojec
t’s A
PE.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-37
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 24
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
56
4.5-
9 Th
e ar
chae
olog
ical
surv
ey p
erfo
rmed
fo
r thi
s pro
ject
iden
tifie
d su
rfac
e ar
tifac
ts d
esig
nate
d as
site
P33
-154
30
at a
loca
tion
wes
t of t
he e
xist
ing
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
and
wes
t of t
he
area
that
wou
ld b
e ph
ysic
ally
im
pact
ed b
y th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-Sa
nta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
lin
e al
ignm
ent.
A fi
eld
revi
ew
cond
ucte
d on
4 F
ebru
ary
2010
by
SCE
arch
aeol
ogis
t Dav
id H
anna
, M
.A.,
RPA
, tog
ethe
r with
the
SCE
desi
gner
and
his
new
ly c
ompl
eted
10
0% p
lans
, rev
eale
d th
at si
te P
33-
1543
0 is
situ
ated
at t
he p
revi
ousl
y re
cord
ed U
TM c
oord
inat
es a
nd a
bout
11
met
ers (
35 fe
et) w
est o
f the
pr
opos
ed n
ew M
irage
-San
ta R
osa
line,
for t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
of w
hich
ac
cess
wou
ld b
e fr
om th
at e
xist
ing
dirt
road
to it
s eas
t. Th
e po
les t
hat
curr
ently
car
ry th
e M
irage
-Tam
aris
k an
d M
irage
-Con
cho
lines
, whi
ch in
th
is a
rea
wou
ld b
e re
conf
igur
ed
Plea
se re
plac
e th
e fir
st se
nten
ce w
ith th
e fo
llow
ing:
33-1
5430
. Th
is re
sour
ce is
loca
ted
with
in th
e vi
ewsh
ed, b
ut
outs
ide
the
phys
ical
APE
for t
he p
ropo
sed
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
alig
nmen
t. [B
alan
ce o
f par
agra
ph u
ncha
nged
.]
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-38
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 25
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
56 (c
ont)
w
ithou
t pol
e re
plac
emen
t, ar
e ea
st o
f th
e ex
istin
g di
rt ac
cess
road
. Th
eref
ore,
site
P-3
3-15
430
is w
ell
outs
ide
the
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
’s A
PE.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-39
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 26
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
57
4.5-
23
Plea
se re
vise
the
DEI
R a
naly
sis t
o in
corp
orat
e fin
ding
s in
info
rmat
ion
cont
aine
d in
the
abov
e-co
mm
ents
.
[Kee
p th
e fir
st tw
o pa
ragr
aphs
]
[Rep
lace
3rd
par
agra
ph w
ith th
e fo
llow
ing]
His
toric
reso
urce
33-
4898
(Var
ner R
oad)
wou
ld n
ot b
e im
pact
ed b
y th
e Pr
opos
ed P
roje
ct. I
t wou
ld b
e sp
anne
d by
the
prop
osed
ov
erhe
ad re
conf
igur
ed M
irage
-Cap
win
d-D
ever
s-Ta
mar
isk
115
kV
line
and
the
prop
osed
ove
rhea
d M
irage
-San
ta R
osa
115
kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
, and
no
grou
nd-d
istu
rbin
g ac
tivity
wou
ld
occu
r with
in th
e ro
adw
ay. T
here
fore
, the
re w
ould
be
no im
pact
s to
this
reso
urce
(No
Impa
ct).
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an c
ultu
ral r
esou
rce
Hoo
n w
it te
n ca
va
(Gar
net
Hill
) wou
ld n
ot b
e ph
ysic
ally
impa
cted
by
the
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
. Th
e pr
opos
ed F
arre
ll-G
arne
t 115
kV
line
wou
ld b
e in
stal
led
over
head
on
tow
ers c
onst
ruct
ed a
long
an
exis
ting
dirt
road
nor
th o
f G
arne
t Hill
, and
no
grou
nd d
istu
rbin
g ac
tivity
wou
ld o
ccur
with
in
the
limits
of t
his t
opog
raph
ical
feat
ure.
Preh
isto
ric a
rcha
eolo
gica
l site
s 33-
1542
9 an
d 33
-154
30 w
ould
not
be
impa
cted
by
the
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
. The
pro
pose
d M
irage
-San
ta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
line
wou
ld b
e co
nstru
cted
on
over
head
tow
ers w
est o
f
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-40
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 27
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
57 (c
ont.)
33
-154
29 a
nd e
ast o
f 33-
1543
0, a
nd a
ll ac
cess
wou
ld b
e fr
om a
n ex
istin
g di
rt ro
ad lo
cate
d im
med
iate
ly w
est t
he p
oles
that
cur
rent
ly
carr
y th
e M
irage
-Tam
aris
k an
d M
irage
-Con
cho
lines
, whi
ch in
this
ar
ea w
ould
be
reco
nfig
ured
usi
ng th
e di
rt ac
cess
road
.
Preh
isto
ric a
rcha
eolo
gica
l site
33-
1542
9 m
ight
be
impa
cted
by
the
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
. The
reso
urce
is lo
cate
d ea
st o
f the
exi
stin
g su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne a
nd e
ast o
f the
pro
pose
d M
irage
-San
ta R
osa
115
kV su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne a
lignm
ent.
It is
not
kno
wn
if th
ere
is a
su
bsur
face
com
pone
nt to
this
reso
urce
, and
if so
, whe
ther
it m
ight
ex
tend
into
the
prev
ious
ly im
pact
ed a
rea
that
lies
with
in th
e pr
opos
ed p
roje
ct’s
APE
.
Preh
isto
ric a
rcha
eolo
gica
l site
CA
-RIV
-785
cou
ld b
e im
pact
ed b
y th
e Pr
opos
ed P
roje
ct. A
por
tion
of it
is lo
cate
d w
ithin
the
APE
for
the
prop
osed
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
line
.
58
4.5-
23-2
4 Th
e la
st se
nten
ce u
nder
Impa
ct 4
.5-1
in
dica
tes “
…no
impa
ct to
Var
ner
Roa
d w
ould
occ
ur a
s a re
sult
of th
is
wor
k.
Plea
se re
vise
Impa
ct 4
.5-1
to st
ate
“No
Impa
ct”
as in
dica
ted
in th
e an
alys
is a
nd st
ated
in th
e la
st se
nten
ce o
f thi
s sec
tion.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-41
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 28
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
59
4.5-
26
The
arch
aeol
ogic
al su
rvey
per
form
ed
for t
his p
roje
ct id
entif
ied
surf
ace
artif
acts
des
igna
ted
as si
te 3
3-15
430
at a
loca
tion
slig
htly
wes
t of t
he
exis
ting
subt
rans
mis
sion
line
and
wes
t of
the
area
that
wou
ld b
e ph
ysic
ally
im
pact
ed b
y th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-Sa
nta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
subt
rans
mis
sion
lin
e al
ignm
ent.
The
refo
re, t
his s
ite
wou
ld n
ot b
e im
pact
ed a
nd c
an b
e de
lete
d an
d do
es n
ot re
quire
m
itiga
tion.
Plea
se re
vise
the
EIR
to re
flect
that
site
33-
1543
0 w
ill n
ot b
e im
pact
ed b
y th
e pr
opos
ed p
roje
ct.
60
4.5-
31-3
4 Pl
ease
revi
se th
e D
EIR
to in
clud
e po
tent
ial i
mpa
cts t
o pa
leon
tolo
gica
l, cu
ltura
l, an
d ar
chae
olog
ical
reso
urce
s du
e to
und
ergr
ound
ing.
Plea
se se
e A
ttach
men
t 3, C
ultu
ral C
ompa
rison
Tab
le.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-42
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 29
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
61
4.6-
2 B
ased
on
our r
evie
w, H
oloc
ene*
su
rfac
e ru
ptur
e w
as n
ot d
ocum
ente
d al
ong
the
Gar
net H
ill fa
ult i
n th
e vi
cini
ty o
f the
pro
ject
are
a (S
CED
C).
G
eom
orph
ic e
vide
nce
of th
e fa
ult i
s no
t app
aren
t alo
ng th
e pr
opos
ed
proj
ect a
lignm
ent.
The
Gar
net H
ill
faul
t is n
ot w
ithin
an
Alq
uist
-Prio
lo
Earth
quak
e Fa
ult Z
one
(Cal
iforn
ia
Geo
logi
cal S
urve
y (C
GS)
, 200
7).
Ther
efor
e, th
e st
atem
ent s
houl
d be
re
mov
ed.
*An
activ
e fa
ult i
s def
ined
as a
faul
t w
hich
has
had
surf
ace
disp
lace
men
t w
ithin
Hol
ocen
e tim
e (C
GS,
200
7).
Plea
se re
mov
e th
e fo
llow
ing
stat
emen
t:
“the
Gar
net H
ill fa
ult c
an a
ct a
s a p
lane
of w
eakn
ess a
nd m
ove
in
resp
onse
to a
n ea
rthqu
ake
on a
noth
er n
earb
y fa
ult.
Gro
und
frac
ture
s ass
ocia
ted
with
the
1986
Nor
th P
alm
Spr
ings
ear
thqu
ake
wer
e re
porte
d al
ong
the
trace
of t
he G
arne
t Hill
faul
t and
indi
cate
th
at a
nea
r-su
rfac
e re
spon
se o
f wea
k su
rfac
es o
ccur
red
at d
epth
(C
ity o
f Cat
hedr
al C
ity, 2
002)
. “
(Fol
low
ing
refe
renc
e to
be
adde
d to
p. 4
-16)
Sout
hern
Cal
iforn
ia E
arth
quak
e D
ata
Cen
ter (
SCED
C),
1986
Nor
th
Palm
Spr
ings
Ear
thqu
ake:
http
://w
ww
.dat
a.sc
ec.o
rg/
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-43
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 30
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
Geo
logy
and
Soi
ls
62
4.6-
3 In
corr
ect t
erm
inol
ogy
“gro
und
rupt
urin
g” is
use
d. P
leas
e re
vise
text
as
indi
cate
d:
“Sei
smic
Act
ivity
Th
e tw
o m
ost …
…..
The
1986
qua
ke re
gist
ered
a m
agni
tude
of 5
.6
and
caus
ed m
inor
gro
und
rupt
urin
g cr
acks
alo
ng th
e B
anni
ng, …
..“
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-44
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 31
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
63
4.6-
4
Plea
se in
corp
orat
e ad
ditio
nal
info
rmat
ion
to th
e en
d of
Sec
tion
4.6
rega
rdin
g su
bsid
ence
.
Plea
se a
dd th
e re
fere
nces
to p
age
4.6-
16.
Plea
se a
dd th
e fo
llow
ing
para
grap
h to
pag
e 4.
6-4:
The
USG
S m
onito
red
subs
iden
ce in
the
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y ar
ea
betw
een
1996
and
200
5 (S
need
and
Bra
ndt,
2007
). S
ubsi
denc
e w
as
not i
ndic
ated
for t
he p
ropo
sed
proj
ect a
rea.
In
addi
tion,
the
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y W
ater
Dis
trict
(CV
WD
) ado
pted
a
com
preh
ensi
ve W
ater
Man
agem
ent P
lan
(WM
P) fo
r the
Coa
chel
la
Val
ley
(CV
WD
, 200
7).
The
WM
P w
ill in
crea
se im
porte
d w
ater
, pr
omot
e co
nser
vatio
n an
d pr
ovid
e al
tern
ativ
e so
urce
s of w
ater
to
redu
ce th
e po
tent
ial f
or a
dditi
onal
subs
iden
ce.
Plea
se a
dd re
fere
nces
to 4
.6-1
6:
Snee
d, M
. and
Bra
ndt,
J., 2
007,
Det
ectio
n an
d M
easu
rem
ent o
f La
nd S
ubsi
denc
e U
sing
Glo
bal P
ositi
onin
g Sy
stem
Sur
veyi
ng a
nd
Inte
rfer
omet
ric S
ynth
etic
Ape
rture
Rad
ar, C
oach
ella
Val
ley,
C
alifo
rnia
: U
.S. G
eolo
gica
l Sur
vey
Scei
ntifi
c In
vest
igat
ions
R
epor
t 200
7-52
51, 3
1p.
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y W
ater
Dis
trict
, 200
7, P
ress
Rel
ease
s, D
ated
D
ecem
ber 1
7: h
ttp:w
ww
.cvw
d.or
g\ne
ws\
pres
s33.
php
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-45
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 32
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
64
4.6-
5 Th
e Fe
dera
l re
gula
tory
con
text
was
no
t inc
lude
d, a
nd sh
ould
be
adde
d.
Pl
ease
add
text
as f
ollo
ws:
Fede
ral
Inst
itute
of E
lect
rica
l and
Ele
ctro
nics
Eng
inee
rs
(IE
EE
) 693
“R
ecom
men
ded
Prac
tices
for
Se
ism
ic D
esig
n of
Sub
stat
ions
”
The
Inst
itute
of E
lect
rical
and
Ele
ctro
nics
Eng
inee
rs (I
EEE)
693
“R
ecom
men
ded
Prac
tices
for S
eism
ic D
esig
n of
Sub
stat
ions
” w
as
deve
lope
d by
the
Subs
tatio
ns C
omm
ittee
of t
he IE
EE P
ower
En
gine
erin
g So
ciet
y, a
nd a
ppro
ved
by th
e A
mer
ican
Nat
iona
l St
anda
rds I
nstit
ute
and
the
IEEE
-SA
Sta
ndar
ds B
oard
. Thi
s do
cum
ent p
rovi
des s
eism
ic d
esig
n re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r su
bsta
tions
and
equ
ipm
ent c
onsi
stin
g of
seis
mic
crit
eria
, qu
alifi
catio
n m
etho
ds a
nd le
vels
, stru
ctur
al c
apac
ities
, per
form
ance
re
quire
men
ts fo
r equ
ipm
ent o
pera
tion,
inst
alla
tion
met
hods
, and
do
cum
enta
tion.
Thi
s rec
omm
ende
d pr
actic
e em
phas
izes
the
qual
ifica
tion
of e
lect
rical
equ
ipm
ent.
IEEE
693
is in
tend
ed to
es
tabl
ish
stan
dard
met
hods
of p
rovi
ding
and
val
idat
ing
the
seis
mic
w
ithst
and
capa
bilit
y of
ele
ctric
al su
bsta
tion
equi
pmen
t. H
owev
er,
the
seis
mic
reco
mm
enda
tions
for f
ound
atio
n de
sign
shou
ld c
ompl
y w
ith th
e ap
prop
riate
cur
rent
bui
ldin
g co
de. I
EEE
693
prov
ides
de
taile
d te
st a
nd a
naly
sis m
etho
ds fo
r eac
h ty
pe o
f maj
or
equi
pmen
t or c
ompo
nent
foun
d in
ele
ctric
al su
bsta
tions
. Thi
s re
com
men
ded
prac
tice
is in
tend
ed to
ass
ist t
he su
bsta
tion
user
or
oper
ator
in p
rovi
ding
subs
tatio
n eq
uipm
ent t
hat w
ill h
ave
a hi
gh
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-46
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 33
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
64 (c
ont)
prob
abili
ty o
f with
stan
ding
seis
mic
eve
nts t
o pr
edef
ined
gro
und
acce
lera
tion
leve
ls.
It es
tabl
ishe
s sta
ndar
d m
etho
ds o
f ver
ifyin
g se
ism
ic w
ithst
and
capa
bilit
y, w
hich
giv
es th
e su
bsta
tion
desi
gner
the
abili
ty to
sele
ct e
quip
men
t fro
m v
ario
us m
anuf
actu
rers
, kn
owin
g th
at th
e se
ism
ic w
ithst
and
ratin
g of
eac
h m
anuf
actu
rer’
s eq
uipm
ent i
s an
equi
vale
nt m
easu
re.
This
reco
mm
ende
d pr
actic
e sh
ould
be
used
in a
ll ar
eas t
hat m
ay e
xper
ienc
e ea
rthqu
akes
.
Inte
rnat
iona
l Bui
ldin
g C
ode
Publ
ishe
d by
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l Cod
e-C
ounc
il (I
CC
), th
e sc
ope
of
this
cod
e co
vers
maj
or a
spec
ts o
f con
stru
ctio
n an
d de
sign
of
stru
ctur
es a
nd b
uild
ings
, Th
e 20
06 In
tern
atio
nal B
uild
ing
Cod
e re
plac
es th
e 19
97 U
nifo
rm B
uild
ing
Cod
e an
d co
ntai
ns p
rovi
sion
s fo
r stru
ctur
al e
ngin
eerin
g de
sign
. Pub
lishe
d by
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l C
onfe
renc
e of
Bui
ldin
g O
ffic
ials
, the
200
6 In
tern
atio
nal B
uild
ing
Cod
e(IB
C) a
ddre
sses
the
desi
gn a
nd in
stal
latio
n of
stru
ctur
es a
nd
build
ing
syst
ems t
hrou
gh re
quire
men
ts th
at e
mph
asiz
e pe
rfor
man
ce. T
he IB
C in
clud
es c
odes
gov
erni
ng st
ruct
ural
as w
ell
as fi
re- a
nd li
fe-s
afet
y pr
ovis
ions
cov
erin
g se
ism
ic, w
ind,
ac
cess
ibili
ty, e
gres
s, oc
cupa
ncy,
and
roof
s.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-47
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 34
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
65
4.6-
5 A
dd C
alifo
rnia
Bui
ldin
g C
ode
(CB
C)
2007
afte
r
Alq
uist
-Pri
olo
Ear
thqu
ake
Faul
t Z
onin
g A
ct a
nd
Seis
mic
Haz
ards
Map
ping
Act
.
Rep
lace
“D
esig
n St
anda
rds”
on
p. 4
.6-5
with
the
follo
win
g te
xt:
Cal
iforn
ia B
uild
ing
Cod
e Th
e C
alifo
rnia
Bui
ldin
g C
ode,
Titl
e 24
, Par
t 2 (C
BC
, 200
7)
prov
ides
bui
ldin
g co
des a
nd st
anda
rds f
or d
esig
n an
d co
nstru
ctio
n of
stru
ctur
es in
Cal
iforn
ia. T
he 2
007
CB
C is
bas
ed o
n th
e 20
06
Inte
rnat
iona
l Bui
ldin
g C
ode
with
the
addi
tion
of m
ore
exte
nsiv
e st
ruct
ural
seis
mic
pro
visi
ons.
As t
he p
ropo
sed
Proj
ect l
ies w
ithin
Se
ism
ic Z
one
4, p
rovi
sion
s for
des
ign
shou
ld fo
llow
the
requ
irem
ents
of C
hapt
er 1
6 of
the
CB
C 2
007,
whi
ch c
onta
ins
defin
ition
s of s
eism
ic so
urce
s and
pro
cedu
re u
sed
to c
alcu
late
se
ism
ic fo
rces
on
stru
ctur
es.
Cha
pter
33
of th
e C
BC
con
tain
s re
quire
men
ts re
leva
nt to
the
cons
truct
ion
of u
nder
grou
nd
trans
mis
sion
line
s.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-48
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 35
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
66
4.6-
5 Th
is se
ctio
n w
ould
be
repl
aced
with
th
e se
ctio
n tit
led
Cal
iforn
ia B
uild
ing
Cod
e (s
ee a
bove
).
Plea
se re
mov
e th
e fo
llow
ing:
D
esig
n St
anda
rds
Bui
ldin
g co
des p
rovi
de sp
ecifi
c st
anda
rds f
or d
esig
n an
d co
nstru
ctio
n of
bui
ldin
gs a
nd st
ruct
ures
. O
n Ja
nuar
y 1,
200
8, C
alifo
rnia
off
icia
lly a
dopt
ed th
e 20
07
Cal
iforn
ia B
uild
ing
Cod
e (C
BC
). Th
e pu
rpos
e of
the
CB
C is
to p
rovi
de m
inim
um st
anda
rds t
o sa
fegu
ard
life
or li
mb,
hea
lth, p
rope
rty,
and
publ
ic w
elfa
re b
y re
gula
ting
and
cont
rolli
ng th
e de
sign
, co
nstru
ctio
n, q
ualit
y of
mat
eria
ls,
use,
occ
upan
cy, l
ocat
ion,
and
mai
nten
ance
of a
ll bu
ildin
gs a
nd
stru
ctur
es w
ithin
its j
uris
dict
ion.
The
CB
C p
rovi
des c
riter
ia fo
r def
inin
g ex
pans
ive
soils
.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-49
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 36
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
67
4.6-
10
Bas
ed o
n ou
r rev
iew
, Hol
ocen
e*
surf
ace
rupt
ure
was
not
doc
umen
ted
alon
g th
e G
arne
t Hill
faul
t in
the
vici
nity
of t
he p
roje
ct a
rea
(SC
EDC
).
Geo
mor
phic
evi
denc
e of
the
faul
t is
not a
ppar
ent a
long
the
prop
osed
pr
ojec
t alig
nmen
t. T
he G
arne
t Hill
fa
ult i
s not
with
in a
n A
lqui
st -P
riolo
Ea
rthqu
ake
Faul
t Zon
e (C
alifo
rnia
G
eolo
gica
l Sur
vey
(CG
S), 2
007)
.
Rem
ove
the
follo
win
g :
The
only
faul
t tha
t wou
ld in
ters
ect a
ny o
f the
Pro
pose
d Pr
ojec
t co
mpo
nent
s is t
he G
arne
t Hill
faul
t, w
hich
is m
appe
d as
bur
ied
with
a lo
catio
n th
at is
pos
tula
ted
acro
ss th
e pr
opos
ed F
arre
ll-G
arne
t al
ignm
ent.
Whe
reas
seis
mic
act
ivity
is n
ot li
mite
d to
act
ive
faul
ts,
grou
nd ru
ptur
e is
typi
cally
ass
ocia
ted
with
act
ive
faul
ts. H
owev
er,
grou
nd fr
actu
res a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith th
e 19
86 N
orth
Pal
m S
prin
gs
earth
quak
e w
ere
repo
rted
alon
g th
e tra
ce o
f the
Gar
net H
ill fa
ult,
but t
he fr
actu
res w
ere
a re
sult
of g
roun
d sh
akin
g ra
ther
than
faul
t ru
ptur
e. In
add
ition
, pur
suan
t to
APM
GEO
-2, t
ower
loca
tions
(in
the
case
of t
he p
ropo
sed
Farr
ell-G
arne
t sub
trans
mis
sion
line
, pol
e lo
catio
ns) w
ould
be
sele
cted
to a
ccom
mod
ate
antic
ipat
ed fa
ult
offs
et, a
nd m
inim
ize
exce
ssiv
e te
nsio
n in
line
s, sh
ould
a fa
ult
mov
emen
t occ
ur. T
here
fore
, bas
ed o
n th
e lo
catio
n of
the
prop
osed
co
mpo
nent
s and
the
activ
e fa
ults
in th
e re
gion
, the
pot
entia
l for
su
rfac
e fa
ult r
uptu
re to
aff
ect t
he P
ropo
sed
Proj
ect w
ould
be
min
imal
. Pot
entia
l gro
und
surf
ace
rupt
ure
impa
cts a
re c
onsi
dere
d to
be
less
than
sign
ifica
nt.
Repl
ace
with
:
Ther
e ar
e no
act
ive
earth
quak
e fa
ults
that
are
reco
gniz
ed o
r zon
ed
by th
e St
ate
of C
alifo
rnia
in th
e im
med
iate
vic
inity
of t
he P
ropo
sed
Proj
ect a
lignm
ents
and
site
s. Po
tent
ial g
roun
d su
rfac
e ru
ptur
e im
pact
s are
con
side
red
to b
e le
ss th
an si
gnifi
cant
. Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-50
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 37
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
68
4.6-
11
In o
rder
for l
ique
fact
ion
to o
ccur
, th
ere
need
s to
be re
lativ
ely
shal
low
gr
ound
wat
er c
ondi
tions
, gen
eral
ly a
t de
pths
of l
ess t
han
50 fe
et b
elow
the
grou
nd su
rfac
e. S
hallo
w g
roun
dwat
er
cond
ition
s do
not e
xist
in th
e pr
ojec
t ar
ea a
nd th
e Pr
opos
ed P
roje
ct w
ould
no
t cau
se th
e gr
ound
wat
er ta
ble
to
rise.
The
pot
entia
l im
pact
rela
ted
to
seis
mic
-rel
ated
gro
und
failu
re,
incl
udin
g liq
uefa
ctio
n, w
ould
be
less
th
an si
gnifi
cant
.
Rev
ise
as fo
llow
s:
“In
orde
r for
liqu
efac
tion
to o
ccur
, the
re n
eeds
to b
e re
lativ
ely
shal
low
gro
undw
ater
con
ditio
ns, g
ener
ally
at d
epth
s of l
ess t
han
50
feet
bel
ow th
e gr
ound
surf
ace.
Sha
llow
gro
undw
ater
con
ditio
ns d
o no
t exi
st in
the
proj
ect a
rea
and
the
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
wou
ld n
ot
caus
e th
e gr
ound
wat
er ta
ble
to ri
se. R
egar
dles
s, th
e po
tent
ial f
or
lique
fact
ion
or o
ther
phe
nom
ena
resu
lting
in d
ynam
ic g
roun
d se
ttlem
ent,
if ev
en p
rese
nt, c
an b
e ea
sily
redu
ced
with
ade
quat
e ge
otec
hnic
al a
nd fo
unda
tion
engi
neer
ing.
The
refo
re, w
ith th
e im
plem
enta
tion
of st
anda
rd e
ngin
eerin
g pr
actic
es, a
ny p
oten
tial
impa
cts a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith li
quef
actio
n, if
dis
cove
red
durin
g ge
otec
hnic
al in
vest
igat
ions
that
wou
ld b
e co
nduc
ted
for t
he
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
, wou
ld b
e re
duce
d to
less
than
sign
ifica
nt le
vels
. Th
e po
tent
ial i
mpa
ct re
late
d to
seis
mic
-rel
ated
gro
und
failu
re,
incl
udin
g liq
uefa
ctio
n, w
ould
be
less
than
sign
ifica
nt.
Haz
ards
and
Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials
69
8-29
M
itiga
tion
mea
sure
HA
Z-2
Fire
M
anag
emen
t Pla
n is
iden
tifie
d in
D
EIR
Sec
tion
4 (p
. 4.7
-20)
, but
is n
ot
liste
d in
DEI
R S
ectio
n 8
Miti
gatio
n M
onito
ring,
Rep
ortin
g an
d C
ompl
ianc
e Pr
ogra
m (M
MR
CP)
.
Plea
se re
vise
to in
clud
e th
is m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
.
Hyd
rolo
gy a
nd W
ater
Qua
lity
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-51
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 38
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
70
4.8-
21
The
Whi
tew
ater
Was
h is
an
activ
e sa
nd a
rea
whe
re to
pogr
aphy
cha
nges
fr
eque
ntly
with
wat
er a
nd w
ind
activ
ity.
Thus
, res
tora
tion
to e
xact
pr
e-co
nstru
ctio
n co
ntou
rs w
ould
not
ne
cess
arily
ach
ieve
the
desi
red
cond
ition
. Fu
rther
, gra
ding
is n
ot
expe
cted
to b
e su
bsta
ntia
l. A
mor
e fe
asib
le m
easu
re w
ould
be
gene
ral
rest
orat
ion
of th
e di
stur
bed
area
. Pl
ease
revi
se M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.8
-4b
as i
ndic
ated
.
Reg
ardi
ng th
e en
gine
ered
ero
sion
con
trol a
nd d
rain
age
plan
de
velo
ped
as p
art o
f the
site
gra
ding
pla
n (A
PM H
YD
RO
-2A
), SC
E sh
all c
ondu
ct a
topo
grap
hic
and
grad
ient
surv
ey o
f the
W
hite
wat
er R
iver
Was
h bo
th u
pstre
am a
nd d
owns
tream
of t
he
prop
osed
pol
e(s)
repl
acem
ent l
ocat
ion
with
in th
e w
ash.
Pos
t co
nstru
ctio
n to
pogr
aphy
and
gra
dien
t of t
he W
hite
wat
er R
iver
W
ash
shal
l be
cont
oure
d to
SCE
shal
l res
tore
all
area
s in
the
Whi
tew
ater
Was
h di
stur
bed
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n of
the
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
to m
atch
the
exis
ting
cond
ition
s, to
ens
ure
that
the
drai
nage
pat
tern
is n
ot a
ltere
d in
a
man
ner t
hat w
ould
cau
se o
n- o
r off
-site
ero
sion
or s
edim
enta
tion.
Noi
se
71
4.11
-18
As t
he C
PUC
has
juris
dict
ion
over
all
elec
trica
l fac
ilitie
s, w
e re
com
men
d su
bmitt
al o
nly
to th
e C
PUC
.
Plea
se re
vise
seco
nd p
arag
raph
of M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.1
1-2
to
rem
ove
refe
renc
es to
Cou
nty
of R
iver
side
..
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-52
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 39
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
72
4.11
-18
Plea
se re
-wor
d M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.
11-2
(firs
t par
agra
ph) r
elat
ive
to th
e tra
nsfo
rmer
, as f
ollo
ws:
Noi
se c
ontro
l tec
hniq
ues m
ay in
clud
e, b
ut n
ot b
e lim
ited
to:
loca
ting
the
new
tran
sfor
mer
with
as m
uch
setb
ack
from
the
exis
ting
resi
dent
ial p
rope
rties
as p
ossi
ble,
use
of n
oise
wal
ls o
r eq
uiva
lent
soun
d at
tenu
atio
n de
vice
s, an
d th
e us
e of
a tr
ansf
orm
er
with
spec
ial n
oise
con
trol s
peci
ficat
ions
des
igne
d in
a w
ay to
sp
ecifi
cally
ach
ieve
acc
epta
ble
regu
lato
ry n
oise
stan
dard
s so
und
leve
ls a
s spe
cifie
d in
the
appr
oved
"SC
E Sp
ecifi
catio
n A
5-20
09:
Larg
e Th
ree-
Phas
e Tr
ansf
orm
ers a
nd A
utot
rans
form
ers w
ith O
LTC
fo
r a n
omin
al sy
stem
vol
tage
of 2
20/2
30kV
." "
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-53
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 40
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
73
4.11
-18
SCE
engi
neer
ing
requ
ests
a n
oise
st
udy
to b
e pe
rfor
med
dur
ing
the
initi
al d
esig
n of
the
proj
ect t
o ve
rify
that
all
nois
e le
vel
requ
irem
ents
/gui
delin
es a
re m
et.
If
the
nois
e le
vel
requ
irem
ents
/gui
delin
es a
re n
ot m
et,
then
SC
E w
ill fo
llow
the
sugg
este
d no
ise
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res a
s spe
cifie
d in
the
nois
e re
port,
thus
cap
turin
g an
d ad
dres
sing
issu
es in
the
desi
gn p
hase
an
d no
t at t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
phas
e. A
s su
ch, r
eten
tion
of a
n ac
oust
ical
en
gine
er is
unn
eces
sary
. Pl
ease
re-
wor
d M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.1
1-2
(sec
ond
para
grap
h) re
lativ
e to
an
acou
stic
al e
ngin
eer a
s fol
low
s:
Prio
r to
the
inst
alla
tion
of th
e ne
w tr
ansf
orm
er, S
CE
shal
l sub
mit
to
the
CPU
C a
nd th
e C
ount
y of
Riv
ersi
de, f
or re
view
and
app
rova
l, a
plan
that
des
crib
es th
e sp
ecifi
c m
easu
res t
hat w
ill b
e ta
ken
to
atte
nuat
e no
ise.
in o
rder
to c
ompl
y w
ith th
e C
ount
y’s s
tatio
nary
no
ise
stan
dard
s. O
nce
the
prop
osed
tran
sfor
mer
is o
pera
tiona
l, SC
E sh
all r
etai
n an
aco
ustic
al e
ngin
eer t
o pe
rfor
m n
oise
m
easu
rem
ents
in th
e vi
cini
ty o
f the
resi
denc
es w
est o
f Mira
ge
Subs
tatio
n to
ver
ify th
at tr
ansf
orm
er n
oise
leve
ls c
ompl
y w
ith th
e C
ount
y st
anda
rds.
Doc
umen
tatio
n of
com
plia
nce
shal
l be
subm
itted
to th
e C
PUC
and
Riv
ersi
de C
ount
y. I
n th
e ev
ent t
hat
trans
form
er n
oise
leve
ls v
iola
te th
e st
anda
rds,
addi
tiona
l noi
se
cont
rol t
echn
ique
s sha
ll be
initi
ated
to c
orre
ct th
e vi
olat
ion.
Popu
latio
n an
d H
ousi
ng
74
4.12
-5
Con
stru
ctio
n sc
hedu
les a
re li
kely
to
chan
ge d
ue to
the
expe
cted
CPU
C
appr
oval
sche
dule
.
“Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es in
the
proj
ect a
rea
are
expe
cted
to la
st
appr
ox 1
2 -2
4 m
onth
s, w
ithin
the
2010
-201
2 tim
e fr
ame .
beg
inni
ng
in 2
010
and
conc
ludi
ng in
mid
-201
1.”
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-54
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 41
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
75
4.15
-1
Plea
se n
ote
that
Cal
trans
use
s AA
DT.
C
ount
s cite
d fr
om C
VA
G, R
iver
side
C
ount
y, o
r City
of P
alm
Spr
ings
use
A
DT.
Plea
se re
vise
tran
spor
tatio
n an
d tra
ffic
sect
ion
to re
flect
this
di
stin
ctio
n.
Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
and
Tra
ffic
76
4.15
-2
Gar
net A
venu
e pa
ralle
ls th
e I-
10, n
ot
the
I-5.
Ple
ase
revi
se th
e la
st
para
grap
h as
follo
ws:
Gar
net A
venu
e is
a tw
o la
ne ro
ad th
at p
aral
lels
the
sout
h si
de o
f I-5
I-
10 a
nd h
as n
o la
ne st
ripes
and
has
low
traf
fic le
vels
.
77
4.15
-3
Acc
ordi
ng to
the
coun
ty o
f Riv
ersi
de
2009
traf
fic c
ount
s (us
ing
AD
T),
Indi
an C
anyo
n D
r. be
twee
n I-
10 a
nd
San
Raf
ael h
as a
n A
DT
of 2
2,30
7.
This
diff
ers s
igni
fican
tly fr
om th
e ci
ted
CV
AG
figu
re o
f 15,
200.
Plea
se c
onfir
m a
nd re
vise
the
refe
renc
es.
Ele
ctri
c an
d M
agne
tic F
ield
s
78
App
endi
x B
, Sec
tion
1, P
age
1
“Uni
ts o
f mea
sure
are
Gau
ss (G
) or
mill
iGau
ss (m
G, 1
1100
0 of
a
Gau
ss).”
Cha
nge
to:
“U
nits
of m
easu
re a
re G
auss
(G) o
r mill
iGau
ss (m
G, 1
1100
0 1/
1000
of a
Gau
ss).”
79
App
endi
x B
, Sec
tion
1, P
age
2
“It’s
reco
mm
enda
tions
wer
e fie
ld
with
the
Com
mis
sion
in M
arch
of
1992
.”
Cha
nge
to:
“It’s
reco
mm
enda
tions
wer
e fie
ld fi
led
with
the
Com
mis
sion
in
Mar
ch o
f 199
2 an
d be
cam
e th
e ba
sis f
or th
e C
PUC
’s E
MF
Polic
y es
tabl
ishe
d in
D. 9
3-11
-013
.”
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-55
Dev
ers M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Sub
tran
smis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
t Dra
ft E
nvir
onm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
SCE
Com
men
ts &
Sug
gest
ed R
evis
ions
Febr
uary
22,
201
0
- 42
-
Com
men
t
Num
ber
Page
Num
ber
Com
men
t Su
gges
ted
Rev
isio
n
80
App
endi
x B
, Sec
tion
1, P
age
2
“Bas
ed o
n th
e w
ork
of th
e C
onse
nsus
G
roup
, writ
ten
test
imon
y an
d ev
iden
tiary
hea
rings
, the
CPU
C
issu
ed it
s dec
isio
n (D
.06-
01-0
42) t
o ad
dres
s…..”
Cha
nge
to:
“Bas
ed o
n th
e w
ork
of th
e C
onse
nsus
Gro
up, w
ritte
n te
stim
ony
and
evid
entia
ry h
earin
gs, t
he C
PUC
issu
ed it
s dec
isio
n (D
.06-
01-0
42)
deci
sion
s (D
. 93-
11-0
13 a
nd D
.06-
01-0
42) t
o ad
dres
s…..”
81
App
endi
x B
, Sec
tion
1, P
age
4
Glo
bal c
hang
e-“…
(App
endi
x D
Se
ctio
n 2)
…”
Cha
nge
to:
-“…
(App
endi
x D
B -
Sect
ion
2)…
”
Com
pari
son
of A
ltern
ativ
es
82
5-2
3rd p
arag
raph
, 2nd
sent
ence
is u
ncle
ar.
Rew
ord
to st
ate
that
ther
e ar
e tw
o su
bset
s of a
ltern
ativ
e ro
utes
, e.g
.; 1)
Far
rell-
Gar
net,
whi
ch in
clud
es th
e Pr
opos
ed P
roje
ct a
nd
Alte
rnat
ives
2, 3
, 6, a
nd 7
, and
(2) M
irage
-San
ta R
osa,
whi
ch
incl
udes
the
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
and
Alte
rnat
ive
5.
83
5-4
Tabl
e 5-
2, A
esth
etic
s:
Und
er “
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
” –
Num
bers
ar
e re
vers
ed:
The
Farr
ell-G
arne
t lin
e w
ould
incl
ude
5.8
mile
s of o
verh
ead
line
and
the
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a lin
e w
ould
incl
ude
1.5
mile
s of
over
head
line
.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-56
Att
achm
ent 1
, Cul
tura
l Com
pari
son
Issu
e A
rea
Prop
osed
Proj
ect
Alte
rnat
ive
2
Alte
rnat
ive
3
Alte
rnat
ive
5
Alte
rnat
ive
6
Alte
rnat
ive
7
Cul
tura
l R
esou
rces
O
verh
ead
Farr
ell-G
arne
t lin
e w
ould
ha
ve p
oint
-sp
ecifi
c pa
leon
tolo
gy
impa
cts a
nd
non-
phys
ical
im
pact
on
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an
topo
grap
hica
l re
sour
ce
Hoo
n w
it te
n ca
va
/Gar
net
Hill
; ove
rhea
d M
irage
-San
ta
Ros
a lin
e w
ould
hav
e po
int-s
peci
fic
pale
onto
logy
im
pact
s and
ph
ysic
al
impa
cts t
o ar
chae
olog
ical
Ove
rhea
d se
gmen
t w
ould
hav
e no
n-ph
ysic
al
and
poin
t-sp
ecifi
c ph
ysic
al
impa
cts o
n N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
to
pogr
aphi
cal
reso
urce
H
oon
wit
ten
ca v
a /G
arne
t H
ill;
unde
rgro
und
segm
ent
wou
ld h
ave
grea
ter
pale
onto
logy
im
pact
s and
po
ssib
ly
arch
aeol
ogy
impa
cts (
to
curr
ently
Ove
rhea
d se
gmen
t w
ould
hav
e po
int-s
peci
fic
pale
onto
logy
im
pact
s and
no
n-ph
ysic
al
impa
ct o
n N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
to
pogr
aphi
cal
reso
urce
H
oon
wit
ten
ca v
a /G
arne
t H
ill;
unde
rgro
und
segm
ent
wou
ld h
ave
grea
ter
pale
onto
logy
im
pact
s and
po
ssib
ly
arch
aeol
ogy
impa
cts (
to
curr
ently
Und
ergr
ound
se
gmen
t w
ould
hav
e ph
ysic
al
impa
cts o
n hi
stor
ic
cultu
ral
reso
urce
33-
8408
/Var
ner
Roa
d by
lin
ear
trenc
hing
w
ithin
leng
th
of ro
adw
ay
and
trenc
hing
ac
ross
ro
adw
ay,
and
grea
ter
pale
onto
logy
im
pact
s and
po
ssib
ly
arch
aeol
ogy
impa
cts (
to
curr
ently
Und
ergr
ound
se
gmen
t w
ould
hav
e gr
eate
r pa
leon
tolo
gy
impa
cts a
nd
poss
ibly
ar
chae
olog
y im
pact
s (to
cu
rren
tly
unkn
own
reso
urce
s)
than
ov
erhe
ad
Farr
ell-
Gar
net l
ine;
ov
erhe
ad
segm
ent
wou
ld h
ave
pale
onto
logy
im
pact
s and
po
ssib
ly
arch
aeol
ogy
impa
cts (
to
curr
ently
Wou
ld h
ave
pale
onto
logy
impa
cts
and
poss
ibly
ar
chae
olog
y im
pact
s (to
cur
rent
ly
unkn
own
reso
urce
s)
equi
vale
nt to
ov
erhe
ad G
arne
tt-Fa
rrel
l lin
e.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-57
si
te C
A-R
IV-
785.
un
know
n re
sour
ces)
th
an
over
head
Fa
rrel
l-G
arne
t lin
e.
unkn
own
reso
urce
s)
than
ov
erhe
ad
Farr
ell-
Gar
net l
ine.
unkn
own
reso
urce
s)
than
ov
erhe
ad
Mira
ge-
Sant
a R
osa
line.
unkn
own
reso
urce
s)
equi
vale
nt to
ov
erhe
ad
Gar
nett-
Farr
ell l
ine.
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-58
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-59
Com
men
t Let
ter O
2
3-60
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
CHAPTER 4 Responses to Comments
Letter O1, Native American Heritage Commission Response O1-1 The NAHC comment letter notes that Native American Cultural resources
were identified within one-half mile of the Proposed Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE), and the NAHC recommends early consultation with identified Native American tribes as the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. The NAHC further recommends that a Native American Monitor or Native American culturally knowledgeable person be employed whenever a professional archaeologist is needed. The NAHC letter does not state a specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
Potential interested parties recommended by the NAHC were contacted via letter. The Draft EIR (Section 4.5, Cultural Resources) notes that prior contact has been made to the NAHC and that the NAHC provided a list of Native American contacts that may have knowledge of resources in the study area. Potential interested parties recommended by the NAHC were contacted via letter. The Draft EIR also acknowledges that Native American Cultural resources are known to be present within one-half mile of the Proposed Project’s APE, and identified five previously recorded resources and five newly recorded resources. The Draft EIR further notes that consultation with the Cahuilla Indian Tribe has been initiated and would be on going throughout the construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Further, Applicant Proposed Measures (APMs) CUL-1 through CUL-6 identify how SCE would consult with the Native American community prior to and during construction. The Draft EIR also requires mitigation measures for avoidance and provisions for accidentally-discovered cultural resources, as well as procedures to be followed in the event of accidental discovery of human remains. No changes or additions to the Draft EIR are necessitated by the NAHC comment letter.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Letter O2, Southern California Edison Company
Global Comments Response O2-a The Applicant expresses their disagreement with several areas of analysis in
the Draft EIR. Each of the material areas of disagreement are addressed in the specific comments that follow.
Response O2-b The Applicant disagrees with the Draft EIR conclusion that Alternatives 3 and 5 would result in fewer long-term impacts to aesthetics when compared to the Proposed Project. With regard to Alternative 3, the Applicant notes that the new subtransmission line would be built on structures approximately 80- to 98-feet high compared to the existing structures that are approximately 34- to 48-feet high, and asserts that this visual impact would be greater than for the Farrell-Garnet segment of the Proposed Project which would construct the new subtransmission line on structures that are closer in height to the existing structures in that corridor. The Applicant further notes that Alternative 3 would be constructed along Indian Canyon Drive, which is a main entrance into Palm Springs. However, we note that these considerations have to be balanced against the fact that Alternative 3 would have 2.9 miles less overhead line (i.e., approximately half) than would the Proposed Project for the Farrell-Garnet segment. Nonetheless, we agree with the Applicant that the visual sensitivity along Indian Canyon Drive should be afforded greater weight in this analysis, and thus the visual impact of Alternative 3 should be considered slightly greater than that of the Proposed Project for the Farrell-Garnet segment. Accordingly, the first bullet on page 5-9 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
• Aesthetics - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Alternative 7 would involve the most amount of overhead line in the Farrell-Garnet study area, including the most overhead line in residential areas and a crossing of I-10. Alternative 3 would involve the least amount of overhead line with no I-10 crossings, but would result in nearly doubling the height and base diameter of structures along Indian Canyon Road which is a major entryway to the City of Palm Springs. Alternative 2 is considered the most favorable for aesthetics because the overhead portion of that line would be in an area with low visual sensitivity. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: Alternative 3, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 6, Alternative 7, and Alternative 73. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, Alternative 5 would result in only a short span of overhead line across I-10 and the UPRR, compared to
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-3 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would include approximately 1.5 miles of overhead line. Therefore, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
With regard to Alternative 5, the Applicant notes that this alternative would result in two 95-foot riser poles – one inside the Mirage Substation and one at the intersection of Varner Road and Vista De Oro. The Applicant claims that these two riser poles would have greater visual impact than would the Mirage-Santa Rosa segment of the Proposed Project which would involve the removal of 29 structures and the installation of 55 structures, seven of which would be bolted-based TSPs between 70 and 100 feet above ground, depending on their specific location. We disagree with the Applicant’s assertion that the two riser poles associated with Alternative 5 would have greater impacts to aesthetics than would the proposed Project for the Mirage-Santa Rosa segment. As a result, no changes are being made to the Draft EIR analysis or conclusions for aesthetics for the Mirage-Santa Rosa segment.
Response O2-c The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to biological resources. In order for a more robust ranking of alternatives with respect to biological resources, the CPUC has decided to include more weight to the integrity of the habitat along the proposed and alternative alignments, in combination with the amount of permanent impacts that would result (i.e., the amount of overhead line that would occur under each alignment). Therefore, the second bullet on Draft EIR page 5-9 is revised as follows. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
• Biological Resources - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. The Proposed Project alignments contain more suitable habitat for special status species than do the alternative alignments. Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 37 would result in the least most amount of overhead line and associated long-term impacts; however, Alternative 7 would be constructed in the least suitable habitat for special status species, making it the most favorable alternative, followed by Alternative 6, Alternative 3, Alternative 2, and the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, and Alternative 7. Compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in approximately 1.5 miles of new overhead line in more suitable habitat for special status species, Alternative 5 would result in only a short segment of overhead line associated with the I-10 and UPRR crossings and it would be in less suitable habitat for special status species.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-4 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-d The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to cultural resources. The CPUC has decided to include more weight to potential impacts associated with discovery of previously unknown archeological and paleontological resources for the ranking of alternatives. Therefore, the following revisions have been made to the cultural resources environmentally superior alternative discussion on Draft EIR page 5-9. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document. For other revisions that have been made to Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, refer to Responses 52 to 60.
• Cultural Resources - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Alternative 6 and Alternative 7 would have no impact on the Garnet Hill cultural resource compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. It should be noted that Alternative 2 is the only alignment that would include direct impacts to Garnet Hill. Between Alternatives 6 and 7, Alternative 6 Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would include a higher potential for an undiscovered find compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line and Alternative 7 due to the one-mile underground line construction work that would be associated with Alternative 6 those alternatives. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, and Alternative 2. Compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 would avoid CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430. However, Alternative 5 would result in substantially more subsurface disturbance associated with trenching for the underground line compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in more severe of an impact related to undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources. Therefore, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than Alternative 5.
Response O2-e For revised text related to the rankings of alternatives with regard to aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources, refer to Responses O2-b through O2-d, above.
Response O2-f The CPUC agrees with the Applicant that the amount and duration of air emissions should be considered in ranking the alternatives within the air quality resource area even though the impact would be Class I for each. Therefore, the following revisions have been made to the first two paragraphs of the discussion of the environmentally superior alternatives on Draft EIR page 5-3.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-5 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
As discussed in the previous section, the Proposed Project and all five alternatives would have significant unmitigable impacts on air quality during construction. The extent of the unmitigable impacts on air quality varies slightly by alternative but could not be mitigated to less than significant levels for the Proposed Project or any alternative. Consequently, the selection of an environmentally superior alternative is based on differences in intensity of air quality impacts and type of as well as the differences in intensity of the other environmental issue area impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation (Table 5-2). Based on these differences the identified environmentally superior alternative is the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnett study area is Alternative 3 and the identified environmentally superior alternative for and the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area is Alternative 5.
All five alternatives studied in this EIR were variations of alignments that would use existing ROW. The alternatives studied would substitute one component of the Proposed Project (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3, 6, or 7 would be used in lieu of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line and Alternative 5 would be used in lieu of the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line). For a number of resources, there are no material environmental impact differences between the Proposed Project and alternatives including: agricultural resources; air quality; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, planning, and policies; mineral resources, noise; population and housing; public services; and recreation; and utilities and service systems.
In addition, the following revisions have been made to the first paragraphs of Draft EIR page 5-9. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
Implementation of the Proposed Project or any of the five alternatives would result in a significant unmitigable (Class I) impact on air quality during construction. Although impacts to air quality would be of varying degree (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities), the impacts would be short term and temporary in nature; therefore, impacts of varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.
Resource categories where environmental impacts would either be materially lessened or increased by implementing an alternative to the Proposed Project are discussed below.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-6 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
• Air Quality - Implementation of the Proposed Project or any of the five alternatives would result in a significant unavoidable (Class I) short-term impact on air quality during construction. The short-term impacts to air quality would be of varying degree (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line). Based on these varying degrees of impact, the ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, and Alternative 2. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than Alternative 5.
Response O2-g The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to noise. The CPUC has decided to include more weight to potential impacts associated with the duration of construction activity noise that would occur in the vicinity of sensitive receptors. Therefore, the following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph on Draft EIR page 5-10. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
• Noise - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least duration of construction work in the vicinity of sensitive receptors (i.e., residences). Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 3 would result in the highest duration of construction activity in the vicinity of sensitive receptors due to the longest length of underground line work that would occur near residences, followed by Alternative 2 and Alternative 6. Alternative 7 would not include underground line work, but would affect more sensitive receptors than the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. Compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 would result in a longer duration of construction activity in the vicinity of more sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.
Response O2-h The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to public services. The CPUC has decided to include more weight to potential impacts associated with emergency
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-7 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
response times. Therefore, the following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph on Draft EIR page 5-10. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
• Public Services - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least potential for construction activities to affect vehicle access and fire department response times because the alternatives with underground components would require lengthier lane closures that could more severely affect emergency response times, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative and more lane closures associated with overhead road crossings compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.
Response O2-i The Applicant expresses support for the Draft EIR conclusion that the Proposed Project lines would be more favorable than the alternatives with regard to short-term impacts associated with traffic and transportation. No revisions to the Draft EIR are requested.
Response O2-j The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to utilities and service systems. The CPUC has decided to include more weight to potential impacts associated with disturbing utilities during construction activities. Therefore, the following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph on Draft EIR page 5-10. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
• Utilities and Service Systems - Impacts would be less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least potential for construction activities to disturb utilities because the alternatives with underground components would have a higher potential to disturb underground utilities, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative and the greater potential for the additional pole excavations to disturb underground utilities compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7,
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-8 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Alternative 6, Alternative 3, and Alternative 2. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.
Response O2-k The Applicant states that construction of Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost approximately five times more than would construction of the project as proposed, and that such a substantial increase in cost would not result in any material environmental benefits. Construction cost is not a factor that is considered in CEQA when determining the environmentally superior alternative. The CPUC may consider cost and other factors when making a decision on the project, and, if warranted and justified, may approve an alternative that is not the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Response O2-l The Applicant summarizes the points raised in the preceding comments O2-b through O2-k, and concludes by saying that the Proposed Project should be identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As discussed in Responses O2-b through O2-j, above, the Applicant has clarified various aspects of the Proposed Project and the alternatives which resulted in minor shifts in how the impacts in several resource areas were considered, or in the weight that certain resource areas should be afforded in the overall determination of the Environmentally Superior Alternative. It should be emphasized that these clarifications and refinements are insignificant modifications under CEQA in that they do not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified environmental impact. Rather, the clarifications and refinements result in changes to the ranking of alternatives for resource areas in which only less than significant (or less than significant with mitigation) impacts have been identified.
As described on page 5-2 of the Draft EIR, there would be significant unavoidable (Class I) impacts, although temporary, in air quality for the Proposed Project and all alternatives arising from construction emissions. As discussed above in Response O2-f, above, we agree that the amount and duration of air emissions should be considered in ranking the alternatives with the air quality resource area even though the impact would be Class I for each.
Also as noted on page 5-2 of the Draft EIR, the only other differentiating impacts are within resource areas for which only less than significant (or less than significant with mitigation) impacts have been identified. It therefore is reasonable to give greater weight to the alternative ranking within air quality (which has the only significant impact) and lesser weight to the alternative ranking within the other resource areas.
To implement this refinement in ranking the alternatives, we assigned a weighting factor to each resource area for which at least some differentiation between alternatives was discernable. Air quality was assigned the highest
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-9 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
weighting because it had the only significant impact. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be long term, though admittedly less than significant, were assigned the next highest weighting. Aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources fall into that category. Next, resources areas wherein the impacts would be short term but most noticeable to many people (i.e., noise, and transportation and traffic) were assigned the third highest weighting. And finally, resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but generally not noticeable to many people (i.e., hazards/hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems) were assigned the lowest weighting. No weighting was assigned to resources areas for which no discernable distinction could be made from the Draft EIR analysis (i.e., agriculture resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation).
Within each weighted resource area, the alternatives (including the Proposed Project) were ranked from most favorable to least favorable based on the Draft EIR analysis and considering any refinements discussed above in Responses O2-b through O2-j. For the Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission Line, for which Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 apply, the most favorable alternative was assigned a rank of 1 and the least favorable alternative was assigned a rank of 5. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission Line, for which only Alternative 5 applies, the most favorable alternative was assigned a rank of 1 and the least favorable alternative was assigned a rank of 2. The resource weighting and alternatives rankings were compiled in a matrix and a total weighted score was calculated for each alternative by multiplying its ranking within a resource area times the weighting of the resource area, then summing up the total for all the resource areas. In this way, the alternative with the best (lowest) overall total score is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The ranking matrices are shown below.
Alternatives Ranking Matrix for the Farrell-Garnet Line
/-------------------------- Alternatives Rankings ---------------------------/
Resource Area ResourceWeighting
Proposed Project Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 6 Alt. 7
Air Quality 10 1 5 4 3 2
Aesthetics 7 2 1 5 3 4
Biological Resources 7 5 4 3 2 1
Cultural Resources 7 1 5 4 3 2
Noise 5 1 4 5 3 2
Transportation and Traffic 5 1 4 5 3 2
Hazards/Hazardous Materials 1 1 5 4 3 2
Public Services 1 1 4 5 3 2
Utilities and Service Systems 1 1 5 4 3 2
Weighted Ranking 79 174 187 125 95
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-10 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Alternatives Ranking Matrix for the Mirage-Santa Rosa Line
/- Alternatives Rankings -/
Resource Area ResourceWeighting
Proposed Project Alt. 5
Air Quality 10 1 2
Aesthetics 7 2 1
Biological Resources 7 2 1
Cultural Resources 7 1 2
Noise 5 1 2
Transportation and Traffic 5 1 2
Hazards/Hazardous Materials 1 1 2
Public Services 1 1 2
Utilities and Service Systems 1 1 2
Weighted Ranking 58 74
Based on the clarifications and refinements described above, the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission Line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission Line. Accordingly, the last paragraph under Section 5.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative, on Draft EIR page 5-10, has been replaced with the following paragraphs.
While the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least amount of transportation and traffic impacts compared to the alternatives, these impacts would be primarily short-term and would conclude at the end of construction period. Because the Alternative 5 subtransmission line would result in less long-term aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. With regard to the Farrell-Garnet study area, Alternative 3 would result in the least amount of long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line and Alternatives 2, 6, and 7; however, Alternative 7 would result in the least amount of impacts to cultural resources compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line and Alternatives 2, 3, and 6. After considering all impacts, and the long length of Alternative 7, Alternative 3 is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
For the ranking of alternatives to support the identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for each geographical study area, a weighting factor was assigned to each resource area for which at least some differentiation between alternatives was discernable. Air
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-11 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
quality was assigned the highest weighting because it had the only significant and unavoidable impact. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be long term, though admittedly less than significant, were assigned the next highest weighting. Aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources fall into that category. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but most noticeable to many people (i.e., noise, and transportation and traffic) were assigned the third highest weighting. And finally, resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but generally not noticeable to many people (i.e., hazards/hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems) were assigned the lowest weighting. No weighting was assigned to resources areas for which no discernable distinction could be made from the Draft EIR analysis (i.e., agriculture resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation).
The Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least severe air quality, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems impacts compared to the alternatives, and in the Farrell-Garnet study area the Proposed Project would result in the second least severe impacts related to aesthetics. However, the Proposed Project would result in the most severe impacts related to biological resources in both study areas and would result in the most severe impacts related to aesthetics in the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. Because the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in less severe significant and unavoidable air quality construction impacts than the alternatives, with the exception of biological resources and aesthetics, and would result in less severe impacts compared to the alternatives for all of the other resource areas where a preference is identified, the Proposed Project subtransmission lines (i.e., the proposed Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission lines) are selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for both the Farrell-Garnett and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
In addition, the text under Section 5.4.2, Summary of the Environmentally Superior Alternative and its Impacts, beginning on Draft EIR page 5-10, has been revised as follows:
The Environmentally Superior Alternatives are defined in Section 5.3 as Alternative 3 the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnet study area and Alternative 5 for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. The impacts of Alternatives 3 and 5 the Proposed Project are defined in
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-12 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
each resource area’s impact analysis in Sections 4.1 through 4.16, and are also summarized in Table 5-2, above. The Environmentally Superior Alternatives would each have the same short-term construction related significant and unmitigable (Class I) impacts on air quality. As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.16, other types of impacts would also occur under the Proposed Project, but they would be either less than significant or mitigable to less than significant levels.
Also, the text under Section 5.4.3, Conclusion: Comparison of the Environmentally Superior Alternative with the No Project Alternative, beginning on page 5-11, is revised as follows:
The Environmentally Superior Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5) as defined above would reduce long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts and would have minimal long-term impacts on residences or other sensitive land uses. Under the No Project Alternative scenario, SCE may be required to construct new subtransmission and transmission lines and/or additional power generation in or near the study area to supply power to the Electrical Needs Area. It would be overly speculative for this EIR to assume where the new subtransmission and transmission facilities and/or power generation facilities would be sited; however, it is reasonable to assume that at a minimum, environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative scenario would not be less than those from the Environmentally Superior Alternatives. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives are preferred over the No Project Alternative.
The third paragraph on page ES-1 has been revised as follows:
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and considers the potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Project and identifies and evaluates a range of alternatives. Based on this evaluation and the documentation which follows, this Draft EIR identifies Alternative 5 the Proposed Project as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for both the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area and Alternative 3 as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
The text under Section ES.4.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative, beginning on page ES-20, is revised as follows:
Table ES-3 summarizes the environmental impact conclusions of the Proposed Project and alternatives. Implementation of the Proposed
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-13 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Project and all five alternatives would result in significant and unmitigable (Class I) impacts on air quality during construction., Aalthough impacts to air quality would be of varying degrees (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities), the impacts would be short term and temporary in nature; therefore, impacts of slightly varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.
However, impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, and traffic and transportation, while all mitigable to less than significant, do vary enough to determine a preferred alternative from the perspective of these issue areas. Consequently, the selection of an Environmentally Superior Alternative is based on differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation. Based on these differences the identified Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnett study area is Alternative 3 and the identified Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area is Alternative 5.
To determine the Environmentally Superior Alternative, resource weighting factors were assigned and a ranking matrix was used to calculate a weighted score for the Proposed Project and each alternative. The Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least severe air quality, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems impacts compared to the alternatives, and in the Farrell-Garnet study area the Proposed Project would result in the second least severe impacts related to aesthetics. However, the Proposed Project would result in the most severe impacts related to biological resources in both study areas and would result in the most severe impacts related to aesthetics in the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. Because the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in less severe significant and unavoidable air quality construction impacts than the alternatives, with the exception of biological resources and aesthetics, and would result in less severe impacts compared to the alternatives for all of the other resource areas where a preference is identified, the Proposed Project subtransmission lines (i.e., the proposed Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission lines) are selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for both the Farrell-Garnett and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-14 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
The text under Section ES.4.4, Environmentally Superior Alternative vs. No Project Alternative, beginning on page ES-21, is revised as follows:
The Environmentally Superior Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5) as defined above would reduce long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts and would have minimal long-term impacts on residences or other sensitive land uses. Under the No Project Alternative scenario, SCE may be required to construct new subtransmission and transmission lines and/or additional power generation in or near the study area to supply power to the Electrical Needs Area. It would be overly speculative for this EIR to assume where the new subtransmission and transmission facilities and/or power generation facilities would be sited; however, it is reasonable to assume that at a minimum, environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative scenario would not be less than those from the Environmentally Superior Alternatives. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives are preferred over the No Project Alternative.
Tables 5-2 and ES-4 have been revised accordingly and are included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
Specific Comments Response O2-1 The Applicant correctly notes that General Order (GO) 131-D states that
local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Applicant requests that the GO 131-D preemption language be inserted in all Draft EIR resource sections that include discussion of local plans, policies, and ordinances.
It is unnecessary to place the same insert in each resource section; rather, a single insert has been made in Section 4.0, Introduction to Environmental Analysis, at the bottom of Page 4-2, as follows:
With regard to the discussion of local plans, policies, and ordinances in each of the resource sections 4.1 through 4.16, CPUC General Order 131-D clarifies that local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. However, in locating such projects, the public utilities shall consult with local agencies regarding land use matters. In instances where the public utilities and local agencies are unable to resolve their differences, the Commission shall
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-15 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
set a hearing no later than 30 days after the utility or local agency has notified the Commission of the inability to reach agreement on land use matters.
Response O2-2 In response to the clarification provided by the Applicant, the first sentence in the Executive Summary under ES.1.1 on page ES-1 has been clarified as follows:
The Proposed Project consists of a number of distinct project components that together make up the entire Proposed Project, including two new 115 kV subtransmission lines, three seven 115 kV subtransmission line reconfigurations, a 220 kV transmission line loop-in, substation modifications, . . .
Response O2-3 Figures ES-1 and ES-2 have been revised to show that Alternative 3 would continue into Farrell Substation. The revised figures are included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
Response O2-4 The second bullet under Mirage Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows:
• Install five new 220 kV circuit breakers and five three new 115 kV circuit breakers
Response O2-5 The first bullet under Santa Rosa Substation in Table ES-1 has been replaced with two bullets for clarity:
• Connect the Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line and the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line
• Convert the existing Santa Rosa-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line to the new Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line
• Convert the existing Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line to the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115kV subtransmission line
Response O2-6 The first bullet under Thornhill Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows:
• Install the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115 kV subtransmission line Convert the existing Thornhill-Tamarisk 115kV subtransmission line to the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115kV subtransmission line
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-16 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-7 The fifth bullet under Mirage Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows:
• Install the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line and relocate the existing Mirage-Concho and Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission lines
Response O2-8 The Applicant has requested that Table ES-4 in the Executive summary be revised to reflect the Applicant’s assessment of potential impacts to paleontological, cultural, and archaeological resources due to undergrounding. It is noted that a number of minor refinements to the Proposed Project and Alternatives (identified in Comments O2-10 through O2-32, below) have resulted in the need to update Table ES-4 for several resource areas. The revised table is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
Response O2-9 The text on page 1-2 in Section 1.2, Project Objectives, Purpose and Need, has been clarified as follows:
Splitting the existing 115 kV system is necessary to relieve thermal overload conditions on the existing Mirage-Concho leg of the Devers-Capwind-Concho-Mirage 115 kV subtransmission line and the Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission lines.
Response O2-10 The first bullet on page 2-13 has been clarified as follows:
• Split the existing Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive by removing the span of wire that connects the southwest and northeast corner poles and transfer it to the southeast corner pole (see Figure 2-5, Existing and Proposed 115 kV Line Configurations at Bob Hope and Dinah Shore Drives).
Response O2-11 The second bullet on page 2-13 has been clarified as follows:
• Split the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk at the same intersection by dead-ending and grounding the Santa Rosa leg at the northwest southeast corner pole. The portion of the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk line between Bob Hope Drive east to Portola Avenue would become idle.
Response O2-12 The third bullet on page 2-13 has been clarified as follows:
• Connect the open Tamarisk leg of the existing Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line to the open Garnet leg of the existing Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line at the northwest southeast corner pole of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-17 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-13 The Applicant has provided an updated drawing depicting the changed conductor configuration at Bob Hope and Dinah Shore Drives (Figure 2-5 in the Draft EIR). The updated drawing is provided as Attachment 2 to Comment Letter O2. No substantive changes to the environmental analysis are made necessary by this minor change.
Response O2-14 The first bullet on page 2-18 has been clarified as follows:
• Install a span of conductor between the existing north segment of the Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line and the existing west segment of the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line at the northwest southeast corner of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.
Response O2-15 The Applicant has provided an updated drawing depicting the changed TSP profile at Bob Hope Drive (Figure 2-8 in the Draft EIR). The updated drawing is provided as Attachment 3 to Comment Letter O2. No substantive changes to the environmental analysis are made necessary by this minor change.
Response O2-16 The third full paragraph on page 2-22 has been clarified as follows:
The TSPs would be installed on top of cylindrical concrete footings approximately six to eight feet in diameter and approximately 20 to 25 at least 22 feet deep. After holes for the footings have been bored, a steel rebar cage would be inserted into the hole, and then concrete would be poured into the hole to a level up to two feet above the ground surface. After the concrete has cured, the TSP would be bolted onto the footing. Excess bore spoils would be distributed at each pole site, used as backfill to fill holes left after removal of nearby wood poles, or removed from the pole sites.
Response O2-17 The fourth paragraph on page 2-22 has been clarified as follows:
Both LWS poles and TSPs consist of separate base and top sections for ease of construction. Steel pole installation would begin by transporting the poles from the staging area and laying the individual sections on the ground at each new pole location. While on the ground, the top section would be pre-configured with the necessary insulators and wire-stringing hardware. A line truck with a boom on it for LWS poles, or a crane for TSPs would be used to position each pole base section into previously augured holes for the LWS poles or on top of previously prepared foundations for the TSPs. When the base section is secured, the top section would be placed above the base section. The two sections may be spot-welded together for additional stability.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-18 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
While on the ground, the top and bottom sections of the LWS poles would be pulled together and preconfigured with the necessary insulators and wire stringing hardware. For LWS poles, a line truck with a boom on it would be used to position each pole into previously augured holes.
The TSPs would require a crane to set the pole bases on top of previously installed concrete foundations. Once secured, the top, and if necessary middle, sections of the TSP would then be set on the base of the TSP. For both structures, all sections may be spot welded together for added stability.
Response O2-18 The first paragraph under Conductor Pulling on page 2-23 has been clarified as follows:
Conductors would be installed on 115 kV polymer insulator assemblies attached to each crossarm in a horizontal configuration or suspension assemblies consisting of single polymer insulators attached to each crossarm in a vertical configuration. Overhead ground wires would be installed on the top of the steel poles. Conductors would be attached to 115 kV polymer post style insulators, that would be attached to each pole head for LWS poles, and suspended, or dead ended, to steel crossarms mounted on TSPs. Depending on location, the insulator configurations may be mounted vertically, or in a triangular pattern. With the exception of certain locations near substations, the overhead ground wire would be installed in accordance with G.O. 95 Table II. Distribution lines transferred to the new steel poles would typically be installed on standard wood crossarms with polymer insulators.
Response O2-19 The second paragraph under Conductor Pulling on page 2-23 has been clarified as follows:
Conductor pulling includes all activities associated with the installation of conductors onto the LWS and wood poles and TSPs. These activities include installing three 115 kV 954 SAC conductors, one 221 kcmil ACSR ground conductor, ground wire, vibration dampeners, weights, and post, suspension, and or dead-end hardware assemblies for the entire length of the proposed subtransmission lines.
Response O2-20 The first paragraph on page 2-41 has been clarified as follows:
Devers Substation is a staffed, 500/220/115 kV substation located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County, north of the City of Palm Springs. The proposed improvements at Devers Substation include the conversion of Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line to Devers-
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-19 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Mirage No. 1 220 kV transmission line, reconfiguration of the Coachella Valley-Devers 220 kV transmission line to the Devers-Mirage No. 2 220 kV transmission line, relay upgrades, replacement of two 115 kV circuit breakers in existing Position No. 7 for the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115 kV subtransmission line and replacement of two 115 kV circuit breakers in existing Position No. 4 for the new Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line. Improvements at the substation would also include installation of new line-protection relays.
Response O2-21 The first bullet on page 2-41 has been clarified as follows:
• Four 115 kV, 1,200 Amp, 40 kiloannum Amperes (kA) duty, circuit breakers
Response O2-22 The first paragraph under Engineering Plan on page 2-42 has been clarified as follows:
Mirage Substation is an unstaffed, 220/115 kV substation located in unincorporated Riverside County in the general vicinity of the community of Thousand Palms. The proposed improvements at Mirage Substation include the installation of one 280 MVA, 220/115 kV transformer bank, one new 220 kV bank position, one new 115 kV bank position, and one new 220 kV breaker-and-a-half configuration position for two new 220 kV line positions, and the relocation of the existing Mirage-Ramon 220 kV transmission line, the existing Julian Hinds-Mirage 220 kV transmission line, and the existing Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line. Other work at the substation would include looping of the Devers-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line into the Mirage 220 kV switchrack, installation of the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, relocation of existing Mirage-Concho 115 kV subtransmission line, renaming the existing Mirage-Capwind- Devers 115 kV subtransmission line to Mirage-Capwind-Tamarisk-Devers 115 kV subtransmission line, renaming the Mirage-Concho 115 kV subtransmission line to Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line, and installation of new line protection relays.
Response O2-23 This text clarification has been included in Response O2-22, above.
Response O2-24 The bullets under Major Equipment on page 2-42 have been clarified as follows:
Major Equipment • One 280 MVA 220/115 kV transformer bank; • Five 220 kV, 3,000 amp, 50 kA duty, circuit breakers;
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-20 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
• Ten 220 kV, 3,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Fifteen Eighteen 220 kV station post insulators; • Six 220 kV metering potential transformers Three 220 kV
coupling capacitor voltage transformers; • Three 220 kV metering units; • Two 115 kV, 3,000 amp, 40 kA duty circuit breakers; • Three One 115 kV, 2,000 amp, 40 kA duty circuit breakers; • Four 115 kV, 3,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Six Two 115 kV, 2,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect
switches; • Nine Six 115 kV potential transformers; and • Twenty-seven Twelve 115 kV post insulators.
Response O2-25 The bullets under Switchrack Configurations on page 2-42 to 2-43 have been clarified as follows:
Switchrack Configurations • One new 220 kV transformer bank position No. 6S designed
with a double-breaker configuration; • One new 220 kV line position No. 5 designed with a breaker-
and-a-half configuration for relocation of the existing Julian Hinds-Mirage 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 5N) and relocation of the existing Mirage-Ramon 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 5S);
• Renaming the Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line to Devers-Mirage No. 1 transmission line;
• Existing 220 kV transmission line Position No. 3 would be upgraded and remain a breaker-and-a-half configuration for the installation of the new Devers-Mirage No. 2 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 3N) and the installation of the new Mirage-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 3S);
• Existing Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line would be relocated to line position 1N to create the Devers-Capwind-Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line;
• Vacated existing line position No. 1S would be for the new Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line;
• One new 115 kV transformer bank position (No. 6N) designed with a double-breaker configuration;
• One new 115 kV line position (No. 7N) designed with a double-breaker configuration; and
• Convert existing 115 kV line position (No. 4) from a double-breaker configuration to a breaker-and-a-half configuration for relocated Concho 115 kV line Position (No. 4S) and new Santa Rosa 115 kV line Position (No. 4N); and
• Install one 220/115 kV transformer bank.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-21 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-26 This text clarification has been included in Response O2-25, above.
Response O2-27 This text clarification has been included in Response O2-25, above.
Response O2-28 The first paragraph under Construction Plan on page 2-59 has been clarified as follows:
The existing fiber optic cables would be transferred from existing poles to the new 115 kV subtransmission poles that would be installed within existing ROWs or franchise locations. The All-Dielectric Self-Supporting (ADSS) fiber optic cables would be attached to a support block beneath the end of each 10-foot wood cross-arm on each new pole as shown in Figure 2-3. Telecommunications equipment installation would occur within existing SCE substation buildings and at the Edom Hill Communications Site. IID equipment and circuit installation would occur at is expected to be in the IID’s mechanical-electrical equipment room (MEER).
Response O2-29 The typographical error in Table 2-7 on page 2-60 has been corrected as follows:
Indian Wells, Equipment/Circuit Installation Equipment Installation
3 35 5 2 – Pick-Up (Gasoline)
Response O2-30 The last sentence in the second paragraph under Electric and Magnetic Fields
on page 2-62 has been corrected as follows:
Additional information on electric and magnetic fields generated by transmission lines is presented in Appendix D B.
Response O2-31 The third paragraph under Electric and Magnetic Fields on page 2-62 has been corrected as follows:
After several decades of study regarding potential public health risks from exposure to power line EMF, research results remains inconclusive. Several national and international panels have conducted reviews of data from multiple studies and state that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that EMF causes cancer. Most recently the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) both classified EMF as a possible carcinogen.
Response O2-32 The Applicant has made an engineering refinement to Alternative 2 to be in compliance with FAA regulations. Accordingly, the text in the first
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-22 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
paragraph, third sentence on page 3-13 (Section 3.4.2, Alternative 2) has been revised as follows:
At Sunrise Way, the line would turn north, and proceed along Sunrise Way to approximately 1,265 feet north of Four Seasons Boulevard, where the underground segment would end and the subtransmission line would transition to overhead at a riser pole . . .
Response O2-33 The second sentence of Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 has been revised as follows to provide a more reasonable lead time for submission of the Construction Lighting Mitigation Plan. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
SCE shall submit a Construction Lighting Mitigation Plan to the CPUC for review and approval at least 90 30 days prior to the start of nighttime construction or the ordering of any exterior lighting fixtures or components, whichever comes first.
Response O2-34 Mitigation Measure 4.1-8 has been revised as follows to allow for the possibility that some equipment may not be commercially available in non-specular finish. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Mitigation Measure 4.1-8: A non-reflective or weathered finish shall be applied to all All new structures and equipment installed at the Devers, Mirage, Concho, Indian Wells, Santa Rosa, Eisenhower, Farrell, Garnet, Thornhill, and Tamarisk Substations shall have non-specular (reduced glare) surface finishes, except for structures or equipment for which such finishes are not commercially available to reduce potential glare effects.
Response O2-35 A description of Indian Canyon Drive has been added to the Local Major Roadways discussion at the bottom of page 4.1-3 of Section 4.1, Aesthetics, as follows:
Indian Canyon Drive. Indian Canyon Drive is an existing north-south roadway into Palm Springs with access from/to the I-10. Views from this roadway include open space and the San Jacinto Mountains.
Response O2-36 The following discussion of potential impacts to recreational users of Desert Highland Park that would occur under Alternative 3 has been added after the first whole paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.1-50:
Recreational viewers potentially affected by the Alternative 3 subtransmission line would include those associated with Desert
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-23 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Highland Park, located approximately 0.3 mile west of where the Alternative 3 subtransmission line would be located along Indian Canyon Drive and approximately 0.6 mile northwest of the where the Alternative 3 riser pole would be located. Views of the subtransmission line and riser pole would be achieved from certain locations at the east side of the park and would range from partially to fully screened, dependent on the presence of the recreational facilities and vegetation at the park. Therefore, visual sensitivity would be low, overall visual change would be low, and impacts would be less than significant requiring no mitigation (Class III). Visual impacts to recreational viewers that would be associated with Alterative 3 at the Desert Highland Park would be approximately the same as those that would be associated with the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line at Palm Springs Country Club Golf Course.
Response O2-37 Figure 4.1-1 in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, has been updated and clarified. The updated figure is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.
Response O2-38 The Applicant asserts that the SCAQMD methodology should be followed for determining the significance of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions, and doing so would eliminate the need for Mitigation Measure 4.3-6. However, as the lead agency under CEQA, the CPUC has the authority to establish its own significance criteria and assessment methodology to ensure that the cumulative impacts of a project’s GHG emissions are reduced to a less than significant level. Page 4.3-35 of Section 4.3, Air Quality, clearly lays out the three considerations the CPUC has taken to evaluate the GHG emissions from this project. The third consideration in that list is “The project’s potential to conflict with GHG reduction goals set forth in AB32.” The Draft EIR analysis for this consideration is clearly stated at the bottom of page 4.3-37: “While the annualized GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project would be substantially less than CARB’s preliminary draft threshold amount of 7,000 metric tons CO2e, significance for this project is also based on whether the Proposed Project would be consistent with the State’s GHG reduction goal under AB 32, which would require a minimum reduction of 30 percent of GHG emissions by 2020 compared to business as usual conditions.” The analysis concludes that Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 is necessary to ensure that the Proposed Project is consistent with the GHG reduction goals set forth in AB32. Because the Draft EIR clearly laid out the evaluation criteria, and it followed a documented methodology for assessing the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions against those criteria, no changes will be made in the Draft EIR approach for determining GHG significance and Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 will remain.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-24 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
However, it should be noted that Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 allows the Applicant to submit to the CPUC a finalized calculation of net GHG emission increases and a determination of the amount to be offset. This provides the Applicant with the opportunity to refine not only the GHG emission calculations in the Draft EIR to account for final engineering design and construction plans, but also to refine the calculations for the net increase over business as usual.
Response O2-39 The Applicant’s requested change to Table 4.4-1 regarding the proposed critical habitat for the Casey’s June beetle being more than five miles away from the project area is unnecessary. The table already concludes a Low Potential for the beetle because there have been no recent records for that species in the project vicinity.
Response O2-40 The Applicant requests that Table 4.4-1 be revised to reflect that the flat-tailed horned lizard has recently been changed to a Federal Candidate Endangered Species. This is not correct. According to the most recent (January 2010) update of the State and Federally Listed Endangered & Threatened Animals of California, published by the State of California Department of Fish and Game, the flat-tailed horned lizard has no Federal listing or candidate status. This species had previously been listed as a Federally Proposed Threatened species by the USFWS, but the USFWS determined that the proposed listing was not warranted and the proposed rule was withdrawn on June 28, 2006. Therefore, no changes to Table 4.4-1 are required for this species.
Response O2-41 Please see Response O2-40, above. No changes to the text are required.
Response O2-42 Please see Response O2-40, above. No changes to the text are required.
Response O2-43 The last sentence in the 2nd paragraph of Impact 4.4-1 on page 4.4-47 of the Draft EIR is clarified as follows.
Although this location is predominantly composed of ruderal species, and no CV milkvetch was observed during the spring and summer 2009 surveys, there is still potential for this species to occur.
The last sentence in the 3rd paragraph of Impact 4.4-1 on page 4.4-47 of the Draft EIR is clarified as follows.
Although both of these locations are currently predominantly composed of ruderal species, and no CV milkvetch was observed during the spring and summer 2009 surveys, there is still potential for the CV milkvetch to occur.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-25 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-44 In response to this comment, the second paragraph of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 on page 4.4-48 of the Draft EIR has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Temporary and permanent impacts to habitat for the CV milkvetch shall be compensated for through conservation of suitable habitat for this species. The calculated replacement for habitat loss for the CV milkvetch shall be based on a ratio of 3:1 (compensation to impact) per acre for temporary impacts and 9:1 for permanent impacts, for an estimated total of 6 acres. These ratios Ratios reflect the limited habitat and low populations of this species across its range, and the loss of habitat available for this species in the project area, and are consistent with compensation ratios established in the CVMSHCP. Greater or lesser compensation ratios may be substituted as determined though USFWS and CDFG consultation and/or permitting, considering the quality of the habitat being affected. The replacement habitat shall be within the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Total compensation funds shall include the costs of acquisition and long-term management, and shall be paid prior to the start of project operations. This replacement habitat shall mitigate for both direct and indirect impacts of construction and operations/management on this species, as well as the CV fringe-toed lizard (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, below), Palm Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel, CV giant sand-treader cricket, and Le Conte’s thrasher.
Response O2-45 The first sentence of the third bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 on page 4.4-50 is clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
• SCE and/or its construction contractors shall retain and have available, the services of a CPUC authorized qualified biologist who shall perform the duties of the biological monitor.
Response O2-46 In response to this comment, the final bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 on page 4.4-51 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
• Temporary and permanent impacts to CV fringe-toed lizard habitat shall be mitigated through conservation of suitable habitat for this species. The calculated replacement for habitat loss for this species shall be based on a ratio of 3:1 (compensation to impact) per acre for temporary impacts and 9:1 for permanent impacts, for an estimated total of 6 acres. These ratios Ratios reflect the limited habitat and low populations of
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-26 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
this species across its range, and include both the loss of habitat use by the species, and the adverse effect of raptor predation caused by the new raptor perch availability at the new poles, and are consistent with compensation ratios established in the CVMSHCP. Greater or lesser compensation ratios may be substituted as determined though USFWS and CDFG consultation and/or permitting, considering the quality of the habitat being affected. The replacement habitat shall be within the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Total compensation funds shall include the costs of acquisition and long-term management, and shall be paid prior to the start of Proposed Project operations. This replacement habitat shall mitigate for both direct and indirect impacts of construction and operations/management on this species, as well as the Palm Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel, CV giant sand-treader cricket, Le Conte’s thrasher, flat-tailed horned lizard, and CV milkvetch (habitat conserved through this measure may be the same as that conserved through Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 for the CV milkvetch).
Response O2-47 The Applicant requests that a discussion be added to Impact 4.4-8 on page 4.4-56 regarding the role of sand fences as perches for raptors and other avian predators. However, the discussion in Impact 4.4-8 deals with new structures being added as part of the Proposed Project. The presence of sand fences is part of the existing baseline, and the Proposed Project would neither add nor remove any sand fences. So a discussion of the role of sand fences as perches for avian predators would be purely academic and would not affect the analysis or conclusions regarding the new structures that would be added by the Proposed Project.
Response O2-48 The Applicant asserts that the term “wetlands” is incorrect and misleading and requests that the term “wetlands” be changed to “jurisdictional waters.” However, we note that the Applicant used the term “Jurisdictional Wetlands” in its own Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) BIO-3 (see Draft EIR page 4.4-42), so that term was used for consistency in this impact discussion.
Response O2-49 The second sentence of the fifth bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 on page 4.4-51 is clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Each plant that is destroyed due to construction in the ROW along the east and west side of Gene Autry Trail roadway shall be replaced and monitored for at least ten five years, or other period of time approved by the USFWS, . . .
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-27 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-50 In response to this comment, the first bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-10 on page 4.4-58 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
• Purchase or dedication of land to provide wetland preservation, restoration, or creation. If restoration is available and feasible, then a mitigation replacement ratio of at least 2:1 shall be used. If a wetland needs to be created, at least a 3:1 ratio shall be implemented to offset losses. Where practical and feasible, onsite mitigation shall be implemented. Greater or lesser offset ratios may be substituted through consultation and/or permitting with the appropriate wildlife agency (USFWS or CDFG).
Response O2-51 The clarifications to Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2, described above in Response O2-44 and O2-46, respectively, provide the ability to have lower compensation ratios based on habitat quality.
Response O2-52 In order to more clearly state the rational for the list of cultural resources discussed in the Draft EIR, the introduction to the Findings discussion on page 4.5-7 is clarified as follows:
Findings The cultural resources records search revealed the presence of the following five previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE for the proposed and alternative alignments.
Also, the first sentence of the first indented paragraph under Findings on page 4.5-7 is clarified as follows:
Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line alignment and the Alternative 3 alignment, but is within the APE for the Alternative 2 alignment.
Response O2-53 The first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 4.5-8 is clarified as follows:
33-8408 (Varner Road). This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead reconfigured Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV line, and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignments, and Alternative 5, 6 and 7 alignments.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-28 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-54 The first sentence of the last paragraph on page 4.5-8 is clarified as follows:
33-9498/CA-RIV-6381H (Southern Pacific Railroad/Union Pacific Railroad line). This resource was relocated during the 2009 archaeological survey and is within the viewshed of but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV alignment and alternative subtransmission line alignments and was relocated during the 2009 archaeological survey.
Response O2-55 The first sentence of the first indented paragraph on page 4.5-9 is clarified as follows:
33-15429. This resource is known to be located adjacent to and outside of within the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment.
Response O2-56 The first sentence of the second indented paragraph on page 4.5-9 is clarified as follows:
33-15430. This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment.
Response O2-57 The third paragraph under checklist questions a, b) on Draft EIR page 4.5-23 has been replaced with the following paragraphs to be consistent with the changes made above (see Responses O2-52 through O2-56). Note that the paragraphs below are not exactly those suggested by the Applicant due to a few inconsistencies and errors in the Applicant’s suggested revisions. For example, the first sentence of the third paragraph of the suggested revisions indicates that archaeological site 33-15429 would not be impacted by the Proposed Project, which is in direct conflict with the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the suggested revisions. Therefore, the revisions to the Draft EIR include no changes with regard to the potential for impacts at site 33-15429.
Historic resource 33-4808 (Varner Road), Native American cultural resource Hoon wit ten ca va and prehistoric archaeological sites CA-RIV-785, 33-15429, and 33-15430, could be impacted by the Proposed Project. Impacts are described in detail below.
Historic resource 33-4808 (Varner Road) would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. It would be spanned by the proposed overhead reconfigured Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV line and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line,
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-29 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
and no ground-disturbing activity would occur within the roadway. Therefore, there would be no impacts to this resource (No Impact).
Native American cultural resource Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) would not be physically impacted by the Proposed Project. The proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV line would be installed overhead on poles constructed along an existing dirt road north of Garnet Hill, and no ground disturbing activity would occur within the limits of this topographical feature. For the potential indirect impacts to this resource, see the Impact 4.5-2 discussion.
The proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV line would be constructed on overhead poles west of 33-15429 and east of 33-15430, and all access would be from an existing dirt road located immediately west of the poles that currently carry the Mirage-Tamarisk and Mirage-Concho lines, which in this area would be reconfigured using the dirt access road for access. Prehistoric archaeological site 33-15429 would not be directly impacted by the Proposed Project. The resource is located east of the existing subtransmission line and adjacent to and outside of the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment. However, it is not known if there is a subsurface component to this resource, and if so, whether it might extend into the area that is within the Proposed Project’s APE. Prehistoric archaeological site 33-15430 would not be impacted by the Proposed Project.
Prehistoric archaeological site CA-RIV-785 could be impacted by the Proposed Project. A portion of it is located within the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV line.
Response O2-58 The Impact 4.5-1 heading on Draft EIR page 4.5-23 has been revised as follows to indicate that there would be no direct impact associated with the Proposed Project to historic site 33-8408, Varner Road.
Impact 4.5-1: Project construction could adversely affect historic site 33-8408, Varner Road. Less than significant (Class III)
The last sentence of the second paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.5-24 has been revised as follows to indicate that there would no direct impact associated with the Proposed Project to historic site 33-8408, Varner Road.
Impacts There would be no impact to Varner Road at this location would be less than significant.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-30 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Impact 4.5-1 in the Executive Summary Table ES-5 on Draft EIR page ES-24 has been removed to reflect this revision.
Cultural Resources
4.5-1: Impacts to historic site 33-8408, Varner Road
Class III
None required Less than Significant
Response O2-59 Although SCE’s PEA indicates that the Proposed Project would potentially impact site 33-15430 (see PEA page 4.5-11, third paragraph), the CPUC concurs with SCE’s current assessment of site 33-15430 in that it is located outside of the APE for the Proposed Project and would consequently not be impacted by the Proposed Project. Therefore, Draft EIR Impact 4.5-3 and associated mitigation measures have been revised as indicated below to delete discussion of site 33-15430.
The title of Impact 4.5-3, which appears on Draft EIR page 4.5-25 has been renamed as follows.
Impact 4.5-3: Project construction could adversely affect cultural resources CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430. Less than Significant with Mitigation (Class II)
The second paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.5-26 has been revised as follows.
Construction of the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line could also impact sites 33-15429 and 33-15430. These sites This site may be related to site CA-RIV-785 and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion D/4, ability to provide information important to prehistory. Neither site, however However, the site does not appears to be within the direct APE for the proposed alignment. These sites This site should be avoided to ensure that any adverse effects are minimized. Implementation of APM CUL-3 (Construction Monitoring) as well as Mitigation Measures 4.5-3a, 4.5-3b, and 4.5-3c would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures 4.5-3a and 4.5-3b on Draft EIR page 4.5-26 has been revised as follows. The same revisions have been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Mitigation Measure 4.5-3a: Avoid and protect archaeological resources. SCE shall narrow the construction zone to avoid potentially significant archaeological resources CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430 if feasible. The resources shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to ensure avoidance. Protective
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-31 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
fencing or other markers shall be erected around ESAs prior to any ground disturbing activities; however, such ESAs shall not be identified specifically as cultural resources, in order to protect sensitive information and to discourage unauthorized disturbance or collection of artifacts.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-3b: Preparation of treatment plan if avoidance is not feasible. If avoidance of sites CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430 is not feasible, prior to issuing any grading or excavation permits and prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities, a detailed Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) shall be prepared...
Response O2-60 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 2 impact discussion on Draft EIR page 4.5-31 have been revised as follows to reflect direct impacts under Alternative 2 to Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) as well as the higher severity of impacts under Alternative 2 that would be associated with trenching for the underground line.
Similar to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, the Alternative 2 alignment could potentially impact previously recorded resource, Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). However, unlike the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) would be directly impacted by Alternative 2 because the Alternative 2 alignment would be located on the resource. This resource appears significant to the oral histories of the Cahuilla Indian Tribe and may be considered a TCP. Construction of Alternative 2 could result in impacts to Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). Potential impacts to the resource would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of APM CUL-1 and CUL-6 as well as Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, described above for the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line (Class II). This impact would be more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.
As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, impacts associated with Alternative 2 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-32 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 2 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line. With implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.
The potential impacts to human remains that would be associated with Alternative 2 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result during construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.
The following paragraphs under the Alternative 3 impact discussion on Draft EIR page 4.5-32 have been revised to reflect the higher severity of impacts under Alternative 3 that would be associated with trenching for the underground line.
As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line, construction impacts associated with Alternative 3 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b, and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 3 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under construction the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. With implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-33 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with construction of Alternative 3 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result during construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
The following paragraphs under the Alternative 5 impact discussion on Draft EIR page 4.5-33 have been revised as follows to reflect the higher severity of impacts under Alternative 5 that would be associated with trenching for the underground line.
As with the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, impacts associated with construction of Alternative 5 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.
Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with construction of Alternative 5 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line; impacts would be less than significant with implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6 (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.
The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with construction of Alternative 5 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-34 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
The following paragraphs under the Alternative 6 impact discussion on Draft EIR page 4.5-34 have been revised as follows to reflect the higher severity of impacts under Alternative 6 that would be associated with trenching for the underground line.
Portions of the Alternative 6 alignment were not subject to systematic archaeological survey due to lack of access. These segments will be surveyed if this alternative alignment is selected, per Mitigation Measure 4.5-4c. As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, impacts associated with Alternative 6 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b, and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 6 would be similar to those that would result under the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line, with the exception that Alternative 6 would not impact the high-sensitivity Imperial Formation. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6 (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with Alternative 6 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
Response O2-61 The first paragraph on page 4.6-2 of Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, is clarified as follows:
The closest known active faults to the study area are associated with the San Andreas fault system, with the northwesterly trending Banning and Coachella segments of the fault system mapped in the north, just
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-35 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
north of Interstate 10 (I-10). The northwesterly trending Garnet Hill fault is mapped north of Palm Springs, about a half mile south of I-10. The Garnet Hill fault is mapped as a buried fault and is based on a gravity anomaly survey of the Coachella Valley by a major oil company (Proctor, 1968). The Garnet Hill fault is not mapped as offsetting Holocene-age materials (Jennings, 1994) and, therefore, does not display evidence of being active (Hart et al., 1979). Although Further, the California Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey) has not designated it as an active fault, and Holocene surface rupture was not documented along the Garnet Hill fault in the vicinity of the project area (SCEDC, 2010) the Garnet Hill fault can act as a plane of weakness and move in response to an earthquake on another nearby fault. Ground fractures associated with the 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake were reported along the trace of the Garnet Hill fault and indicate that a near-surface response of weak surfaces occurred at depth (City of Cathedral City, 2002). The north-south trending Palm Canyon fault is mapped as trending towards Palm Springs from the south, but the fault is not considered active by State maps (Jennings, 1994).
In addition, the following reference is added to the References section on page 4.6-17:
Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 1986 North Palm Springs Earthquake. http://www.data.scec.org/fault_index/garnet.html. Accessed March 12, 2010.
Response O2-62 The second sentence of the first paragraph under Seismic Activity on Draft EIR page 4.6-3 has been revised as shown below to clarify that fault rupture did not occur along the Banning, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill faults in 1986.
The 1986 quake registered a magnitude of 5.6 and caused minor ground rupturing cracks along the Banning, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill faults, but these cracks were due to shaking, not surface rupture.
Response O2-63 The Applicant requests that four sentences be added to the subsidence discussion presented on Draft EIR page 4.6-4. However, the comment includes no indication of why the sentences should be added, and it is not clear what would be achieved by adding the sentences. In addition, the suggested sentences appear to be based on a USGS Scientific Investigations Report and a press release; however, those reference materials were not included with the Applicant’s comment letter. Because the referenced documents are not readily available for review and the suggested edits would
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-36 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
not add any clear value to the EIR, the CPUC has not included the requested sentences in the Final EIR.
Response O2-64 The following paragraphs have been added to the beginning of the Geology and Soils Regulatory Context discussion on Draft EIR page 4.6-5 to reflect the federal regulatory context.
Federal
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 693 “Recommended Practices for Seismic Design of Substations”
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 693 “Recommended Practices for Seismic Design of Substations” was developed by the Substations Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society, and approved by the American National Standards Institute and the IEEE-SA Standards Board. This document provides seismic design recommendations for substations and equipment consisting of seismic criteria, qualification methods and levels, structural capacities, performance requirements for equipment operation, installation methods, and documentation. This recommended practice emphasizes the qualification of electrical equipment.
IEEE 693 is intended to establish standard methods of providing and validating the seismic withstand capability of electrical substation equipment. It provides detailed test and analysis methods for each type of major equipment or component found in electrical substations. This recommended practice is intended to assist the substation user or operator in providing substation equipment that will have a high probability of withstanding seismic events to predefined ground acceleration levels. It establishes standard methods of verifying seismic withstand capability, which gives the substation designer the ability to select equipment from various manufacturers, knowing that the seismic withstand rating of each manufacturer’s equipment is an equivalent measure. Although most damaging seismic activity occurs in limited areas, many additional areas could experience an earthquake with forces capable of causing great damage. This recommended practice should be used in all areas that may experience earthquakes.
International Building Code
Published by the International Code-Council (ICC), the scope of this code covers major aspects of construction and design of structures and buildings, the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) replaced the 1997 Uniform Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. Published by the International Conference of
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-37 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Building Officials, the IBC addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire- and life-safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.
Response O2-65 The following California Building Code paragraphs replace the Design Standards paragraph of the Geology and Soils Regulatory Context discussion on Draft EIR page 4.6-5 to provide more background on the California Building Code.
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) has been codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as Title 24, Part 2. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The 2007 CBC is based on the 2006 IBC published by the International Code Conference. In addition, the CBC contains necessary California amendments which are based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standards 7-05. ASCE 7-05 provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California.
The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-38 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Design Standards Building codes provide specific standards for design and construction of buildings and structures. On January 1, 2008, California officially adopted the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). The purpose of the CBC is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use, occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The CBC provides criteria for defining expansive soils.
Response O2-66 Please see Response O2-65, above.
Response O2-67 As indicated in the first paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.6-2, the Garnet Hill fault is not mapped as offsetting Holocene-age materials and, therefore, does not display evidence of being active. Geomorphic evidence of the Garnet Hill fault may not be available; however, the fault is mapped as a buried fault based on a gravity anomaly survey of the Coachella Valley by a major oil company.
Although the CPUC agrees with this comment; we do not concur with the suggested revisions. However, to clarify that fault fracture and/or rupture did not occur along the Garnet Hill fault in 1986, the following revisions have been made to the Impact 4.6-1 discussion on Draft EIR page 4.6-10. Please also refer to Response O2-62 for similar revisions that have been made to the Geology and Soils setting discussion.
There are no active earthquake faults that are recognized or zoned by the State of California in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project alignments and sites. The only fault that would intersect any of the Proposed Project components is the Garnet Hill fault, which is mapped as buried with a location that is postulated across the proposed Farrell-Garnet alignment. Whereas seismic activity is not limited to active faults, ground rupture is typically associated with active faults. However, ground fractures cracks associated with the 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake were reported along the trace of the Garnet Hill fault, but the fractures were a result of ground shaking rather than fault rupture…
Response O2-68 The Impact 4.6-3 discussion on Draft EIR page 4.6-11 has been revised as indicated below to clarify that liquefaction is not likely to occur in the Proposed Project area.
In order for liquefaction to occur, there needs to be relatively shallow groundwater conditions, generally at depths of less than 50 feet below the ground surface. Shallow groundwater conditions do not exist in the
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-39 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
project area and the Proposed Project would not cause the groundwater table to rise. Regardless, the potential for liquefaction or other phenomena resulting in dynamic ground settlement, if even present, can be easily reduced with adequate geotechnical and foundation engineering. Therefore, with the implementation of standard engineering practices, any potential impacts associated with liquefaction, if discovered during geotechnical investigations that would be conducted for the Proposed Project, would be reduced to less than significant levels. The potential impact related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.
Response O2-69 It is assumed that the comment is in reference to Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) HAZ-2 (i.e., there is no Mitigation Measure HAZ-2). APM HAZ-2 is identified in Section 8 in Table 8-1 at the top of Draft EIR page 8-30.
Response O2-70 Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b identified on Draft EIR page 4.8-21 has been revised as indicated below to offer more flexibility in implementation by requiring general restoration of the disturbed areas. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b: Regarding the engineered erosion control and drainage plan developed as part of the site grading plan (APM HYDRO-2A), SCE shall conduct a topographic and gradient survey of the Whitewater River Wash both upstream and downstream of the proposed pole(s) replacement location within the wash. Post construction topography and gradient of the Whitewater River Wash shall be contoured SCE shall restore all areas on the Whitewater Wash disturbed during construction of the Proposed Project to match the existing conditions, to ensure that the drainage pattern is not altered in a manner that would cause on- or off-site erosion or sedimentation.
The Monitoring/Reporting Requirements and Timing entries for Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b in Draft EIR Table 8-1, Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project, have been revised as follows to reflect the changes in the measure indicated above.
Monitoring/Reporting Requirements Timing
SCE to submit results of topographic and gradient survey to CPUC for review. CPUC mitigation monitor to inspect compliance. CPUC mitigation monitor to monitor compliance.
Survey results to be submitted prior to construction activities within the Whitewater River Wash. Following construction activities within the Whitewater River Wash. Inspection to be performed following completion of grading activities within the wash.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-40 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-71 Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 identified on Draft EIR page 4.11-18 has been revised as indicated below to remove the Riverside County submittal and approval requirements. The same revisions have been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Mitigation Measure 4.11-2: Mirage Substation. SCE shall ensure that noise levels associated with the Mirage Substation do not exceed the Riverside County noise standards for stationary sources. Noise control techniques may include, but not be limited to: locating the new transformer with as much setback from the existing residential properties as possible, use of noise walls or equivalent sound attenuation devices, and the use of a transformer with special noise control specifications designed in a way to specifically achieve acceptable regulatory noise standards.
Prior to the installation of the new transformer, SCE shall submit to the CPUC and the County of Riverside, for review and approval, a plan that describes the specific measures that will be taken in order to comply with the County’s stationary noise standards. Once the proposed transformer is operational, SCE shall retain an acoustical engineer to perform noise measurements in the vicinity of the residences west of Mirage Substation to verify that transformer noise levels comply with the County standards. Documentation of compliance shall be submitted to the CPUC and Riverside County. In the event the transformer noise levels violate the standards, additional noise control techniques shall be initiated to correct the violation.
The Mitigation/Reporting Requirements entry for Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 in Draft EIR Table 8-1, Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project, has been revised as follows to reflect the changes in the measure indicated above.
Monitoring/Reporting Requirements
SCE to submit plan for compliance to Riverside County and CPUC for review and approval.
SCE to retain an acoustical engineer, and submit documentation of compliance to the CPUC and Riverside County.
Response O2-72 The Applicant requests that Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 be revised to remove references to certain noise control techniques that may be used to ensure that noise levels at Mirage Substation do not exceed the Riverside County noise
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-41 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
standards for stationary sources. The CPUC sees no value in eliminating discussion of the noise control techniques that may be used at Mirage Substation. Note that the measure does not explicitly require implementation of the specific noise control techniques identified in the measure, but rather offers the techniques as examples of how noise control can be achieved.
The Applicant also suggests that the measure should be revised to indicate that a transformer would be used with sound levels as specified in SCE Specification A5-2009: Large Three-Phase Transformers and Autotransformers with OLTC for a normal system voltage of 220/230 kV. However, SCE did not indicate what those sound levels would be and it did not provide the referenced specification document with its comments. Without the benefit of knowing what the sound levels would be as specified in the SCE Specification A5-2009 document, the cannot include this suggestion as a revision to Mitigation Measure 4.11-2.
Response O2-73 The Applicant requests that Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 be revised to eliminate the requirement that an acoustical engineer perform noise measurements in the vicinity of the residences west of Mirage Substation once the proposed transformer is operational to verify that transformer noise levels comply with the County stationary source standards. However, the noise measurements of the operating proposed transformer are needed to ensure that the County’s stationary noise source standards are not exceeded. The suggested revisions have not been incorporated into the measure. Please refer to Response O2-71 for revisions that have been made to Mitigation Measure 4.11-2.
Response O2-74 The following edit was made to the first sentence of the last paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.12-5 to reflect a likely change in the construction schedule.
Construction activities in the project area are expected to last approximately 12 months, within the 2010-2012 time frame. beginning in 2010 and concluding in mid-2011.
Response O2-75 The Caltrans traffic data presented in Draft EIR Section 4.15 are clearly described as annual average daily traffic levels. To clarify that the local roadway traffic data are average daily traffic levels, the following sentence has been added to the end of second paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.15-2.
Below are summary descriptions of the roadways that would be affected by the Proposed Project components, and/or the alternatives in the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas. All traffic data presented for the local roadways are average daily traffic levels.
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-42 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-76 The last paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.15-2 has been revised as follows to correctly indicate that Garnet Avenue parallels the south side of I-10.
Garnet Avenue. The proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line alignment parallels Garnet Avenue from the Garnet Substation to the road’s eastern extent, where it dead ends at a road block. Garnet Avenue is a two lane road that parallels the south side of I-5 I-10 and has no lane stripes and has low traffic levels.
Response O2-77 The County of Riverside’s 2009 Traffic Count Database (available online at http://www.rctlma.org/trans/documents/traffic_count_book.pdf) does not include up to date traffic counts for Indian Canyon Drive. The most recent counts presented in the database for Indian Canyon Drive are for the year 2007. In addition, the County of Riverside’s 2009 Traffic Count Database does not identify an ADT level of 22,307 for any segment/year for Indian Canyon Drive. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments traffic data presented in the Draft EIR for Indian Canyon Drive is for the year 2009. Therefore, the Draft EIR includes the most up to date traffic data available for Indian Canyon Drive and changes to the traffic level discussion are not necessary.
Response O2-78 The referenced sentence in the first paragraph of Draft EIR Appendix B, on page 1, has been revised as follows to correctly indicate the units of milliGauss.
Units of measure are Gauss (G) or milliGauss (mG, 111000 1/1000 of a Gauss).
Response O2-79 The typographic error on the second page of Draft EIR Appendix B described by the Applicant (use of the word “field” instead of “filed”) does not appear in the document so no correction can be made. The Applicant’s other suggested clarification for the top of page 2 in Appendix B Section 1 has been included as follows:
Its recommendations were filed with the Commission in March of 1992, and became the basis for the CPUC’s EMF Policy established in D.93-11-013.
Response O2-80 The second paragraph on the second page of Draft EIR Appendix B refers to the findings related to the Commission’s updates to the policies and procedures related to electric and magnetic fields. Those findings are clarified as follows:
Findings – Based on the work of the Consensus Group, written testimony, and evidentiary hearings, the CPUC issued its decisions D.93-11-013 and (D.06-01-042) to address . . .
4. Responses to Comments
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-43 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Response O2-81 The referenced sentence in the last paragraph of Draft EIR Appendix B, on page 4, has been revised as follows to indicate the correct letter for the Draft EIR electric and magnetic fields appendix.
Specific measures to be implemented are described in the attached Field Management Plan for the Proposed Project (Appendix D B – Section 2) and alternatives (Appendix D B – Section 3).
Response O2-82 The third paragraph under 5.2, Evaluation of Project Alternatives, on page 5-2 is clarified as follows:
In addition to significant unmitigable impacts described above, there are several differentiating impacts that with mitigation would be less than significant. It should be noted that there are two groups of alternative routes: (1) Farrell-Garnet, which includes the Proposed Project and Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 are compared to each other and to the Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line portion of, and (2) Mirage-Santa Rosa, which includes the Proposed Project, and Alternative 5 is compared to the Mirage-Santa Rosa subtransmission line portion of the Proposed Project. Table 5-2 provides a comparison of potential impacts by alternative for each resource category.
Response O2-83 A typographical error on page 5-4 in the Proposed Project column of Table 5-2 for Aesthetics is corrected as follows:
Impacts determined to be Class II and Class III. The Farrell-Garnet line would include 1.55.8 miles of overhead line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa line would include 5.81.5 miles of overhead line.
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
CHAPTER 5 Revisions to the Draft EIR
5.1 Introduction Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this section presents the changes that were made to the Draft EIR to clarify or amplify its text in response to received comments. Such changes are insignificant as the term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), in that the changes merely clarify or amplify or make insignificant modifications. The changes are grouped by Draft EIR chapters and are then shown by page number in the Draft EIR and identified as to the location of the change in the body of the text or table.
Appendix E contains the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (MMRCP) for the Proposed Project, the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Consequently, clarification to mitigation measures that would affect the Proposed Project, in addition to being listed here, are included in the MMRCP in Appendix E.
Where changes are shown inserted in the existing Draft EIR text, revised or new language is underlined, deleted language is indicated by strikethrough text, and the original text is shown without underline or strikethrough text.
5.2 Text Changes Page Identification / Text Change
Executive Summary
ES-1 The following revisions have been made to the third paragraph under Section ES.1, Introduction/Background.
This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and considers the potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Project and identifies and evaluates a range of alternatives. Based on this evaluation and the documentation which follows, this Draft EIR identifies Alternative 5 the Proposed Project as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for both the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area and Alternative 3 as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
ES-1 The first sentence under Section ES.1.1, Proposed Project, has been clarified as follows.
The Proposed Project consists of a number of distinct project components that together make up the entire Proposed Project, including two new 115 kV subtransmission lines, three seven 115 kV subtransmission line reconfigurations, a 220 kV transmission line loop-in, substation modifications, . . .
ES-2 Figure ES-1 has been revised as shown on the following page.
ES-4 The second bullet under Mirage Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows.
• Install five new 220 kV circuit breakers and five three new 115 kV circuit breakers
ES-4 The fifth bullet under Mirage Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows:
• Install the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line and relocate the existing Mirage-Concho and Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission lines.
ES-5 The first bullet under Santa Rosa Substation in Table ES-1 has been replaced with the following two bullets for clarity.
• Connect the Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line and the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line
• Convert the existing Santa Rosa-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line to the new Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line
• Convert the existing Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line to the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115kV subtransmission line
ES-5 The first bullet under Thornhill Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows.
• Install the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115 kV subtransmission line Convert the existing Thornhill-Tamarisk 115kV subtransmission line to the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115kV subtransmission line
ES-9 Figure ES-2 has been revised as shown on the page that follows the next page.
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
Palm
Sp
rings
Cath
edra
l Ci
ty
Ranc
ho
Mirag
e
Palm
Des
ert
Indian
We
llsLa
Quin
ta
Indio
Dese
rt Ho
t Sp
rings
Thou
sand
Pa
lms
Coac
hella
§̈¦74
§̈¦62
§̈¦86
§̈¦10
§̈¦86
§̈¦111
§̈¦74
§̈¦111
§̈¦111
Josh
ua Tr
ee N
ation
al Pa
rk
San B
ernard
ino N
ation
al Fo
rest
Mt S
an Ja
cinto
State
Park
San B
ernard
ino N
ation
al Fo
rest
MIRA
GE
GARN
ET
DEVE
RS
CONC
HO
CAPW
IND
FARR
ELL
TAMA
RISK
THOR
NHILL
SANT
A ROS
A
EISEN
HOWE
R
INDIAN
WEL
LS
COAC
HELL
A VAL
LEY
San B
ernard
ino
Rivers
ide
Impe
rial
San D
iego
Oran
ge
New
Deve
rs 11
5kV S
ubtra
nsmi
ssion
Area
Prop
osed
Proje
ct an
d Alte
rnati
ves
04
Miles
Electr
ical N
eeds
Area
City B
ound
ary#*
SCE S
ubsta
tion
Prop
osed
Proj
ect
Deve
rs-Co
ache
lla 22
0 kV L
oop-I
nFa
rrell-G
arnet
115 k
VMi
rage-S
anta
Rosa
115 k
VSu
btran
smiss
ion Li
ne R
econ
figura
tion
Altern
ative
sAlt
ernati
ve 2
Altern
ative
3 Alt
ernati
ve 5
Altern
ative
6Alt
ernati
ve 7i
SOUR
CE: S
CE, 2
008
Deve
rs-Mi
rage 1
15 kV
Subtr
ansm
ission
Sys
tem Sp
lit Pr
oject
. 207
059
Figur
e ES-
1Pr
opos
ed Pr
oject
and A
lterna
tives
Elec
trical
Need
s Area
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
!" #$10
Cathe
dral
City
Ranc
ho
Mirag
e
Palm
Des
ert
Dese
rt Ho
t Sp
rings
Thou
sand
Pa
lms
Union
Pacifi
c Railr
oad
Palm
Sprin
gs
Riser
Pole
Altern
ative
3
Riser
Pole
Altern
ative
2
Riser
Poles
Altern
ative
6
Rise
r Pole
Alter
nativ
e 5
Palm
Dese
rt
!" #$10
Ä111
Ä62DI
LLON
VARNERPALM
20TH
CHIN
O
INDIAN CANYON
SUNRISE
DATE PALM
MOUNTAIN VIEW
FARRELL
30TH
CABALLEROS
GENE AUTRY
WORSLEY
LANDAU
SAN
RAFA
EL
RACQ
UET C
LUB
PALM CANYON
LONG CANYON
LITTLE MORONGO
20TH
TAMA
RISK
MIRA
GE
GARN
ET
DEVE
RS
CONC
HO
CAPW
IND
FARR
ELL
SANT
A ROS
A
EISEN
HOWE
R
TAMA
RISK
THOR
NHILL
Exist
ing E
lectric
al Fa
cilitie
s11
5 kV S
ubtra
nsmi
ssion
Line
220 k
V Tran
smiss
ion Li
ne#*
SCE S
ubsta
tions
Prop
osed
Proj
ect
Deve
rs-Co
ache
lla 22
0 kV L
oop-I
nFa
rrell-G
arnet
115 k
VMi
rage-S
anta
Rosa
115 k
VSu
btran
smiss
ion Li
ne R
econ
figura
tion
Altern
ative
sAlt
ernati
ve 2
Altern
ative
3 Alt
ernati
ve 5
Altern
ative
6Alt
ernati
ve 7
!.Ris
erPole
sCit
y Bou
ndary
Deve
rs-Mi
rage 1
15 kV
Subtr
ansm
ission
Sys
tem Sp
lit Pr
oject
. 207
059
Figur
e ES-
2Alt
ernati
ves O
vervi
ewSO
URCE
: SCE
, 200
8
01
Milesi
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-5 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
ES-20, -21 The paragraphs under Section ES.4.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative, is revised as follows.
Table ES-3 summarizes the environmental impact conclusions of the Proposed Project and alternatives. Implementation of the Proposed Project and all five alternatives would result in significant and unmitigable (Class I) impacts on air quality during construction., Aalthough impacts to air quality would be of varying degrees (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities), the impacts would be short term and temporary in nature; therefore, impacts of slightly varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.
However, impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, and traffic and transportation, while all mitigable to less than significant, do vary enough to determine a preferred alternative from the perspective of these issue areas. Consequently, the selection of an Environmentally Superior Alternative is based on differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation. Based on these differences the identified Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnett study area is Alternative 3 and the identified Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area is Alternative 5.
To determine the Environmentally Superior Alternative, resource weighting factors were assigned and a ranking matrix was used to calculate a weighted score for the Proposed Project and each alternative. The Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least severe air quality, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems impacts compared to the alternatives, and in the Farrell-Garnet study area the Proposed Project would result in the second least severe impacts related to aesthetics. However, the Proposed Project would result in the most severe impacts related to biological resources in both study areas and would result in the most severe impacts related to aesthetics in the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. Because the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in less severe significant and unavoidable air quality construction impacts than the alternatives, with the exception of biological resources and aesthetics, and would result in less severe impacts compared to the alternatives for all of the other resource areas where a preference is identified, the Proposed Project subtransmission lines (i.e., the proposed Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission lines) are selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for both the Farrell-Garnett and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-6 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
ES-21 The paragraph under Section ES.4.4, Environmentally Superior Alternative vs. No Project Alternative, is revised as follows.
The Environmentally Superior Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5) as defined above would reduce long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts and would have minimal long-term impacts on residences or other sensitive land uses. Under the No Project Alternative scenario, SCE may be required to construct new subtransmission and transmission lines and/or additional power generation in or near the study area to supply power to the Electrical Needs Area. It would be overly speculative for this EIR to assume where the new subtransmission and transmission facilities and/or power generation facilities would be sited; however, it is reasonable to assume that at a minimum, environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative scenario would not be less than those from the Environmentally Superior Alternatives. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives are preferred over the No Project Alternative.
ES-22 Table ES-4 has been revised as follows.
TABLE ES-4 DEVERS-MIRAGE 115KV SUBTRANSMISSION SYSTEM SPLIT PROJECT VS. ALTERNATIVES
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONCLUSIONS
Issue Area Proposed
Project Alternative
2 Alternative
3 Alternative
5 Alternative
6 Alternative
7
Aesthetics Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would have more of an impact than Alternative 5.
Least impact for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
Least impact for the Farrell-Garnet study area. Most impact for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
Less of an impact than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
Most impact for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
Agriculture Resources
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
Air Quality No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.
No Preference
No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
No Preference
No Preference
Biological Resources Most impacts for the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
Least impacts for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
Less impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
Least impacts for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-7 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Issue Area Proposed
Project Alternative
2 Alternative
3 Alternative
5 Alternative
6 Alternative
7
Cultural Resources MostLeast impacts for the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.
Less impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line. More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
Least impacts on cultural resources for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
Geology and Soils No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
Hazards / Hazardous Materials
No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.
No Preference
No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
No Preference
No Preference
Hydrology and Water Quality
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
Land Use, Planning and Policies
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
Minerals No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
Noise No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
No Preference
No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.
No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
No Preference
No Preference
Population and Housing
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
Public Services No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
No Preference
No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.
No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
No Preference
No Preference
Recreation No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
No Preference
Transportation and Traffic
Least impacts for the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
Most impacts for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
More impacts to than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-8 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Issue Area Proposed
Project Alternative
2 Alternative
3 Alternative
5 Alternative
6 Alternative
7
Utilities and Service Systems
No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.
No Preference
No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
No Preference
No Preference
ES-24 Impact 4.5-1 in the Executive Summary Table ES-5 has been removed.
Cultural Resources
4.5-1: Impacts to historic site 33-8408, Varner Road
Class III
None required Less than Significant
Chapter 1. Introduction
1-2 The following sentence in the last paragraph in Section 1.2, Project Objectives, Purpose and Need, is revised as follows.
Splitting the existing 115 kV system is necessary to relieve thermal overload conditions on the existing Mirage-Concho leg of the Devers-Capwind-Concho-Mirage 115 kV subtransmission line and the Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission lines.
Chapter 2. Project Description
2-13 The first bullet is clarified as follows.
• Split the existing Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive by removing the span of wire that connects the southwest and northeast corner poles and transfer it to the southeast corner pole (see Figure 2-5, Existing and Proposed 115 kV Line Configurations at Bob Hope and Dinah Shore Drives).
2-13 The second bullet is clarified as follows.
• Split the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk at the same intersection by dead-ending and grounding the Santa Rosa leg at the northwest southeast corner pole. The portion of the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk line between Bob Hope Drive east to Portola Avenue would become idle.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-9 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
2-13 The third bullet is clarified as follows.
• Connect the open Tamarisk leg of the existing Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line to the open Garnet leg of the existing Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line at the northwest southeast corner pole of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.
2-18 The first bullet is clarified as follows.
• Install a span of conductor between the existing north segment of the Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line and the existing west segment of the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line at the northwest southeast corner of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.
2-22 The third full paragraph is revised as follows.
The TSPs would be installed on top of cylindrical concrete footings approximately six to eight feet in diameter and approximately 20 to 25 at least 22 feet deep. After holes for the footings have been bored, a steel rebar cage would be inserted into the hole, and then concrete would be poured into the hole to a level up to two feet above the ground surface. After the concrete has cured, the TSP would be bolted onto the footing. Excess bore spoils would be distributed at each pole site, used as backfill to fill holes left after removal of nearby wood poles, or removed from the pole sites.
2-22 The fourth full paragraph is replaced with the following paragraphs as follows.
Both LWS poles and TSPs consist of separate base and top sections for ease of construction. Steel pole installation would begin by transporting the poles from the staging area and laying the individual sections on the ground at each new pole location. While on the ground, the top section would be pre-configured with the necessary insulators and wire-stringing hardware. A line truck with a boom on it for LWS poles, or a crane for TSPs would be used to position each pole base section into previously augured holes for the LWS poles or on top of previously prepared foundations for the TSPs. When the base section is secured, the top section would be placed above the base section. The two sections may be spot-welded together for additional stability.
While on the ground, the top and bottom sections of the LWS poles would be pulled together and preconfigured with the necessary insulators and wire stringing hardware. For LWS poles, a line truck with a boom on it would be used to position each pole into previously augured holes.
The TSPs would require a crane to set the pole bases on top of previously installed concrete foundations. Once secured, the top, and if necessary middle,
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-10 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
sections of the TSP would then be set on the base of the TSP. For both structures, all sections may be spot welded together for added stability.
2-23 The first paragraph under Conductor Pulling is replaced with the following paragraph.
Conductors would be installed on 115 kV polymer insulator assemblies attached to each crossarm in a horizontal configuration or suspension assemblies consisting of single polymer insulators attached to each crossarm in a vertical configuration. Overhead ground wires would be installed on the top of the steel poles. Conductors would be attached to 115 kV polymer post style insulators, that would be attached to each pole head for LWS poles, and suspended, or dead ended, to steel crossarms mounted on TSPs. Depending on location, the insulator configurations may be mounted vertically, or in a triangular pattern. With the exception of certain locations near substations, the overhead ground wire would be installed in accordance with G.O. 95 Table II. Distribution lines transferred to the new steel poles would typically be installed on standard wood crossarms with polymer insulators.
2-23 The second paragraph under Conductor Pulling is revised as follows.
Conductor pulling includes all activities associated with the installation of conductors onto the LWS and wood poles and TSPs. These activities include installing three 115 kV 954 SAC conductors, one 221 kcmil ACSR ground conductor, ground wire, vibration dampeners, weights, and post, suspension, and or dead-end hardware assemblies for the entire length of the proposed subtransmission lines.
2-41 The first paragraph is revised as follows.
Devers Substation is a staffed, 500/220/115 kV substation located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County, north of the City of Palm Springs. The proposed improvements at Devers Substation include the conversion of Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line to Devers-Mirage No. 1 220 kV transmission line, reconfiguration of the Coachella Valley-Devers 220 kV transmission line to the Devers-Mirage No. 2 220 kV transmission line, relay upgrades, replacement of two 115 kV circuit breakers in existing Position No. 7 for the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115 kV subtransmission line and replacement of two 115 kV circuit breakers in existing Position No. 4 for the new Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line. Improvements at the substation would also include installation of new line-protection relays.
2-41 The first bullet is revised as follows.
• Four 115 kV, 1,200 Amp, 40 kiloannum Amperes (kA) duty, circuit breakers
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-11 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
2-42 The first paragraph under Engineering Plan is revised as follows.
Mirage Substation is an unstaffed, 220/115 kV substation located in unincorporated Riverside County in the general vicinity of the community of Thousand Palms. The proposed improvements at Mirage Substation include the installation of one 280 MVA, 220/115 kV transformer bank, one new 220 kV bank position, one new 115 kV bank position, and one new 220 kV breaker-and-a-half configuration position for two new 220 kV line positions, and the relocation of the existing Mirage-Ramon 220 kV transmission line, the existing Julian Hinds-Mirage 220 kV transmission line, and the existing Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line. Other work at the substation would include looping of the Devers-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line into the Mirage 220 kV switchrack, installation of the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, relocation of existing Mirage-Concho 115 kV subtransmission line, renaming the existing Mirage-Capwind- Devers 115 kV subtransmission line to Mirage-Capwind-Tamarisk-Devers 115 kV subtransmission line, renaming the Mirage-Concho 115 kV subtransmission line to Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line, and installation of new line protection relays.
2-42 The bullets under Major Equipment are revised as follows.
Major Equipment • One 280 MVA 220/115 kV transformer bank; • Five 220 kV, 3,000 amp, 50 kA duty, circuit breakers; • Ten 220 kV, 3,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Fifteen Eighteen 220 kV station post insulators; • Six 220 kV metering potential transformers Three 220 kV coupling
capacitor voltage transformers; • Three 220 kV metering units; • Two 115 kV, 3,000 amp, 40 kA duty circuit breakers; • Three One 115 kV, 2,000 amp, 40 kA duty circuit breakers; • Four 115 kV, 3,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Six Two 115 kV, 2,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Nine Six 115 kV potential transformers; and • Twenty-seven Twelve 115 kV post insulators.
2-42, -43 The bullets under Switchrack Configurations are revised as follows.
Switchrack Configurations • One new 220 kV transformer bank position No. 6S designed with a double-
breaker configuration; • One new 220 kV line position No. 5 designed with a breaker-and-a-half
configuration for relocation of the existing Julian Hinds-Mirage 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 5N) and relocation of the existing Mirage-Ramon 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 5S);
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-12 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
• Renaming the Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line to Devers-Mirage No. 1 transmission line;
• Existing 220 kV transmission line Position No. 3 would be upgraded and remain a breaker-and-a-half configuration for the installation of the new Devers-Mirage No. 2 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 3N) and the installation of the new Mirage-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 3S);
• Existing Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line would be relocated to line position 1N to create the Devers-Capwind-Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line;
• Vacated existing line position No. 1S would be for the new Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line;
• One new 115 kV transformer bank position (No. 6N) designed with a double-breaker configuration;
• One new 115 kV line position (No. 7N) designed with a double-breaker configuration; and
• Convert existing 115 kV line position (No. 4) from a double-breaker configuration to a breaker-and-a-half configuration for relocated Concho 115 kV line Position (No. 4S) and new Santa Rosa 115 kV line Position (No. 4N); and
• Install one 220/115 kV transformer bank.
2-58, -59 The first paragraph under Section 2.7.2, Construction Plan, is revised as follows.
The existing fiber optic cables would be transferred from existing poles to the new 115 kV subtransmission poles that would be installed within existing ROWs or franchise locations. The All-Dielectric Self-Supporting (ADSS) fiber optic cables would be attached to a support block beneath the end of each 10-foot wood cross-arm on each new pole as shown in Figure 2-3. Telecommunications equipment installation would occur within existing SCE substation buildings and at the Edom Hill Communications Site. IID equipment and circuit installation would occur at is expected to be in the IID’s mechanical-electrical equipment room (MEER).
2-60 The typographical error in Table 2-7 is corrected as follows.
Indian Wells, Equipment/Circuit Installation Equipment Installation 3 35 5 2 – Pick-Up (Gasoline)
2-62 The last sentence in the first incomplete paragraph is corrected as follows.
Additional information on electric and magnetic fields generated by transmission lines is presented in Appendix D B.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-13 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
2-62 The first complete paragraph is revised as follows.
After several decades of study regarding potential public health risks from exposure to power line EMF, research results remains inconclusive. Several national and international panels have conducted reviews of data from multiple studies and state that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that EMF causes cancer. Most recently the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) both classified EMF as a possible carcinogen.
Chapter 3. Alternatives and Cumulative Projects
3-13 The text in the third sentence of the first paragraph is revised as follows.
At Sunrise Way, the line would turn north, and proceed along Sunrise Way to approximately 1,265 feet north of Four Seasons Boulevard, where the underground segment would end and the subtransmission line would transition to overhead at a riser pole . . .
Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis
4-2 An insert has been made in Section 4.0, Introduction to Environmental Analysis, after the second full paragraph, as follows.
With regard to the discussion of local plans, policies, and ordinances in each of the resource sections 4.1 through 4.16, CPUC General Order 131-D clarifies that local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. However, in locating such projects, the public utilities shall consult with local agencies regarding land use matters. In instances where the public utilities and local agencies are unable to resolve their differences, the Commission shall set a hearing no later than 30 days after the utility or local agency has notified the Commission of the inability to reach agreement on land use matters.
Section 4.1, Aesthetics
4.1-3 The following paragraph has been added to the Local Major Roadways discussion.
Indian Canyon Drive. Indian Canyon Drive is an existing north-south roadway into Palm Springs with access from/to the I-10. Views from this roadway include open space and the San Jacinto Mountains.
4.1-14 Figure 4.1-1 has been updated as shown of the following page.
!.
!.
!.!.
!.
# *
# *
# *
# *
# *
# *
# *
!" #$10
Cathe
dral
City
Ranc
ho
Mirag
e
Palm
Des
ert
Thou
sand
Pa
lms
Union
Pacifi
c Railr
oad
Palm
Sprin
gs
4.1-4
4.1-5
4.1-12
4.1-13
4.1-14
4.1-7
4.1-8
4.1-6
4.1-11
4.1-10
4.1-20
4.1-18
4.1-19
4.1-16
4.1-17
4.1-9
4.1-2 4.1
-3
4.1-15
!" #$10
DILL
ON
VARNER
PALM
20TH
VISTA
CHI
NO
INDIAN CANYON
SUNRISE
DATE PALM
MOUNTAIN VIEW
FARRELL
30TH
CABALLEROS
GENE AUTRY
LANDAU
SAN
RAFA
EL
RACQ
UET C
LUB
PALM CANYON
LONG CANYON
LITTLE MORONGO
20TH
TAMA
RISK
MIRA
GE
GARN
ET
DEVE
RS
CONC
HO
CAPW
IND
FARR
ELL
EISEN
HOW
ER
TAMA
RISK
THOR
NHILL
Deve
rs-Mi
rage 1
15 kV
Subtr
ansm
ission
Sys
tem Sp
lit Pr
oject
. 207
059
Figur
e 4.1-
1Vis
ual S
imula
tion V
iewpo
ints
SOUR
CE: S
CE, 2
008a
, 200
8b, a
nd 20
09.
01
Milesi
Exist
ing El
ectri
cal F
acilit
ies11
5 kV S
ubtra
nsmi
ssion
Line
220 k
V Tran
smiss
ion Li
nePr
opos
ed P
rojec
tDe
vers-
Coac
hella
220 k
V Loo
p-In
Farre
ll-Garn
et 11
5 kV
Mirag
e-San
ta Ro
sa 11
5 kV
Subtr
ansm
ission
Line
Rec
onfig
uratio
n# *
SCE S
ubsta
tions
Alter
nativ
es
Altern
ative
3 Alt
ernati
ve 5
Altern
ative
6Alt
ernati
ve 7
!.Ris
erPole
s
4.1-2
Visua
l Sim
ulatio
n View
point
Altern
ative
2
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-15 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
4.1-44 The second sentence of Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 has been revised as follows. The same change has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
SCE shall submit a Construction Lighting Mitigation Plan to the CPUC for review and approval at least 90 30 days prior to the start of nighttime construction or the ordering of any exterior lighting fixtures or components, whichever comes first.
4.1-46 Mitigation Measure 4.1-8 has been revised as follows. The same change has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Mitigation Measure 4.1-8: A non-reflective or weathered finish shall be applied to all All new structures and equipment installed at the Devers, Mirage, Concho, Indian Wells, Santa Rosa, Eisenhower, Farrell, Garnet, Thornhill, and Tamarisk Substations shall have non-specular (reduced glare) surface finishes, except for structures or equipment for which such finishes are not commercially available to reduce potential glare effects.
4.1-50 The following discussion has been added after the first full paragraph.
Recreational viewers potentially affected by the Alternative 3 subtransmission line would include those associated with Desert Highland Park, located approximately 0.3 mile west of where the Alternative 3 subtransmission line would be located along Indian Canyon Drive and approximately 0.6 mile northwest of the where the Alternative 3 riser pole would be located. Views of the subtransmission line and riser pole would be achieved from certain locations at the east side of the park and would range from partially to fully screened, dependent on the presence of the recreational facilities and vegetation at the park. Therefore, visual sensitivity would be low, overall visual change would be low, and impacts would be less than significant requiring no mitigation (Class III). Visual impacts to recreational viewers that would be associated with Alterative 3 at the Desert Highland Park would be approximately the same as those that would be associated with the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line at Palm Springs Country Club Golf Course.
Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources
No changes have been made to Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources.
Section 4.3, Air Quality
No changes have been made to Section 4.3, Air Quality
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-16 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Section 4.4, Biological Resources
4.4-47 The last sentence in the second paragraph of Impact 4.4-1 is revised as follows.
Although this location is predominantly composed of ruderal species, and no CV milkvetch was observed during the spring and summer 2009 surveys, there is still potential for this species to occur.
4.4-47 The last sentence in the third paragraph of Impact 4.4-1 is revised as follows.
Although both of these locations are currently predominantly composed of ruderal species, and no CV milkvetch was observed during the spring and summer 2009 surveys, there is still potential for the CV milkvetch to occur.
4.4-48 The second paragraph of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Temporary and permanent impacts to habitat for the CV milkvetch shall be compensated for through conservation of suitable habitat for this species. The calculated replacement for habitat loss for the CV milkvetch shall be based on a ratio of 3:1 (compensation to impact) per acre for temporary impacts and 9:1 for permanent impacts, for an estimated total of 6 acres. These ratios Ratios reflect the limited habitat and low populations of this species across its range, and the loss of habitat available for this species in the project area, and are consistent with compensation ratios established in the CVMSHCP. Greater or lesser compensation ratios may be substituted as determined though USFWS and CDFG consultation and/or permitting, considering the quality of the habitat being affected. The replacement habitat shall be within the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Total compensation funds shall include the costs of acquisition and long-term management, and shall be paid prior to the start of project operations. This replacement habitat shall mitigate for both direct and indirect impacts of construction and operations/management on this species, as well as the CV fringe-toed lizard (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, below), Palm Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel, CV giant sand-treader cricket, and Le Conte’s thrasher.
4.4-50 The first sentence of the third bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 is clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
SCE and/or its construction contractors shall retain and have available, the services of a CPUC authorized qualified biologist who shall perform the duties of the biological monitor.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-17 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
4.4-51 The second sentence of the fifth bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 on page 4.4-51 is clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Each plant that is destroyed due to construction in the ROW along the east and west side of Gene Autry Trail roadway shall be replaced and monitored for at least ten five years, or other period of time approved by the USFWS, . . .
4.4-51 The final bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
• Temporary and permanent impacts to CV fringe-toed lizard habitat shall be mitigated through conservation of suitable habitat for this species. The calculated replacement for habitat loss for this species shall be based on a ratio of 3:1 (compensation to impact) per acre for temporary impacts and 9:1 for permanent impacts, for an estimated total of 6 acres. These ratios Ratios reflect the limited habitat and low populations of this species across its range, and include both the loss of habitat use by the species, and the adverse effect of raptor predation caused by the new raptor perch availability at the new poles, and are consistent with compensation ratios established in the CVMSHCP. Greater or lesser compensation ratios may be substituted as determined though USFWS and CDFG consultation and/or permitting, considering the quality of the habitat being affected. The replacement habitat shall be within the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Total compensation funds shall include the costs of acquisition and long-term management, and shall be paid prior to the start of Proposed Project operations. This replacement habitat shall mitigate for both direct and indirect impacts of construction and operations/management on this species, as well as the Palm Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel, CV giant sand-treader cricket, Le Conte’s thrasher, flat-tailed horned lizard, and CV milkvetch (habitat conserved through this measure may be the same as that conserved through Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 for the CV milkvetch).
4.4-58 The first bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-10 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
• Purchase or dedication of land to provide wetland preservation, restoration, or creation. If restoration is available and feasible, then a mitigation replacement ratio of at least 2:1 shall be used. If a wetland needs to be created, at least a 3:1 ratio shall be implemented to offset losses. Where practical and feasible, onsite mitigation shall be implemented. Greater or lesser offset ratios may be substituted through consultation and/or permitting with the appropriate wildlife agency (USFWS or CDFG).
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-18 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Section 4.5, Cultural Resources
4.5-7 The introduction to the Findings discussion is clarified as follows.
Findings The cultural resources records search revealed the presence of the following five previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE for the proposed and alternative alignments.
4.5-7 The first sentence of the first indented paragraph under Findings is clarified as follows.
Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line alignment and the Alternative 3 alignment, but is within the APE for the Alternative 2 alignment.
4.5-8 The first sentence of the first full paragraph is clarified as follows.
33-8408 (Varner Road). This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead reconfigured Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV line, and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignments, and Alternative 5, 6 and 7 alignments.
4.5-8 The first sentence of the last paragraph is clarified as follows.
33-9498/CA-RIV-6381H (Southern Pacific Railroad/Union Pacific Railroad line). This resource was relocated during the 2009 archaeological survey and is within the viewshed of but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV alignment and alternative subtransmission line alignments and was relocated during the 2009 archaeological survey.
4.5-9 The first sentence of the first indented paragraph is clarified as follows.
33-15429. This resource is known to be located adjacent to and outside of within the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment.
4.5-9 The first sentence of the second indented paragraph is clarified as follows.
33-15430. This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-19 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
4.5-23 The third paragraph under checklist questions a, b) has been replaced with the following paragraphs.
Historic resource 33-4808 (Varner Road), Native American cultural resource Hoon wit ten ca va and prehistoric archaeological sites CA-RIV-785, 33-15429, and 33-15430, could be impacted by the Proposed Project. Impacts are described in detail below.
Historic resource 33-4808 (Varner Road) would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. It would be spanned by the proposed overhead reconfigured Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV line and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, and no ground-disturbing activity would occur within the roadway. Therefore, there would be no impacts to this resource (No Impact).
Native American cultural resource Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) would not be physically impacted by the Proposed Project. The proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV line would be installed overhead on poles constructed along an existing dirt road north of Garnet Hill, and no ground disturbing activity would occur within the limits of this topographical feature. For the potential indirect impacts to this resource, see the Impact 4.5-2 discussion.
The proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV line would be constructed on overhead poles west of 33-15429 and east of 33-15430, and all access would be from an existing dirt road located immediately west of the poles that currently carry the Mirage-Tamarisk and Mirage-Concho lines, which in this area would be reconfigured using the dirt access road for access. Prehistoric archaeological site 33-15429 would not be directly impacted by the Proposed Project. The resource is located east of the existing subtransmission line and adjacent to and outside of the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment. However, it is not known if there is a subsurface component to this resource, and if so, whether it might extend into the area that is within the Proposed Project’s APE. Prehistoric archaeological site 33-15430 would not be impacted by the Proposed Project.
Prehistoric archaeological site CA-RIV-785 could be impacted by the Proposed Project. A portion of it is located within the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV line.
4.5-23 The Impact 4.5-1 heading has been revised as follows.
Impact 4.5-1: Project construction could adversely affect historic site 33-8408, Varner Road. Less than significant (Class III)
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-20 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
4.5-24 The last sentence of the second paragraph has been revised as follows.
Impacts There would be no impact to Varner Road at this location would be less than significant.
4.5-25 The title of Impact 4.5-3has been renamed as follows.
Impact 4.5-3: Project construction could adversely affect cultural resources CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430. Less than Significant with Mitigation (Class II)
4.5-26 The second paragraph has been revised as follows.
Construction of the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line could also impact sites 33-15429 and 33-15430. These sites This site may be related to site CA-RIV-785 and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion D/4, ability to provide information important to prehistory. Neither site, however However, the site does not appears to be within the direct APE for the proposed alignment. These sites This site should be avoided to ensure that any adverse effects are minimized. Implementation of APM CUL-3 (Construction Monitoring) as well as Mitigation Measures 4.5-3a, 4.5-3b, and 4.5-3c would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.
4.5-26 Mitigation Measures 4.5-3a and 4.5-3b have been revised as follows. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Mitigation Measure 4.5-3a: Avoid and protect archaeological resources. SCE shall narrow the construction zone to avoid potentially significant archaeological resources CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430 if feasible. The resources shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to ensure avoidance. Protective fencing or other markers shall be erected around ESAs prior to any ground disturbing activities; however, such ESAs shall not be identified specifically as cultural resources, in order to protect sensitive information and to discourage unauthorized disturbance or collection of artifacts.
Mitigation Measure 4.5-3b: Preparation of treatment plan if avoidance is not feasible. If avoidance of sites CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430 is not feasible, prior to issuing any grading or excavation permits and prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities, a detailed Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) shall be prepared...
4.5-31 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 2 impact discussion have been revised as follows.
Similar to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, the Alternative 2 alignment could potentially impact previously recorded resource, Hoon wit ten ca
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-21 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
va (Garnet Hill). However, unlike the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) would be directly impacted by Alternative 2 because the Alternative 2 alignment would be located on the resource. This resource appears significant to the oral histories of the Cahuilla Indian Tribe and may be considered a TCP. Construction of Alternative 2 could result in impacts to Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). Potential impacts to the resource would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of APM CUL-1 and CUL-6 as well as Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, described above for the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line (Class II). This impact would be more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.
As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, impacts associated with Alternative 2 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.
Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 2 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line. With implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.
The potential impacts to human remains that would be associated with Alternative 2 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result during construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.
4.5-32 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 3 impact discussion have been revised.
As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line, construction impacts associated with Alternative 3 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b, and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-22 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 3 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under construction the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. With implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with construction of Alternative 3 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result during construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
4.5-33 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 5 impact discussion have been revised.
As with the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, impacts associated with construction of Alternative 5 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.
Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with construction of Alternative 5 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line; impacts would be less than significant with implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6 (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-23 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with construction of Alternative 5 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.
4.5-34 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 6 impact discussion have been revised.
Portions of the Alternative 6 alignment were not subject to systematic archaeological survey due to lack of access. These segments will be surveyed if this alternative alignment is selected, per Mitigation Measure 4.5-4c. As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, impacts associated with Alternative 6 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b, and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 6 would be similar to those that would result under the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line, with the exception that Alternative 6 would not impact the high-sensitivity Imperial Formation. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6 (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with Alternative 6 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-24 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Section 4.6, Geology and Soils
4.6-2 The first paragraph is clarified as follows.
The closest known active faults to the study area are associated with the San Andreas fault system, with the northwesterly trending Banning and Coachella segments of the fault system mapped in the north, just north of Interstate 10 (I-10). The northwesterly trending Garnet Hill fault is mapped north of Palm Springs, about a half mile south of I-10. The Garnet Hill fault is mapped as a buried fault and is based on a gravity anomaly survey of the Coachella Valley by a major oil company (Proctor, 1968). The Garnet Hill fault is not mapped as offsetting Holocene-age materials (Jennings, 1994) and, therefore, does not display evidence of being active (Hart et al., 1979). Although Further, the California Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey) has not designated it as an active fault, and Holocene surface rupture was not documented along the Garnet Hill fault in the vicinity of the project area (SCEDC, 2010) the Garnet Hill fault can act as a plane of weakness and move in response to an earthquake on another nearby fault. Ground fractures associated with the 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake were reported along the trace of the Garnet Hill fault and indicate that a near-surface response of weak surfaces occurred at depth (City of Cathedral City, 2002). The north-south trending Palm Canyon fault is mapped as trending towards Palm Springs from the south, but the fault is not considered active by State maps (Jennings, 1994).
4.6-3 The second sentence of the first paragraph under Seismic Activity has been revised as shown below.
The 1986 quake registered a magnitude of 5.6 and caused minor ground rupturing cracks along the Banning, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill faults, but these cracks were due to shaking, not surface rupture.
4.6-5 The following paragraphs have been added to the beginning of the Geology and Soils Regulatory Context discussion.
Federal
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 693 “Recommended Practices for Seismic Design of Substations”
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 693 “Recommended Practices for Seismic Design of Substations” was developed by the Substations Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society, and approved by the American National Standards Institute and the IEEE-SA Standards Board. This document provides seismic design recommendations for substations and equipment consisting of seismic criteria, qualification methods and levels, structural capacities, performance requirements for equipment operation,
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-25 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
installation methods, and documentation. This recommended practice emphasizes the qualification of electrical equipment.
IEEE 693 is intended to establish standard methods of providing and validating the seismic withstand capability of electrical substation equipment. It provides detailed test and analysis methods for each type of major equipment or component found in electrical substations. This recommended practice is intended to assist the substation user or operator in providing substation equipment that will have a high probability of withstanding seismic events to predefined ground acceleration levels. It establishes standard methods of verifying seismic withstand capability, which gives the substation designer the ability to select equipment from various manufacturers, knowing that the seismic withstand rating of each manufacturer's equipment is an equivalent measure. Although most damaging seismic activity occurs in limited areas, many additional areas could experience an earthquake with forces capable of causing great damage. This recommended practice should be used in all areas that may experience earthquakes.
International Building Code
Published by the International Code-Council (ICC), the scope of this code covers major aspects of construction and design of structures and buildings, the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) replaced the 1997 Uniform Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. Published by the International Conference of Building Officials, the IBC addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire- and life-safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.
4.6-5 The following paragraphs replace the Design Standards paragraph of the Geology and Soils Regulatory Context discussion.
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC) has been codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as Title 24, Part 2. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The 2007 CBC is based on the 2006 IBC published by the
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-26 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
International Code Conference. In addition, the CBC contains necessary California amendments which are based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standards 7-05. ASCE 7-05 provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California.
The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC.
Design Standards Building codes provide specific standards for design and construction of buildings and structures. On January 1, 2008, California officially adopted the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). The purpose of the CBC is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use, occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The CBC provides criteria for defining expansive soils.
4.6-10 The following revisions have been made to the Impact 4.6-1 discussion.
There are no active earthquake faults that are recognized or zoned by the State of California in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project alignments and sites. The only fault that would intersect any of the Proposed Project components is the Garnet Hill fault, which is mapped as buried with a location that is postulated across the proposed Farrell-Garnet alignment. Whereas seismic activity is not limited to active faults, ground rupture is typically associated with active faults. However, ground fractures cracks associated with the 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake were reported along the trace of the Garnet Hill fault, but the fractures were a result of ground shaking rather than fault rupture…
4.6-11 The Impact 4.6-3 discussion has been revised as indicated below.
In order for liquefaction to occur, there needs to be relatively shallow groundwater conditions, generally at depths of less than 50 feet below the ground surface. Shallow groundwater conditions do not exist in the project area and the
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-27 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Proposed Project would not cause the groundwater table to rise. Regardless, the potential for liquefaction or other phenomena resulting in dynamic ground settlement, if even present, can be easily reduced with adequate geotechnical and foundation engineering. Therefore, with the implementation of standard engineering practices, any potential impacts associated with liquefaction, if discovered during geotechnical investigations that would be conducted for the Proposed Project, would be reduced to less than significant levels. The potential impact related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.
4.6-17 The following reference is added.
Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 1986 North Palm Springs Earthquake. http://www.data.scec.org/fault_index/garnet.html. Accessed March 12, 2010.
Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
No changes have been made to Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality
4.8-21 Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b has been revised as indicated below. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b: Regarding the engineered erosion control and drainage plan developed as part of the site grading plan (APM HYDRO-2A), SCE shall conduct a topographic and gradient survey of the Whitewater River Wash both upstream and downstream of the proposed pole(s) replacement location within the wash. Post construction topography and gradient of the Whitewater River Wash shall be contoured SCE shall restore all areas on the Whitewater Wash disturbed during construction of the Proposed Project to match the existing conditions, to ensure that the drainage pattern is not altered in a manner that would cause on- or off-site erosion or sedimentation.
Section 4.9, Land Use, Planning and Policies
No changes have been made to Section 4.9, Land Use Planning and Policies.
Section 4.10, Mineral Resources
No changes have been made to Section 4.10, Mineral Resources.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-28 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Section 4.11, Noise
4.11-18 Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 has been revised as indicated below. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).
Mitigation Measure 4.11-2: Mirage Substation. SCE shall ensure that noise levels associated with the Mirage Substation do not exceed the Riverside County noise standards for stationary sources. Noise control techniques may include, but not be limited to: locating the new transformer with as much setback from the existing residential properties as possible, use of noise walls or equivalent sound attenuation devices, and the use of a transformer with special noise control specifications designed in a way to specifically achieve acceptable regulatory noise standards.
Prior to the installation of the new transformer, SCE shall submit to the CPUC and the County of Riverside, for review and approval, a plan that describes the specific measures that will be taken in order to comply with the County’s stationary noise standards. Once the proposed transformer is operational, SCE shall retain an acoustical engineer to perform noise measurements in the vicinity of the residences west of Mirage Substation to verify that transformer noise levels comply with the County standards. Documentation of compliance shall be submitted to the CPUC and Riverside County. In the event the transformer noise levels violate the standards, additional noise control techniques shall be initiated to correct the violation.
Section 4.12, Population and Housing
4.12-5 The following edit is made to the first sentence of the last paragraph.
Construction activities in the project area are expected to last approximately 12 months, within the 2010-2012 time frame. beginning in 2010 and concluding in mid-2011.
Section 4.13, Public Services
No changes have been made to Section 4.13, Public Services.
Section 4.14, Recreation
No changes have been made to Section 4.14, Recreation.
Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic
4.15-2 The following sentence is added to the end of second paragraph.
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-29 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Below are summary descriptions of the roadways that would be affected by the Proposed Project components, and/or the alternatives in the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas. All traffic data presented for the local roadways are average daily traffic levels.
4.15-2 The last paragraph is revised as follows.
Garnet Avenue. The proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line alignment parallels Garnet Avenue from the Garnet Substation to the road’s eastern extent, where it dead ends at a road block. Garnet Avenue is a two lane road that parallels the south side of I-5 I-10 and has no lane stripes and has low traffic levels.
Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems
No changes have been made to Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems.
Chapter 5. Comparison of Alternatives
5-2 The third paragraph under Section 5.2, Evaluation of Project Alternatives is clarified as follows.
In addition to significant unmitigable impacts described above, there are several differentiating impacts that with mitigation would be less than significant. It should be noted that there are two groups of alternative routes: (1) Farrell-Garnet, which includes the Proposed Project and Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 are compared to each other and to the Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line portion of, and (2) Mirage-Santa Rosa, which includes the Proposed Project, and Alternative 5 is compared to the Mirage-Santa Rosa subtransmission line portion of the Proposed Project. Table 5-2 provides a comparison of potential impacts by alternative for each resource category.
5-3 The following revisions have been made to the first two paragraphs under Section 5.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative.
As discussed in the previous section, the Proposed Project and all five alternatives would have significant unmitigable impacts on air quality during construction. The extent of the unmitigable impacts on air quality varies slightly by alternative but could not be mitigated to less than significant levels for the Proposed Project or any alternative. Consequently, the selection of an environmentally superior alternative is based on differences in intensity of air quality impacts and type of as well as the differences in intensity of the other environmental issue area impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation (Table 5-2). Based on these differences the identified environmentally superior alternative is the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnett study area
5. Revisions to the Draft EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-30 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
is Alternative 3 and the identified environmentally superior alternative for and the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area is Alternative 5.
All five alternatives studied in this EIR were variations of alignments that would use existing ROW. The alternatives studied would substitute one component of the Proposed Project (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3, 6, or 7 would be used in lieu of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line and Alternative 5 would be used in lieu of the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line). For a number of resources, there are no material environmental impact differences between the Proposed Project and alternatives including: agricultural resources; air quality; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, planning, and policies; mineral resources, noise; population and housing; public services; and recreation; and utilities and service systems.
5-4 – 5-8 Table 5-2, Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project vs. Alternatives Summary of Environmental Impact Conclusions, has been updated as indicated on the following pages.
5-9 The following revisions have been made to the first two paragraphs.
Implementation of the Proposed Project or any of the five alternatives would result in a significant unmitigable (Class I) impact on air quality during construction. Although impacts to air quality would be of varying degree (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities), the impacts would be short term and temporary in nature; therefore, impacts of varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.
Resource categories where environmental impacts would either be materially lessened or increased by implementing an alternative to the Proposed Project are discussed below.
• Air Quality – Implementation of the Proposed Project or any of the five alternatives would result in a significant unavoidable (Class I) short-term impact on air quality during construction. The short-term impacts to air quality would be of varying degree (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line). Based on these varying degrees of impact, the ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, and Alternative 2. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than Alternative 5.
5. C
ompa
rison
of A
ltern
ativ
es
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15kV
Sub
trans
mis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it P
roje
ct
5-31
E
SA
/ 20
7059
(A
.08-
01-0
29) F
inal
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Apr
il 20
10
TAB
LE 5
-2
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5kV
SUB
TRA
NSM
ISSI
ON
SYS
TEM
SPL
IT P
RO
JEC
T VS
. ALT
ERN
ATI
VES
SUM
MA
RY
OF
ENVI
RO
NM
ENTA
L IM
PAC
T C
ON
CLU
SIO
NS
Res
ourc
e A
rea
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
A
ltern
ativ
e 2
Alte
rnat
ive
3 A
ltern
ativ
e 5
Alte
rnat
ive
6 A
ltern
ativ
e 7
Aes
thet
ics
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
and
Cla
ss
III. T
he F
arre
ll-G
arne
t lin
e w
ould
incl
ude
1.55
.8 m
iles
of
over
head
line
and
the
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a lin
e w
ould
incl
ude
5.81
.5 m
iles
of
over
head
line
.
The
prop
osed
M
irage
-San
ta R
osa
line
wou
ld h
ave
mor
e of
an
impa
ct o
n ae
sthe
tics
than
A
ltern
ativ
e 5.
Impa
ct le
vels
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct. H
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
2 w
ould
re
sult
in 2
.8 3
.0 m
iles
less
ove
rhea
d lin
e th
an
the
prop
osed
Far
rell-
Gar
net l
ine.
Leas
t im
pact
for t
he
Farr
ell-G
arne
t stu
dy
area
.
Impa
ct le
vels
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct. H
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
3 w
ould
re
sult
in 2
.9 m
iles
of
over
head
line
alo
ng
Indi
an C
anyo
n R
oad,
a
maj
or e
ntry
way
into
P
alm
Spr
ings
less
ov
erhe
ad li
ne th
an th
e pr
opos
ed F
arre
ll-G
arne
t lin
e.
Leas
t Mos
t im
pact
on
aest
hetic
s fo
r the
Fa
rrel
l-Gar
net s
tudy
ar
ea.
Impa
ct le
vels
as
soci
ated
with
the
riser
pol
e w
ould
be
sim
ilar t
o th
e P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
. How
ever
, A
ltern
ativ
e 5
wou
ld b
e co
nstru
cted
un
derg
roun
d w
ith th
e ex
cept
ion
of th
e I-
10/U
PR
R c
ross
ing.
Less
of a
n im
pact
on
aest
hetic
s th
an th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-Sa
nta
Ros
a lin
e.
Impa
ct le
vels
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct. H
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
6 w
ould
re
sult
in 2
.6 m
iles
less
ov
erhe
ad li
ne th
an th
e pr
opos
ed F
arre
ll-G
arne
t lin
e.
Impa
ct le
vels
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct. H
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
7 w
ould
re
sult
in 3
.3 m
iles
mor
e of
ove
rhea
d lin
e th
an
the
prop
osed
Far
rell-
Gar
net l
ine.
Mos
t im
pact
on
aest
hetic
s fo
r the
Fa
rrel
l-Gar
net s
tudy
ar
ea.
Agr
icul
ture
R
esou
rces
Im
pact
s de
term
ined
to
be C
lass
III.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Air
Qua
lity
Wou
ld re
sult
in
tem
pora
ry s
igni
fican
t un
miti
gabl
e ai
r qua
lity
impa
cts
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n.
Ope
ratio
nal i
mpa
cts
wou
ld b
e C
lass
III a
nd
GH
G im
pact
s w
ould
be
Cla
ss II
.
No
Pref
eren
ce L
east
im
pact
s fo
r bot
h Fa
rrel
l-Gar
net a
nd
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a Li
nes.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
cons
truct
ion
emis
sion
s w
ould
be
slig
htly
hig
her
due
to tr
ench
ing
requ
ired
for t
he
unde
rgro
und
segm
ent.
No
Pref
eren
ce M
ost
impa
cts
for F
arre
ll-G
arne
t stu
dy a
rea.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
cons
truct
ion
emis
sion
s w
ould
be
slig
htly
hig
her
due
to tr
ench
ing
requ
ired
for t
he
unde
rgro
und
segm
ent.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
cons
truct
ion
emis
sion
s w
ould
be
high
er d
ue to
tre
nchi
ng re
quire
d fo
r th
e un
derg
roun
d se
gmen
t.
No
Pref
eren
ce M
ore
impa
cts
than
the
prop
osed
Mira
ge-
Sant
a R
osa
line.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er
cons
truct
ion
emis
sion
s w
ould
be
slig
htly
hi
gher
due
to th
e gr
eate
r len
gth
of th
e lin
e.
No
Pref
eren
ce
5. C
ompa
rison
of A
ltern
ativ
es
TAB
LE 5
-2 (C
ontin
ued)
D
EVER
S-M
IRA
GE
115k
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
VS. A
LTER
NA
TIVE
S SU
MM
AR
Y O
F EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
IMPA
CT
CO
NC
LUSI
ON
S
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15kV
Sub
trans
mis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it P
roje
ct
5-32
E
SA
/ 20
7059
(A
.08-
01-0
29) F
inal
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Apr
il 20
10
Res
ourc
e A
rea
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
A
ltern
ativ
e 2
Alte
rnat
ive
3 A
ltern
ativ
e 5
Alte
rnat
ive
6 A
ltern
ativ
e 7
Bio
logi
cal
Res
ourc
es
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
and
Cla
ss
III.
Mos
t im
pact
s to
bi
olog
ical
reso
urce
s fo
r the
Far
rell-
Gar
net
and
Mira
ge-S
anta
R
osa
stud
y ar
eas.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e le
ss
adve
rse
than
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct g
iven
th
at:
• A
lthou
gh th
e ov
eral
l le
ngth
of t
he
alte
rnat
ive
wou
ld b
e 0.
2 m
ile lo
nger
than
th
e P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
, it w
ould
in
clud
e 2.
8 3.
0 m
iles
less
ove
rhea
d lin
e an
d as
soci
ated
op
erat
iona
l im
pact
s;
and
• Th
e al
tern
ativ
e cr
osse
s th
roug
h lo
wer
qua
lity
habi
tat
for t
he s
ame
spec
ial
stat
us s
peci
es.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e le
ss
adve
rse
than
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct g
iven
th
at:
• A
lthou
gh th
e ov
eral
l le
ngth
of t
he
alte
rnat
ive
wou
ld b
e 0.
7 m
ile lo
nger
than
th
e P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
, it w
ould
in
clud
e 2.
9 m
iles
less
ove
rhea
d lin
e an
d as
soci
ated
op
erat
iona
l im
pact
s;
• Th
e lin
e w
ould
tra
vers
e th
roug
h pr
imar
ily u
rban
and
di
stur
bed
area
s th
at
lack
sui
tabl
e ha
bita
t fo
r mos
t spe
cial
st
atus
spe
cies
; and
• Th
e al
tern
ativ
e cr
osse
s th
roug
h lo
wer
qua
lity
habi
tat
for t
he s
ame
spec
ial
stat
us s
peci
es.
Leas
t im
pact
s on
bi
olog
ical
reso
urce
s fo
r the
Far
rell-
Gar
net
stud
y ar
ea.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e le
ss
adve
rse
than
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct g
iven
th
at:
• W
ith a
lmos
t no
over
head
line
s,
oper
atio
nal i
mpa
cts
from
this
alte
rnat
ive
wou
ld b
e le
ss
adve
rse
than
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct;
and
• Th
e lin
e w
ould
tra
vers
e th
roug
h pa
ved
stre
ets
bord
ered
by
orna
men
tal t
rees
that
pr
ovid
e po
or q
ualit
y ha
bita
t for
mos
t sp
ecia
l sta
tus
spec
ies.
Less
impa
cts
on
biol
ogic
al re
sour
ces
than
the
prop
osed
M
irage
-San
ta R
osa
line.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e le
ss
adve
rse
than
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct g
iven
th
at:
• Th
e ov
eral
l len
gth
of
the
alte
rnat
ive
wou
ld
be 1
.6 m
iles
shor
ter
than
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; a
nd 2
.6
mile
s le
ss o
verh
ead
line
and
asso
ciat
ed
oper
atio
nal i
mpa
cts;
• Th
e lin
e w
ould
not
in
trodu
ce a
ny n
ew
abov
e gr
ound
pow
er
lines
whe
re th
ey
don’
t alre
ady
exis
t so
oper
atio
nal i
mpa
cts
wou
ld b
e le
ss
adve
rse;
• Th
e al
tern
ativ
e cr
osse
s th
roug
h lo
wer
qua
lity
habi
tat
for t
he s
ame
spec
ial
stat
us s
peci
es.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e le
ss
adve
rse
than
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct g
iven
th
at:
• Th
e lin
e w
ould
not
in
trodu
ce a
ny n
ew
abov
e gr
ound
pow
er
lines
whe
re th
ey
don’
t alre
ady
exis
t so
oper
atio
nal i
mpa
cts
wou
ld b
e le
ss
adve
rse;
• Th
e al
tern
ativ
e cr
osse
s th
roug
h lo
wer
qua
lity
habi
tat
for t
he s
ame
spec
ial
stat
us s
peci
es.
Leas
t im
pact
s on
bi
olog
ical
reso
urce
s fo
r the
Far
rell-
Gar
net
stud
y ar
ea.
Cul
tura
l Res
ourc
es
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
and
C
lass
III.
Mos
t Lea
st im
pact
s to
cul
tura
l res
ourc
es
for t
he F
arre
ll-G
arne
t an
d M
irage
-San
ta
Ros
a st
udy
area
s.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct. A
ltern
ativ
e 2
wou
ld re
sult
in th
e m
ost s
ubsu
rface
di
stur
banc
e an
d is
the
only
alte
rnat
ive
that
w
ould
resu
lt in
dire
ct
impa
cts
to G
arne
t Hill
.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct. H
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
5 w
ould
av
oid
CA
-RIV
-785
, and
33
-154
29, a
nd 3
3 -15
430.
How
ever
, A
ltern
ativ
e 5
wou
ld
resu
lt in
sub
stan
tially
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
6 w
ould
not
im
pact
Gar
nett
Hill
or
the
high
sen
sitiv
ity
Impe
rial F
orm
atio
n.
Alte
rnat
ive
6 w
ould
in
volv
e on
e m
ile o
f
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
7 w
ould
not
im
pact
Gar
nett
Hill
or
the
high
sen
sitiv
ity
Impe
rial F
orm
atio
n an
d w
ould
invo
lve
no
unde
rgro
und
line
5. C
ompa
rison
of A
ltern
ativ
es
TAB
LE 5
-2 (C
ontin
ued)
D
EVER
S-M
IRA
GE
115k
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
VS. A
LTER
NA
TIVE
S SU
MM
AR
Y O
F EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
IMPA
CT
CO
NC
LUSI
ON
S
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15kV
Sub
trans
mis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it P
roje
ct
5-33
E
SA
/ 20
7059
(A
.08-
01-0
29) F
inal
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Apr
il 20
10
Res
ourc
e A
rea
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
A
ltern
ativ
e 2
Alte
rnat
ive
3 A
ltern
ativ
e 5
Alte
rnat
ive
6 A
ltern
ativ
e 7
Cul
tura
l Res
ourc
es
(con
t.)
M
ost i
mpa
cts
for
Farr
ell-G
arne
t stu
dy
area
.
m
ore
subs
urfa
ce
dist
urba
nce.
Less
impa
cts
than
th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-Sa
nta
Ros
a lin
e.
Mor
e im
pact
s th
an
the
prop
osed
Mira
ge-
Sant
a R
osa
line.
unde
rgro
und
line
wor
k,
but w
ould
be
4.2
mile
s lo
ng (i
.e.,
less
pol
e dr
illin
g).
cons
truct
ion,
but
wou
ld
be a
ppro
xim
atel
y 9.
1 m
iles
long
.
Leas
t im
pact
s on
cu
ltura
l res
ourc
es fo
r th
e Fa
rrel
l-Gar
net
stud
y ar
ea.
Geo
logy
and
Soi
ls
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
I.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er ri
sk o
f ex
cess
ive
settl
emen
t an
d/or
ero
sion
wou
ld
be s
light
ly h
ighe
r due
to
tren
chin
g re
quire
d fo
r the
und
ergr
ound
se
gmen
t.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er ri
sk o
f ex
cess
ive
settl
emen
t an
d/or
ero
sion
wou
ld
be s
light
ly h
ighe
r due
to
tren
chin
g re
quire
d fo
r the
und
ergr
ound
se
gmen
t.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er ri
sk o
f ex
cess
ive
settl
emen
t an
d/or
ero
sion
wou
ld
be s
light
ly h
ighe
r due
to
tren
chin
g re
quire
d fo
r the
und
ergr
ound
se
gmen
t.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er ri
sk o
f ex
cess
ive
settl
emen
t an
d/or
ero
sion
wou
ld
be s
light
ly h
ighe
r due
to
tren
chin
g re
quire
d fo
r the
und
ergr
ound
se
gmen
t.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Haz
ards
and
H
azar
dous
M
ater
ials
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
and
C
lass
III.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Leas
t im
pact
s fo
r bo
th F
arre
ll-G
arne
t an
d M
irage
-San
ta
Ros
a st
udy
area
s.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
2 w
ould
be
loca
ted
clos
er to
ex
istin
g sc
hool
s an
d w
ould
hav
e a
grea
ter
risk
of e
ncou
nter
ing
prev
ious
ly u
nkno
wn
cont
amin
atio
n an
d im
pact
ing
an
evac
uatio
n ro
ute
due
to tr
ench
ing
requ
irem
ents
for t
he
unde
rgro
und
segm
ent.
N
o Pr
efer
ence
M
ost i
mpa
cts
for
Farr
ell-G
arne
t stu
dy
area
.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
3 w
ould
be
loca
ted
clos
er to
ex
istin
g sc
hool
s an
d w
ould
hav
e a
grea
ter
risk
of e
ncou
nter
ing
prev
ious
ly u
nkno
wn
cont
amin
atio
n an
d im
pact
ing
an
evac
uatio
n ro
ute
due
to tr
ench
ing
requ
irem
ents
for t
he
unde
rgro
und
segm
ent.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
5 w
ould
ha
ve a
gre
ater
risk
of
enco
unte
ring
prev
ious
ly u
nkno
wn
cont
amin
atio
n an
d im
pact
ing
an
evac
uatio
n ro
ute
due
to tr
ench
ing
requ
irem
ents
for t
he
unde
rgro
und
segm
ent.
N
o Pr
efer
ence
M
ore
impa
cts
than
th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-Sa
nta
Ros
a lin
e.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
6 w
ould
ha
ve a
gre
ater
risk
of
enco
unte
ring
prev
ious
ly u
nkno
wn
cont
amin
atio
n an
d im
pact
ing
an
evac
uatio
n ro
ute
due
to tr
ench
ing
requ
irem
ents
for t
he
unde
rgro
und
segm
ent.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
7 w
ould
be
loca
ted
clos
er to
ex
istin
g sc
hool
s.
No
Pref
eren
ce
5. C
ompa
rison
of A
ltern
ativ
es
TAB
LE 5
-2 (C
ontin
ued)
D
EVER
S-M
IRA
GE
115k
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
VS. A
LTER
NA
TIVE
S SU
MM
AR
Y O
F EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
IMPA
CT
CO
NC
LUSI
ON
S
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15kV
Sub
trans
mis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it P
roje
ct
5-34
E
SA
/ 20
7059
(A
.08-
01-0
29) F
inal
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Apr
il 20
10
Res
ourc
e A
rea
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
A
ltern
ativ
e 2
Alte
rnat
ive
3 A
ltern
ativ
e 5
Alte
rnat
ive
6 A
ltern
ativ
e 7
Hyd
rolo
gy a
nd
Wat
er Q
ualit
y Im
pact
s de
term
ined
to
be C
lass
II a
nd
Cla
ss II
I.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er, s
oil
dist
urba
nce
durin
g tre
nchi
ng fo
r the
un
derg
roun
d se
gmen
t w
ould
resu
lt in
slig
htly
hi
gher
impa
cts
to w
ater
qu
ality
.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er s
oil
dist
urba
nce
durin
g tre
nchi
ng fo
r the
un
derg
roun
d se
gmen
t w
ould
resu
lt in
slig
htly
hi
gher
impa
cts
to w
ater
qu
ality
.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er, s
oil
dist
urba
nce
durin
g tre
nchi
ng fo
r the
un
derg
roun
d se
gmen
t w
ould
resu
lt in
slig
htly
hi
gher
impa
cts
to w
ater
qu
ality
.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er, s
oil
dist
urba
nce
durin
g tre
nchi
ng fo
r the
un
derg
roun
d se
gmen
t w
ould
resu
lt in
slig
htly
hi
gher
impa
cts
to w
ater
qu
ality
.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er, t
he
grea
ter a
mou
nt o
f pol
e re
plac
emen
t wou
ld
resu
lt in
slig
htly
hig
her
impa
cts
to w
ater
qu
ality
.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Land
Use
, P
lann
ing,
and
P
olic
ies
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
and
Cla
ss
III.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Min
eral
Res
ourc
es
No
impa
cts
wer
e id
entif
ied.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Noi
se
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
and
C
lass
III.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Leas
t im
pact
s fo
r bo
th F
arre
ll-G
arne
t an
d M
irage
-San
ta
Ros
a st
udy
area
s.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
unde
rgro
und
porti
ons
wou
ld h
ave
grea
ter
nois
e an
d vi
brat
ion
impa
cts
from
co
nstru
ctio
n, th
ough
le
ss im
pact
s fro
m
coro
na n
oise
. N
o Pr
efer
ence
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
3 w
ould
ha
ve re
sult
in th
e m
ost
unde
rgro
und
cons
truct
ion
activ
ity
porti
ons
adja
cent
to
resi
denc
es a
nd w
ould
ha
ve g
reat
er n
oise
and
vi
brat
ion
impa
cts
from
co
nstru
ctio
n, th
ough
le
ss im
pact
s fro
m
coro
na n
oise
. N
o Pr
efer
ence
M
ost i
mpa
cts
for
Farr
ell-G
arne
t stu
dy
area
.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er, t
he
pres
ence
of a
gre
ater
nu
mbe
r of r
esid
ence
s in
pro
xim
ity to
this
al
tern
ativ
e co
uld
resu
lt in
gre
ater
tem
pora
ry
impa
cts
from
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Mor
e im
pact
s th
an
the
prop
osed
Mira
ge-
Sant
a R
osa
line.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er,
unde
rgro
und
porti
ons
wou
ld h
ave
grea
ter
nois
e an
d vi
brat
ion
impa
cts
from
co
nstru
ctio
n, th
ough
le
ss im
pact
s fro
m
coro
na n
oise
. N
o Pr
efer
ence
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er, t
he
alte
rnat
ive’
s pr
oxim
ity
to a
gre
ater
num
ber o
f re
side
ntia
l rec
epto
rs
wou
ld re
sult
in g
reat
er
expo
sure
to a
mbi
ent
coro
na n
oise
. N
o Pr
efer
ence
5. C
ompa
rison
of A
ltern
ativ
es
TAB
LE 5
-2 (C
ontin
ued)
D
EVER
S-M
IRA
GE
115k
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
VS. A
LTER
NA
TIVE
S SU
MM
AR
Y O
F EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
IMPA
CT
CO
NC
LUSI
ON
S
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15kV
Sub
trans
mis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it P
roje
ct
5-35
E
SA
/ 20
7059
(A
.08-
01-0
29) F
inal
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Apr
il 20
10
Res
ourc
e A
rea
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
A
ltern
ativ
e 2
Alte
rnat
ive
3 A
ltern
ativ
e 5
Alte
rnat
ive
6 A
ltern
ativ
e 7
Pop
ulat
ion
and
Hou
sing
N
o im
pact
s w
ere
iden
tifie
d.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Pub
lic S
ervi
ces
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
and
C
lass
III.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Leas
t im
pact
s fo
r bo
th F
arre
ll-G
arne
t an
d M
irage
-San
ta
Ros
a st
udy
area
s.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er
addi
tiona
l lan
e cl
osur
e re
quire
d fo
r the
un
derg
roun
d po
rtion
co
uld
lead
to s
light
ly
high
er im
pact
s to
em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
tim
es.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er
Alte
rnat
ive
3 w
ould
re
sult
in th
e m
ost
unde
rgro
und
line
wor
k in
road
s in
the
Farr
ell-
Gar
net s
tudy
are
a, a
nd
the
addi
tiona
l lan
e cl
osur
e re
quire
d fo
r the
un
derg
roun
d po
rtion
co
uld
lead
to s
light
ly
high
er im
pact
s to
em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
tim
es.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Mos
t im
pact
s fo
r Fa
rrel
l-Gar
net s
tudy
ar
ea.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er
Alte
rnat
ive
5 w
ould
re
sult
in s
ubst
antia
lly
mor
e un
derg
roun
d lin
e w
ork
in ro
ads
than
the
Mira
ge-S
anta
Ros
a lin
e, a
nd th
e ad
ditio
nal
lane
clo
sure
requ
ired
for t
he u
nder
grou
nd
porti
on c
ould
lead
to
slig
htly
hig
her i
mpa
cts
to e
mer
genc
y re
spon
se ti
mes
. N
o Pr
efer
ence
M
ore
impa
cts
than
th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-Sa
nta
Ros
a lin
e.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er
addi
tiona
l lan
e cl
osur
e re
quire
d fo
r the
un
derg
roun
d po
rtion
co
uld
lead
to s
light
ly
high
er im
pact
s to
em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
tim
es.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Rec
reat
ion
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
I.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Tran
spor
tatio
n an
d Tr
affic
Im
pact
s de
term
ined
to
be C
lass
II a
nd
Cla
ss II
I.
Leas
t im
pact
s to
tr
affic
and
tr
ansp
orta
tion
for t
he
Farr
ell-G
arne
t and
M
irage
-San
ta R
osa
stud
y ar
eas.
Impa
ct le
vels
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er
addi
tiona
l roa
dway
cl
osur
es a
nd ro
adw
ay
dam
age
that
wou
ld
resu
lt fro
m tr
ench
ing
activ
ities
alo
ng th
e 3.
0 3.
2 -m
ile u
nder
grou
nd
segm
ent w
ould
lead
to
high
er te
mpo
rary
Impa
ct le
vels
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er
addi
tiona
l roa
dway
cl
osur
es a
nd ro
adw
ay
dam
age
that
wou
ld
resu
lt fro
m tr
ench
ing
activ
ities
alo
ng th
e 3.
6-m
ile u
nder
grou
nd
segm
ent w
ould
lead
to
high
er te
mpo
rary
Impa
ct le
vels
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er
addi
tiona
l roa
dway
cl
osur
es a
nd ro
adw
ay
dam
age
that
wou
ld
resu
lt fro
m tr
ench
ing
activ
ities
alo
ng th
e 3.
0-m
ile u
nder
grou
nd
segm
ent w
ould
lead
to
high
er te
mpo
rary
Impa
ct le
vels
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er
addi
tiona
l roa
dway
cl
osur
es a
nd ro
adw
ay
dam
age
that
wou
ld
resu
lt fro
m tr
ench
ing
activ
ities
alo
ng th
e 1.
0-m
ile u
nder
grou
nd
segm
ent w
ould
lead
to
high
er te
mpo
rary
Impa
ct le
vels
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct; h
owev
er s
ince
a
grea
ter n
umbe
r of
road
way
s w
ould
be
cros
sed
by th
is
alte
rnat
ive,
tem
pora
ry
impa
cts
to tr
affic
dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
wou
ld b
e sl
ight
ly h
ighe
r tha
n th
e P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
.
5. C
ompa
rison
of A
ltern
ativ
es
TAB
LE 5
-2 (C
ontin
ued)
D
EVER
S-M
IRA
GE
115k
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
VS. A
LTER
NA
TIVE
S SU
MM
AR
Y O
F EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
IMPA
CT
CO
NC
LUSI
ON
S
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15kV
Sub
trans
mis
sion
Sys
tem
Spl
it P
roje
ct
5-36
E
SA
/ 20
7059
(A
.08-
01-0
29) F
inal
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Apr
il 20
10
Res
ourc
e A
rea
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
A
ltern
ativ
e 2
Alte
rnat
ive
3 A
ltern
ativ
e 5
Alte
rnat
ive
6 A
ltern
ativ
e 7
Tran
spor
tatio
n an
d Tr
affic
(con
t.)
im
pact
s du
ring
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
. im
pact
s du
ring
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
.
Mos
t im
pact
s to
tr
affic
and
tr
ansp
orta
tion
for t
he
Farr
ell-G
arne
t stu
dy
area
.
impa
cts
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Mor
e im
pact
s to
tr
affic
and
tr
ansp
orta
tion
than
th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-Sa
nta
Ros
a lin
e.
impa
cts
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Util
ities
and
S
ervi
ce S
yste
ms
Impa
cts
dete
rmin
ed to
be
Cla
ss II
I. N
o Pr
efer
ence
Le
ast i
mpa
cts
for
both
Far
rell-
Gar
net
and
Mira
ge-S
anta
R
osa
stud
y ar
eas.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct. H
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
2 w
ould
re
sult
in th
e m
ost
unde
rgro
und
line
wor
k in
the
Farr
ell-G
arne
t st
udy
area
and
wou
ld
invo
lve
the
grea
test
po
tent
ial f
or
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
to
dis
turb
exi
stin
g su
bsur
face
util
ities
. N
o Pr
efer
ence
M
ost i
mpa
cts
for
Farr
ell-G
arne
t stu
dy
area
.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct. H
owev
er,
Alte
rnat
ive
5 w
ould
re
sult
in m
ore
unde
rgro
und
line
wor
k co
mpa
red
to th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-S
anta
Ros
a lin
e an
d w
ould
invo
lve
the
mos
t po
tent
ial f
or
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
to
dis
turb
exi
stin
g su
bsur
face
util
ities
. N
o Pr
efer
ence
M
ore
impa
cts
than
th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-Sa
nta
Ros
a lin
e.
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
Impa
cts
wou
ld b
e si
mila
r to
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct.
No
Pref
eren
ce
5. Comparison of Alternatives
Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-37 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
5-9 The text of the first bullet is revised as follows.
• Aesthetics – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Alternative 7 would involve the most amount of overhead line in the Farrell-Garnet study area, including the most overhead line in residential areas and a crossing of I-10. Alternative 3 would involve the least amount of overhead line with no I-10 crossings, but would result in nearly doubling the height and base diameter of structures along Indian Canyon Road which is a major entryway to the City of Palm Springs. Alternative 2 is considered the most favorable for aesthetics because the overhead portion of that line would be in an area with low visual sensitivity. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: Alternative 3, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 6, Alternative 7, and Alternative 73. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, Alternative 5 would result in only a short span of overhead line across I-10 and the UPRR, compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would include approximately 1.5 miles of overhead line. Therefore, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line.
5-9 The text of the second bullet is revised as follows.
• Biological Resources – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. The Proposed Project alignments contain more suitable habitat for special status species than do the alternative alignments. Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 37 would result in the least most amount of overhead line and associated long-term impacts; however, Alternative 7 would be constructed in the least suitable habitat for special status species, making it the most favorable alternative, followed by Alternative 6, Alternative 3, Alternative 2, and the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, and Alternative 7. Compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in approximately 1.5 miles of new overhead line in more suitable habitat for special status species, Alternative 5 would result in only a short segment of overhead line associated with the I-10 and UPRR crossings and it would be in less suitable habitat for special status species.
5-9 The text of the third bullet is revised as follows.
• Cultural Resources – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Alternative 6 and Alternative 7 would have no impact on the Garnet Hill cultural resource compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. It should be noted that Alternative 2 is the only alignment that would include direct impacts to Garnet Hill. Between Alternatives 6 and 7, Alternative 6 Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would include a higher potential for an undiscovered find compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line and Alternative 7 due to the one-mile underground line
5. Comparison of Alternatives
Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-38 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
construction work that would be associated with Alternative 6 those alternatives. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, and Alternative 2. Compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 would avoid CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430. However, Alternative 5 would result in substantially more subsurface disturbance associated with trenching for the underground line compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in more severe of an impact related to undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources. Therefore, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than Alternative 5.
5-10 The following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph.
• Noise – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least duration of construction work in the vicinity of sensitive receptors (i.e., residences). Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 3 would result in the highest duration of construction activity in the vicinity of sensitive receptors due to the longest length of underground line work that would occur near residences, followed by Alternative 2 and Alternative 6. Alternative 7 would not include underground line work, but would affect more sensitive receptors than the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. Compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 would result in a longer duration of construction activity in the vicinity of more sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.
5-10 The following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph.
• Public Services – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least potential for construction activities to affect vehicle access and fire department response times because the alternatives with underground components would require lengthier lane closures that could more severely affect emergency response times, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative and more lane closures associated with overhead road crossings compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6,
5. Comparison of Alternatives
Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-39 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.
5-10 The following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph.
• Utilities and Service Systems – Impacts would be less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least potential for construction activities to disturb utilities because the alternatives with underground components would have a higher potential to disturb underground utilities, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative and the greater potential for the additional pole excavations to disturb underground utilities compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, and Alternative 2. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.
5-10 The last paragraph under Section 5.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative, has been replaced with the following paragraphs.
While the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least amount of transportation and traffic impacts compared to the alternatives, these impacts would be primarily short-term and would conclude at the end of construction period. Because the Alternative 5 subtransmission line would result in less long-term aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. With regard to the Farrell-Garnet study area, Alternative 3 would result in the least amount of long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line and Alternatives 2, 6, and 7; however, Alternative 7 would result in the least amount of impacts to cultural resources compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line and Alternatives 2, 3, and 6. After considering all impacts, and the long length of Alternative 7, Alternative 3 is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area.
For the ranking of alternatives to support the identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for each geographical study area, a weighting factor was assigned to each resource area for which at least some differentiation between alternatives was discernable. Air quality was assigned the highest weighting because it had the only significant and unavoidable impact. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be long term, though admittedly less
5. Comparison of Alternatives
Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-40 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
than significant, were assigned the next highest weighting. Aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources fall into that category. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but most noticeable to many people (i.e., noise, and transportation and traffic) were assigned the third highest weighting. And finally, resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but generally not noticeable to many people (i.e., hazards/hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems) were assigned the lowest weighting. No weighting was assigned to resources areas for which no discernable distinction could be made from the Draft EIR analysis (i.e., agriculture resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation).
The Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least severe air quality, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems impacts compared to the alternatives, and in the Farrell-Garnet study area the Proposed Project would result in the second least severe impacts related to aesthetics. However, the Proposed Project would result in the most severe impacts related to biological resources in both study areas and would result in the most severe impacts related to aesthetics in the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. Because the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in less severe significant and unavoidable air quality construction impacts than the alternatives, with the exception of biological resources and aesthetics, and would result in less severe impacts compared to the alternatives for all of the other resource areas where a preference is identified, the Proposed Project subtransmission lines (i.e., the proposed Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission lines) are selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for both the Farrell-Garnett and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.
5-10, -11 The paragraph under Section 5.4.2, Summary of the Environmentally Superior Alternative and its Impacts, has been revised as follows.
The Environmentally Superior Alternatives are defined in Section 5.3 as Alternative 3 the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnet study area and Alternative 5 for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. The impacts of Alternatives 3 and 5 the Proposed Project are defined in each resource area’s impact analysis in Sections 4.1 through 4.16, and are also summarized in Table 5-2, above. The Environmentally Superior Alternatives would each have the same short-term construction related significant and unmitigable (Class I) impacts on air quality. As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.16, other types of impacts would also occur under the Proposed Project, but they would be either less than significant or mitigable to less than significant levels.
5. Comparison of Alternatives
Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-41 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
5-11 The paragraph under Section 5.4.3, Conclusion: Comparison of the Environmentally Superior Alternative with the No Project Alternative, is revised as follows.
The Environmentally Superior Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5) as defined above would reduce long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts and would have minimal long-term impacts on residences or other sensitive land uses. Under the No Project Alternative scenario, SCE may be required to construct new subtransmission and transmission lines and/or additional power generation in or near the study area to supply power to the Electrical Needs Area. It would be overly speculative for this EIR to assume where the new subtransmission and transmission facilities and/or power generation facilities would be sited; however, it is reasonable to assume that at a minimum, environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative scenario would not be less than those from the Environmentally Superior Alternatives. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives are preferred over the No Project Alternative.
Chapter 6. CEQA Statutory Sections
No changes have been made to Chapter 6, CEQA Statutory Sections.
Chapter 7. Report Preparers
No changes have been made to Chapter 7, Report Preparers.
Chapter 8. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program
All text changes to the Draft EIR mitigation measures described in Section 5 are also reflected in the Final EIR Appendix E, Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program.
8-32 The Monitoring/Reporting Requirements and Timing entries for Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b in Table 8-1, Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project, have been revised as follows. The same clarification has been incorporated in Appendix E.
Monitoring/Reporting Requirements Timing
SCE to submit results of topographic and gradient survey to CPUC for review. CPUC mitigation monitor to inspect compliance. CPUC mitigation monitor to monitor compliance.
Survey results to be submitted prior to construction activities within the Whitewater River Wash. Following construction activities within the Whitewater River Wash. Inspection to be performed following completion of grading activities within the wash.
5. Comparison of Alternatives
Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-42 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
8-32, -33 The Mitigation/Reporting Requirements entry for Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 in Table 8-1, Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project, has been revised as follows. The same clarification has been incorporated in Appendix E.
Monitoring/Reporting Requirements
SCE to submit plan for compliance to Riverside County and CPUC for review and approval.
SCE to retain an acoustical engineer, and submit documentation of compliance to the CPUC and Riverside County.
Appendix B
B-1 The referenced sentence in the first paragraph has been revised as follows.
Units of measure are Gauss (G) or milliGauss (mG, 111000 1/1000 of a Gauss).
B-2 The following clarification to the top of the page is included.
Its recommendations were filed with the Commission in March of 1992, and became the basis for the CPUC’s EMF Policy established in D.93-11-013.
B-2 The second paragraph is clarified as follows.
Findings – Based on the work of the Consensus Group, written testimony, and evidentiary hearings, the CPUC issued its decisions D.93-11-013 and (D.06-01-042) to address . . .
B-4 The referenced sentence in the last paragraph is revised as follows.
Specific measures to be implemented are described in the attached Field Management Plan for the Proposed Project (Appendix D B – Section 2) and alternatives (Appendix D B – Section 3).
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 6-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
CHAPTER 6 Agencies, Organizations, and Persons that Received the Final EIR
The Lead Agency (the California Public Utilities Commission), the project Applicant (Southern California Edison), and listed parties on the CPUC service list received a hard copy of the Final EIR. All other agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted comments on the Draft EIR received a compact disc (CD) of the Final EIR unless a hard copy was specifically requested. Table 6(RTC)-1 shows the commenters who received a hard copy of the Final EIR via an overnight delivery service, while Table 6(RTC)-2 shows agencies and individuals who received a CD of the document.
TABLE 6(RTC)-1 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
SENT THE FINAL EIR VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION/ INDIVIDUAL FIRST NAME LAST NAME STREET CITY STATE
ZIP CODE
LEAD AGENCY/APPLICANT
California Public Utilities Commission
Eric Chiang 505 Van Ness Avenue, Energy Division, Room 4A
San Francisco CA 94102
Southern California Edison Company
Milissa Marona 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rm. 370
Rosemead CA 91770
LOCAL LIBRARIES SERVING AS REPOSITORIES
Cathedral City Branch Library
Amy Dotson 33520 Date Palm Drive Cathedral City CA 92234-1307
Thousand Palms Branch Library
Sharon 31189 Roberts Road Thousand Palms
CA 92276-3235
STATE AGENCIES
California Native American Heritage Commission
David Singleton 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento CA 95814
California State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street Sacramento CA 95814
6. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons that Received the Final EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 6-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
TABLE 6(RTC)-2 AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS SENT A COMPACT DISC (CD)
OF FINAL EIR VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION/ RESIDENT FIRST NAME LAST NAME STREET CITY STATE
ZIP CODE
LOCAL AGENCIES
City of Cathedral City Bill Bayne 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City CA 92234
City of Palm Springs Marcus Fuller 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Drive Palm Springs CA 92263-2743
Riverside County Transportation Department, Dester Permit Assistance Center
Mojahed Salama 38686 El Cerrito Road Palm Desert CA 92211
County of Riverside George Johnson 4080 Lemon St. 8th Floor Riverside CA 92501
County of Riverside Ron Goldman 4080 Lemon St. 9th Floor Riverside CA 92501
County of Riverside Roy Wilson 4080 Lemon St. 5th Floor Riverside CA 92501
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Steve Smith 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765-4182
Riverside County LAFCo George J. Spiliotis 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside CA 92507-4277
City of Palm Desert City Hall - Planning Department
Lori Aylaian 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260
City of Palm Desert Public Works
Mark Greenwood 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260
City of Palm Desert Carlos Artega 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260City of Rancho Mirage Community Development Department
Randy Bynder 69-825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage CA 92270
City of Indian Wells Planning Department
Corrie Kates 44-950 Eldorado Drive Indian Wells CA 92210
Coachella Valley Water District
Georgia Celehar P.O. Box 1058 Coachella CA 92236
STATE AGENCIES
California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8
Bill Mosby 464 W. 4th Street, 6th Floor MF 1221
San Bernardino CA 92401
California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics--M.S. #40
Sandy Hesnard1120 N Street, P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento CA
94273-0001
California Department of Public Health Environmental Management Branch
Robin Hook 1616 Capitol Avenue, MS 7402
Sacramento CA 95814-7402
Regional Water Quality Control Board
John Carmona 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside CA 92501-3348
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
Jim Marxen 1001 I Street Sacramento CA 95814
California Department of Fish and Game, Region 6
Curt Taucher 4665 Lampson Avenue, Suite J
Los Alamitos CA 90720
California Resources Agency
Mike Chrisman 1416 9th Street, Ste 1311 Sacramento CA 95814
Office of Historic Preservation
Milford Wayne Donaldson 1416 9th Street, Room 1442-7
Sacramento CA 95814
California Department of Parks and Recreation, Inland Empire District
Enrique Arroyo 17801 Lake Perris Drive Perris CA 92571
California State Lands Commission
Paul D. Thayer 100 Howe Ave. Suite 100 South
Sacramento CA 95825
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
Gary Hund 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 205
Palm Desert CA 92260
California Air Resources Board
Catherine Witherspoon 1001 I Street Sacramento CA 95812
6. Agencies, Organizations and Persons that Received the Final EIR
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 6-3 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
TABLE 6(RTC)-2 (Continued) AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS SENT A COMPACT DISC (CD)
OF FINAL EIR VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
AGENCY/ORGANIZATION/ RESIDENT FIRST NAME LAST NAME STREET CITY STATE
ZIP CODE
FEDERAL AGENCIES US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
David M. Van Dorpe 915 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101
Los Angeles CA 90017-3401
US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
David Castanon 915 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101
Los Angeles CA 90017-3401
Bureau of Land Management
Diane Gomez 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs CA 92262
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Mark Massar 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs CA 92262
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
John Kalish 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs CA 92262
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Southern California Field Office
Steven John 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460
Los Angeles CA 90017
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eric Portal 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101
Carlsbad CA 92011
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Pete Sorenson 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101
Carlsbad CA 92011
Coachella Valley NWR Ginny Short P.O. Box 188 Thousand Palms CA 92276
NATIVE AMERICANS Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Richard Begay 650 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA 92262
Alvino Siva 2034 W. Westward Banning CA 92220
Anthony J. Andreas Jr. 3022 W. Nicolet Street Banning CA 92220
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
Mary Ann Green P.O. Box 846 Coachella CA 92236
Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians
Karen Kupcha P.O. Box 846 Coachella CA 92236
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
John A. James 84245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio CA 92203-3499
Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
Judy Stapp 84245 Indio Springs Parkway
Indio CA 92203-3499
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
Britt W. Wilson 245 N. Murray Street, Suite C
Banning CA 92220
Ramona Band of Mission Indians
Terry Hughes P.O. Box 1291 Yucca Valley CA 92286
Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians
Ernest Morreo P.O. Box 609 Hemet CA 92546
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 1160 Thermal CA 92274
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
Raymond Torres P.O. Box 1160 Thermal CA 92274
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
William J. Contreras P.O. Box 1160 Thermal CA 92274
PUBLIC COMMENTERS
Thomas C. MacMaster 641 Dunes Court Palm Springs CA 92264
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project A-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
APPENDIX A Notice of Availability
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
A-2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
To: State Clearinghouse, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, Property Owners, & Interested Parties
From: Eric Chiang, Environmental Project Manager
Subject: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PUBLIC MEETING: Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (A.08-01-029) SCH No. 2008041087
Date: January 7, 2010
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for consideration of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) application to construct, operate, and maintain the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (Proposed Project). The Draft EIR details the Proposed Project, evaluates and describes thepotential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Project, identifies those impacts that could be significant, and presents mitigation measures which, if adopted by the CPUC, could avoid or minimize these impacts. The Draft EIR also evaluates alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. Description of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is located within central Riverside County, including portions of the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Cathedral City, and Indian Wells, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the community of Thousand Palms. See the map that follows this notice for an illustration of the project area. The Proposed Project includes the following major elements: • replacement of approximately 5.3 miles of existing 115 kilovolt (kV) single-circuit subtransmission line
with new higher capacity double-circuit 115 kV subtransmission lines and replacement of support structures within existing SCE rights-of-way (ROWs), franchise locations (public ROWs), and private property between Farrell and Garnet Substations in the City of Palm Springs;
• construction of a new 115 kV subtransmission line from Mirage Substation south to Interstate 10, adjacent to the east side of Tri-Palm Estates and within SCE’s existing ROWs or franchise locations;
• looping the existing Devers-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line from an existing ROW to the south for approximately 0.8 mile on double-circuit lattice steel towers to Mirage Substation, located near the community of Thousand Palms;
• installation of a new 280 megavolt amperes (MVA) 200/115 kV transformer, two new 220 kV circuit breakers, and five new 115 kV circuit breakers at SCE’s existing Mirage Substation; and
• subtransmission line reconfigurations at the intersections of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive, Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, and Varner Road and Date Palm Drive.
The Proposed Project would also include additional equipment and relay installations at Mirage, Concho, Indian Wells, Santa Rosa, Eisenhower, Farrell, Garnet, Thornhill, and Tamarisk Substations located in the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the community of Thousand Palms. The Proposed Project would also include the transfer of existing fiber optic cable to new support structures and installation of new fiber optic and digital telecommunications equipment. The objectives of the Proposed Project are to maintain electric system reliability, enhance operational flexibility, and serve projected electrical demand in the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City,
A-3
- 2 -
Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the community of Thousand Palms. Construction of the project is proposed to begin in the second quarter of 2010 and be operational by mid-2011. Public Comment on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR is available for a 45-day public comment period from January 8, 2010 through February 22, 2010. The public may present comments and concerns regarding the Proposed Project and the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Written comments on the Draft EIR must be postmarked or received by fax or e-mail no later than February 22, 2010. Please be sure to include your name, address, and telephone number in your correspondence. Written comments on the Draft EIR should be sent to:
Mr. Eric Chiang Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project
c/o Environmental Science Associates 1425 N. McDowell Boulevard, Suite 200
Petaluma, CA 94954 Voicemail: (707) 795-0940; Fax: (707) 795-0902
E-mail: [email protected]
The CPUC will also hold a public comment meeting to receive oral and written comments from interested parties. Following the end of the public comment period, responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR and submitted within the specified 45-day review period will be prepared by the CPUC and included in a response to comments document, which together with the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR for the Proposed Project. The public meeting will be held:
Friday January 29, 2010 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm
CSUSB Palm Desert Campus, Mary Stuart Rogers Gateway Building (Classroom RG-303)37-500 Cook Street (b/w Gerald Ford Dr. and Frank Sinatra Dr.)
Palm Desert, CA 92211
Availability of Draft EIR. Copies of the Draft EIR are available for public review on the project website: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/esa/devers-mirage/devers.html. This website will be used to post all public documents during the environmental review process and to announce any upcoming public meetings. Hard copies or CD copies of the Draft EIR may be requested by telephone at (707) 795-0940 or by e-mail at [email protected].
Additionally, copies of the Draft EIR are available at the following branches of the Riverside County Library:
Cathedral City Branch 33520 Date Palm Drive.
Cathedral City, CA 92234-1307 Phone : (760) 328-4262
Thousand Palms Branch 31189 Robert Road
Thousand Palms, CA 92276-3235 Phone: (760) 343-1556
REMINDER: Draft EIR comments will be accepted by fax, e-mail, or postmark through February 22, 2010. Please be sure to include your name, address, and telephone number.
A-4
- 3 -
A-5
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project B-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
APPENDIX B Draft EIR Newspaper Legal Advertisements
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
B-2
B-3
B-4
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project C-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
APPENDIX C CPUC Project Website
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
C-2
C-3
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project D-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
APPENDIX D Public Meeting Presentation
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
D-2
1
Sou
ther
n C
alif
orn
ia E
dis
on C
omp
any
D
ever
s-M
irag
e 11
5 kV
Su
btr
ansm
issi
on
Syst
em S
plit
Pro
ject
Cal
ifo
rnia
Pu
blic
Uti
litie
s C
om
mis
sio
n
Pu
blic
Co
mm
ent
Mee
tin
g
for
the
Dra
ft E
nvi
ron
men
tal I
mp
act
Rep
ort
(DEI
R)
Jan
uar
y 2
9,
20
10
Pal
m D
eser
t, C
alif
orn
ia
D-3
2
Parti
cipa
nts a
nd th
eir R
oles
Eric
Chi
ang,
CPU
C
Lead
Age
ncy
unde
r th
e Cal
iforn
ia
Envi
ronm
enta
l Qua
lity
Act
(CEQ
A)
Dou
g Cov
er a
nd M
att
Fagu
ndes
, En
viro
nmen
tal S
cien
ce A
ssoc
iate
s (E
SA)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Con
sulta
nt f
or t
he C
PUC
Sou
ther
n Cal
iforn
ia E
diso
n:
App
lican
t
D-4
3
Mee
ting
Age
nda
CPU
C R
evie
w a
nd C
EQA P
roce
ss
Proj
ect
Ove
rvie
w
Alte
rnat
ives
Con
side
red
Sum
mar
y of
Env
iron
men
tal I
mpa
cts
Nex
t Ste
ps
Publ
ic C
omm
ent
Spe
aker
car
ds
Com
men
t fo
rms
D-5
Inve
stor
Ow
ned
Util
ity (I
OU
)P
ropo
ses
to b
uild
infra
stru
ctur
e
Per
mit
to C
onst
ruct
(PTC
)C
PC
N
Dis
cret
iona
ry D
ecis
ion
of C
omm
issi
on
App
rove
Dis
appr
ove
Per
mit
to C
onst
ruct
(PTC
)
oror
D-6
CP
UC
Rev
iew
Pro
cess
PTC
Rev
iew
may
incl
ude
Rat
esM
arke
tC
ompe
titio
nM
eet N
eeds
of
Peo
ple
Mar
ket
Stru
ctur
e
CE
QA
Rev
iew
Env
ironm
enta
l con
side
ratio
ns
Pub
lic A
war
enes
s to
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
sM
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
sA
ltern
ativ
es
Eco
nom
ic a
nd o
ther
fact
ors
D-7
Bas
ic A
pplic
atio
n an
d E
nviro
nmen
tal
R
evie
w P
roce
sses
(Ste
p 1)
Util
ity F
iles
App
licat
ion
Util
ity F
iles
App
licat
ion
CPU
C R
evie
ws
CPU
C R
evie
ws
Envi
ronm
enta
l C
onsu
ltant
Rev
iew
sEn
viro
nmen
tal
Con
sulta
nt R
evie
ws
App
licat
ion
Dee
med
Com
plet
eA
pplic
atio
nD
eem
ed C
ompl
ete
Envi
ronm
enta
l R
evie
w B
egin
sEn
viro
nmen
tal
Rev
iew
Beg
ins
Go
to
Step
2
D-8
Envi
ronm
enta
l Rev
iew
Beg
ins
Envi
ronm
enta
l Rev
iew
Beg
ins
Envi
ronm
enta
l R
evie
w in
Fie
ldEn
viro
nmen
tal
Rev
iew
in F
ield
Age
ncy
Con
sulta
tion
Age
ncy
Con
sulta
tion
Con
duct
In
itial
Stu
dy
Con
duct
In
itial
Stu
dy
Bas
ic A
pplic
atio
n an
d E
nviro
nmen
tal
Rev
iew
Pro
cess
es (S
tep
2)
Prep
are
Miti
gate
d N
egat
ive
Dec
lara
tion
Prep
are
Miti
gate
d N
egat
ive
Dec
lara
tion
Prep
are
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Prep
are
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
orG
o to
St
ep 3
D-9
Bas
ic A
pplic
atio
n an
d E
nviro
nmen
tal
Rev
iew
Pro
cess
es (S
tep
3)
Prep
are
Dra
ft EI
RPr
epar
eD
raft
EIR
Publ
ic N
otic
eof
Dra
ft EI
RPu
blic
Not
ice
of D
raft
EIR
Publ
ic C
omm
ents
Publ
ic C
omm
ents
Fina
l EIR
Fina
l EIR
Con
tain
s “E
nviro
nmen
tally
Su
perio
r” R
oute
s an
d O
ther
Alte
rnat
ives
Con
tain
s “E
nviro
nmen
tally
Su
perio
r” R
oute
s an
d O
ther
Alte
rnat
ives
Publ
ic S
copi
ng
Mee
ting
Publ
ic S
copi
ng
Mee
ting
Rec
eive
info
rmat
ion
from
pub
lic to
de
term
ine
the
rang
e of
issu
es
and
alte
rnat
ives
Rec
eive
info
rmat
ion
from
pub
lic to
de
term
ine
the
rang
e of
issu
es
and
alte
rnat
ives
Go
to
Step
4D
-10
Bas
ic A
pplic
atio
n an
d E
nviro
nmen
tal
Rev
iew
Pro
cess
es (S
tep
4)Fi
nal E
IRFi
nal E
IR
ALJ
Pro
pose
s D
ecis
ion
for
Com
mis
sion
ALJ
Pro
pose
s D
ecis
ion
for
Com
mis
sion
Con
tain
s R
outin
g, E
cono
mic
Issu
es, S
ocia
l Im
pact
Is
sues
, And
Nee
d fo
r Pro
ject
Con
tain
s R
outin
g, E
cono
mic
Issu
es, S
ocia
l Im
pact
Is
sues
, And
Nee
d fo
r Pro
ject
ALJ
’s P
ropo
sed
Dec
isio
nA
LJ’s
Pro
pose
d D
ecis
ion
Inte
rven
ers
Com
men
t on
Prop
osed
Dec
isio
nIn
terv
ener
s C
omm
ent o
n Pr
opos
ed D
ecis
ion
Prop
osed
Fin
al D
ecis
ion
Prop
osed
Fin
al D
ecis
ion
Com
mis
sion
ers
Vote
Com
mis
sion
ers
Vote
D-1
1
10
Proj
ect L
ocat
ion
D-1
2
11
SCE
’s Proj
ect P
urpo
se a
nd N
eed
Rel
ieve
exi
stin
g th
erm
al o
verloa
d co
nditi
ons
on
two
115
kV s
ubtr
ansm
issi
on li
nes
Res
olve
a f
orec
aste
d vo
ltage
pro
blem
on
the
220
kV t
rans
mis
sion
sys
tem
Ser
ve p
roje
cted
ele
ctrica
l dem
and
in t
he c
ities
of
Palm
Spr
ings
, Ran
cho
Mirag
e, C
athe
dral
City
, Pa
lm D
eser
t, I
ndia
n W
ells
, an
d un
inco
rpor
ated
ar
eas
of R
iver
side
Cou
nty,
incl
udin
g th
e Th
ousa
nd P
alm
s co
mm
unity
Be
oper
atio
nal b
y m
id-2
011
D-1
3
12
Proj
ect D
escr
iptio
n O
verv
iew
Farr
ell-
Gar
net
115
kV P
ropo
sed
Rou
te
Mirag
e-San
ta R
osa
115
kV P
ropo
sed
Rou
te
Dev
ers-
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y 22
0 kV
Loo
p-In
115
kV L
ine
Rec
onfig
urat
ions
Sub
stat
ions
D-1
4
13
Proj
ect D
escr
iptio
n
Farr
ell-
Gar
net
11
5 k
V P
rop
osed
Rou
te
Rep
lace
app
roxi
mat
ely
5.3
mile
s of
exi
stin
g si
ngle
-circu
it lin
es a
nd s
truc
ture
s w
ith d
oubl
e-
circ
uit
With
in e
xist
ing
SCE
righ
t-of
-way
s (R
OW
s),
publ
ic R
OW
s, a
nd p
riva
te p
rope
rty
Gen
eral
alig
nmen
t:
From
Far
rell
Sub
nor
th a
long
the
eas
t si
de o
f G
ene
Aut
ry T
rail
to a
poi
nt s
outh
of th
e RR
Cro
ss t
o w
est
of G
ene
Aut
ry T
rail
Cro
ss t
he R
R,
proc
eed
in a
new
0.8
-mile
SCE
RO
W t
o a
loca
tion
sout
h of
the
I-1
0 RO
W
Con
tinue
NW
and
W a
long
I-1
0 to
Gar
net
Sub
stat
ion
D-1
5
14
Proj
ect D
escr
iptio
n (c
ont’d
)
Mir
age-
San
ta R
osa
11
5 k
V P
rop
osed
R
oute
Rep
lace
app
roxi
mat
ely
1.5
mile
s of
exi
stin
g si
ngle
-circu
it lin
es a
nd s
truc
ture
s w
ith d
oubl
e-
circ
uit
With
in e
xist
ing
SCE
and
publ
ic r
oad
RO
Ws
Gen
eral
alig
nmen
t:
From
Mirag
e Sub
sou
th a
djac
ent
to t
he e
ast
side
of
Tri-
Palm
Est
ates
Thro
ugh
the
Tri-
Palm
Est
ates
gol
f co
urse
Sou
th o
f th
e go
lf co
urse
, cr
oss
I-10
to
join
the
exi
stin
g su
btra
nsm
issi
on s
yste
m D-1
6
15
Proj
ect D
escr
iptio
n (c
ont’d
)
Dev
ers-
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y 2
20
kV
Lo
op
-In
Loop
exi
stin
g D
ever
s-Coa
chel
la 2
20 k
V li
ne t
o M
irag
e Sub
stat
ion
From
Dev
ers-
Coa
chel
la R
OW
, so
uth
appr
oxim
atel
y 0.
8 m
ile o
n do
uble
-circu
it la
ttic
e st
eel t
ower
s to
Mirag
e Sub
stat
ion
11
5 k
V L
ine
Rec
onfi
gu
rati
ons
Line
rec
onfig
urat
ions
at
thre
e in
ters
ectio
ns:
Port
ola
Ave
nue
and
Ger
ald
Ford
Drive
Din
ah S
hore
Drive
and
Bob
Hop
e D
rive
near
Var
ner
Roa
d an
d D
ate
Palm
Drive
D-1
7
16
Proj
ect D
escr
iptio
n (c
ont’d
)
Su
bst
atio
ns
Inst
alla
tion
of a
dditi
onal
equ
ipm
ent
and
rela
ys
at M
irag
e, C
onch
o, I
ndia
n W
ells
, San
ta R
osa,
Ei
senh
ower
, Fa
rrel
l, G
arne
t, T
horn
hill,
and
Ta
mar
isk
Sub
stat
ions D
-18
17
Alte
rnat
ive
Alig
nmen
ts
Alte
rnat
ive
2
Und
ergr
ound
sin
gle-
circ
uit
alon
g G
ene
Aut
ry
Trai
l, Vis
ta C
hino
Rd,
and
Sun
rise
Way
to
Four
Sea
sons
Blv
d
Ove
rhea
d fr
om F
our
Sea
sons
Blv
d no
rth
to t
he
Prop
osed
Rou
te a
nd o
n to
Gar
net
Sub
3.0
mile
s un
derg
roun
d; 3
.0 m
iles
over
head
D-1
9
18
Alte
rnat
ive
Alig
nmen
ts (c
ont’d
)
Alte
rnat
ive
3
Und
ergr
ound
sin
gle-
circ
uit
alon
g G
ene
Aut
ry
Trai
l, Vis
ta C
hino
Rd,
Sun
rise
Way
, San
Raf
ael
Rd,
and
50
feet
of
Indi
an C
anyo
n D
r
From
ris
er p
ole,
nor
th a
long
Ind
ian
Can
yon
Drive
to
Gar
net
Sub
3.6
mile
s un
derg
roun
d; 2
.9 m
iles
over
head
Alte
rnat
ive
5
Und
ergr
ound
in R
amon
Roa
d to
Mon
tere
y Ave
so
uth
to V
arne
r Rd
Tran
sitio
n to
ove
rhea
d be
fore
cro
ssin
g I-
10
1.9
mile
s un
derg
roun
d; 5
00 f
eet
over
head
D-2
0
19
Alte
rnat
ive
Alig
nmen
ts (c
ont’d
)
Alte
rnat
ive
6
Ove
rhea
d lin
e al
ong
Gen
e Aut
ry T
rail
and
Vis
ta
Chi
no t
o La
ndau
Bou
leva
rd
Und
ergr
ound
line
alo
ng V
ista
Chi
no f
rom
La
ndau
Bou
leva
rd t
o D
ate
Palm
Drive
Ove
rhea
d lin
e fr
om L
anda
u Bou
leva
rd a
long
D
ate
Palm
Drive
and
exi
stin
g SCE
RO
W t
o th
e ex
istin
g D
ever
s-Ei
senh
ower
RO
W
1.0
mile
und
ergr
ound
; 3.
2 m
iles
over
head
D-2
1
20
Alte
rnat
ive
Alig
nmen
ts (c
ont’d
)
Alte
rnat
ive
7
Ove
rhea
d lin
e al
ong
Gen
e Aut
ry T
rail,
Vis
ta
Chi
no,
Land
au B
oule
vard
, 33
rd S
tree
t, D
ate
Palm
Drive
, an
d ex
istin
g SCE
RO
W t
o th
e ex
istin
g D
ever
s-Ei
senh
ower
RO
W
9.1
mile
s ov
erhe
ad
D-2
2
21
Alte
rnat
ive
A
lignm
ents
D-2
3
22
Sum
mar
y of
Impa
cts
No
or L
ess
than
Sig
nific
ant
Impa
cts:
Agr
icul
tura
l Res
ourc
es;
Geo
logy
and
Soi
ls;
Min
eral
Res
ourc
es;
Popu
latio
n an
d H
ousi
ng;
Rec
reat
ion;
Util
ities
and
Ser
vice
Sys
tem
s
Impa
cts
Less
tha
n Sig
nific
ant
with
M
itiga
tion:
Aes
thet
ics;
Bio
logi
cal R
esou
rces
; Cul
tura
l Res
ourc
es;
Haz
ards
/Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials
; H
ydro
logy
/Wat
er Q
ualit
y; L
and
Use
; N
oise
; Pu
blic
Ser
vice
s; a
nd T
raff
ic a
nd T
rans
port
atio
n
Sig
nific
ant
Unm
itiga
ble
Impa
cts:
Air Q
ualit
y (t
empo
rary
dur
ing
cons
truc
tion)
D-2
4
23
Env
ironm
enta
lly S
uper
ior A
ltern
ativ
e –
Fa
rrell
-Gar
net S
tudy
Are
a
Alte
rnat
ive
3
Leas
t ov
eral
l lon
g-te
rm im
pact
s to
Aes
thet
ics
and
Bio
logi
cal R
esou
rces
due
to
unde
rgro
und
line
Mos
t ov
eral
l sho
rt-t
erm
impa
cts
to T
raffic
and
Tr
ansp
orta
tion
due
to c
onst
ruct
ion
of t
he u
nder
grou
nd li
ne
Sig
nific
ant
unav
oida
ble
shor
t-te
rm im
pact
s to
Air Q
ualit
y
Alte
rnat
ive
7
Leas
t ov
eral
l im
pact
s to
Cul
tura
l Res
ourc
es
Sig
nific
ant
unav
oida
ble
shor
t-te
rm im
pact
s to
Air Q
ualit
y
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
Leas
t ov
eral
l sho
rt-t
erm
impa
cts
to T
rans
port
atio
n an
d Tr
affic
due
to
over
head
rou
te a
nd o
vera
ll ro
ute
leng
th
Sig
nific
ant
unav
oida
ble
shor
t-te
rm im
pact
s to
Air Q
ualit
y
Co
ncl
usi
on
: Alte
rnat
ive
3
CPU
C S
tate
men
t of
Ove
rrid
ing
Con
side
ratio
nD
-25
24
Env
ironm
enta
lly S
uper
ior A
ltern
ativ
e –
M
irage
-San
ta R
osa
Stud
y A
rea
Alte
rnat
ive
5
Leas
t ov
eral
l lon
g-te
rm im
pact
s to
Aes
thet
ics
and
Bio
logi
cal R
esou
rces
due
to
unde
rgro
und
line
Mos
t ov
eral
l sho
rt-t
erm
impa
cts
to T
raffic
and
Tr
ansp
orta
tion
due
to c
onst
ruct
ion
of t
he u
nder
grou
nd li
ne
Sig
nific
ant
unav
oida
ble
shor
t-te
rm im
pact
s to
Air Q
ualit
y
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
Leas
t ov
eral
l sho
rt-t
erm
impa
cts
to T
rans
port
atio
n an
d Tr
affic
due
to
over
head
rou
te
Sig
nific
ant
unav
oida
ble
shor
t-te
rm im
pact
s to
Air Q
ualit
y
Co
ncl
usi
on
: Alte
rnat
ive
5
CPU
C S
tate
men
t of
Ove
rrid
ing
Con
side
ratio
n
D-2
6
25
Nex
t Ste
ps
Not
ice
of A
vaila
bilit
y w
as c
ircu
late
d to
sol
icit
inpu
t fr
om a
genc
ies
and
the
publ
ic
This
mee
ting
is p
art
of t
he c
omm
ent
proc
ess
Com
men
ts w
ill b
e co
nsid
ered
and
add
ress
ed
in a
Fin
al E
IR
CPU
C c
onsi
ders
EIR
/ o
ther
fac
tors
and
issu
es
a dr
aft
deci
sion
for
the
Pro
pose
d Pr
ojec
t
CPU
C c
onsi
ders
com
men
ts o
n dr
aft
and
alte
rnat
e de
cisi
ons
and
vote
s on
the
Pro
ject
D-2
7
26
How
to C
omm
ent
Plea
se s
ubm
it co
mm
ents
no
late
r th
an M
onda
y,
Febr
uary
22,
201
0: Mr.
Eric
Chi
ang
Dev
ers-
Mirag
e 11
5kV S
ubtr
ansm
issi
on
Sys
tem
Spl
it Pr
ojec
tc/
o En
viro
nmen
tal S
cien
ce A
ssoc
iate
s14
25 N
. M
cDow
ell B
lvd.
, Sui
te 2
00Pe
talu
ma,
CA 9
4954
Fax:
(70
7) 7
95-0
902
Voi
cem
ail:
(70
7) 7
95-0
940
E-m
ail:
dev
ers-
mirag
e@es
asso
c.co
mW
ebsi
te:
http
://w
ww
.cpu
c.ca
.gov
/Env
iron
men
t/
info
/esa
/dev
ers-
mirag
e/de
vers
.htm
lD
-28
27
Publ
ic Co
mm
ent
D-2
9
28
Publ
ic C
omm
ent G
uide
lines
One
per
son
to s
peak
at
a tim
e
Be
conc
ise
Sta
y on
top
ic
Sup
port
eve
ryon
e’s
part
icip
atio
n
Res
pect
oth
ers’
opi
nion
s
Writt
en c
omm
ents
are
enc
oura
ged
D-3
0
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
APPENDIX E Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
MITIGATION MONITORING, REPORTING, AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON’S DEVERS-MIRAGE 115 KV SUBTRANSMISSION SYSTEM SPLIT PROJECT (APPLICATION NO. A.08-01-029)
Introduction This document describes the mitigation monitoring, reporting, and compliance program (MMRCP) for ensuring the effective implementation of the mitigation measures required for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC, or Commission) approval of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) application to construct, operate, and maintain the Proposed Project. All mitigations are presented in Table 8-1 provided at the end of this MMRCP.
If the Proposed Project is approved, this MMRCP would serve as a self-contained general reference for the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the Commission for the project. If and when the Proposed Project has been approved by the Commission, the CPUC will compile the Final Plan from the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as adopted.
California Public Utilities Commission – MMRCP Authority The California Public Utilities Code in numerous places confers authority upon the CPUC to regulate the terms of service and the safety, practices, and equipment of utilities subject to its jurisdiction. It is the standard practice of the CPUC, pursuant to its statutory responsibility to protect the environment, to require that mitigation measures stipulated as conditions of approval be implemented properly, monitored, and reported on. In 1989, this requirement was codified statewide as Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Section 21081.6 requires a public agency to adopt a MMRCP when it approves a project that is subject to preparation of an EIR and where the EIR for the project identifies potentially significant environmental effects. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 was added in 1999 to further clarify agency requirements for mitigation monitoring and reporting.
The purpose of a MMRCP is to ensure that measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant impacts of a project are implemented. The CPUC views the MMRCP as a working guide to
E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
facilitate not only the implementation of mitigation measures by the project proponent, but also the monitoring, compliance, and reporting activities of the CPUC and any monitors it may designate.
The Commission will address its responsibility under Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 when it takes action on SCE’s applications. If the Commission approves the applications, it will also adopt a Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Program that includes the mitigation measures ultimately made a condition of approval by the Commission.
Because the CPUC must decide whether or not to approve the SCE application and because the application may cause either direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect effects on the environment, CEQA requires the CPUC to consider the potential environmental impacts that could occur as the result of its decisions and to consider mitigation for any identified significant environmental impacts.
If the CPUC approves SCE’s application for authority to construct and operate the subtransmission and transmission lines and to modify its substations, SCE would be responsible for implementation of any mitigation measures governing both construction and future operation of the subtransmission and transmission lines and substations. Though other State and local agencies would have permit and approval authority over construction of the subtransmission and transmission lines, the CPUC would continue to act as the lead agency for monitoring compliance with all mitigation measures required by this EIR. All approvals and permits obtained by SCE would be submitted to the CPUC for mitigation compliance prior to commencing the activity for which the permits and approvals were obtained.
In accordance with CEQA, the CPUC reviewed the impacts that would result from approval of the application. The activities considered include the construction of the upgraded and new subtransmission and transmission lines and modification of the Devers, Mirage, Santa Rosa, Eisenhower, Farrell, Garnet, Thornhill, Tamarisk, Concho, and Indian Wells substations, and modifications to the Edom Hill Communication Site and Palm Springs Service Center, and the future operation of these facilities. The CPUC review concluded that implementation of the Proposed Project could result in temporary significant unmitigable impacts to air quality during construction activities. All other potential impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. The CPUC has included the stipulated mitigation measures as conditions of approval of the applications and has circulated a Draft EIR.
The attached EIR presents and analyzes potential environmental impacts that would result from construction, operation, and maintenance of the new subtransmission and transmission lines and other facility modifications, and proposes mitigation measures, as appropriate. Based on the EIR, approval of the application would have no impact or less than significant impacts in the following areas:
• Agricultural Resources • Population and Housing • Geology and Soils • Recreation • Mineral Resources • Utilities and Service Systems
E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-3 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
The EIR indicates that approval of the application would result in potentially significant impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant in the areas of:
• Aesthetics • Land Use, Planning and Policies • Biological Resources • Noise • Cultural Resources • Public Services • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Transportation and Traffic • Hydrology and Water Quality
The EIR indicates that approval of the application would result in significant and unmitigable impacts in the in the area of:
• Air Quality
Roles and Responsibilities As the lead agency under CEQA, the CPUC is required to monitor this project to ensure that the required mitigation measures and any Applicant Proposed Measures are implemented. The CPUC will be responsible for ensuring full compliance with the provisions of this MMRCP and has primary responsibility for implementation of the monitoring program. The purpose of the monitoring program is to document that the mitigation measures required by the CPUC are implemented and that mitigated environmental impacts are reduced to the level identified in the Program. The CPUC has the authority to halt any activity associated with the Proposed Project if the activity is determined to be a deviation from the approved project or the adopted mitigation measures.
The CPUC may delegate duties and responsibilities for monitoring to other mitigation monitors or consultants as deemed necessary. The CPUC will ensure that the person(s) delegated any duties or responsibilities are qualified to monitor compliance.
The CPUC, along with its mitigation monitor, will ensure that any variance process, which will be designed specifically for the Proposed Project, or deviation from the procedures identified under the monitoring program, is consistent with CEQA requirements; no project variance will be approved by the CPUC if it creates new significant environmental impacts. As defined in this MMRCP, a variance should be strictly limited to minor project changes that will not trigger other permit requirements, that does not increase the severity of an impact or create a new impact, and that clearly and strictly complies with the intent of the mitigation measure. A Proposed Project change that has the potential for creating significant environmental effects will be evaluated to determine whether supplemental CEQA review is required. Any proposed deviation from the approved project and adopted mitigation measures, including correction of such deviation, shall be reported immediately to the CPUC and the mitigation monitor assigned to the construction for their review and approval. In some cases, a variance may also require approval by a CEQA responsible agency.
E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-4 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
Enforcement and Responsibility The CPUC is responsible for enforcing the procedures for monitoring through the environmental monitor. The environmental monitor shall note problems with monitoring, notify appropriate agencies or individuals about any problems, and report the problems to the CPUC. The CPUC has the authority to halt any construction, operation, or maintenance activity associated with the project if the activity is determined to be a deviation from the approved project or adopted mitigation measures. The CPUC may assign its authority to their environmental monitor.
Mitigation Compliance Responsibility SCE is responsible for successfully implementing all the adopted mitigation measures in this MMRCP. The MMRCP contains criteria that define whether mitigation is successful. Standards for successful mitigation also are implicit in many mitigation measures that include such requirements as obtaining permits or avoiding a specific impact entirely. Additional mitigation success thresholds will be established by applicable agencies with jurisdiction through the permit process and through the review and approval of specific plans for the implementation of mitigation measures.
SCE shall inform the CPUC and its mitigation monitor in writing of any mitigation measures that are not or cannot be successfully implemented. The CPUC in coordination with its mitigation monitor will assess whether alternative mitigation is appropriate and specify to SCE the subsequent actions required.
Dispute Resolution Process This MMRCP is expected to reduce or eliminate many of the potential disputes concerning the implementation of the adopted measures. However, in the event that a dispute occurs, the following procedure will be observed:
• Step 1. Disputes and complaints (including those of the public) should be directed first to the CPUC’s designated Project Manager for resolution. The Project Manager will attempt to resolve the dispute.
• Step 2. Should this informal process fail, the CPUC Project Manager may initiate enforcement or compliance action to address deviations from the Proposed Project or adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
• Step 3. If a dispute or complaint regarding the implementation or evaluation of the MMRCP or the mitigation measures cannot be resolved informally or through enforcement or compliance action by the CPUC, any affected participant in the dispute or complaint may file a written “notice of dispute” with the CPUC’s Executive Director. This notice should be filed in order to resolve the dispute in a timely manner, with copies concurrently served on other affected participants. Within 10 days of receipt, the Executive Director or designee(s) shall meet or confer with the filer and other affected participants for purposes of resolving the dispute. The Executive Director shall issue an Executive Resolution describing his/her decision, and serve it on the filer and other affected participants.
E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-5 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
• Step 4. If one or more of the affected parties is not satisfied with the decision as described in the Resolution, such party(ies) may appeal it to the Commission via a procedure to be specified by the Commission.
Parties may also seek review by the Commission through existing procedures specified in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for formal and expedited relief.
General Monitoring Procedures
Mitigation Monitor Many of the monitoring procedures will be conducted during the construction phase of the project. The CPUC and the mitigation monitor are responsible for integrating the mitigation monitoring procedures into the construction process in coordination with SCE. To oversee the monitoring procedures and to ensure success, the mitigation monitor assigned to the construction must be on site during that portion of construction that has the potential to create a significant environmental impact or other impact for which mitigation is required. The mitigation monitor is responsible for ensuring that all procedures specified in the monitoring program are followed.
Construction Personnel A key feature contributing to the success of mitigation monitoring will be obtaining the full cooperation of construction personnel and supervisors. Many of the mitigation measures require action on the part of the construction supervisors or crews for successful implementation. To ensure success, the following actions, detailed in specific mitigation measures included in the MMRCP, will be taken:
• Procedures to be followed by construction companies hired to do the work will be written into contracts between SCE and any construction contractors. Procedures to be followed by construction crews will be written into a separate agreement that all construction personnel will be asked to sign, denoting agreement.
• One or more pre-construction meetings will be held to inform all and train construction personnel about the requirements of the MMRCP.
• A written summary of mitigation monitoring procedures will be provided to construction supervisors for all mitigation measures requiring their attention.
General Reporting Procedures Site visits and specified monitoring procedures performed by other individuals will be reported to the mitigation monitor assigned to the construction. A monitoring record form will be submitted to the mitigation monitor by the individual conducting the visit or procedure so that details of the visit can be recorded and progress tracked by the mitigation monitor. A checklist will be developed and maintained by the mitigation monitor to track all procedures required for each mitigation measure and to ensure that the timing specified for the procedures is adhered to. The mitigation monitor will note any problems that may occur and take appropriate action to rectify the problems. SCE shall provide the CPUC with written quarterly reports of the project, which
E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-6 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
shall include progress of construction, resulting impacts, mitigation implemented, and all other noteworthy elements of the project. Quarterly reports shall be required as long as mitigation measures are applicable.
Public Access to Records The public is allowed access to records and reports used to track the monitoring program. Monitoring records and reports will be made available for public inspection by the CPUC on request. The CPUC and SCE will develop a filing and tracking system.
Condition Effectiveness Review In order to fulfill its statutory mandates to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment and to design a MMRCP to ensure compliance during project implementation (CEQA 21081.6):
• The CPUC may conduct a comprehensive review of conditions which are not effectively mitigating impacts at any time it deems appropriate, including as a result of the Dispute Resolution procedure outlined above; and
• If in either review, the CPUC determines that any conditions are not adequately mitigating significant environmental impacts caused by the project, or that recent proven technological advances could provide more effective mitigation, then the CPUC may impose additional reasonable conditions to effectively mitigate these impacts.
These reviews will be conducted in a manner consistent with the CPUC’s rules and practices.
Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program The table attached to this program presents a compilation of applicant proposed measures (APMs) and the mitigation measures in the EIR. The purpose of the table is to provide a single comprehensive list of impacts, mitigation measures, monitoring and reporting requirements, and timing.
SCE proposed APMs to minimize impacts to the following resource areas: air quality; biological resources; cultural resources (including paleontological resources); geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, planning, and policies; noise; traffic and transportation; and utilities and service systems. The impact analysis presented in this EIR assumes that these APMs would be implemented as part of the Proposed Project; therefore, implementation of these measures is required to ensure that impacts from the Proposed Project are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Furthermore, in cases where APMs would not fully mitigate impacts, mitigation measures were added that would either strengthen or supersede the applicable APM in order to further reduce impacts. As such, all APMs that are not superseded are included in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-7
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
TAB
LE 8
-1
MIT
IGA
TIO
N M
ON
ITO
RIN
G, R
EPO
RTI
NG
, AN
D C
OM
PLIA
NC
E PR
OG
RA
M F
OR
TH
E D
EVER
S-M
IRA
GE
115
KV
SUB
TRA
NSM
ISSI
ON
SYS
TEM
SPL
IT P
RO
JEC
T
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Aest
hetic
s
Impa
ct 4
.1-3
: Pul
ling/
splic
ing
site
s du
ring
the
cons
truct
ion
perio
d co
uld
resu
lt in
tem
pora
ry
adve
rse
impa
cts
to v
isua
l qu
ality
. Les
s th
an s
igni
fican
t w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.1-3
: SC
E s
hall
not p
lace
eq
uipm
ent o
n th
e pu
lling
/spl
icin
g si
tes
any
soon
er th
an
two
wee
ks p
rior t
o th
e re
quire
d us
e. A
fter e
ach
pulli
ng/s
plic
ing
site
is n
o lo
nger
bei
ng u
sed,
SC
E a
nd/o
r its
con
tract
or s
hall
clea
n up
the
site
and
rest
ore
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith th
e S
WP
PP
Pla
n.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.1-6
: If n
ight
ligh
ting
is
requ
ired
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n,
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct c
ould
ad
vers
ely
affe
ct n
ight
time
view
s in
the
proj
ect a
rea.
Les
s th
an
sign
ifica
nt w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.1-6
: Red
uce
cons
truc
tion
nigh
t lig
htin
g im
pact
s. S
CE
sha
ll de
sign
and
inst
all a
ll lig
htin
g at
pro
ject
faci
litie
s, in
clud
ing
cons
truct
ion
and
stor
age
yard
s an
d st
agin
g ar
eas,
suc
h th
at li
ght b
ulbs
and
re
flect
ors
are
not v
isib
le fr
om p
ublic
vie
win
g ar
eas,
lig
htin
g do
es n
ot c
ause
refle
cted
gla
re, a
nd il
lum
inat
ion
of
the
proj
ect f
acili
ties,
vic
inity
, and
nig
httim
e sk
y is
m
inim
ized
. SC
E s
hall
subm
it a
Con
stru
ctio
n Li
ghtin
g M
itiga
tion
Pla
n to
the
CP
UC
for r
evie
w a
nd a
ppro
val a
t le
ast 9
0 30
day
s pr
ior t
o th
e st
art o
f nig
httim
e co
nstru
ctio
n or
the
orde
ring
of a
ny e
xter
ior l
ight
ing
fixtu
res
or c
ompo
nent
s, w
hich
ever
com
es fi
rst.
SC
E s
hall
not o
rder
any
ext
erio
r lig
htin
g fix
ture
s or
com
pone
nts
until
th
e C
onst
ruct
ion
Ligh
ting
Miti
gatio
n P
lan
is a
ppro
ved
by
the
CP
UC
. The
Pla
n sh
all i
nclu
de b
ut is
not
lim
ited
to th
e fo
llow
ing
mea
sure
s:
• Li
ghtin
g sh
all b
e de
sign
ed s
o ex
terio
r lig
htin
g is
ho
oded
, with
ligh
ts d
irect
ed d
ownw
ard
or to
war
d th
e ar
ea to
be
illum
inat
ed a
nd s
o th
at b
acks
catte
r to
the
nigh
ttim
e sk
y is
min
imiz
ed. T
he d
esig
n of
the
light
ing
shal
l be
such
that
the
lum
ines
cenc
e or
ligh
t sou
rces
ar
e sh
ield
ed to
pre
vent
ligh
t tre
spas
s ou
tsid
e th
e pr
ojec
t bou
ndar
y.
• A
ll lig
htin
g sh
all b
e of
min
imum
nec
essa
ry b
right
ness
co
nsis
tent
with
wor
ker s
afet
y.
• H
igh
illum
inat
ion
area
s no
t occ
upie
d on
a c
ontin
uous
ba
sis
shal
l hav
e sw
itche
s or
mot
ion
dete
ctor
s to
ligh
t th
e ar
ea o
nly
whe
n oc
cupi
ed.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
Con
stru
ctio
n Li
ghtin
g M
itiga
tion
Pla
n to
C
PU
C fo
r rev
iew
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce
at le
ast
once
per
wee
k.
Sub
mit
plan
to C
PU
C a
t le
ast 9
0 da
ys p
rior t
o st
art
of c
onst
ruct
ion
or th
e or
derin
g of
any
ext
erio
r lig
htin
g fix
ture
s or
co
mpo
nent
s, w
hich
ever
co
mes
firs
t.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n th
at in
clud
e ni
ghtti
me
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
.
Impa
ct 4
.1-7
: The
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct tr
ansm
issi
on li
nes
coul
d cr
eate
new
sou
rces
of g
lare
. Le
ss th
an s
igni
fican
t with
m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.1-7
: Non
-spe
cula
r con
duct
ors
shal
l be
inst
alle
d to
redu
ce th
e po
tent
ial g
lare
effe
cts
and
the
leve
l of v
isua
l con
trast
bet
wee
n th
e su
btra
nsm
issi
on
and
trans
mis
sion
line
and
the
land
scap
e se
tting
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
insp
ect c
ompl
ianc
e.
Imm
edia
tely
follo
win
g in
stal
latio
n of
con
duct
ors.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-8
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Impa
ct 4
.1-8
: The
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct s
ubst
atio
n m
odifi
catio
ns
coul
d cr
eate
new
sou
rces
of
glar
e. L
ess
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.1-8
: A n
on-re
flect
ive
or w
eath
ered
fin
ish
shal
l be
appl
ied
to a
ll A
ll ne
w s
truct
ures
and
eq
uipm
ent i
nsta
lled
at th
e D
ever
s, M
irage
, Con
cho,
In
dian
Wel
ls, S
anta
Ros
a, E
isen
how
er, F
arre
ll, G
arne
t, Th
ornh
ill, a
nd T
amar
isk
Sub
stat
ions
sha
ll ha
ve n
on-
spec
ular
(red
uced
gla
re) s
urfa
ce fi
nish
es, e
xcep
t for
st
ruct
ures
or e
quip
men
t for
whi
ch s
uch
finis
hes
are
not
com
mer
cial
ly a
vaila
ble
to re
duce
pot
entia
l gla
re e
ffect
s.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
insp
ect c
ompl
ianc
e.
Imm
edia
tely
follo
win
g in
stal
latio
n of
new
st
ruct
ures
and
equ
ipm
ent
at P
roje
ct s
ubst
atio
ns.
Agric
ultu
ral R
esou
rces
No
AP
Ms
or m
itiga
tion
requ
ired.
Air Q
ualit
y
Impa
ct 4
.3-1
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es w
ould
gen
erat
e em
issi
ons
of c
riter
ia p
ollu
tant
s,
incl
udin
g su
spen
ded
and
inha
labl
e pa
rticu
late
mat
ter a
nd
equi
pmen
t exh
aust
em
issi
ons.
S
igni
fican
t unm
itiga
ble
(Cla
ss I)
APM
AQ
-1. C
ontro
l Exh
aust
Em
issi
ons.
Use
ultr
a-lo
w
sulfu
r die
sel f
uel (
e.g.
, few
er th
an 1
5 pa
rts p
er m
illio
n).
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
AQ
-2. C
ontro
l Exh
aust
Em
issi
ons.
Use
of c
lean
-bu
rnin
g on
- and
off-
road
die
sel e
ngin
es. W
here
feas
ible
, he
avy
duty
die
sel-p
ower
ed c
onst
ruct
ion
equi
pmen
t m
anuf
actu
red
afte
r 199
6 (w
ith fe
dera
lly m
anda
ted
“cle
an”
dies
el e
ngin
es) w
ill b
e ut
ilize
d.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
AQ
-3. C
ontro
l Exh
aust
Em
issi
ons.
Con
stru
ctio
n w
orke
rs w
ill c
arpo
ol w
hen
poss
ible
. S
CE
and
its
cont
ract
ors
to
impl
emen
t mea
sure
as
defin
ed.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
AQ
-4. C
ontro
l Exh
aust
Em
issi
ons.
Res
trict
veh
icle
id
ling
time
to le
ss th
an 1
0 m
inut
es w
hene
ver p
ossi
ble.
S
CE
and
its
cont
ract
ors
to
impl
emen
t mea
sure
as
defin
ed.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
AQ
-5. C
ontro
l Exh
aust
Em
issi
ons.
Pro
perly
m
aint
ain
mec
hani
cal e
quip
men
t. S
CE
and
its
cont
ract
ors
to
impl
emen
t mea
sure
as
defin
ed.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
AQ
-6. M
inim
ize
Die
sel P
artic
ulat
e M
atte
r. U
se
parti
cle
traps
and
oth
er a
ppro
pria
te c
ontro
ls to
redu
ce
dies
el p
artic
ulat
e m
atte
r (D
PM
) whe
re p
ossi
ble.
Util
ize
equi
pmen
t suc
h as
spe
cial
ized
cat
alyt
ic c
onve
rters
(o
xida
tion
cata
lyst
s) to
con
trol a
ppro
xim
atel
y 20
per
cent
of
DP
M, 4
0 pe
rcen
t of C
O, a
nd 5
0 pe
rcen
t of
hydr
ocar
bon
emis
sion
s.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-9
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
AP
M A
Q-8
. Con
stru
ctio
n O
pera
tions
. As
feas
ible
, res
trict
co
nstru
ctio
n op
erat
ions
dur
ing
the
mor
ning
hou
rs a
nd
durin
g hi
gh w
ind
even
ts, w
hen
NO
x em
issi
ons
are
mor
e lik
ely
to c
ontri
bute
to O
3 fo
rmat
ion.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
AQ
-9. C
onst
ruct
ion
Sch
edul
ing.
Effi
cien
tly s
ched
ule
staf
f and
dai
ly c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
to m
inim
ize
the
use
of u
nnec
essa
ry/d
uplic
ate
equi
pmen
t whe
n po
ssib
le.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
AQ
-10.
Em
issi
ons
Red
uctio
n. T
o re
duce
si
mul
tane
ous
proj
ect-r
elat
ed N
Ox,
PM
10, a
nd P
M2.
5,
emis
sion
s fro
m o
n- a
nd o
ff-ro
ad h
eavy
con
stru
ctio
n eq
uipm
ent,
give
n th
e co
nstra
ints
of t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
sche
dule
, SC
E s
hall
phas
e pr
ojec
t con
stru
ctio
n, to
the
exte
nt fe
asib
le, s
o th
at o
ff-si
te d
ispo
sal o
f exc
avat
ed
mat
eria
l fro
m P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
are
a gr
adin
g an
d ex
cava
tion
does
not
occ
ur s
imul
tane
ousl
y w
ith
trans
mis
sion
and
sub
trans
mis
sion
line
and
sub
stat
ion
cons
truct
ion
or u
pgra
de a
ctiv
ity (i
nclu
ding
, but
not
lim
ited
to, a
cces
s ro
ad g
radi
ng, e
xcav
atio
n fo
r tow
er a
nd p
ole
base
s, c
rane
pad
s, to
wer
and
pol
e de
liver
y, o
r tow
er a
nd
pole
ere
ctio
n). D
urin
g tra
nsm
issi
on a
nd s
ubtra
nsm
issi
on
line
cons
truct
ion,
SC
E s
hall
phas
e th
e pr
ojec
t co
nstru
ctio
n sc
hedu
le, t
o th
e ex
tent
feas
ible
, so
that
gr
adin
g an
d ex
cava
tion
for s
ite a
cces
s, to
wer
and
pol
e ba
ses,
or c
rane
pad
s do
not
occ
ur s
imul
tane
ousl
y w
ith
tow
er o
r pol
e de
liver
y or
ere
ctio
n.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.3-1
a: F
ugiti
ve D
ust C
ontr
ol P
lan.
S
CE
or i
ts c
onst
ruct
ion
cont
ract
or s
hall
prep
are
a fu
gitiv
e du
st c
ontro
l pla
n pr
ior t
o co
nduc
ting
activ
e co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es. T
he p
lan
shal
l inc
lude
, at a
min
imum
, the
fo
llow
ing
fugi
tive
dust
con
trol m
easu
res,
whi
ch a
re b
ased
on
Bes
t Ava
ilabl
e C
ontro
l Mea
sure
s as
out
lined
in th
e C
oach
ella
Val
ley
Fugi
tive
Dus
t Con
trol H
andb
ook.
•
Back
fillin
g. S
tabi
lize
back
fill m
ater
ial w
hen
not a
ctiv
ely
hand
ling,
dur
ing
hand
ling
and
at c
ompl
etio
n of
act
iviti
es.
This
may
be
achi
eved
by
mix
ing
back
fill s
oil w
ith w
ater
pr
ior t
o m
ovin
g, d
edic
atin
g a
wat
er tr
uck
or h
igh
capa
city
ho
se to
bac
kfilli
ng e
quip
men
t, em
ptyi
ng lo
ader
buc
kets
sl
owly
so
that
no
dust
plu
mes
are
gen
erat
ed a
nd/o
r by
the
min
imiz
ing
drop
hei
ght f
rom
the
load
er b
ucke
t. •
Cle
arin
g an
d gr
ubbi
ng. M
aint
ain
stab
ility
of s
oil t
hrou
gh
pre-
wat
erin
g of
site
prio
r to,
dur
ing,
and
imm
edia
tely
afte
r
SC
E o
r its
con
tract
ors
to
prep
are
plan
and
impl
emen
t m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
plan
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce
with
pla
n at
le
ast o
nce
per w
eek.
Sub
mit
plan
to C
PU
C p
rior
to c
omm
ence
men
t of
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
. D
urin
g al
l pha
ses
of
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-10
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
clea
ring
and
grub
bing
. Thi
s m
ay b
e ac
hiev
ed b
y m
aint
aini
ng li
ve p
eren
nial
veg
etat
ion
and
dese
rt pa
vem
ent w
here
pos
sibl
e an
d by
app
lyin
g w
ater
in
suffi
cien
t qua
ntiti
es to
pre
vent
gen
erat
ion
of d
ust p
lum
es.
• C
ut a
nd fi
ll. P
re-w
ater
soi
ls p
rior t
o an
d fo
llow
ing
cut
and
fill a
ctiv
ities
. Thi
s m
ay b
e ac
hiev
ed b
y pr
e-w
ater
ing
with
spr
inkl
ers
or w
ater
truc
ks o
r by
usin
g w
ater
tru
cks/
pulls
to w
ater
soi
l to
dept
h of
cut
prio
r to
subs
eque
nt c
uts.
•
Dem
oliti
on. S
tabi
lize
win
d er
odib
le s
urfa
ces,
sur
face
so
il w
here
sup
port
equi
pmen
t and
veh
icle
s op
erat
e,
and
loos
e so
il an
d de
mol
ition
deb
ris.
• D
istu
rbed
soi
l. S
tabi
lize
dist
urbe
d so
il th
roug
hout
the
cons
truct
ion
site
and
bet
wee
n st
ruct
ures
. Thi
s m
ay b
e ac
hiev
ed b
y lim
iting
veh
icul
ar tr
affic
and
dis
turb
ance
s on
soi
l whe
re p
ossi
ble
or b
y ap
plyi
ng w
ater
or a
st
abili
zing
age
nt to
pre
vent
gen
erat
ion
of v
isib
le d
ust
plum
es.
• E
arth
-mov
ing
activ
ities
. Pre
-app
ly w
ater
to d
epth
of
prop
osed
cut
s or
as
nece
ssar
y to
mai
ntai
n so
ils in
a
dam
p co
nditi
on. S
tabi
lize
soils
onc
e ea
rth-m
ovin
g ac
tiviti
es a
re c
ompl
ete.
Thi
s m
ay b
e ac
hiev
ed b
y in
stal
ling
upw
ind
fenc
ing
to p
reve
nt m
ater
ial
mov
emen
t, or
app
lyin
g w
ater
or a
sta
biliz
ing
agen
t to
prev
ent g
ener
atio
n of
vis
ible
dus
t plu
mes
. •
Impo
rting
/exp
ortin
g of
bul
k m
ater
ials
. Sta
biliz
e m
ater
ial
whi
le lo
adin
g to
pre
vent
fugi
tive
dust
em
issi
ons,
m
aint
ain
at le
ast s
ix in
ches
of f
reeb
oard
on
haul
ve
hicl
es, l
imit
vehi
cula
r spe
eds
to 1
5 m
iles
per h
our
whi
le tr
avel
ing
onsi
te, s
tabi
lize
mat
eria
l whi
le
trans
porti
ng a
nd/o
r unl
oadi
ng to
pre
vent
fugi
tive
dust
em
issi
ons,
and
com
ply
with
Veh
icle
Cod
e S
ectio
n 23
114.
Thi
s m
ay b
e ac
hiev
ed b
y us
ing
tarp
s or
oth
er
suita
ble
encl
osur
es o
n ha
ul tr
ucks
, che
ckin
g be
lly
dum
p se
als
regu
larly
and
rem
ovin
g an
y tra
pped
rock
s to
pre
vent
spi
llage
, com
plyi
ng w
ith tr
ack-
out p
reve
ntio
n re
quire
men
ts a
nd b
y pr
ovid
ing
wat
er w
hile
load
ing
and
unlo
adin
g to
pre
vent
vis
ible
dus
t plu
mes
. •
Land
scap
ing.
Sta
biliz
e so
ils, m
ater
ials
, and
slo
pes
by
appl
ying
wat
er to
mat
eria
ls, m
aint
aini
ng m
ater
ials
in a
cr
uste
d co
nditi
on, m
aint
aini
ng a
n ef
fect
ive
cove
r ove
r m
ater
ials
, sta
biliz
ing
slop
ing
surfa
ces
usin
g so
il bi
nder
s, o
r by
hydr
osee
ding
are
as p
rior t
o th
e ra
iny
seas
on.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-11
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
• S
tagi
ng a
reas
. Sta
biliz
e st
agin
g ar
eas
durin
g us
e an
d at
pro
ject
com
plet
ion.
•
Stoc
kpile
s/bu
lk m
ater
ial h
andl
ing.
Sta
biliz
e st
ockp
iled
mat
eria
ls o
r ins
tall
and
mai
ntai
n w
ind
barri
ers
to le
ss th
an
50 p
erce
nt p
oros
ity o
n th
ree
side
s of
the
pile
, suc
h th
at
the
barri
er is
equ
al to
or g
reat
er th
an th
e pi
le h
eigh
t. St
ockp
iles
with
in 1
00 y
ards
of o
ccup
ied
build
ings
mus
t no
t be
grea
ter t
han
eigh
t fee
t in
heig
ht a
nd s
tock
pile
s th
at
are
grea
ter t
han
eigh
t fee
t in
heig
ht a
nd n
ot c
over
ed
mus
t hav
e a
road
bla
ded
top
to a
llow
wat
er tr
uck
acce
ss
or m
ust h
ave
an o
pera
tiona
l wat
er ir
rigat
ion
syst
em th
at
is c
apab
le o
f com
plet
e st
ockp
ile c
over
age.
•
Traf
fic a
reas
for c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
. Sta
biliz
e al
l off-
road
traf
fic a
nd p
arki
ng a
reas
and
ens
ure
that
ons
ite
vehi
cula
r tra
ffic
does
not
exc
eed
15 m
iles
per h
our.
Sta
biliz
e al
l hau
l rou
tes
and
dire
ct c
onst
ruct
ion
traffi
c ov
er e
stab
lishe
d ha
ul ro
utes
. Thi
s m
ay b
e ac
hiev
ed b
y ap
plyi
ng g
rave
l or p
avin
g ha
ul ro
utes
and
by
usin
g ba
rrie
rs to
ens
ure
that
con
stru
ctio
n tra
ffic
only
use
s es
tabl
ishe
d ro
utes
. •
Tren
chin
g. S
tabi
lize
surfa
ce s
oils
whe
re tr
ench
er o
r ex
cava
tor a
nd s
uppo
rt eq
uipm
ent w
ill o
pera
te a
nd
stab
ilize
soi
ls a
t com
plet
ion
of tr
ench
ing
activ
ities
. Pre
-w
ater
soi
ls p
rior t
o tre
nchi
ng a
nd w
ash
mud
and
soi
ls
from
equ
ipm
ent a
t the
con
clus
ion
of tr
ench
ing
activ
ities
to
pre
vent
cru
stin
g an
d dr
ying
of s
oil o
n eq
uipm
ent.
•
Unp
aved
road
s/pa
rkin
g lo
ts. S
tabi
lize
soils
to m
eet t
he
appl
icab
le s
tand
ards
and
lim
it ve
hicu
lar t
rave
l to
esta
blis
hed
pave
d ro
ads
(hau
l rou
tes)
and
unp
aved
pa
rkin
g lo
ts.
• W
eath
er m
onito
ring/
wor
k pr
actic
es. M
onito
r cur
rent
w
eath
er c
ondi
tions
and
wea
ther
pre
dict
ions
from
the
SC
AQ
MD
’s to
ll fre
e w
ind
fore
cast
sys
tem
and
/or t
he
Nat
iona
l Wea
ther
Ser
vice
. Cea
se a
ll co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es if
fugi
tive
dust
em
issi
ons
exce
ed 2
0 pe
rcen
t op
acity
or i
f the
100
foot
vis
ible
plu
me
rest
rictio
ns
cann
ot b
e m
et.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.3-1
b: E
xhau
st E
mis
sion
s C
ontr
ol P
lan.
To
ensu
re a
nd m
onito
r im
plem
enta
tion
of
AP
Ms
AQ
-1 th
roug
h A
Q-6
and
AQ
-8 th
roug
h A
Q-1
0, S
CE
sh
all d
evel
op a
n E
xhau
st E
mis
sion
s C
ontro
l Pla
n ou
tlini
ng h
ow c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith e
ach
of th
ese
mea
sure
s sh
all b
e ac
hiev
ed. T
his
plan
sha
ll be
sub
mitt
ed to
the
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
plan
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce
at le
ast
once
per
wee
k.
Sub
mit
plan
prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-12
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
CP
UC
for r
evie
w a
nd s
hall
be d
istri
bute
d to
all
empl
oyee
s an
d co
nstru
ctio
n co
ntra
ctor
s pr
ior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
. The
CP
UC
con
stru
ctio
n m
onito
r sh
all m
onito
r com
plia
nce
with
the
Pla
n pe
riodi
cally
th
roug
hout
the
dura
tion
of c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
.
Impa
ct 4
.3-3
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es w
ould
gen
erat
e em
issi
ons
of c
riter
ia p
ollu
tant
s th
at w
ould
be
cons
ider
ed
cum
ulat
ivel
y co
nsid
erab
le.
Sig
nific
ant u
nmiti
gabl
e (C
lass
I)
Impl
emen
t Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.3-
1a (F
ugiti
ve D
ust
Con
trol P
lan)
and
4.3
-1b
(Exh
aust
Em
issi
ons
Con
trol
Pla
n).
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.3-
1a a
nd 4
.3-1
b.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.3-
1a
and
4.3-
1b.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.3-
1a a
nd 4
.3-1
b.
Impa
ct 4
.3-4
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es w
ould
gen
erat
e em
issi
ons
of c
riter
ia p
ollu
tant
s,
expo
sing
loca
l sen
sitiv
e re
cept
ors
to p
ollu
tant
co
ncen
tratio
ns. S
igni
fican
t un
miti
gabl
e (C
lass
I)
Impl
emen
t Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.3-
1a (F
ugiti
ve D
ust
Con
trol P
lan)
and
4.3
-1b
(Exh
aust
Em
issi
ons
Con
trol
Pla
n).
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.3-
1a a
nd 4
.3-1
b.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.3-
1a
and
4.3-
1b.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.3-
1a a
nd 4
.3-1
b.
Impa
ct 4
.3-6
: The
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct w
ould
gen
erat
e sh
ort-
term
and
long
-term
em
issi
ons
of
GH
Gs
that
cou
ld e
xcee
d ap
plic
able
thre
shol
ds o
f si
gnifi
canc
e or
con
flict
with
ap
plic
able
GH
G re
duct
ion
plan
s. L
ess
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.3-6
: With
in 6
0 da
ys o
f com
plet
ion
of p
roje
ct c
onst
ruct
ion,
SC
E sh
all e
nter
into
a b
indi
ng
agre
emen
t to
purc
hase
car
bon
offs
et c
redi
ts fr
om th
e C
alifo
rnia
Clim
ate
Actio
n R
egis
try (C
CAR
), or
any
sou
rce
that
is a
ppro
ved
by th
e C
PUC
and
that
is c
onsi
sten
t with
th
e po
licie
s an
d gu
idel
ines
of t
he C
alifo
rnia
Glo
bal W
arm
ing
Solu
tion
Act o
f 200
6 (A
B 32
), to
offs
et a
min
imum
of
30 p
erce
nt o
f the
net
ann
ualiz
ed in
crea
se o
f gre
enho
use
gas
emis
sion
s fro
m th
e Pr
opos
ed P
roje
ct. T
he o
ffset
s id
entif
ied
in th
e bi
ndin
g ag
reem
ent s
hall
be im
plem
ente
d no
la
ter t
han
six
cale
ndar
mon
ths
from
com
plet
ion
of
cons
truct
ion.
The
est
imat
ed a
mou
nt o
f offs
ets
requ
ired
is
105.
3 m
etric
tons
CO
2e p
er y
ear (
i.e.,
30 p
erce
nt o
f 148
m
etric
tons
CO
2e fo
r yea
rs 1
thro
ugh
5 an
d 30
per
cent
of
392
met
ric to
ns o
f CO
2e fo
r yea
rs 6
thro
ugh
30).
How
ever
, th
e ex
act a
mou
nt o
f gre
enho
use
gas
emis
sion
s to
be
offs
et
may
var
y de
pend
ing
on w
heth
er a
ny o
f the
con
stru
ctio
n pl
ans
are
mod
ified
. With
in 6
0 da
ys o
f com
plet
ion
of th
e Pr
opos
ed P
roje
ct, S
CE
shal
l sub
mit
a re
port
for t
he
CPU
C’s
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val,
whi
ch s
hall
iden
tify
all
cons
truct
ion-
and
ope
ratio
ns-re
late
d em
issi
ons
and
the
offs
et a
mou
nts
that
will
be p
urch
ased
from
app
rove
d pr
ogra
ms
to re
sult
in a
min
imum
30
perc
ent n
et re
duct
ion
in
annu
aliz
ed G
HG
em
issi
ons.
SC
E s
hall
ente
r int
o a
bind
ing
agre
emen
t to
prov
ide
GH
G
emis
sion
s of
fset
s as
def
ined
in
this
mea
sure
.
SC
E to
pro
vide
a re
port
to th
e C
PU
C d
ocum
entin
g th
e so
urce
an
d am
ount
of e
mis
sion
offs
ets.
Pro
vide
repo
rt w
ithin
60
days
follo
win
g co
mpl
etio
n of
con
stru
ctio
n; im
plem
ent
offs
ets
with
in s
ix c
alen
dar
mon
ths
follo
win
g co
mpl
etio
n of
con
stru
ctio
n.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-13
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Biol
ogica
l Res
ourc
es
Impa
ct 4
.4-1
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es c
ould
resu
lt in
adv
erse
im
pact
s to
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y m
ilkve
tch.
Les
s th
an s
igni
fican
t w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
APM
BIO
-1. P
reco
nstru
ctio
n S
urve
ys. P
reco
nstru
ctio
n bi
olog
ical
cle
aran
ce s
urve
ys w
ill b
e pe
rform
ed to
m
inim
ize
impa
cts
to s
peci
al-s
tatu
s pl
ant a
nd w
ildlif
e.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
prec
onst
ruct
ion
surv
ey re
sults
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
BIO
-2. M
inim
ize
Veg
etat
ion
Impa
cts.
Eve
ry e
ffort
will
be
mad
e to
min
imiz
e ve
geta
tion
rem
oval
and
pe
rman
ent l
oss
at c
onst
ruct
ion
site
s. If
nec
essa
ry, n
ativ
e ve
geta
tion
will
be
flagg
ed fo
r avo
idan
ce.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
BIO
-5. B
iolo
gica
l Mon
itors
. Bio
logi
cal m
onito
rs w
ill
be a
ssig
ned
to th
e pr
ojec
t in
area
s of
sen
sitiv
e bi
olog
ical
re
sour
ce. T
he m
onito
rs w
ill b
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r ens
urin
g th
at im
pact
s to
spe
cial
sta
tus
spec
ies,
nat
ive
vege
tatio
n,
wild
life
habi
tat,
or u
niqu
e re
sour
ces
will
be
avoi
ded
to th
e fu
llest
ext
ent p
ossi
ble.
Whe
re a
ppro
pria
te, m
onito
rs w
ill
flag
the
boun
darie
s of
are
as w
here
act
iviti
es n
eed
to b
e re
stric
ted
in o
rder
to p
rote
ct n
ativ
e pl
ants
and
wild
life
or
spec
ial s
tatu
s sp
ecie
s. T
hose
rest
ricte
d ar
eas
will
be
mon
itore
d to
ens
ure
thei
r pro
tect
ion
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
pro
vide
resu
me
of
biol
ogic
al m
onito
rs to
CP
UC
for
revi
ew.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
BIO
-6. W
orke
r Env
ironm
enta
l Aw
aren
ess
Pro
gram
. A
Wor
ker E
nviro
nmen
tal A
war
enes
s P
rogr
am (W
EA
P)
will
be
prep
ared
. All
cons
truct
ion
crew
s an
d co
ntra
ctor
s w
ill b
e re
quire
d to
par
ticip
ate
in W
EA
P tr
aini
ng p
rior t
o st
artin
g w
ork
on th
e pr
ojec
t. Th
e W
EA
P tr
aini
ng w
ill
incl
ude
a re
view
of t
he s
peci
al s
tatu
s sp
ecie
s an
d ot
her
sens
itive
reso
urce
s th
at c
ould
exi
st in
the
proj
ect a
rea,
th
e lo
catio
ns o
f sen
sitiv
e bi
olog
ical
reso
urce
s an
d th
eir
lega
l sta
tus
and
prot
ectio
ns, a
nd m
easu
res
to b
e im
plem
ente
d fo
r avo
idan
ce o
f the
se s
ensi
tive
reso
urce
s.
A re
cord
of a
ll tra
ined
per
sonn
el w
ill b
e m
aint
aine
d.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
atte
nd fi
rst W
EA
P tr
aini
ng
sess
ion.
S
CE
to s
ubm
it re
cord
s of
tra
ined
per
sonn
el to
CP
UC
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.4-1
: Coa
chel
la V
alle
y M
ilkve
tch.
S
urve
ys fo
r Coa
chel
la V
alle
y m
ilkve
tch
shal
l be
perfo
rmed
with
in o
ne y
ear p
rior t
o co
nstru
ctio
n, b
etw
een
Febr
uary
and
ear
ly M
ay, d
urin
g th
e pl
ant’s
gro
win
g an
d flo
wer
ing
seas
on. G
PS
coo
rdin
ates
of p
lant
loca
tions
sh
all b
e re
cord
ed w
ith h
igh
prec
isio
n (to
with
in o
ne
met
er),
stor
ed in
an
elec
troni
c da
taba
se, a
nd s
ubm
itted
to
the
US
FWS
and
the
CN
DD
B w
ithin
one
yea
r of t
he
surv
ey. P
lant
s sh
all b
e m
arke
d co
nspi
cuou
sly
with
pin
fla
gs a
nd a
void
ed d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n to
the
grea
test
ex
tent
pos
sibl
e. F
ollo
win
g th
e co
mpl
etio
n of
con
stru
ctio
n,
area
s co
mpa
cted
dur
ing
tem
pora
ry c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
surv
ey re
sults
to
CP
UC
, US
FWS
, and
CN
DD
B.
SC
E to
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
rest
ored
hab
itat t
o C
PU
C fo
r re
view
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce
at le
ast
Sub
mit
surv
ey re
sults
w
ithin
one
yea
r of
com
plet
ion
of s
urve
ys.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f pr
ojec
t ope
ratio
ns.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-14
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
(e.g
., la
y-do
wn
area
s, p
ullin
g si
tes)
sha
ll be
sca
rifie
d, if
de
emed
nec
essa
ry, t
o en
hanc
e ge
rmin
atio
n of
this
sp
ecie
s.
Tem
pora
ry a
nd p
erm
anen
t im
pact
s to
hab
itat f
or th
e C
V
milk
vetc
h sh
all b
e co
mpe
nsat
ed fo
r thr
ough
con
serv
atio
n of
sui
tabl
e ha
bita
t for
this
spe
cies
. The
cal
cula
ted
repl
acem
ent f
or h
abita
t los
s fo
r the
CV
milk
vetc
h sh
all b
e ba
sed
on a
ratio
of 3
:1 (c
ompe
nsat
ion
to im
pact
) per
acr
e fo
r tem
pora
ry im
pact
s an
d 9:
1 fo
r per
man
ent i
mpa
cts,
for
an e
stim
ated
tota
l of 6
acr
es. T
hese
ratio
s R
atio
s re
flect
th
e lim
ited
habi
tat a
nd lo
w p
opul
atio
ns o
f thi
s sp
ecie
s ac
ross
its
rang
e, a
nd th
e lo
ss o
f hab
itat a
vaila
ble
for t
his
spec
ies
in th
e pr
ojec
t are
a, a
nd a
re c
onsi
sten
t with
co
mpe
nsat
ion
ratio
s es
tabl
ishe
d in
the
CV
MS
HC
P.
Gre
ater
or l
esse
r com
pens
atio
n ra
tios
may
be
subs
titut
ed
as d
eter
min
ed th
ough
US
FWS
and
CD
FG c
onsu
ltatio
n an
d/or
per
mitt
ing,
con
side
ring
the
qual
ity o
f the
hab
itat
bein
g af
fect
ed. T
he re
plac
emen
t hab
itat s
hall
be w
ithin
th
e W
hite
wat
er F
lood
plai
n C
onse
rvat
ion
Are
a of
the
CV
MS
HC
P. T
otal
com
pens
atio
n fu
nds
shal
l inc
lude
the
cost
s of
acq
uisi
tion
and
long
-term
man
agem
ent,
and
shal
l be
pai
d pr
ior t
o th
e st
art o
f pro
ject
ope
ratio
ns. T
his
repl
acem
ent h
abita
t sha
ll m
itiga
te fo
r bot
h di
rect
and
in
dire
ct im
pact
s of
con
stru
ctio
n an
d op
erat
ions
/man
agem
ent o
n th
is s
peci
es, a
s w
ell a
s th
e C
V fr
inge
-toed
liza
rd (s
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.4
-2,
belo
w),
Pal
m S
prin
gs p
ocke
t mou
se, P
alm
Spr
ings
ro
und-
taile
d gr
ound
squ
irrel
, CV
gia
nt s
and-
tread
er
cric
ket,
and
Le C
onte
’s th
rash
er.
once
per
wee
k.
Impa
ct 4
.4-2
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es c
ould
resu
lt in
adv
erse
im
pact
s to
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y fri
nge-
toed
liza
rd a
nd fl
at-ta
iled
horn
ed li
zard
. Les
s th
an
sign
ifica
nt w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.4-2
: Coa
chel
la V
alle
y fr
inge
-toed
liz
ard
and
flat-t
aile
d ho
rned
liza
rd. C
onst
ruct
ion
wor
k w
ithin
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y fri
nge-
toed
liza
rd h
abita
t sha
ll ad
here
to th
e fo
llow
ing
mea
sure
s:
• A
s de
term
ined
at t
he ti
me
of c
onst
ruct
ion,
dep
endi
ng
upon
exi
stin
g ha
bita
t con
ditio
ns a
nd th
e re
sults
of t
he
prot
ocol
-leve
l sur
veys
for t
he C
V fr
inge
-toed
liza
rd, a
su
rvey
for t
his
spec
ies
acco
rdin
g to
the
appr
oved
U
SFW
S a
nd C
DFG
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y fri
nge-
toed
liza
rd
surv
ey p
roto
col s
hall
be c
ondu
cted
to d
eter
min
e pr
esen
ce o
r abs
ence
of C
oach
ella
Val
ley
fring
e-to
ed
lizar
ds, w
ithin
48
hour
s of
ere
ctin
g an
Env
ironm
enta
l S
ensi
tive
Are
a (E
SA
) exc
lusi
on fe
nce.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
findi
ngs
of
prot
ocol
-leve
l sur
veys
to C
PU
C.
SC
E to
sub
mit
resu
me
of
qual
ified
bio
logi
st to
CP
UC
. S
CE
to s
ubm
it ve
geta
tion
plan
as
wel
l as
docu
men
tatio
n of
U
SFW
S a
ppro
val o
f pla
n to
C
PU
C.
SC
E to
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
repl
acem
ent h
abita
t to
CP
UC
fo
r rev
iew
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f pr
ojec
t ope
ratio
ns.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-15
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
• E
SA
exc
lusi
on fe
nces
sha
ll en
clos
e al
l con
stru
ctio
n ar
eas
in fr
inge
-toed
liza
rd h
abita
t. Th
e lo
catio
n of
thes
e fe
nces
sha
ll be
bas
ed o
n ex
istin
g co
nditi
ons
and
the
resu
lts o
f pro
toco
l-lev
el s
urve
ys fo
r thi
s sp
ecie
s, a
nd a
m
ap in
dica
ting
the
prop
osed
loca
tion
of th
ese
fenc
es
shal
l be
subm
itted
to th
e U
SFW
S fo
r app
rova
l, pr
ior t
o er
ectin
g th
em. A
t a m
inim
um, E
SA
fenc
es s
hall
be
erec
ted
alon
g th
e pr
opos
ed F
arre
ll-G
arne
t alig
nmen
t, on
bot
h si
des
of th
e G
ene
Aut
ry T
rail
sout
h of
the
UP
RR
. Fen
ces
shal
l be
erec
ted
afte
r one
pre
-co
nstru
ctio
n su
rvey
(des
crib
ed in
the
prev
ious
bul
let)
is
cond
ucte
d, a
nd s
hall
be m
aint
aine
d to
kee
p th
e C
oach
ella
Val
ley
fring
e-to
ed li
zard
s fro
m e
nter
ing
activ
e w
ork
area
s. S
ilt fe
ncin
g sh
all b
e bu
ried
to a
de
pth
of e
ight
to 1
2 in
ches
. A s
econ
d pr
e-co
nstru
ctio
n su
rvey
with
in th
e E
SA
sha
ll be
con
duct
ed to
rem
ove
any
rem
aini
ng fr
inge
-toed
liza
rds
from
the
cons
truct
ion
foot
prin
t. G
ener
ally
, ES
A fe
ncin
g is
ant
icip
ated
to b
e er
ecte
d al
ong
the
Farr
ell-G
arne
t alig
nmen
t.
• S
CE
and
/or i
ts c
onst
ruct
ion
cont
ract
ors
shal
l ret
ain
and
have
ava
ilabl
e, th
e se
rvic
es o
f a C
PU
C a
utho
rized
qu
alifi
ed b
iolo
gist
who
sha
ll pe
rform
the
dutie
s of
the
biol
ogic
al m
onito
r. Th
e bi
olog
ical
mon
itor s
hall
be
requ
ired
to c
ondu
ct a
pre
-con
stru
ctio
n su
rvey
of t
he
proj
ect s
ite a
nd a
ny a
ssoc
iate
d st
agin
g ar
eas;
pro
vide
em
ploy
ee W
EA
P tr
aini
ng (s
ee A
PM
BIO
-6 [W
orke
r E
nviro
nmen
tal A
war
enes
s P
rogr
am],
abov
e); m
onito
r th
e te
mpo
rary
ES
A fe
nce
inst
alla
tion;
and
per
form
co
nstru
ctio
n m
onito
ring.
The
con
stru
ctio
n m
onito
r sha
ll en
sure
that
the
cont
ract
or m
aint
ains
the
inte
grity
of t
he
biol
ogic
al fe
ncin
g du
ring
the
entir
e co
nstru
ctio
n du
ratio
n. T
he a
utho
rized
bio
logi
st s
hall
have
pre
viou
s ex
perie
nce
hand
ling
fring
e-to
ed li
zard
s. T
he a
utho
rized
bi
olog
ist s
hall
subm
it a
prot
ocol
for c
aptu
re a
nd re
leas
e of
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y fri
nge-
toed
liza
rds
prio
r to
initi
atin
g su
rvey
met
hods
. Cap
ture
of C
oach
ella
Val
ley
fring
e-to
ed li
zard
s an
d fla
t-tai
led
horn
ed li
zard
s sh
all b
e al
low
ed b
y ne
t, no
ose,
or b
y ha
nd. A
new
pai
r of l
atex
or
syn
thet
ic g
love
s sh
all b
e us
ed fo
r eac
h liz
ard
hand
led.
•
If an
y C
oach
ella
Val
ley
fring
e-to
ed li
zard
s of
flat
-taile
d ho
rned
liza
rds
are
capt
ured
, the
y sh
all b
e re
leas
ed
imm
edia
tely
in a
map
ped
area
app
rove
d by
the
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e at
leas
t on
ce p
er w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-16
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
US
FWS
prio
r to
the
pre-
cons
truct
ion
surv
ey. T
he
rele
ase
area
sha
ll be
sea
rche
d fo
r sna
kes,
and
if
foun
d, a
diff
eren
t loc
atio
n sh
all b
e fo
und.
Liz
ards
sha
ll be
rele
ased
in th
e sh
ade
of a
shr
ub. N
o liz
ards
sha
ll be
in
cap
tivity
or i
n tra
nspo
rt fo
r lon
ger t
han
10 m
inut
es
afte
r the
ir in
itial
cap
ture
with
in a
n en
clos
ed
cons
truct
ion
area
. Liz
ards
sha
ll be
tran
spor
ted
in c
lean
, w
hite
, pla
stic
five
-gal
lon
buck
ets.
•
All
mov
emen
t of c
onst
ruct
ion
vehi
cles
out
side
of t
he
RO
W s
hall
be re
stric
ted
to p
re-d
esig
nate
d ac
cess
or
publ
ic ro
ads.
Acc
ess
site
s al
ong
Gen
e A
utry
Tra
il an
d in
the
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y fri
nge-
toed
liza
rd c
ritic
al h
abita
t sh
all b
e de
sign
ated
on
the
ES
A fe
ncin
g m
ap a
nd
appr
oved
by
the
US
FWS
, prio
r to
cons
truct
ion.
•
If ro
ad s
tabi
lizat
ion
is re
quire
d fo
r the
tem
pora
ry a
cces
s ro
ads,
the
mat
eria
ls u
sed
for s
tabi
lizat
ion
shal
l con
sist
of
tem
pora
ry, e
asily
rem
ovab
le m
ater
ial (
e.g.
mat
s la
id
dow
n on
san
d, ra
ther
than
gra
vel).
No
grav
el s
hall
be
dum
ped
on th
e R
OW
in fr
inge
-toed
liza
rd h
abita
t.
• Th
e re
al li
mits
of c
onst
ruct
ion
with
in th
e R
OW
sha
ll be
pr
edet
erm
ined
, with
act
ivity
rest
ricte
d to
and
con
fined
w
ithin
thos
e lim
its a
nd p
lace
d on
a m
ap, s
ubm
itted
to
the
US
FWS
for t
heir
appr
oval
prio
r to
cons
truct
ion.
No
pain
t or p
erm
anen
t dis
colo
ring
agen
ts s
hall
be a
pplie
d to
rock
s or
veg
etat
ion
to in
dica
te s
urve
y or
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tivity
lim
its.
• C
onst
ruct
ion
and
mai
nten
ance
veh
icle
s sh
all n
ot
exce
ed a
spe
ed o
f 10
mile
s pe
r hou
r in
Coa
chel
la
Val
ley
fring
e-to
ed li
zard
hab
itat (
on th
e ac
cess
road
s an
d ro
ad s
houl
ders
alo
ng th
e G
ene
Aut
ry T
rail
road
way
, and
in d
esig
nate
d C
oach
ella
Val
ley
fring
e-to
ed li
zard
crit
ical
hab
itat).
•
Con
stru
ctio
n op
erat
ions
with
in o
ccup
ied
Coa
chel
la
Val
ley
fring
e-to
ed li
zard
hab
itat s
hall
occu
r whe
n th
is
spec
ies
is ty
pica
lly a
ctiv
e, w
hich
is w
hen
the
air
tem
pera
ture
s on
e in
ch a
bove
the
grou
nd in
the
shad
e ar
e be
twee
n 96
deg
rees
and
112
deg
rees
Fah
renh
eit,
pref
erab
ly b
etw
een
Apr
il 1
and
Oct
ober
30,
con
tinge
nt
upon
act
ivity
bei
ng o
bser
ved
at a
nea
rby
refe
renc
e
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-17
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
popu
latio
n. W
ork
may
occ
ur d
urin
g th
e ev
enin
g ho
urs
and
outs
ide
the
activ
e se
ason
(whe
n th
e te
mpe
ratu
res
are
cool
er a
nd th
e el
ectri
cal d
eman
d is
low
er),
if th
e ne
cess
ary
clea
ranc
e su
rvey
s ar
e co
nduc
ted
durin
g th
e ap
prop
riate
tem
pera
ture
s, th
e si
lt fe
ncin
g is
m
aint
aine
d, a
nd n
o C
oach
ella
Val
ley
fring
e-to
ed li
zard
s ha
ve e
nter
ed th
e pr
ojec
t are
a.
• S
poils
sha
ll be
sto
ckpi
led
in p
revi
ousl
y di
stur
bed
area
s th
at h
ave
been
exa
min
ed fo
r the
pre
senc
e of
Coa
chel
la
Val
ley
fring
e-to
ed li
zard
s an
d fla
t-tai
led
horn
ed li
zard
s by
the
auth
oriz
ed b
iolo
gist
. Sto
ckpi
le p
lace
men
t site
s sh
all b
e m
appe
d on
the
ES
A fe
ncin
g m
ap a
nd
subm
itted
to th
e U
SFW
S fo
r app
rova
l prio
r to
begi
nnin
g co
nstru
ctio
n.
• E
xist
ing
sand
-ret
aini
ng la
ttice
fenc
es in
the
RO
W s
hall
be re
paire
d or
repl
aced
. •
At l
east
one
mon
th p
rior t
o co
nstru
ctio
n, a
veg
etat
ion
rest
orat
ion
plan
sha
ll be
sub
mitt
ed to
the
US
FWS
for
appr
oval
in th
e ar
eas
of o
ccup
ied
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y fri
nge-
toed
liza
rd h
abita
t (ge
nera
lly, o
n th
e ea
st a
nd
wes
t sid
e of
the
Gen
e A
utry
road
way
). E
ach
plan
t tha
t is
des
troye
d du
e to
con
stru
ctio
n in
the
RO
W a
long
the
east
and
wes
t sid
e of
Gen
e A
utry
Tra
il ro
adw
ay s
hall
be re
plac
ed a
nd m
onito
red
for a
t lea
st te
n fiv
e ye
ars,
or
othe
r per
iod
of ti
me
appr
oved
by
the
US
FWS
, to
ensu
re a
t lea
st 6
0 pe
rcen
t rep
lace
men
t of t
he im
pact
ed
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y fri
nge-
toed
liza
rd h
abita
t.
• C
lear
ance
sur
veys
sha
ll be
repe
ated
if m
ore
than
72
hour
s el
apse
bet
wee
n w
ork
sess
ions
, if a
ny p
ortio
n of
a
fenc
e is
rem
oved
or b
low
n do
wn,
or i
f mea
sura
ble
rain
fall
occu
rs.
• Te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent i
mpa
cts
to C
V fr
inge
-toed
liz
ard
habi
tat s
hall
be m
itiga
ted
thro
ugh
cons
erva
tion
of
suita
ble
habi
tat f
or th
is s
peci
es. T
he c
alcu
late
d re
plac
emen
t for
hab
itat l
oss
for t
his
spec
ies
shal
l be
base
d on
a ra
tio o
f 3:1
(com
pens
atio
n to
impa
ct) p
er
acre
for t
empo
rary
impa
cts
and
9:1
for p
erm
anen
t im
pact
s, fo
r an
estim
ated
tota
l of 6
acr
es. T
hese
ratio
s R
atio
s re
flect
the
limite
d ha
bita
t and
low
pop
ulat
ions
of
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-18
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
this
spe
cies
acr
oss
its ra
nge,
and
incl
ude
both
the
loss
of
hab
itat u
se b
y th
e sp
ecie
s, a
nd th
e ad
vers
e ef
fect
of
rapt
or p
reda
tion
caus
ed b
y th
e ne
w ra
ptor
per
ch
avai
labi
lity
at th
e ne
w p
oles
, and
are
con
sist
ent w
ith
com
pens
atio
n ra
tios
esta
blis
hed
in th
e C
VM
SH
CP
. G
reat
er o
r les
ser c
ompe
nsat
ion
ratio
s m
ay b
e su
bstit
uted
as
dete
rmin
ed th
ough
US
FWS
and
CD
FG
cons
ulta
tion
and/
or p
erm
ittin
g, c
onsi
derin
g th
e qu
ality
of
the
habi
tat b
eing
affe
cted
. The
repl
acem
ent h
abita
t sh
all b
e w
ithin
the
Whi
tew
ater
Flo
odpl
ain
Con
serv
atio
n A
rea
of th
e C
VM
SH
CP
. Tot
al c
ompe
nsat
ion
fund
s sh
all
incl
ude
the
cost
s of
acq
uisi
tion
and
long
-term
m
anag
emen
t, an
d sh
all b
e pa
id p
rior t
o th
e st
art o
f P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
ope
ratio
ns. T
his
repl
acem
ent h
abita
t sh
all m
itiga
te fo
r bot
h di
rect
and
indi
rect
impa
cts
of
cons
truct
ion
and
oper
atio
ns/m
anag
emen
t on
this
sp
ecie
s, a
s w
ell a
s th
e P
alm
Spr
ings
poc
ket m
ouse
, P
alm
Spr
ings
roun
d-ta
iled
grou
nd s
quirr
el, C
V g
iant
sa
nd-tr
eade
r cric
ket,
Le C
onte
’s th
rash
er, f
lat-t
aile
d ho
rned
liza
rd, a
nd C
V m
ilkve
tch
(hab
itat c
onse
rved
th
roug
h th
is m
easu
re m
ay b
e th
e sa
me
as th
at
cons
erve
d th
roug
h M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.4
-1 fo
r the
CV
m
ilkve
tch)
.
Impa
ct 4
.4-3
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es c
ould
resu
lt in
adv
erse
im
pact
s to
Pal
m S
prin
gs ro
und-
taile
d gr
ound
squ
irrel
and
Pal
m
Spr
ings
poc
ket m
ouse
. Les
s th
an s
igni
fican
t with
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
APM
BIO
-4. B
MP
s. C
rew
s w
ill b
e di
rect
ed to
use
Bes
t M
anag
emen
t Pra
ctic
es (B
MP
s) w
here
app
licab
le. T
hese
m
easu
res
will
be
iden
tifie
d pr
ior t
o co
nstru
ctio
n an
d in
corp
orat
ed in
to th
e co
nstru
ctio
n op
erat
ions
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s sh
all
impl
emen
t mea
sure
as
defin
ed.
SC
E to
pro
vide
the
list o
f BM
Ps
to b
e im
plem
ente
d to
CP
UC
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.4-3
: Pal
m S
prin
gs ro
und-
taile
d gr
ound
squ
irrel
col
onie
s. S
CE
and
/or i
ts c
ontra
ctor
s sh
all f
lag
and
avoi
d al
l kno
wn
Pal
m S
prin
gs ro
und-
taile
d gr
ound
squ
irrel
bur
row
col
onie
s w
ithin
the
area
of i
mpa
ct.
To th
e ex
tent
feas
ible
, gro
und
squi
rrel
col
onie
s of
un
know
n sp
ecie
s w
ithin
the
proj
ect a
lignm
ent s
hall
also
be
avo
ided
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s sh
all
impl
emen
t mea
sure
as
defin
ed.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.4-4
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es c
ould
resu
lt in
adv
erse
im
pact
s to
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y gi
ant s
and-
tread
er c
ricke
t. Le
ss
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
Impl
emen
t Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1 an
d 4.
4-2.
S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s 4.
4-1
and
4.4-
2.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1 an
d 4.
4-2.
S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s 4.
4-1
and
4.4-
2.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-19
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Impa
ct 4
.4-5
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es m
ay im
pact
pro
tect
ed
nativ
e, n
estin
g bi
rds.
Les
s th
an
sign
ifica
nt w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
APM
BIO
-7. A
void
Impa
cts
to A
ctiv
e N
ests
. SC
E w
ill
cond
uct p
roje
ct-w
ide
rapt
or s
urve
ys a
nd re
mov
e tre
es, i
f ne
cess
ary,
out
side
of t
he n
estin
g se
ason
(nes
ting
seas
on
is u
sual
ly F
ebru
ary
1 to
Aug
ust 3
1). I
f a tr
ee o
r pol
e co
ntai
ning
a ra
ptor
nes
t mus
t be
rem
oved
dur
ing
nest
ing
seas
on, o
r if w
ork
is s
ched
uled
to ta
ke p
lace
in c
lose
pr
oxim
ity to
an
activ
e ne
st o
n an
exi
stin
g tra
nsm
issi
on
tow
er o
r pol
e, S
CE
will
coo
rdin
ate
with
the
CD
FG a
nd
US
FWS
and
obt
ain
writ
ten
verif
icat
ion
prio
r to
mov
ing
the
nest
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s sh
all
impl
emen
t mea
sure
as
defin
ed.
SC
E to
sub
mit
resu
lts o
f sur
vey
to C
PU
C.
If ne
sts
are
mov
ed, S
CE
to
subm
it ve
rific
atio
n of
CD
FG a
nd
US
FWS
con
sulta
tion
to C
PU
C.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Prio
r to
mov
ing
any
activ
e ne
sts
durin
g al
l pha
ses
of
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.4-5
: Nes
ting
nativ
e bi
rds.
SC
E
and/
or it
s co
ntra
ctor
s sh
all i
mpl
emen
t the
follo
win
g m
easu
res
to a
void
impa
cts
on n
estin
g ra
ptor
s an
d ot
her
prot
ecte
d bi
rds
for a
ctiv
ities
that
are
sch
edul
ed d
urin
g th
e br
eedi
ng s
easo
n (F
ebru
ary
1 th
roug
h A
ugus
t 31)
: •
No
mor
e th
an tw
o w
eeks
bef
ore
cons
truct
ion
with
in
each
new
con
stru
ctio
n ar
ea, a
qua
lifie
d w
ildlif
e bi
olog
ist s
hall
cond
uct p
reco
nstru
ctio
n su
rvey
s of
all
pote
ntia
l nes
ting
habi
tat w
ithin
500
feet
of c
onst
ruct
ion
site
s w
here
acc
ess
is a
vaila
ble.
•
If ac
tive
nest
s ar
e no
t ide
ntifi
ed, n
o fu
rther
act
ion
is
nece
ssar
y. If
act
ive
nest
s ar
e id
entif
ied
durin
g pr
econ
stru
ctio
n su
rvey
s, a
no-
dist
urba
nce
buffe
r sha
ll be
cre
ated
aro
und
activ
e ra
ptor
nes
ts a
nd n
ests
of
othe
r spe
cial
-sta
tus
bird
s du
ring
the
bree
ding
sea
son,
or
unt
il it
is d
eter
min
ed th
at a
ll yo
ung
have
fled
ged.
Ty
pica
l buf
fers
are
500
feet
for r
apto
rs a
nd L
e C
onte
’s
thra
sher
, and
250
feet
for o
ther
nes
ting
bird
s (e
.g.,
wat
erfo
wl,
and
pass
erin
e bi
rds)
. The
siz
e of
thes
e bu
ffer z
ones
and
type
s of
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es th
at
are
allo
wed
in th
ese
area
s co
uld
be fu
rther
mod
ified
du
ring
cons
truct
ion
in c
oord
inat
ion
with
CD
FG, a
nd
shal
l be
base
d on
exi
stin
g no
ise
and
dist
urba
nce
leve
ls
in th
e pr
ojec
t are
a.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s sh
all
impl
emen
t mea
sure
as
defin
ed.
SC
E to
sub
mit
resu
lts o
f sur
vey
to C
PU
C.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Two
wee
ks p
rior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
cons
truct
ion
with
in a
new
co
nstru
ctio
n ar
ea, d
urin
g al
l pha
ses
of c
onst
ruct
ion.
D
urin
g al
l pha
ses
of
cons
truct
ion.
Impa
ct 4
.4-6
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es c
ould
resu
lt in
dire
ct
and
indi
rect
impa
cts
on
burr
owin
g ow
l. Le
ss th
an
sign
ifica
nt w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.4-6
: Bur
row
ing
owl.
No
mor
e th
an tw
o w
eeks
bef
ore
begi
nnin
g co
nstru
ctio
n, a
sur
vey
for b
urro
ws
and
burr
owin
g ow
ls s
hall
be c
ondu
cted
by
a qu
alifi
ed b
iolo
gist
with
in 5
00 fe
et o
f the
pro
ject
(acc
ess
perm
ittin
g), w
here
sui
tabl
e ha
bita
t is
pres
ent.
The
surv
ey
shal
l con
form
to th
e pr
otoc
ol d
escr
ibed
by
the
Cal
iforn
ia
Bur
row
ing
Ow
l Con
sorti
um (1
995)
, whi
ch in
clud
es u
p to
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s sh
all
impl
emen
t mea
sure
as
defin
ed.
SC
E to
sub
mit
resu
me
of
qual
ified
bio
logi
st a
nd s
urve
y re
sults
to C
PU
C fo
r rev
iew
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce
at le
ast
once
per
wee
k.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-20
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
four
sur
veys
on
diffe
rent
dat
es if
ther
e ar
e su
itabl
e bu
rrow
s pr
esen
t. If
unoc
cupi
ed b
urro
ws
are
foun
d w
ithin
th
e su
rvey
are
a, th
ey s
hall
be c
olla
psed
out
side
of
nest
ing
seas
on.
If oc
cupi
ed o
wl b
urro
ws
are
foun
d w
ithin
the
surv
ey a
rea,
a
dete
rmin
atio
n sh
all b
e m
ade
by a
qua
lifie
d bi
olog
ist,
in
cons
ulta
tion
with
the
CD
FG, a
s to
whe
ther
or n
ot w
ork
will
affe
ct th
e oc
cupi
ed b
urro
ws
or d
isru
pt re
prod
uctiv
e be
havi
or.
• If
it is
det
erm
ined
that
con
stru
ctio
n w
ill n
ot a
ffect
oc
cupi
ed b
urro
ws
or d
isru
pt b
reed
ing
beha
vior
, co
nstru
ctio
n sh
all p
roce
ed w
ithou
t any
rest
rictio
n or
m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s.
•
If it
is d
eter
min
ed th
at c
onst
ruct
ion
will
affe
ct o
ccup
ied
burr
ows
durin
g th
e no
n-br
eedi
ng s
easo
n (A
ugus
t th
roug
h Fe
brua
ry),
the
subj
ect o
wls
sha
ll be
pas
sive
ly
relo
cate
d fro
m th
e oc
cupi
ed b
urro
w(s
) acc
ordi
ng to
a
plan
app
rove
d by
the
CD
FG. T
he p
lan
shal
l inc
lude
in
stal
latio
n of
one
-way
doo
rs in
occ
upie
d bu
rrow
s at
le
ast 4
8 ho
urs
befo
re th
e bu
rrow
s ar
e ex
cava
ted,
and
sh
all p
rovi
de fo
r the
ow
l’s re
loca
tion
to n
earb
y la
nds
that
pos
sess
ava
ilabl
e ne
stin
g ha
bita
t.
•
If it
is d
eter
min
ed th
at c
onst
ruct
ion
will
phy
sica
lly a
ffect
oc
cupi
ed b
urro
ws
or d
isru
pt re
prod
uctiv
e be
havi
or
durin
g th
e ne
stin
g se
ason
(Mar
ch th
roug
h Ju
ly),
then
av
oida
nce
is th
e on
ly m
itiga
tion
avai
labl
e. C
onst
ruct
ion
shal
l be
dela
yed
with
in 2
50 fe
et o
f occ
upie
d bu
rrow
s un
til it
is d
eter
min
ed th
at th
e su
bjec
t ow
ls a
re n
ot
nest
ing
or u
ntil
a qu
alifi
ed b
iolo
gist
det
erm
ines
that
ju
veni
le o
wls
are
sel
f-suf
ficie
nt o
r are
no
long
er u
sing
th
e na
tal b
urro
w a
s th
eir p
rimar
y so
urce
of s
helte
r.
Impa
ct 4
.4-7
: Ope
ratio
n of
new
su
btra
nsm
issi
on a
nd
trans
mis
sion
line
s co
uld
impa
ct
rapt
ors
as a
resu
lt of
el
ectro
cutio
n or
col
lisio
n. L
ess
than
sig
nific
ant (
Cla
ss II
I)
APM
BIO
-8. A
vian
Pro
tect
ion.
All
trans
mis
sion
and
su
btra
nsm
issi
on to
wer
s an
d po
les
will
be
desi
gned
to b
e ra
ptor
-saf
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
Sug
gest
ed P
ract
ices
fo
r Rap
tor P
rote
ctio
n on
Pow
er L
ines
: the
Sta
te o
f the
Art
in 2
006
(Avi
an P
ower
Lin
e In
tera
ctio
n C
omm
ittee
, 200
6)
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
final
tra
nsm
issi
on li
ne d
esig
ns
dem
onst
ratin
g co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith
guid
elin
es to
CP
UC
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.4-8
: New
su
btra
nsm
issi
on a
nd
trans
mis
sion
line
pol
es/to
wer
s co
uld
be u
sed
as p
erch
es b
y
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.4-8
: Ant
i-per
chin
g de
vice
. Ant
i-pe
rchi
ng d
evic
es s
hall
be p
lace
d on
the
new
su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne p
oles
and
new
tran
smis
sion
line
to
wer
s an
d po
les.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
ant
i-per
chin
g de
vice
s to
be
inst
alle
d on
pol
es a
nd to
wer
s.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-21
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
pred
ator
y bi
rds,
whi
ch c
ould
re
sult
in in
crea
sed
pred
atio
n on
sp
ecia
l-sta
tus
spec
ies
in th
e pr
ojec
t are
a. L
ess
than
si
gnifi
cant
with
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
insp
ect c
ompl
ianc
e.
Imm
edia
tely
follo
win
g to
wer
and
pol
e in
stal
latio
n.
Impa
ct 4
.4-9
: Con
stru
ctio
n an
d op
erat
ion
activ
ities
cou
ld im
pact
ac
tive
sand
fiel
ds a
long
the
Farr
ell-G
arne
t 115
kV
su
btra
nsm
issi
on li
ne a
lignm
ent.
Less
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Impl
emen
t Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1 an
d 4.
4-2.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1 an
d 4.
4-2.
S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s 4.
4-1
and
4.4-
2.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1 an
d 4.
4-2.
Impa
ct 4
.4-1
0: C
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
cou
ld im
pact
ju
risdi
ctio
nal w
ater
s of
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
and
wat
ers
of th
e S
tate
, inc
ludi
ng d
rain
ages
and
se
ason
al w
etla
nds.
Les
s th
an
sign
ifica
nt w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
APM
BIO
-3. A
void
Impa
cts
to S
tate
and
Fed
eral
Ju
risdi
ctio
n W
etla
nds.
Con
stru
ctio
n cr
ews
will
avo
id
impa
ctin
g th
e st
ream
beds
and
ban
ks o
f stre
ams
alon
g th
e ro
ute
to th
e ex
tent
pos
sibl
e. If
nec
essa
ry, a
S
tream
bed
Alte
ratio
n A
gree
men
t (S
AA
) will
be
secu
red
from
the
CD
FG. I
mpa
cts
will
be
miti
gate
d ba
sed
on th
e te
rms
of th
e S
AA
. No
stre
ams
with
flow
ing
wat
ers
capa
ble
of s
uppo
rting
spe
cial
-sta
tus
spec
ies
will
be
expe
cted
to b
e im
pact
ed b
y th
e pr
ojec
t.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
If ne
cess
ary,
SC
E to
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
all
SA
As
to
CP
UC
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.4-1
0:W
etla
nds.
SC
E a
nd/o
r its
co
nstru
ctio
n co
ntra
ctor
s sh
all p
erfo
rm a
wet
land
de
linea
tion
and
inco
rpor
ate
the
resu
lts in
to th
e fin
al
desi
gn o
f sub
trans
mis
sion
line
s an
d ac
cess
road
s. T
he
proj
ect s
hall
be m
odifi
ed to
min
imiz
e di
stur
banc
e of
W
hite
wat
er W
ash,
whe
neve
r fea
sibl
e. In
the
even
t of a
ny
proj
ect c
hang
es th
at in
volv
e gr
ound
dis
turb
ance
out
side
of
the
boun
dary
of t
he e
xist
ing
wet
land
del
inea
tion,
a n
ew
wet
land
del
inea
tion
shal
l be
perfo
rmed
. W
here
juris
dict
iona
l wet
land
s an
d ot
her w
ater
s ca
nnot
be
avoi
ded,
to o
ffset
tem
pora
ry a
nd p
erm
anen
t im
pact
s th
at
occu
r as
a re
sult
of th
e pr
ojec
t, m
itiga
tion
shal
l be
prov
ided
thro
ugh
the
follo
win
g m
echa
nism
s:
• P
urch
ase
or d
edic
atio
n of
land
to p
rovi
de w
etla
nd
pres
erva
tion,
rest
orat
ion,
or c
reat
ion.
If re
stor
atio
n is
av
aila
ble
and
feas
ible
, the
n a
miti
gatio
n re
plac
emen
t ra
tio o
f at l
east
2:1
sha
ll be
use
d. If
a w
etla
nd n
eeds
to
be
crea
ted,
at l
east
a 3
:1 ra
tio s
hall
be
impl
emen
ted
to o
ffset
loss
es. W
here
pra
ctic
al a
nd
feas
ible
, ons
ite m
itiga
tion
shal
l be
impl
emen
ted.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
wet
land
de
linea
tion
and
final
des
igns
de
mon
stra
ting
wet
land
av
oida
nce
to C
PU
C.
For w
etla
nd im
pact
s th
at c
anno
t be
avo
ided
, SC
E to
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
wet
land
of
fset
s to
CP
UC
. S
CE
to s
ubm
it w
etla
nd
miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
plan
to
CP
UC
and
app
licab
le
regu
lato
ry a
genc
ies
for r
evie
w.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-22
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Gre
ater
or l
esse
r offs
et ra
tios
may
be
subs
titut
ed
thro
ugh
cons
ulta
tion
and/
or p
erm
ittin
g w
ith th
e ap
prop
riate
wild
life
agen
cy (U
SFW
S o
r CD
FG).
• A
wet
land
miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
plan
sha
ll be
de
velo
ped
by a
qua
lifie
d bi
olog
ist o
r wet
land
sci
entis
t in
coo
rdin
atio
n w
ith C
DFG
, US
FWS
, US
AC
E, a
nd/o
r R
WQ
CB
that
det
ails
miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
oblig
atio
ns fo
r tem
pora
ry a
nd p
erm
anen
t im
pact
s to
w
etla
nds
and
othe
r wat
ers
as a
resu
lt of
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es. T
he p
lan
shal
l qua
ntify
the
tota
l acr
eage
lo
st, d
escr
ibe
miti
gatio
n ra
tios
for l
ost h
abita
t, an
nual
su
cces
s cr
iteria
, miti
gatio
n si
tes,
mon
itorin
g an
d re
porti
ng re
quire
men
ts, a
nd s
ite s
peci
fic p
lans
to
com
pens
ate
for w
etla
nd lo
sses
resu
lting
from
the
proj
ect.
The
miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
plan
sha
ll be
su
bmitt
ed to
the
appr
opria
te re
gula
tory
age
ncie
s fo
r ap
prov
al. T
he p
lan
and
docu
men
tatio
n of
suc
h ag
ency
app
rova
l sha
ll be
sub
mitt
ed to
the
CP
UC
prio
r to
con
stru
ctio
n.
Impa
ct 4
.4-1
2: T
he P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
cou
ld c
onfli
ct w
ith
prov
isio
ns s
et fo
rth in
the
Coa
chel
la V
alle
y M
ulti-
Spe
cies
C
onse
rvat
ion
Pla
n. L
ess
than
si
gnifi
cant
with
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Impl
emen
t Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1, 4
.4-2
, 4.4
-3, 4
.4-5
, 4.
4-6,
4.4
-8, a
nd 4
.4-1
0.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1, 4
.4-2
, 4.4
-3, 4
.4-5
, 4.4
-6,
4.4-
8, a
nd 4
.4-1
0.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1,
4.4-
2, 4
.4-3
, 4.4
-5, 4
.4-6
, 4.4
-8,
and
4.4-
10.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1, 4
.4-2
, 4.4
-3, 4
.4-5
, 4.
4-6,
4.4
-8, a
nd 4
.4-1
0.
Cultu
ral R
esou
rces
Impa
ct 4
.5-2
: Pro
ject
co
nstru
ctio
n co
uld
adve
rsel
y af
fect
the
Hoo
n w
it te
n ca
va
(Gar
net H
ill),
a N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
cu
ltura
l res
ourc
e. L
ess
than
si
gnifi
cant
with
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
APM
CU
L-1.
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an C
onsu
ltatio
ns. C
ontin
ued
cons
ulta
tion
and
com
mun
icat
ion
with
inte
rest
ed N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
com
mun
ity to
und
erst
and
the
conc
erns
of
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an m
embe
rs in
iden
tifyi
ng m
easu
res
that
w
ould
pre
vent
dire
ct a
nd in
dire
ct im
pact
s. O
ne s
uch
mea
sure
may
incl
ude
the
follo
win
g: if
pre
viou
sly
unid
entif
ied
arch
aeol
ogic
al re
sour
ces
are
unea
rthed
du
ring
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
, con
stru
ctio
n w
ill b
e ha
lted
in th
at a
rea
and
dire
cted
aw
ay fr
om th
e di
scov
ery,
unt
il a
qual
ified
arc
haeo
logi
st a
sses
ses
the
sign
ifica
nce
of th
e re
sour
ce. T
he a
rcha
eolo
gist
wou
ld re
com
men
d ap
prop
riate
mea
sure
s to
reco
rd, p
rese
rve,
or r
ecov
er th
e re
sour
ces.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
upda
tes
on
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an C
onsu
ltatio
ns
to C
PU
C o
n a
quar
terly
bas
is.
Prio
r to
and
thro
ugho
ut a
ll ph
ases
of c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-23
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
AP
M C
UL-
6. G
arne
t Hill
s N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
Cul
tura
l R
esou
rce.
App
ropr
iate
mea
sure
s, if
dee
med
nec
essa
ry,
wou
ld b
e de
velo
ped
in c
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
co
mm
unity
mem
bers
, as
reco
mm
ende
d by
the
NA
HC
, to
addr
ess
pote
ntia
l im
pact
s to
the
Gar
net H
ills
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an c
ultu
ral r
esou
rce.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-2
. S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.
5-2
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-2
: Add
ition
al c
onsu
ltatio
n sh
all
be c
ondu
cted
with
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an c
omm
unity
mem
bers
re
gard
ing
Hoo
n w
it te
n ca
va
(Gar
net H
ill).
An
agre
emen
t do
cum
ent t
hat a
ddre
sses
pot
entia
l im
pact
s to
this
re
sour
ce a
nd s
ets
forth
an
agre
emen
t con
cern
ing
how
to
min
imiz
e im
pact
s sh
all b
e cr
eate
d an
d si
gned
by
the
tribe
s an
d S
CE
, and
sha
ll be
sub
mitt
ed to
the
CP
UC
as
docu
men
tatio
n th
at th
e co
nsul
tatio
n ha
s oc
curr
ed.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s sh
all
impl
emen
t mea
sure
as
defin
ed.
SC
E to
sub
mit
sign
ed
agre
emen
t to
CP
UC
for r
evie
w.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.5-3
: Pro
ject
co
nstru
ctio
n co
uld
adve
rsel
y af
fect
cul
tura
l res
ourc
es C
A-
RIV
-785
, and
33-
1542
9, a
nd 3
3-15
430.
Les
s th
an S
igni
fican
t w
ith M
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
APM
CU
L-3.
Con
stru
ctio
n M
onito
ring.
All
grou
nd-
dist
urbi
ng a
ctiv
ities
occ
urrin
g al
ong
the
Pro
pose
d M
irage
-S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
Sub
trans
mis
sion
Lin
e A
ltern
ativ
e (R
oute
4) w
ould
be
mon
itore
d by
a q
ualif
ied
arch
aeol
ogis
t. Th
e ro
ute
is h
ighl
y se
nsiti
ve fo
r cul
tura
l re
sour
ces.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
resu
me
of
qual
ified
arc
heol
ogis
t to
CP
UC
fo
r rev
iew
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dur
ing
all g
roun
d di
stur
bing
ac
tiviti
es a
long
the
prop
osed
Mira
ge-S
anta
R
osa
115
kV a
lignm
ent.
APM
CU
L-4.
Dat
a R
ecov
ery
Pla
n. A
n ev
alua
tion
and
data
reco
very
pla
n sh
all b
e de
velo
ped
to a
ddre
ss im
pact
s to
CA
-RIV
-785
, 33-
1542
9, a
nd 3
3-15
430.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
data
reco
very
pl
an to
CP
UC
for r
evie
w. (
see
also
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-3
b)
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
CU
L-5.
Cul
tura
l Res
ourc
es P
lan.
A c
ultu
ral
reso
urce
man
agem
ent p
lan
shal
l be
deve
lope
d to
pre
vent
op
erat
iona
l im
pact
s to
the
cultu
ral r
esou
rce
loca
ted
betw
een
the
Mira
ge S
ubst
atio
n an
d I-1
0.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
cultu
ral
reso
urce
s pl
an to
CP
UC
for
revi
ew. (
see
also
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-3
b)
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-3
a: A
void
and
pro
tect
ar
chae
olog
ical
reso
urce
s. S
CE
sha
ll na
rrow
the
cons
truct
ion
zone
to a
void
pot
entia
lly s
igni
fican
t ar
chae
olog
ical
reso
urce
s C
A-R
IV-7
85, a
nd 3
3-15
429,
an
d 33
-154
30 if
feas
ible
. The
reso
urce
s sh
all b
e de
sign
ated
as
Env
ironm
enta
lly S
ensi
tive
Are
as (E
SA
s) to
en
sure
avo
idan
ce. P
rote
ctiv
e fe
ncin
g or
oth
er m
arke
rs
shal
l be
erec
ted
arou
nd E
SA
s pr
ior t
o an
y gr
ound
di
stur
bing
act
iviti
es; h
owev
er, s
uch
ES
As
shal
l not
be
iden
tifie
d sp
ecifi
cally
as
cultu
ral r
esou
rces
, in
orde
r to
prot
ect s
ensi
tive
info
rmat
ion
and
to d
isco
urag
e un
auth
oriz
ed d
istu
rban
ce o
r col
lect
ion
of a
rtifa
cts.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-24
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-3
b: P
repa
ratio
n of
trea
tmen
t pl
an if
avo
idan
ce is
not
feas
ible
. If a
void
ance
of s
ites
CA
-RIV
-785
, and
33-
1542
9, a
nd 3
3-15
430
is n
ot fe
asib
le,
prio
r to
issu
ing
any
grad
ing
or e
xcav
atio
n pe
rmits
and
pr
ior t
o an
y pr
ojec
t-rel
ated
gro
und
dist
urbi
ng a
ctiv
ities
, a
deta
iled
His
toric
Pro
perti
es T
reat
men
t Pla
n (H
PTP
) sha
ll be
pre
pare
d by
SC
E a
nd im
plem
ente
d by
a q
ualif
ied
arch
aeol
ogis
t. Th
e H
PTP
sha
ll in
clud
e a
rese
arch
des
ign
and
a sc
ope
of w
ork
for d
ata
reco
very
, in
conf
orm
ance
w
ith A
PM
CU
L-4,
or a
dditi
onal
trea
tmen
t of p
oten
tially
si
gnifi
cant
arc
haeo
logi
cal s
ites
that
can
not b
e av
oide
d.
Dat
a re
cove
ry o
n m
ost r
esou
rces
wou
ld c
onsi
st o
f sa
mpl
e ex
cava
tion
and/
or s
urfa
ce a
rtifa
ct c
olle
ctio
n in
the
area
of d
irect
impa
ct, a
nd s
ite d
ocum
enta
tion,
with
the
aim
to ta
rget
the
reco
very
of i
mpo
rtant
sci
entif
ic d
ata
cont
aine
d in
the
porti
on(s
) of t
he a
rcha
eolo
gica
l re
sour
ce(s
) to
be im
pact
ed b
y th
e pr
ojec
t. A
s sp
ecifi
ed in
A
PM
CU
L-5,
a lo
ng-te
rm m
anag
emen
t pla
n sh
all a
lso
be
deve
lope
d by
SC
E fo
r tho
se re
sour
ces
that
can
be
avoi
ded
durin
g pr
ojec
t con
stru
ctio
n, in
ord
er to
min
imiz
e fu
ture
impa
cts
durin
g pr
ojec
t ope
ratio
n an
d m
aint
enan
ce.
The
HP
TP s
hall
incl
ude
prov
isio
ns fo
r ana
lysi
s of
dat
a in
a
regi
onal
con
text
, rep
ortin
g of
resu
lts w
ithin
a ti
mel
y m
anne
r, cu
ratio
n of
arti
fact
s an
d da
ta a
t an
appr
oved
fa
cilit
y, a
nd d
isse
min
atio
n of
repo
rts to
loca
l and
Sta
te
repo
sito
ries,
libr
arie
s, a
nd in
tere
sted
pro
fess
iona
ls.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
HP
TP a
nd
resu
me
of th
e ar
cheo
logi
st th
at
prep
ared
the
plan
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f an
y gr
ound
dis
turb
ing
activ
ities
. D
urin
g al
l pha
ses
of
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-3
c: D
ue to
the
sens
itivi
ty o
f the
pr
ojec
t are
a fo
r Nat
ive
Am
eric
an re
sour
ces,
in a
dditi
on to
ar
chae
olog
ical
mon
itorin
g as
spe
cifie
d in
AP
M C
UL-
3, a
t le
ast o
ne N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
mon
itor s
hall
also
mon
itor a
ll gr
ound
-dis
turb
ing
activ
ities
alo
ng th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
sub
trans
mis
sion
line
alig
nmen
t. S
elec
tion
of m
onito
rs b
y S
CE
sha
ll be
mad
e by
ag
reem
ent o
f the
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an g
roup
s id
entif
ied
by
the
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an H
erita
ge C
omm
issi
on a
s ha
ving
af
filia
tion
with
the
proj
ect a
rea,
with
doc
umen
tatio
n of
su
ch a
gree
men
t sub
mitt
ed to
the
CP
UC
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
pro
vide
CP
UC
with
na
me
and
cont
act i
nfor
mat
ion
for t
he d
esig
nate
d N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
mon
itor.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dur
ing
all g
roun
d di
stur
bing
act
iviti
es a
long
th
e pr
opos
ed M
irage
-S
anta
Ros
a 11
5 kV
al
ignm
ent.
Impa
ct 4
.5-4
: Pro
ject
co
nstru
ctio
n co
uld
adve
rsel
y af
fect
cur
rent
ly u
nkno
wn
cultu
ral
reso
urce
s. L
ess
than
sig
nific
ant
with
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-4
a: A
ny a
ccid
enta
l dis
cove
ry o
f cu
ltura
l res
ourc
es d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n sh
all b
e ev
alua
ted
by a
qua
lifie
d ar
chae
olog
ist.
If th
e fin
d is
det
erm
ined
to b
e po
tent
ially
sig
nific
ant,
the
arch
aeol
ogis
t, in
con
sulta
tion
with
the
CP
UC
and
app
ropr
iate
Nat
ive
Am
eric
an
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sus
pend
wor
k an
d co
ntac
t CP
UC
if a
rcha
eolo
gica
l re
sour
ces
are
disc
over
ed.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-25
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
gr
oup(
s), s
hall
deve
lop
a tre
atm
ent p
lan.
All
wor
k ad
jace
nt to
the
unan
ticip
ated
dis
cove
ry (e
stim
ated
at
25 fe
et) s
hall
ceas
e un
til th
e qu
alifi
ed a
rcha
eolo
gist
has
ev
alua
ted
the
disc
over
y, a
nd/o
r the
trea
tmen
t pla
n ha
s be
en im
plem
ente
d.
If re
sour
ce is
sig
nific
ant,
subm
it si
te tr
eatm
ent p
lan
and
reco
rds
of c
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith N
ativ
e A
mer
ican
repr
esen
tativ
es to
C
PU
C.
With
in 5
bus
ines
s da
ys o
f de
term
inin
g a
find
is
sign
ifica
nt.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-4
b: A
n ar
chae
olog
ist m
eetin
g th
e S
ecre
tary
of t
he In
terio
r’s P
rofe
ssio
nal Q
ualif
icat
ion
Sta
ndar
ds s
hall
be re
tain
ed b
y S
CE
to o
vers
ee a
nd
impl
emen
t the
app
lican
t pro
pose
d m
easu
res
and
miti
gatio
n m
easu
res
stip
ulat
ed in
this
Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
resu
me
of
arch
eolo
gist
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.5-4
c: P
rior t
o an
y gr
ound
di
stur
bing
act
ivity
, tho
se p
ortio
ns o
f the
pro
ject
are
a no
t su
rvey
ed b
ecau
se o
f low
vis
ibili
ty o
r lac
k of
acc
ess
shal
l be
sur
veye
d by
a q
ualif
ied
arch
aeol
ogis
t. A
fter a
dditi
onal
ar
chae
olog
ical
sur
vey
is c
arrie
d ou
t, th
e ar
chae
olog
ists
sh
all e
valu
ate
any
cultu
ral r
esou
rces
reco
rded
dur
ing
the
cour
se o
f the
sur
vey
for t
heir
elig
ibili
ty fo
r lis
ting
on th
e N
atio
nal R
egis
ter o
r Cal
iforn
ia R
egis
ter,
mak
e re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r tre
atm
ent o
f the
se re
sour
ces
if fo
und
to b
e si
gnifi
cant
, and
mak
e re
com
men
datio
ns
conc
erni
ng a
rcha
eolo
gica
l mon
itorin
g du
ring
cons
truct
ion
in th
e su
rvey
are
as.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
findi
ngs
of
arch
eolo
gica
l sur
veys
to C
PU
C
for r
evie
w.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.5-5
: The
pro
ject
cou
ld
adve
rsel
y af
fect
uni
dent
ified
pa
leon
tolo
gica
l res
ourc
es. L
ess
than
sig
nific
ant (
Cla
ss II
I)
APM
PA-
1. P
aleo
ntol
ogic
al F
ield
Ass
essm
ent.
Con
duct
a
pale
onto
logi
cal f
ield
ass
essm
ent o
f the
fina
lized
RO
Ws
for t
he P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
, as
need
ed.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
findi
ngs
of
pale
onto
logi
cal f
ield
as
sess
men
t to
CP
UC
for
revi
ew.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
PA-
2. P
aleo
ntol
ogic
al R
esou
rces
. Prio
r to
cons
truct
ion,
a p
aleo
ntol
ogis
t wou
ld s
alva
ge k
now
n,
expo
sed
pale
onto
logi
cal r
esou
rces
. Thi
s w
ould
con
sist
of
colle
ctin
g st
anda
rd s
ampl
es o
f fos
silif
erou
s se
dim
ents
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
reso
urce
s sa
lvag
ed to
CP
UC
fo
r rev
iew
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
PA-
3. P
aleo
ntol
ogic
al M
onito
ring.
A p
aleo
ntol
ogic
al
mon
itor w
ould
be
pres
ent d
urin
g gr
ound
-dis
turb
ing
activ
ities
with
in a
reas
des
igna
ted
as h
avin
g a
high
po
ssib
ility
for t
he p
rese
nce
of p
aleo
ntol
ogic
al re
sour
ces.
Th
e m
onito
r wou
ld b
e em
pow
ered
to te
mpo
raril
y ha
lt or
re
dire
cted
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es to
ens
ure
avoi
danc
e of
ad
vers
e im
pact
s.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
resu
me
of
pale
onto
logi
cal m
onito
r to
CP
UC
for r
evie
w.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-26
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
AP
M P
A-4.
Sal
vage
and
Rec
over
y of
Pal
eont
olog
ical
R
esou
rces
. Upo
n en
coun
terin
g a
larg
e de
posi
t of b
one,
sa
lvag
e of
all
bone
in th
e ar
ea w
ould
be
cond
ucte
d in
ac
cord
ance
with
mod
ern
pale
onto
logi
cal t
echn
ique
s.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
If a
larg
e de
posi
t of b
one
is
disc
over
ed, S
CE
to n
otify
C
PU
C o
f fin
ding
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
PA-
5. T
rans
fer o
f Fos
sils
to M
useu
m. A
ll fo
ssils
co
llect
ed w
ould
be
prep
ared
to a
reas
onab
le p
oint
of
iden
tific
atio
n. It
emiz
ed c
atal
ogs
of a
ll m
ater
ial c
olle
cted
an
d id
entif
ied
wou
ld b
e pr
ovid
ed to
a m
useu
m re
posi
tory
al
ong
with
the
spec
imen
s. A
spe
cim
en re
posi
tory
wou
ld
be a
rran
ged,
in w
ritin
g, w
ith a
mus
eum
prio
r to
initi
atio
n of
con
stru
ctio
n ex
cava
tion.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
spe
cim
en re
posi
tory
to C
PU
C
for r
evie
w.
Sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
re
posi
tory
arr
ange
men
t pr
ior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
.
APM
PA-
6. P
aleo
ntol
ogic
al R
epor
ting.
A re
port
docu
men
ting
the
resu
lts o
f the
mon
itorin
g an
d sa
lvag
e ac
tiviti
es a
nd th
e si
gnifi
canc
e of
the
foss
ils w
ould
be
prep
ared
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
pale
onto
logi
cal
repo
rt to
CP
UC
for r
evie
w.
At t
he c
ompl
etio
n of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.5-6
: Pro
ject
co
nstru
ctio
n co
uld
resu
lt in
da
mag
e to
pre
viou
sly
unid
entif
ied
hum
an re
mai
ns.
Less
than
sig
nific
ant (
Cla
ss II
I)
APM
CU
L-2.
Dis
cove
ry o
f Hum
an R
emai
ns. I
f hum
an
rem
ains
are
enc
ount
ered
dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
or a
ny o
ther
ph
ase
of d
evel
opm
ent,
wor
k in
the
area
of t
he d
isco
very
m
ust b
e ha
lted
in th
at a
rea
and
dire
cted
aw
ay fr
om th
e di
scov
ery.
No
furth
er d
istu
rban
ce w
ould
occ
ur u
ntil
the
coun
ty c
oron
er m
akes
the
nece
ssar
y fin
ding
s as
to o
rigin
, pu
rsua
nt to
Pub
lic R
esou
rces
Cod
e 50
97.9
8-99
, Hea
lth
and
Safe
ty C
ode
7050
.5. I
f the
rem
ains
are
det
erm
ined
to
be N
ativ
e Am
eric
an, t
hen
the
NAH
C w
ould
be
notif
ied
with
in 2
4 ho
urs,
as
requ
ired
by P
ublic
Res
ourc
es C
ode
5097
. The
Nat
ive
Amer
ican
Her
itage
Com
mis
sion
(NAH
C)
wou
ld n
otify
the
desi
gnat
ed M
ost L
ikel
y D
esce
ndan
ts, w
ho
wou
ld p
rovi
de re
com
men
datio
ns fo
r the
trea
tmen
t of t
he
rem
ains
with
in 2
4 ho
urs.
The
NAH
C m
edia
tes
any
disp
utes
re
gard
ing
the
treat
men
t of r
emai
ns.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
If hu
man
rem
ains
are
di
scov
ered
, SC
E is
to n
otify
the
CP
UC
and
Riv
ersi
de C
ount
y co
rone
r with
in o
ne h
our.
C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce
at le
ast
once
a w
eek.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Geol
ogy a
nd S
oils
Impa
ct 4
.6-1
: Gro
und
surfa
ce
rupt
ure
of a
n ac
tive
faul
t cou
ld
dam
age
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct
whi
ch, i
n tu
rn, c
ould
pos
e a
haza
rd to
nea
rby
stru
ctur
es o
r pe
ople
. Les
s th
an s
igni
fican
t (C
lass
III)
APM
GEO
-2. S
ubsu
rface
Tre
nchi
ng. W
here
app
ropr
iate
, su
bsur
face
tren
chin
g al
ong
activ
e fa
ult t
race
s w
ould
be
requ
ired
to e
nsur
e to
wer
foun
datio
ns a
re n
ot p
lace
d on
, or
imm
edia
tely
adj
acen
t to,
thes
e fe
atur
es. I
n ad
ditio
n,
tow
er lo
catio
ns w
ould
be
sele
cted
to a
ccom
mod
ate
antic
ipat
ed fa
ult o
ffset
, and
min
imiz
e ex
cess
ive
tens
ion
in
lines
, sho
uld
a fa
ult m
ovem
ent o
ccur
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e du
ring
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
nea
r ac
tive
faul
ts.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-27
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Impa
ct 4
.6-2
: Stro
ng s
eism
ic
grou
nd s
haki
ng c
ould
cau
se
dam
age
to P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
st
ruct
ures
whi
ch, i
n tu
rn, c
ould
po
se a
risk
of l
oss,
inju
ry, o
r de
ath.
Les
s th
an s
igni
fican
t (C
lass
III)
APM
GEO
-1. S
eism
ic D
esig
n fo
r Gro
und
Sha
king
. A
geot
echn
ical
inve
stig
atio
n of
site
soi
ls a
nd g
eolo
gic
cond
ition
s, c
oupl
ed w
ith e
ngin
eerin
g de
sign
, wou
ld
iden
tify
the
haza
rds
and
deve
lop
reco
mm
enda
tions
to
supp
ort a
ppro
pria
te s
eism
ic d
esig
ns to
miti
gate
the
effe
cts
of g
roun
d sh
akin
g. S
peci
fic re
quire
men
ts fo
r se
ism
ic d
esig
n w
ould
be
base
d on
the
IEE
E 6
93
“Rec
omm
ende
d P
ract
ices
for S
eism
ic D
esig
n of
S
ubst
atio
ns.”
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
resu
lts o
f ge
otec
hnic
al in
vest
igat
ions
to
CP
UC
for r
evie
w.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Haza
rds a
nd H
azar
dous
Mat
erial
s
Impa
ct 4
.7-1
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es w
ould
requ
ire th
e us
e of
cer
tain
mat
eria
ls s
uch
as
fuel
s, o
ils, s
olve
nts,
and
oth
er
chem
ical
pro
duct
s th
at c
ould
po
se a
pot
entia
l haz
ard
to th
e pu
blic
or t
he e
nviro
nmen
t if
impr
oper
ly u
sed
or in
adve
rtent
ly
rele
ased
. Les
s th
an s
igni
fican
t (C
lass
III)
APM
HAZ
-1. H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
ls a
nd W
aste
Han
dlin
g M
anag
emen
t. H
azar
dous
mat
eria
ls u
sed
and
stor
ed
onsi
te fo
r the
pro
pose
d co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es -
as w
ell a
s ha
zard
ous
was
tes
gene
rate
d on
site
as
a re
sult
of th
e pr
opos
ed c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
– w
ould
be
man
aged
ac
cord
ing
to th
e sp
ecifi
catio
ns o
utlin
ed b
elow
.
• H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
ls a
nd H
azar
dous
Was
te H
andl
ing:
A
pro
ject
-spe
cific
haz
ardo
us m
ater
ials
man
agem
ent
and
haza
rdou
s w
aste
man
agem
ent p
rogr
am w
ould
be
deve
lope
d pr
ior t
o co
nstru
ctio
n of
the
proj
ect.
The
prog
ram
wou
ld o
utlin
e pr
oper
haz
ardo
us m
ater
ials
use
, st
orag
e, a
nd d
ispo
sal r
equi
rem
ents
, as
wel
l as
haza
rdou
s w
aste
man
agem
ent p
roce
dure
s. T
he
prog
ram
wou
ld id
entif
y ty
pes
of h
azar
dous
mat
eria
ls to
be
use
d du
ring
the
proj
ect a
nd th
e ty
pes
of w
aste
s th
at
wou
ld b
e ge
nera
ted.
All
proj
ect p
erso
nnel
wou
ld b
e pr
ovid
ed w
ith p
roje
ct-s
peci
fic tr
aini
ng. T
his
prog
ram
w
ould
be
deve
lope
d to
ens
ure
that
all
haza
rdou
s m
ater
ials
and
was
tes
are
hand
led
in a
saf
e an
d en
viro
nmen
tally
sou
nd m
anne
r. H
azar
dous
was
tes
wou
ld b
e ha
ndle
d an
d di
spos
ed o
f acc
ordi
ng to
ap
plic
able
rule
s an
d re
gula
tions
. Em
ploy
ees
hand
ling
was
tes
wou
ld re
ceiv
e ha
zard
ous
mat
eria
ls tr
aini
ng a
nd
shal
l be
train
ed in
haz
ardo
us w
aste
pro
cedu
res,
spi
ll co
ntin
genc
ies,
was
te m
inim
izat
ion
proc
edur
es a
nd
Trea
tmen
t, S
tora
ge, a
nd D
ispo
sal F
acili
ty (T
SD
F)
train
ing
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith O
SH
A H
azar
d C
omm
unic
atio
n S
tand
ard
and
22 C
CR
. SC
E w
ould
use
la
ndfil
l fac
ilitie
s th
at a
re a
utho
rized
to a
ccep
t tre
ated
w
ood
pole
was
te in
acc
orda
nce
with
HS
C
2514
3.1.
4(b)
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n to
the
CP
UC
dem
onst
ratin
g th
at
all c
onst
ruct
ion
pers
onne
l hav
e un
derg
one
haza
rdou
s m
ater
ials
m
anag
emen
t tra
inin
g.
SC
E to
sub
mit
a co
py o
f the
S
WP
PP
to th
e C
PU
C fo
r re
view
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
a co
py o
f writ
ten
proc
edur
es fo
r tra
nspo
rting
ha
zard
ous
was
tes
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
a co
py o
f the
pr
oced
ures
for f
uelin
g an
d m
aint
enan
ce to
CP
UC
for
revi
ew. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce
with
pro
cedu
res
at le
ast o
nce
per w
eek
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
SC
E to
sub
mit
a co
py o
f the
E
mer
genc
y R
elea
se R
espo
nse
Pro
cedu
res
to C
PU
C fo
r rev
iew
.
Sub
mit
all a
pplic
able
pla
ns
to C
PU
C p
rior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
. M
onito
r com
plia
nce
with
pl
ans
durin
g al
l pha
ses
of
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-28
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
• C
onst
ruct
ion
Sto
rmw
ater
Pol
lutio
n P
reve
ntio
n P
lan
(SW
PP
P):
A p
roje
ct-s
peci
fic c
onst
ruct
ion
SW
PP
P
wou
ld b
e pr
epar
ed a
nd im
plem
ente
d pr
ior t
o th
e st
art
of c
onst
ruct
ion
of th
e P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
. The
SW
PP
P
wou
ld u
tiliz
e B
MP
s to
add
ress
the
stor
age
and
hand
ling
of h
azar
dous
mat
eria
ls a
nd s
edim
ent r
unof
f du
ring
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
.
• Tr
ansp
ort o
f Haz
ardo
us M
ater
ials
: Haz
ardo
us m
ater
ials
th
at w
ould
be
trans
porte
d by
truc
k in
clud
e fu
el (d
iese
l fu
el a
nd g
asol
ine)
and
oil
and
lubr
ican
ts fo
r equ
ipm
ent.
Con
tain
ers
used
to s
tore
d ha
zard
ous
mat
eria
ls w
ould
be
pro
perly
labe
led
and
kept
in g
ood
cond
ition
. Writ
ten
proc
edur
es fo
r the
tran
spor
t of h
azar
dous
mat
eria
ls
used
wou
ld b
e es
tabl
ishe
d in
acc
orda
nce
with
U.S
. D
epar
tmen
t of T
rans
porta
tion
and
Cal
trans
regu
latio
ns.
A q
ualif
ied
trans
porte
r wou
ld b
e se
lect
ed to
com
ply
with
U.S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Tra
nspo
rtatio
n an
d C
altra
ns
regu
latio
ns.
•
Fuel
ing
and
Mai
nten
ance
of C
onst
ruct
ion
Equ
ipm
ent:
Writ
ten
proc
edur
es fo
r fue
ling
and
mai
nten
ance
of
cons
truct
ion
equi
pmen
t wou
ld b
e pr
epar
ed p
rior t
o co
nstru
ctio
n. V
ehic
les
and
equi
pmen
t wou
ld b
e re
fuel
ed o
nsite
or b
y ta
nker
truc
ks. P
roce
dure
s w
ould
in
clud
e th
e us
e of
dro
p cl
oths
mad
e of
pla
stic
, drip
pa
ns, a
nd tr
ays,
to b
e pl
aced
und
er re
fillin
g ar
eas
to
ensu
re th
at c
hem
ical
s do
not
com
e in
to c
onta
ct w
ith
the
grou
nd. R
efue
ling
stat
ions
wou
ld b
e lo
cate
d in
de
sign
ated
are
as w
here
abs
orbe
nt p
ads
and
trays
w
ould
be
avai
labl
e. T
he fu
el ta
nks
also
wou
ld c
onta
in a
lin
ed a
rea
to e
nsur
e th
at a
ccid
enta
l spi
llage
doe
s no
t oc
cur.
Drip
pan
s or
oth
er c
olle
ctio
n de
vice
s w
ould
be
plac
ed u
nder
the
equi
pmen
t at n
ight
to c
aptu
re d
rips
or
spill
s. E
quip
men
t wou
ld b
e in
spec
ted
daily
for p
oten
tial
leak
age
or fa
ilure
s. H
azar
dous
mat
eria
ls, s
uch
as
pain
ts, s
olve
nts,
and
pen
etra
nts,
wou
ld b
e ke
pt in
an
appr
oved
lock
er o
r sto
rage
cab
inet
.
• E
mer
genc
y R
elea
se R
espo
nse
Pro
cedu
res:
An
Em
erge
ncy
Res
pons
e P
lan
deta
iling
resp
onse
s to
re
leas
es o
f haz
ardo
us m
ater
ials
wou
ld b
e de
velo
ped
prio
r to
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
. It w
ould
pre
scrib
e ha
zard
ous
mat
eria
ls h
andl
ing
proc
edur
es fo
r red
ucin
g
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-29
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
the
pote
ntia
l for
a s
pill
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n an
d w
ould
in
clud
e an
em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
pro
gram
to e
nsur
e qu
ick
and
safe
cle
anup
of a
ccid
enta
l spi
lls. A
ll ha
zard
ous
mat
eria
ls s
pills
or t
hrea
tene
d re
leas
e,
incl
udin
g pe
trole
um p
rodu
cts
such
as
gaso
line,
die
sel,
and
hydr
aulic
flui
d, re
gard
less
of t
he q
uant
ity s
pille
d,
wou
ld b
e im
med
iate
ly re
porte
d if
the
spill
has
ent
ered
a
navi
gabl
e w
ater
, stre
am, l
ake,
wet
land
, or s
torm
dra
in,
if th
e sp
ill im
pact
ed a
ny s
ensi
tive
area
incl
udin
g co
nser
vatio
n ar
eas
and
wild
life
pres
erve
d, o
r if t
he s
pill
caus
ed in
jury
to a
per
son
or th
reat
ens
inju
ry to
pub
lic
heal
th. A
ll co
nstru
ctio
n pe
rson
nel,
incl
udin
g en
viro
nmen
tal m
onito
rs, w
ould
be
awar
e of
sta
te a
nd
fede
ral e
mer
genc
y re
spon
se re
porti
ng g
uide
lines
.
Impa
ct 4
.7-2
: Pro
ject
op
erat
ions
wou
ld re
quire
the
use
of c
erta
in m
ater
ials
suc
h as
fu
els,
oils
, sol
vent
s, a
nd o
ther
ch
emic
al p
rodu
cts
that
cou
ld
pose
a p
oten
tial h
azar
d to
the
publ
ic o
r the
env
ironm
ent i
f im
prop
erly
use
d or
inad
verte
ntly
re
leas
ed. L
ess
than
sig
nific
ant
(Cla
ss II
I)
APM
HAZ
-3. S
pill
Pre
vent
ion,
Cou
nter
Mea
sure
, and
C
ontro
l Pla
n (S
PC
C).
In a
ccor
danc
e w
ith T
itle
40 o
f the
C
FR, P
art 1
12, S
CE
wou
ld p
repa
re a
n up
date
d S
PC
C fo
r ap
prop
riate
sub
stat
ions
with
in th
e P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
. The
pl
ans
wou
ld in
clud
e en
gine
ered
and
ope
ratio
nal m
etho
ds
for p
reve
ntin
g, c
onta
inin
g, a
nd c
ontro
lling
pot
entia
l re
leas
es, a
nd p
rovi
sion
s fo
r qui
ck a
nd s
afe
clea
nup.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
upda
ted
SP
CC
to
CP
UC
to re
view
. P
rior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
proj
ect o
pera
tions
.
APM
HAZ
-4. H
azar
dous
Mat
eria
ls B
usin
ess
Pla
n (H
MB
Ps)
. SC
E w
ould
pre
pare
and
sub
mit
an u
pdat
ed
HM
BP
for a
ppro
pria
te s
ubst
atio
ns w
ithin
the
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct. T
he re
quire
d do
cum
enta
tion
wou
ld b
e su
bmitt
ed
to th
e C
ertif
ied
Uni
fied
Pro
gram
Age
ncy
(CU
PA
). Th
e H
MB
Ps
wou
ld in
clud
e ha
zard
ous
mat
eria
ls a
nd
haza
rdou
s w
aste
man
agem
ent p
roce
dure
s an
d em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
pro
cedu
res,
incl
udin
g em
erge
ncy
spill
cle
anup
sup
plie
s an
d eq
uipm
ent.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
a co
py o
f the
up
date
d H
MB
P to
CP
UC
. P
rior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
proj
ect o
pera
tions
.
Impa
ct 4
.7-3
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es c
ould
rele
ase
prev
ious
ly u
nide
ntifi
ed
haza
rdou
s m
ater
ials
into
the
envi
ronm
ent.
Less
than
si
gnifi
cant
with
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.7-3
: SC
E’s
Haz
ardo
us S
ubst
ance
C
ontro
l and
Em
erge
ncy
Res
pons
e P
lan
(AP
M H
YDR
O-4
) sh
all i
nclu
de p
rovi
sion
s th
at w
ould
be
impl
emen
ted
if an
y su
bsur
face
haz
ardo
us m
ater
ials
are
enc
ount
ered
dur
ing
cons
truct
ion.
Pro
visi
ons
outli
ned
in th
e pl
an s
hall
incl
ude
imm
edia
tely
sto
ppin
g w
ork
in th
e co
ntam
inat
ed a
rea
and
cont
actin
g ap
prop
riate
reso
urce
age
ncie
s, in
clud
ing
the
CP
UC
des
igna
ted
mon
itor,
upon
dis
cove
ry o
f sub
surfa
ce
haza
rdou
s m
ater
ials
. The
pla
n sh
all i
nclu
de th
e ph
one
num
bers
of C
ount
y an
d S
tate
age
ncie
s an
d pr
imar
y,
seco
ndar
y, a
nd fi
nal c
lean
up p
roce
dure
s. T
he H
azar
dous
S
ubst
ance
Con
trol a
nd E
mer
genc
y R
espo
nse
Pla
n sh
all
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
copy
of p
lan
to
CP
UC
for r
evie
w.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-30
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
be s
ubm
itted
to th
e C
PU
C fo
r rev
iew
and
app
rova
l prio
r to
the
com
men
cem
ent o
f con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.7-7
: Con
stru
ctio
n an
d op
erat
ion
of th
e P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
cou
ld ig
nite
dry
ve
geta
tion
and
star
t a fi
re. L
ess
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
APM
HAZ
-2. F
ire M
anag
emen
t Pla
n. T
he F
ire
Man
agem
ent P
lan
wou
ld b
e de
velo
ped
by S
CE
prio
r to
star
t of c
onst
ruct
ion.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
a co
py o
f the
Fi
re M
anag
emen
t Pla
n,
incl
udin
g do
cum
enta
tion
of
SC
E’s
con
sulta
tion
with
loca
l fir
e de
partm
ents
, to
the
CP
UC
fo
r rev
iew
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.7-7
: The
Fire
Man
agem
ent P
lan
requ
ired
purs
uant
to A
PM
HA
Z-2
shal
l inc
lude
pro
visi
ons
that
requ
ire w
ater
tank
s or
oth
er fi
re s
uppr
essi
on d
evic
es
to b
e si
ted
at th
e pr
ojec
t site
s an
d be
ava
ilabl
e fo
r fire
pr
otec
tion.
The
pla
n sh
all r
equi
re c
onst
ruct
ion
vehi
cles
to
cont
ain
fire
supp
ress
ion
equi
pmen
t. S
CE
sha
ll co
ntac
t an
d co
ordi
nate
with
all
appl
icab
le fi
re d
epar
tmen
ts to
de
term
ine
min
imum
am
ount
s of
fire
equ
ipm
ent t
o be
ca
rrie
d on
the
vehi
cles
and
app
ropr
iate
loca
tions
for t
he
wat
er ta
nks/
fire
supp
ress
ion
devi
ces.
The
Fire
M
anag
emen
t Pla
n sh
all d
ocum
ent S
CE
’s c
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith th
e lo
cal f
ire d
epar
tmen
ts. T
he F
ire M
anag
emen
t P
lan
shal
l be
subm
itted
to th
e C
PU
C fo
r rev
iew
and
ap
prov
al p
rior t
o th
e co
mm
ence
men
t of c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
a co
py o
f the
Fi
re M
anag
emen
t Pla
n,
incl
udin
g do
cum
enta
tion
of
SC
E’s
con
sulta
tion
with
loca
l fir
e de
partm
ents
, to
the
CP
UC
fo
r rev
iew
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Hydr
olog
y and
Wat
er Q
ualit
y
Impa
ct 4
.8-1
: Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es c
ould
resu
lt in
in
crea
sed
eros
ion
and
sedi
men
tatio
n an
d/or
pol
luta
nt
(e.g
., fu
el a
nd lu
bric
ant)
load
ing
to s
urfa
ce w
ater
way
s, w
hich
co
uld
incr
ease
turb
idity
, su
spen
d so
ils, o
r oth
erw
ise
decr
ease
wat
er q
ualit
y in
su
rface
wat
erw
ays.
Les
s th
an
sign
ifica
nt (C
lass
III)
APM
HYD
RO
-1. G
radi
ng A
ctiv
ities
. Gra
ding
act
iviti
es
wou
ld n
ot c
omm
ence
if h
eavy
rain
is fo
reca
sted
for t
he
perio
d of
tim
e of
maj
or e
arth
mov
ing
activ
ities
thro
ugh
com
pact
ion
and
stab
iliza
tion
of th
e si
te.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es
invo
lvin
g gr
adin
g.
APM
HYD
RO
-2A.
Ero
sion
Con
trol a
nd D
rain
age
Pla
n. A
n en
gine
ered
ero
sion
con
trol a
nd d
rain
age
plan
wou
ld b
e de
velo
ped
as p
art o
f the
site
gra
ding
pla
n. T
he p
lan
wou
ld b
e de
velo
ped
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e C
ount
y of
R
iver
side
Hyd
rolo
gy M
anua
l and
wou
ld a
ddre
ss a
ll co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith th
e pr
ojec
t. Th
e lo
catio
n of
the
disc
harg
e of
site
runo
ff fo
r con
stru
ctio
n w
ould
be
defin
ed in
fina
l eng
inee
ring
and
in c
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith R
iver
side
Cou
nty,
the
RW
QC
B, a
nd th
e C
DFG
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
plan
and
do
cum
enta
tion
of c
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith R
iver
side
Cou
nty,
the
RW
QC
B, a
nd th
e C
DFG
to
CP
UC
for r
evie
w.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-31
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
AP
M H
YDR
O-2
B. C
onst
ruct
ion
Eros
ion
Con
trol P
lan.
SC
E sh
all d
evel
op a
n er
osio
n co
ntro
l pla
n in
corp
orat
ing
cons
truct
ion-
phas
e m
easu
res
to li
mit
and
cont
rol e
rosi
on
and
silta
tion.
The
ero
sion
con
trol p
lan
shal
l inc
lude
co
mpo
nent
s su
ch a
s ph
asin
g of
gra
ding
, lim
iting
are
as o
f di
stur
banc
e, d
iver
sion
of r
unof
f aw
ay fr
om d
istu
rbed
are
as,
prot
ectiv
e m
easu
res
for s
ensi
tive
area
s, o
utle
t pro
tect
ion,
an
d pr
ovis
ion
for r
eveg
etat
ion
or m
ulch
ing.
The
pla
n sh
all
also
pre
scrib
e tre
atm
ent m
easu
res
to tr
ap s
edim
ent o
nce
it ha
s be
en m
obiliz
ed, a
t a s
cale
and
den
sity
app
ropr
iate
to
the
size
and
slo
pe o
f the
cat
chm
ent.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
plan
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
. P
rior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
.
APM
HYD
RO
-2C
. Env
ironm
enta
l Tra
inin
g P
rogr
am. A
n en
viro
nmen
tal t
rain
ing
prog
ram
wou
ld b
e es
tabl
ishe
d to
co
mm
unic
ate
envi
ronm
enta
l con
cern
s an
d ap
prop
riate
w
ork
prac
tices
, inc
ludi
ng s
pill
prev
entio
n an
d re
spon
se
mea
sure
s, to
all
field
per
sonn
el in
volv
ed in
the
cons
truct
ion
of th
e P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
ele
men
ts. A
m
onito
ring
prog
ram
wou
ld b
e im
plem
ente
d to
ens
ure
that
th
e pl
ans
are
follo
wed
thro
ugho
ut th
e pe
riod
of
cons
truct
ion.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
atte
nd tr
aini
ng p
rogr
am a
nd to
m
onito
r com
plia
nce
with
pr
ogra
m p
erio
dica
lly d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Prio
r to
and
durin
g al
l ph
ases
of c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
.
APM
HYD
RO
-3. A
cces
s R
oad
Loca
tion.
Prio
r to
final
en
gine
erin
g of
the
prop
osed
acc
ess
road
, SC
E w
ould
co
nsul
t with
Riv
ersi
de C
ount
y, C
DFG
, and
the
RW
QC
B
rega
rdin
g th
e lo
catio
n of
the
acce
ss ro
ad.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
con
sulta
tion
with
Riv
ersi
de
Cou
nty,
the
RW
QC
B a
nd th
e C
DFG
to C
PU
C fo
r rev
iew
.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
HYD
RO
-4. H
azar
dous
Sub
stan
ce C
ontro
l and
E
mer
genc
y R
espo
nse
Pla
n. S
CE
wou
ld p
repa
re a
H
azar
dous
Sub
stan
ce C
ontro
l and
Em
erge
ncy
Res
pons
e P
lan,
whi
ch w
ould
incl
ude
prep
arat
ions
for q
uick
and
saf
e cl
eanu
p of
acc
iden
tal s
pills
. Thi
s pl
an w
ould
be
subm
itted
to
age
ncie
s w
ith th
e gr
adin
g pe
rmit
appl
icat
ion.
It w
ould
pr
escr
ibe
haza
rdou
s m
ater
ials
han
dlin
g pr
oced
ures
for
redu
cing
the
pote
ntia
l for
a s
pill
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n, a
nd
wou
ld in
clud
e an
em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
pro
gram
to e
nsur
e qu
ick
and
safe
cle
anup
of a
ccid
enta
l spi
lls. T
he p
lan
wou
ld id
entif
y ar
eas
whe
re re
fuel
ing
and
vehi
cle
mai
nten
ance
act
iviti
es a
nd s
tora
ge o
f haz
ardo
us
mat
eria
ls, i
f any
, wou
ld b
e pe
rmitt
ed. O
il-ab
sorb
ent
mat
eria
ls, t
arps
, and
sto
rage
dru
ms
wou
ld b
e us
ed to
co
ntai
n an
d co
ntro
l any
min
or re
leas
es o
f min
eral
oil.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
Haz
ardo
us
Sub
stan
ce a
nd E
mer
genc
y R
espo
nse
Pla
n to
CP
UC
for
revi
ew.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-32
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Impa
ct 4
.8-4
: Pro
pose
d Pr
ojec
t co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es c
ould
im
pact
loca
l dra
inag
e pa
ttern
s, o
r th
e co
urse
of a
giv
en s
tream
, re
sulti
ng in
sub
stan
tial o
n- o
r off-
site
ero
sion
or s
edim
enta
tion.
Le
ss th
an s
igni
fican
t with
m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.8-4
a: In
add
ition
to m
easu
res
requ
ired
by A
PM H
YDR
O-1
, SC
E sh
all e
nsur
e th
at th
e co
nstru
ctio
n fo
rem
an c
heck
s da
ily w
eath
er fo
reca
sts
whe
n co
nstru
ctio
n is
occ
urrin
g w
ithin
the
Whi
tew
ater
Riv
er W
ash.
An
y pr
ecip
itatio
n fo
reca
st s
hall
requ
ire th
e co
nstru
ctio
n co
ntra
ctor
to e
nsur
e er
osio
n co
ntro
l BM
Ps id
entif
ied
in th
e SW
PPP
are
prop
erly
inst
alle
d an
d sh
all e
nsur
e th
at th
e co
nstru
ctio
n si
te is
cle
ar o
f equ
ipm
ent a
nd d
ebris
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
with
in th
e W
hite
wat
er R
iver
Was
h.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.8-4
b: R
egar
ding
the
engi
neer
ed
eros
ion
cont
rol a
nd d
rain
age
plan
dev
elop
ed a
s pa
rt of
the
site
gra
ding
pla
n (A
PM H
YDR
O-2
A), S
CE
shal
l con
duct
a
topo
grap
hic
and
grad
ient
sur
vey
of th
e W
hite
wat
er R
iver
W
ash
both
ups
tream
and
dow
nstre
am o
f the
pro
pose
d po
le(s
) rep
lace
men
t loc
atio
n w
ithin
the
was
h. P
ost
cons
truct
ion
topo
grap
hy a
nd g
radi
ent o
f the
Whi
tew
ater
R
iver
Was
h sh
all b
e co
ntou
red
SCE
shal
l res
tore
all
area
s on
the
Whi
tew
ater
Was
h di
stur
bed
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n of
th
e Pr
opos
ed P
roje
ct to
mat
ch th
e ex
istin
g co
nditi
ons,
to
ensu
re th
at th
e dr
aina
ge p
atte
rn is
not
alte
red
in a
man
ner
that
wou
ld c
ause
on-
or o
ff-si
te e
rosi
on o
r sed
imen
tatio
n.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
resu
lts o
f to
pogr
aphi
c an
d gr
adie
nt s
urve
y to
CP
UC
for r
evie
w. C
PU
C
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
insp
ect
com
plia
nce.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Sur
vey
resu
lts to
be
subm
itted
prio
r to
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
w
ithin
the
Whi
tew
ater
R
iver
Was
h. F
ollo
win
g co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es
with
in th
e W
hite
wat
er
Riv
er W
ash.
Insp
ectio
n to
be
per
form
ed fo
llow
ing
com
plet
ion
of g
radi
ng
activ
ities
with
in th
e w
ash.
Land
Use
, Plan
ning,
and P
olicie
s
Impa
ct 4
.9-2
: The
Pro
pose
d Pr
ojec
t cou
ld c
onfli
ct w
ith
appl
icab
le la
nd u
se p
lans
, po
licie
s, o
r reg
ulat
ions
of a
n ag
ency
with
juris
dict
ion
over
the
Prop
osed
Pro
ject
ado
pted
for t
he
purp
ose
of a
void
ing
or m
itiga
ting
an e
nviro
nmen
tal e
ffect
. Les
s th
an s
igni
fican
t (C
lass
III)
APM
LU
-1. A
eron
autic
al C
onsi
dera
tions
. As
indi
cate
d in
th
e S
tudy
of A
eron
autic
al C
onsi
dera
tions
(200
7), S
CE
w
ould
sub
mit
notic
e to
the
FAA
ele
ctro
nica
lly, i
n ac
cord
ance
with
FA
A p
roce
dure
s an
d as
far i
n ad
vanc
e of
con
stru
ctio
n as
pos
sibl
e.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
pro
vide
doc
umen
tatio
n to
CP
UC
dem
onst
ratin
g th
at th
e FA
A h
as b
een
notif
ied
of p
roje
ct
cons
truct
ion.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.9-3
: The
Pro
pose
d P
roje
ct c
ould
con
flict
with
pr
ovis
ions
set
forth
in th
e C
oach
ella
Val
ley
Mul
tiple
S
peci
es C
onse
rvat
ion
Pla
n.
Less
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Impl
emen
t Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1, 4
.4-2
, 4.4
-3, 4
.4-5
, 4.
4-6,
4.4
-8, a
nd 4
.4-1
0 (s
ee S
ectio
n 4.
4, B
iolo
gica
l R
esou
rces
).
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1, 4
.4-2
, 4.4
-3, 4
.4-5
, 4.4
-6,
4.4-
8, a
nd 4
.4-1
0.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1,
4.4-
2, 4
.4-3
, 4.4
-5, 4
.4-6
, 4.4
-8,
and
4.4-
10.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.4-
1, 4
.4-2
, 4.4
-3, 4
.4-5
, 4.
4-6,
4.4
-8, a
nd 4
.4-1
0.
Mine
ral R
esou
rces
No
AP
Ms
or m
itiga
tion
requ
ired.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-33
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Noise
Impa
ct 4
.11-
2: T
rans
form
er
nois
e at
Mira
ge S
ubst
atio
n w
ould
incr
ease
noi
se le
vels
in
the
vici
nity
, pot
entia
lly
conf
lictin
g w
ith a
pplic
able
noi
se
stan
dard
s. L
ess
than
Sig
nific
ant
with
Miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.11-
2: M
irage
Sub
stat
ion.
SC
E
shal
l ens
ure
that
noi
se le
vels
ass
ocia
ted
with
the
Mira
ge
Sub
stat
ion
do n
ot e
xcee
d th
e R
iver
side
Cou
nty
nois
e st
anda
rds
for s
tatio
nary
sou
rces
. Noi
se c
ontro
l te
chni
ques
may
incl
ude,
but
not
be
limite
d to
: loc
atin
g th
e ne
w tr
ansf
orm
er w
ith a
s m
uch
setb
ack
from
the
exis
ting
resi
dent
ial p
rope
rties
as
poss
ible
, use
of n
oise
wal
ls o
r eq
uiva
lent
sou
nd a
ttenu
atio
n de
vice
s, a
nd th
e us
e of
a
trans
form
er w
ith s
peci
al n
oise
con
trol s
peci
ficat
ions
de
sign
ed in
a w
ay to
spe
cific
ally
ach
ieve
acc
epta
ble
regu
lato
ry n
oise
sta
ndar
ds.
Prio
r to
the
inst
alla
tion
of th
e ne
w tr
ansf
orm
er, S
CE
sha
ll su
bmit
to th
e C
PU
C a
nd th
e C
ount
y of
Riv
ersi
de fo
r re
view
and
app
rova
l a p
lan
that
des
crib
es th
e sp
ecifi
c m
easu
res
that
will
be
take
n in
ord
er to
com
ply
with
the
Cou
nty’
s st
atio
nary
noi
se s
tand
ards
. Onc
e th
e pr
opos
ed
trans
form
er is
ope
ratio
nal,
SC
E s
hall
reta
in a
n ac
oust
ical
en
gine
er to
per
form
noi
se m
easu
rem
ents
in th
e vi
cini
ty o
f th
e re
side
nces
wes
t of M
irage
Sub
stat
ion
to v
erify
that
tra
nsfo
rmer
noi
se le
vels
com
ply
with
the
Cou
nty
stan
dard
s. D
ocum
enta
tion
of c
ompl
ianc
e sh
all b
e su
bmitt
ed to
the
CP
UC
and
Riv
ersi
de C
ount
y. In
the
even
t the
tran
sfor
mer
noi
se le
vels
vio
late
the
stan
dard
s,
addi
tiona
l noi
se c
ontro
l tec
hniq
ues
shal
l be
initi
ated
to
corr
ect t
he v
iola
tion.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
plan
for
com
plia
nce
to R
iver
side
Cou
nty
and
CP
UC
for r
evie
w a
nd
appr
oval
. S
CE
to re
tain
an
acou
stic
al
engi
neer
, and
sub
mit
docu
men
tatio
n of
com
plia
nce
to
the
CP
UC
and
Riv
ersi
de
Cou
nty.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Onc
e th
e tra
nsfo
rmer
is
oper
atio
nal.
Impa
ct 4
.11-
3: C
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
cou
ld e
xpos
e pe
ople
an
d/or
stru
ctur
es to
sub
stan
tial
vibr
atio
n le
vels
. Les
s th
an
sign
ifica
nt (C
lass
III)
APM
NO
ISE-
1. N
oise
Ord
inan
ces.
SC
E w
ould
com
ply
with
all
appl
icab
le n
oise
ord
inan
ce c
onst
ruct
ion
sche
dule
s. In
the
even
t the
con
stru
ctio
n m
ust o
ccur
ou
tsid
e th
e al
low
able
wor
k ho
urs,
a v
aria
nce
wou
ld b
e ob
tain
ed.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
SC
E to
pro
vide
CP
UC
with
ev
iden
ce th
at v
aria
nce
has
been
obt
aine
d if
nece
ssar
y.
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion.
P
rior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
nigh
ttim
e co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.11-
5: T
rans
form
er
nois
e at
Mira
ge S
ubst
atio
n co
uld
perm
anen
tly in
crea
se
ambi
ent n
oise
leve
ls in
the
vici
nity
of t
he s
ubst
atio
n. L
ess
than
Sig
nific
ant w
ith M
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
Impl
emen
t Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.11-
2.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.11-
2.
See
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.11-
2.S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.
11-2
.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-34
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Impa
ct 4
.11-
6: A
dver
se n
oise
le
vels
wou
ld b
e ge
nera
ted
durin
g pr
ojec
t con
stru
ctio
n.
Less
than
Sig
nific
ant w
ith
Miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
APM
NO
ISE-
2. N
oise
Con
trol E
quip
men
t Mai
nten
ance
. M
aint
ain
all n
oise
-con
trol e
quip
men
t in
good
wor
king
or
der,
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith m
anuf
actu
rers
’ spe
cific
atio
ns.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
NO
ISE-
3. H
andl
ing
of N
oise
Com
plai
nts.
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion,
inve
stig
ate,
doc
umen
t, ev
alua
te, a
nd
atte
mpt
to re
solv
e le
gitim
ate
proj
ect-r
elat
ed n
oise
co
mpl
aint
s. T
his
wou
ld in
volv
e at
tem
ptin
g to
con
tact
the
sour
ce (p
erso
n or
per
sons
) of t
he n
oise
com
plai
nt w
ithin
24
hou
rs; i
nves
tigat
ing
to d
eter
min
e th
e pr
ojec
t noi
se
sour
ce(s
) tha
t led
to th
e co
mpl
aint
; and
taki
ng a
ll fe
asib
le
mea
sure
s to
redu
ce th
e no
ise
at th
e so
urce
, if t
he
com
plai
nt is
legi
timat
e.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
pro
vide
CP
UC
with
a
sum
mar
y of
all
nois
e co
mpl
aint
s no
late
r tha
n 48
hou
rs a
fter
each
com
plai
nt is
mad
e. T
he
sum
mar
y sh
all a
lso
indi
cate
ho
w th
e co
mpl
aint
was
han
dled
.
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.11-
6a: T
o st
reng
then
the
inte
nt o
f A
PM
NO
ISE
-2 a
nd A
PM
NO
ISE
-3, t
he fo
llow
ing
nois
e re
duct
ion
and
supp
ress
ion
tech
niqu
es s
hall
be e
mpl
oyed
du
ring
proj
ect c
onst
ruct
ion
to m
inim
ize
the
impa
ct o
f te
mpo
rary
con
stru
ctio
n-re
late
d no
ise
on n
earb
y se
nsiti
ve
rece
ptor
s:
• C
ompl
y w
ith m
anuf
actu
rers
’ muf
fler r
equi
rem
ents
. •
Not
ify re
side
nces
in a
dvan
ce o
f the
con
stru
ctio
n sc
hedu
le a
nd h
ow m
any
days
they
may
be
affe
cted
. P
rovi
de a
pho
ne n
umbe
r for
a c
onst
ruct
ion
supe
rvis
or
who
wou
ld h
andl
e co
nstru
ctio
n no
ise
ques
tions
and
co
mpl
aint
s.
• M
inim
ize
idlin
g of
eng
ines
; tur
n of
f eng
ines
whe
n no
t in
use,
whe
re a
pplic
able
. •
Shi
eld
com
pres
sors
and
oth
er s
mal
l sta
tiona
ry
equi
pmen
t with
por
tabl
e ba
rrie
rs w
hen
with
in 1
00 fe
et
of re
side
nces
. •
Rou
te tr
uck
traffi
c aw
ay fr
om n
oise
-sen
sitiv
e ar
eas
whe
re fe
asib
le.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
SC
E to
pro
vide
CP
UC
with
ev
iden
ce th
at re
side
nces
hav
e be
en n
otifi
ed.
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion.
P
rior t
o co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es a
t any
one
lo
catio
n.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.11-
6b: I
n th
e ev
ent t
hat n
ight
time
(i.e.
, bet
wee
n 7:
00 p
.m. a
nd 7
:00
a.m
.) co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tivity
is d
eter
min
ed to
be
nece
ssar
y; a
nig
httim
e no
ise
redu
ctio
n pl
an s
hall
be d
evel
oped
by
SC
E a
nd s
ubm
itted
to
the
CP
UC
for r
evie
w a
nd a
ppro
val.
The
nois
e re
duct
ion
plan
sha
ll in
clud
e a
set o
f site
-spe
cific
noi
se
atte
nuat
ion
mea
sure
s th
at a
pply
sta
te o
f the
art
nois
e re
duct
ion
tech
nolo
gy to
ens
ure
that
nig
httim
e co
nstru
ctio
n no
ise
leve
ls a
nd a
ssoc
iate
d nu
isan
ce a
re
redu
ced
to th
e m
ost e
xten
t fea
sibl
e.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
SC
E to
sub
mit
nigh
ttim
e no
ise
redu
ctio
n pl
an to
CP
UC
for
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val.
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion.
P
rior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of
nigh
ttim
e co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-35
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
The
atte
nuat
ion
mea
sure
s m
ay in
clud
e, b
ut n
ot b
e lim
ited
to, t
he c
ontro
l stra
tegi
es a
nd m
etho
ds fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
that
are
list
ed b
elow
. If a
ny o
f the
follo
win
g st
rate
gies
are
de
term
ined
by
SC
E to
not
be
feas
ible
, an
expl
anat
ion
as
to w
hy th
e sp
ecifi
c st
rate
gy is
not
feas
ible
sha
ll be
in
clud
ed in
the
nigh
ttim
e no
ise
redu
ctio
n pl
an.
• P
lan
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
to m
inim
ize
the
amou
nt o
f ni
ghtti
me
cons
truct
ion.
•
Offe
r tem
pora
ry re
loca
tion
of re
side
nts
with
in 2
00 fe
et
of n
ight
time
cons
truct
ion
area
s.
• Te
mpo
rary
noi
se b
arrie
rs, s
uch
as s
hiel
ds a
nd
blan
kets
, sha
ll be
inst
alle
d im
med
iate
ly a
djac
ent t
o al
l ni
ghtti
me
stat
iona
ry n
oise
sou
rces
(e.g
., dr
illin
g rig
s,
gene
rato
rs, p
umps
, etc
.).
• In
stal
l tem
pora
ry n
oise
wal
ls th
at b
lock
the
line
of s
ight
be
twee
n ni
ghtti
me
activ
ities
and
the
clos
est
resi
denc
es.
Popu
latio
n an
d Ho
usin
g
No
AP
Ms
or m
itiga
tion
requ
ired.
Publ
ic Se
rvice
s
Impa
ct 4
.13-
1: P
roje
ct
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
cou
ld
tem
pora
rily
incr
ease
the
dem
and
for f
ire p
rote
ctio
n an
d em
erge
ncy
med
ical
ser
vice
s.
Less
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.13-
1: S
CE
sha
ll pr
epar
e an
d im
plem
ent a
Hea
lth a
nd S
afet
y P
lan
to e
nsur
e th
e he
alth
an
d sa
fety
of c
onst
ruct
ion
wor
kers
and
the
publ
ic d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n. T
he p
lan
shal
l lis
t pro
cedu
res
and
spec
ific
emer
genc
y re
spon
se a
nd e
vacu
atio
n m
easu
res
that
w
ould
be
requ
ired
to b
e fo
llow
ed d
urin
g em
erge
ncy
situ
atio
ns. T
he p
lan
shal
l be
subm
itted
to th
e C
PU
C fo
r ap
prov
al p
rior t
o co
mm
ence
men
t of c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
an
d sh
all b
e di
strib
uted
to a
ll co
nstru
ctio
n cr
ew m
embe
rs
prio
r to
cons
truct
ion
and
oper
atio
n of
the
proj
ect.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
Pla
n to
CP
UC
fo
r rev
iew
and
app
rova
l. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce
at le
ast
once
per
wee
k.
SC
E to
sub
mit
plan
prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e du
ring
all p
hase
s of
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Impa
ct 4
.13-
2: P
roje
ct
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
in
prox
imity
to p
ublic
road
way
s co
uld
pote
ntia
lly a
ffect
veh
icle
ac
cess
and
fire
dep
artm
ent
resp
onse
tim
es. L
ess
than
si
gnifi
cant
with
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.13-
2: S
CE
sha
ll co
ordi
nate
with
th
e em
erge
ncy
serv
ice
prov
ider
s of
the
appl
icab
le c
ities
an
d R
iver
side
Cou
nty
prio
r to
cons
truct
ion
to e
nsur
e th
at
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
and
ass
ocia
ted
lane
clo
sure
s w
ould
not
sig
nific
antly
affe
ct e
mer
genc
y re
spon
se
vehi
cles
. SC
E s
hall
subm
it ve
rific
atio
n of
its
cons
ulta
tion
with
em
erge
ncy
serv
ice
prov
ider
s to
the
CP
UC
prio
r to
the
com
men
cem
ent o
f con
stru
ctio
n.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
verif
icat
ion
of it
s co
nsul
tatio
n w
ith e
mer
genc
y se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
to th
e C
PU
C.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-36
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
Recr
eatio
n
Impa
ct 4
.14-
1: C
onst
ruct
ion
of
the
prop
osed
Mira
ge-S
anta
R
osa
115
kV S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on
line
wou
ld te
mpo
raril
y di
srup
t op
erat
ions
of t
he T
ri-P
alm
Gol
f C
ours
e. L
ess
than
sig
nific
ant
(Cla
ss II
I)
APM
REC
-1. R
ecre
atio
n Ar
ea C
losu
res.
Whe
n te
mpo
rary
sh
ort-t
erm
clo
sure
s to
recr
eatio
nal a
reas
are
nec
essa
ry fo
r co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es, S
CE
wou
ld c
oord
inat
e th
ose
clos
ures
with
recr
eatio
nal f
acilit
y ow
ners
. To
the
exte
nt
prac
ticab
le, S
CE
wou
ld s
ched
ule
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
to
avoi
d he
avy
recr
eatio
nal u
se p
erio
ds (e
.g.,
holid
ays
or
tour
nam
ents
). SC
E w
ould
pos
t not
ice
of th
e cl
osur
e on
site
14
cal
enda
r day
s pr
ior t
o th
e cl
osur
e.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
verif
icat
ion
of it
s co
nsul
tatio
n w
ith n
earb
y re
crea
tiona
l fac
ilitie
s to
the
CP
UC
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Tran
spor
tatio
n an
d Tr
affic
Impa
ct 4
.15-
1: C
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
cou
ld a
dver
sely
affe
ct
traffi
c an
d tra
nspo
rtatio
n co
nditi
ons
in th
e pr
ojec
t are
a.
Less
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
APM
TR
A-1.
Obt
ain
Per
mits
. If a
ny w
ork
requ
ires
mod
ifica
tions
or a
ctiv
ities
with
in lo
cal r
oadw
ay R
OW
s,
appr
opria
te p
erm
its w
ill b
e ob
tain
ed p
rior t
o th
e co
mm
ence
men
t of c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
, inc
ludi
ng a
ny
nece
ssar
y lo
cal p
erm
its a
nd e
ncro
achm
ent p
erm
its.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
copi
es o
f en
croa
chm
ent p
erm
its to
C
PU
C.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
TR
A-2.
Tra
ffic
Man
agem
ent a
nd C
ontro
l Pla
ns.
Traf
fic c
ontro
l and
oth
er m
anag
emen
t pla
ns w
ill b
e pr
epar
ed w
here
nec
essa
ry to
min
imiz
e pr
ojec
t im
pact
s on
lo
cal s
treet
s.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
Traf
fic
Man
agem
ent P
lan
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
and
app
rova
l. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e du
ring
all p
hase
s of
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
APM
TR
A-3.
Min
imiz
e S
treet
Use
. Con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es
will
be
desi
gned
to m
inim
ize
wor
k on
or u
se o
f loc
al
stre
ets.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Dur
ing
all p
hase
s of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.15-
1:SC
E’s
Traf
fic M
anag
emen
t an
d C
ontro
l Pla
n, a
s re
quire
d by
APM
TR
A-2,
sha
ll in
clud
e,
at a
min
imum
, the
mea
sure
s lis
ted
belo
w. T
he P
lan
shal
l be
subm
itted
to th
e C
PUC
for a
ppro
val a
nd s
hall
be d
istri
bute
d to
all
cons
truct
ion
crew
mem
bers
prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent
of c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
. The
Pla
n sh
all:
•
Incl
ude
a di
scus
sion
of w
ork
hour
s, h
aul r
oute
s, w
ork
area
del
inea
tion,
traf
fic c
ontro
l and
flag
ging
; •
Iden
tify
all a
cces
s an
d pa
rkin
g re
stric
tion
and
sign
age
requ
irem
ents
; •
Req
uire
wor
kers
to p
ark
pers
onal
veh
icle
s at
the
appr
oved
sta
ging
are
a an
d ta
ke o
nly
nece
ssar
y pr
ojec
t ve
hicl
es to
the
wor
k si
tes;
•
Lay
out p
lans
for n
otifi
catio
ns a
nd a
pro
cess
for
com
mun
icat
ion
with
affe
cted
resi
dent
s an
d la
ndow
ners
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
Traf
fic
Man
agem
ent P
lan
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
and
app
rova
l. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e du
ring
all p
hase
s of
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-37
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
prio
r to
the
star
t of c
onst
ruct
ion.
Adv
ance
pub
lic
notif
icat
ion
shal
l inc
lude
pos
ting
of n
otic
es a
nd
appr
opria
te s
igna
ge o
f con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es. T
he
writ
ten
notif
icat
ion
shal
l inc
lude
the
cons
truct
ion
sche
dule
, the
exa
ct lo
catio
n an
d du
ratio
n of
act
iviti
es
with
in e
ach
stre
et (i
.e.,
whi
ch ro
ad/la
nes
and
acce
ss
poin
t/driv
eway
s/pa
rkin
g ar
eas
wou
ld b
e bl
ocke
d on
w
hich
day
s an
d fo
r how
long
), an
d a
toll-
free
tele
phon
e nu
mbe
r for
rece
ivin
g qu
estio
ns o
r com
plai
nts;
•
Incl
ude
plan
s to
coo
rdin
ate
all c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
w
ith e
mer
genc
y se
rvic
e pr
ovid
ers
in th
e ar
ea,
cons
iste
nt w
ith M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.1
3-2
(see
Sec
tion
4.13
, Pub
lic S
ervi
ces)
. Em
erge
ncy
serv
ice
prov
ider
s w
ould
be
notif
ied
of th
e tim
ing,
loca
tion,
and
dur
atio
n of
co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es. A
ll ro
ads
wou
ld re
mai
n pa
ssab
le
to e
mer
genc
y se
rvic
e ve
hicl
es a
t all
times
; and
•
Iden
tify
all r
oadw
ay lo
catio
ns w
here
spe
cial
co
nstru
ctio
n te
chni
ques
(e.g
., ni
ght c
onst
ruct
ion)
wou
ld
be u
sed
to m
inim
ize
impa
cts
to tr
affic
flow
.
Impa
ct 4
.15-
2: P
roje
ct
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
cou
ld
incr
ease
pot
entia
l tra
ffic
safe
ty
haza
rds
for v
ehic
les,
bic
yclis
ts,
and
pede
stria
ns o
n pu
blic
ro
adw
ays.
Les
s th
an s
igni
fican
t w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
Impl
emen
t Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.15-
1.S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.1
-15
. S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.1
-15.
S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.
1-15
.
Impa
ct 4
.15-
3: C
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
cou
ld re
sult
in d
elay
s fo
r em
erge
ncy
vehi
cles
on
proj
ect a
rea
road
way
s. L
ess
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith m
itiga
tion
(Cla
ss II
)
Impl
emen
t Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
4.15
-1 a
nd 4
.13-
2.S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s 4.
1-15
and
4.1
3-2.
S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s 4.
1-15
an
d 4.
13-2
. S
ee M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s 4.
1-15
and
4.1
3-2.
Impa
ct 4
.15-
ALT2
-1:*
A
ltern
ativ
e 2
unde
rgro
und
line
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
cou
ld
adve
rsel
y af
fect
traf
fic
cond
ition
s in
the
stud
y ar
ea a
nd
coul
d re
sult
in d
elay
s fo
r em
erge
ncy
vehi
cles
on
road
way
s w
ithin
the
stud
y ar
ea.
Less
than
sig
nific
ant w
ith
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.15-
ALT2
-1:*
In a
dditi
on to
the
requ
irem
ents
incl
uded
in M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.1
5-1,
the
Traf
fic M
anag
emen
t and
Con
trol P
lan
shal
l: •
Incl
ude
a re
quire
men
t tha
t all
open
tren
ches
be
cove
red
with
met
al p
late
s at
the
end
of e
ach
wor
kday
to
acc
omm
odat
e tra
ffic
and
acce
ss; a
nd
• In
clud
e a
circ
ulat
ion
and
deto
ur p
lan
to m
inim
ize
impa
cts
to lo
cal s
treet
circ
ulat
ion
whe
n la
ne a
nd/o
r ro
ad c
losu
res
are
requ
ired
due
to tr
ench
ing
activ
ities
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
Traf
fic
Man
agem
ent P
lan
to C
PU
C fo
r re
view
and
app
rova
l. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o m
onito
r com
plia
nce.
Prio
r to
com
men
cem
ent o
f co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e du
ring
all p
hase
s of
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es th
at in
volv
e op
en
trenc
hing
.
E. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g, R
epor
ting
and
Com
plia
nce
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 8
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
, REP
OR
TIN
G A
ND
CO
MPL
IAN
CE
PRO
GR
AM
FO
R T
HE
DEV
ERS-
MIR
AG
E 11
5 K
V SU
BTR
AN
SMIS
SIO
N S
YSTE
M S
PLIT
PR
OJE
CT
Dev
ers-
Mira
ge 1
15 k
V S
ubtra
nsm
issi
on S
yste
m S
plit
Pro
ject
E
-38
ES
A /
2070
59
(A.0
8-01
-029
) Fin
al E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t
Apr
il 20
10
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s
Prop
osed
in th
is E
IR
Impl
emen
ting
Actio
ns
Mon
itorin
g/R
epor
ting
Req
uire
men
ts
Tim
ing
* Im
pact
4.1
5-A
LT2-
1 w
ould
be
appl
icab
le to
the
appr
oval
of
Alte
rnat
ives
2, 3
, 5, o
r 6.
* Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.15-
ALT
2-1
wou
ld b
e ap
plic
able
to
the
appr
oval
of A
ltern
ativ
es 2
, 3, 5
, or 6
.
Impa
ct 4
.15-
ALT2
-2:*
Tr
ench
ing
activ
ities
ass
ocia
ted
with
con
stru
ctio
n of
the
unde
rgro
und
porti
on o
f A
ltern
ativ
e 2
coul
d re
sult
in
road
way
dam
age
alon
g V
ista
C
hino
and
Sun
rise
Way
. Les
s th
an s
igni
fican
t with
miti
gatio
n (C
lass
II)
* Im
pact
4.1
5-A
LT2-
2 w
ould
be
appl
icab
le to
the
appr
oval
of
Alte
rnat
ives
2, 3
, 5, o
r 6.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.15-
ALT2
-2:*
In o
rder
to re
duce
po
tent
ial r
oadw
ay d
amag
e im
pact
s fro
m tr
ench
ing
activ
ities
with
in p
ublic
road
way
s, S
CE
and
/or i
ts
cont
ract
ors
shal
l rep
air a
ny d
amag
ed ro
adw
ay to
its
orig
inal
con
ditio
n im
med
iate
ly a
fter c
onst
ruct
ion
has
com
plet
ed. P
hoto
doc
umen
tatio
n sh
owin
g ro
adw
ays
prio
r to
and
follo
win
g co
nstru
ctio
n sh
all b
e su
bmitt
ed to
the
CP
UC
and
app
licab
le S
tate
and
/or l
ocal
age
ncie
s w
ith
juris
dict
ion
of th
e ro
adw
ays
to d
emon
stra
te c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith th
is m
easu
re.
* Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.15-
ALT
2-2
wou
ld b
e ap
plic
able
to
the
appr
oval
of A
ltern
ativ
es 2
, 3, 5
, or 6
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
SC
E to
sub
mit
phot
o do
cum
enta
tion
show
ing
road
way
s pr
ior t
o an
d fo
llow
ing
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
. C
PU
C m
itiga
tion
mon
itor t
o in
spec
t com
plia
nce
in th
e fie
ld.
Imm
edia
tely
follo
win
g co
mpl
etio
n of
road
way
re
stor
atio
n.
Mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e on
ce
trenc
hing
is c
ompl
ete
and
all r
oadw
ays
have
bee
n re
stor
ed.
Util
ities
and
Ser
vice
Sys
tem
s
Impa
ct 4
.16-
1: U
nder
grou
nd
utili
ty li
nes
and/
or fa
cilit
ies
coul
d be
dis
turb
ed d
urin
g P
ropo
sed
Pro
ject
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es.
Less
than
sig
nific
ant (
Cla
ss II
I)
APM
PU
SVC
-01.
Wor
k A
roun
d H
igh
Pre
ssur
e G
as L
ines
. N
o m
echa
nica
l equ
ipm
ent w
ill b
e pe
rmitt
ed to
ope
rate
w
ithin
3 fe
et o
f the
Sou
ther
n C
alifo
rnia
Gas
Com
pany
hi
gh-p
ress
ure
pipe
lines
, and
any
clo
ser w
ork
mus
t be
done
by
hand
.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
nea
r the
hig
h-pr
essu
re p
ipel
ines
.
APM
PU
SVC
-02.
Mon
itorin
g by
the
Sou
ther
n C
alifo
rnia
G
as C
ompa
ny. A
repr
esen
tativ
e of
the
Sou
ther
n C
alifo
rnia
Gas
Com
pany
mus
t obs
erve
the
exca
vatio
n ar
ound
or n
ear t
heir
faci
litie
s to
insu
re p
rote
ctio
n an
d to
re
cord
per
tinen
t dat
a ne
cess
ary
for t
heir
oper
atio
ns.
SC
E a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
s to
im
plem
ent m
easu
re a
s de
fined
.
CP
UC
miti
gatio
n m
onito
r to
mon
itor c
ompl
ianc
e.
Dur
ing
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
nea
r the
hig
h-pr
essu
re p
ipel
ines
.
Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project F-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010
APPENDIX F Certificate of Service
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
F-2
F-3