8. Environmental Review

The actions taken for environmental review of the Proposed Project, in accordance with GO 131-D and CEQA, are discussed below.

8.1. Proponent's Environmental Assessment

GRS included its PEA with the Application, pursuant to GO 131-D, Section IX.B.1.e.69 The PEA evaluates the environmental impacts that may result from the construction or operation of the Proposed Project. GRS' PEA contains a project description in Section 3, and maps and diagrams in Figures 3.1-1 through 3.7-3.

The PEA concludes that the Proposed Project will have less than significant, or no impact, to all environmental resource categories. Although GRS does not anticipate significant impacts to any resource category, GRS incorporates specific procedures into the Proposed Project construction plans as an added measure of protection to environmental resources that occur in the area.70

8.2. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration

As the next step in the environmental review, the Energy Division reviewed the PEA. On November 7, 2008, the Energy Division informed GRS and PG&E by letter that the Applications was deemed complete for purposes of undertaking the environmental review required by CEQA, and began preparing an Initial Study (IS). On December 8, 2008, the Energy Division determined the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, conditioned on certain mitigation measures.

The Draft IS/MND found that, with mitigation measures, approval of the Proposed Project will have a less than significant environmental impact in the areas of aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and service systems.71

8.4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

As required by CEQA, the Draft IS/MND included a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).72 The MMRP describes the mitigation measures and specifically details how each mitigation measure will be implemented, and includes information on the timing of implementation and monitoring requirements. The Commission also uses the MMRP as a guide and record of monitoring the utility's compliance with its provisions. GRS and PG&E have agreed to each measure and provision of the MMRP. In response to comments on the Draft IS/MND certain changes were made to the MMRP and those changes are documented in the Final IS/MND. Additionally, the Commission further clarifies mitigation measure Bio-17 as follows:

Qualified biologists shall survey the area to be directly impacted by construction in order to determine presence of potentially suitable habitat for Nelson's antelope ground squirrel. Pre-construction surveys shall be performed at appropriate times and under appropriate environmental conditions, in consultation with CDFG within 15 days prior to the onset of any project related ground-disturbing activity during the life of the Project. Potentially suitable habitat is defined as non-cultivated areas with sandy loam soils, widely-spaced alkali scrub vegetation, and dry washes. Appropriate measures shall be determined and implemented in consultation with CDFG to avoid impacts if surveys indicate presence of Nelson's antelope squirrel in the Project Area. Potential measures may include:

If preconstruction surveys do not indicate the presence of the Nelson's antelope ground squirrel and the species is detected during the construction phase, construction activities shall be immediately halted in the area and consultation with the CDFG shall occur. The CDFG shall determine if the project will require a take permit. If a take permit will not be required, avoidance measures shall be implemented in consultation with the CDFG. Potential avoidance measures may include:

The Commission adopts the MMRP, with the above clarification, as part of its approval of the Proposed Project, and Applicants are required to comply with it.

CEQA does not define or adopt any standards to address the potential health risk impacts of possible exposure to EMF, primarily because of the lack of scientific evidence of such risk. The Commission also has examined EMF impacts in several previous proceedings. We found the scientific evidence presented in those proceedings was uncertain as to the possible health effects of EMF, and we did not find it appropriate to adopt any related numerical standards.

However, recognizing that public concern remains, we require that all requests for a PTC include a description of the measures taken or proposed by the utility to reduce the potential for exposure to EMF generated by the Proposed Project.73 We developed an interim policy addressing the matter that requires utilities, among other things, to identify the no-cost measures undertaken, and the low-cost measures implemented, to reduce the potential impacts of EMF.74 The benchmark established for low-cost measures is 4% of the total budgeted project cost that results in an EMF reduction of at least a 15% (as measured at the edge of the utility right-of-way).

EMF will be present during construction of the Proposed Project from the existing power lines and other sources in the area, and from the operation and maintenance of the proposed power line. Although most of the Proposed Project will be located on land that is undeveloped or agricultural, there is a single residence located along the proposed power line right-of-way on Avenue 7 ½ in Firebaugh.

Pursuant to D.06-01-042, low-cost EMF mitigation is not necessary in agricultural and undeveloped land except for permanently occupied residences, schools or hospitals located on these lands. Therefore, EMF mitigation is required at the residential location in Firebaugh.

On July 21, 2009, PG&E submitted the EMF Field Management Plan (FMP) addressing the EMF measures that will be taken in connection with the Proposed Project.75 The FMP proposes to relocate the tap point (the point on the power line where a tap from the substation is tied in) for the new power line approximately 1,100 feet further east than the originally proposed location. As a result, the tap point will no longer be adjacent to the residence on Avenue 7 ½.

We adopt the FMP for the Proposed Project and require PG&E to comply with it.

On July 16, 2009, the Energy Division published a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND (NOI), and released the Draft IS/MND for a 30-day public review and comment period.76 The Draft IS/MND was distributed to federal, state and local agencies; property owners within 300 feet of the Proposed Project; and other interested parties (identified in the Draft IS/MND). A Public Notice of the Proposed Project also was published in the local newspaper, announcing the availability of the Draft IS/MND, and a public meeting was held on July 29, 2009 to provide information and to accept written or oral comments on the Draft IS/MND. The 30-day public review and comment period ended on August 14, 2009.

Comment letters on the Draft IS/MND were received from the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game), the California State Lands Commission, the Department of Water Resources, the Madera County Planning Department, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, and the Westlands Water District. Those comments and the Commission's responses to those comments are contained in the Final MND.

8.7. Final MND

A Final MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA guidelines, and released by the Energy Division on September 14, 2009.77 The Final MND addresses all aspects of the Draft IS/MND, includes the comments received on the Draft IS/MND and the responses to those comments by the Lead Agency (Energy Division), and includes a final version of the MMRP.

Although a few revisions were made in the Final MND to clarify and further explain certain mitigation measures described in the Draft IS/MND, the Final MND does not identify any new significant environmental impacts in addition to those identified in the Draft IS/MND. However, in response to recommendations from the CDFG, mitigation measures Bio-17 and Bio-18 in the Draft MND have been revised and combined as a single mitigation measure (Bio-17) in the Final IS/MND. Mitigation measure Bio-17 in the Final IS/MND requires Applicants to perform pre-construction surveys in consultation with the CDFG, and, if Nelson's antelope ground squirrel, a protected species, is detected, to consult with the CDFG to determine and implement appropriate measures.

In this decision we further clarify Bio-17 to detail actions that must be taken if the Nelson antelope ground squirrel is detected during the construction phase. The specific language is detailed in Section 8.4 above. The clarifying language provides more effective mitigation as the original measure could have unintentionally resulted in harm to the Nelson antelope ground squirrel. The mitigation measure as clarified will not have any potential significant effect on the environment.

Before granting the Applications, we must consider the Final MND.78 We have done so and find that the Final MND (which incorporates the Draft IS/MND) was prepared in compliance with and meets the requirements of CEQA. We further find that on the basis of the whole record there is no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Final MND reflects the Commission's independent judgments and analysis.79 We adopt the Final MND in its entirety and with the clarifying language of mitigation measure Bio-17, and incorporate it by reference in this decision approving the Proposed Project.80

The Final MND concludes that the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, because the mitigation measures described therein, and agreed to and incorporated by Applicants into the Proposed Project, will ensure that any potentially significant impacts that have been identified with the Proposed Project will remain at less than significant levels.

69 The PG&E Application relies on the PEA that GRS has prepared for the Proposed Project.

70 PEA, Section 4.

71 The Draft IS/MND found that the Proposed Project will have no environmental impact on land use and planning, and less than significant environmental impacts requiring no mitigation measures in the areas of mineral resources, population and housing, and public services. The Draft IS/MND also found that the Proposed Project will have a less than significant environmental impact on air quality but recommends feasible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

72 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15074(d).

73 GO 131-D, Section X.

74 See D.06-01-042, and D.93-11-013.

75 The FMP is included in the Final MND as Appendix G.

76 The September 15, 2009 Administrative Law Judge Ruling identified, marked, and received into the record the IS/Draft MND as Reference Exhibit A.

77 The September 15, 2009 Administrative Law Judge Ruling identified, marked, and received into the record the Final MND as Reference Exhibit B.

78 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15004(a).

79 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15074(b).

80 The Final MND is available for inspection on the Commission's website, http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/mha/gillranch/gillranch.htm.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page