5.1. Summary
Under all of the alternatives, the whole of the project would have significant and unmitigable adverse impacts on biological resources, visual resources, cultural resources, noise, air quality, and fire and fuels management. Impacts to land use, wilderness and recreation, agriculture, transportation and traffic, public health and safety, water resources, geology, mineral resources and soil, public services and utilities, social and economic conditions, environmental justice, and climate change would be less than significant under CEQA and/or less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures presented in the EIR/EIS.
5.2. Biological Resources
The proposed project would result in the following significant impacts on biological resources:
· the temporary and permanent losses of native vegetation;
· substantial adverse effects to jurisdictional waters and wetlands through vegetation removal, placement of fill, erosion, sedimentation, and degradation of water quality;
· the introduction of invasive, non-native, or noxious plant species;
· the creation of dust that would result in degradation of vegetation;
· direct or indirect loss of listed or sensitive plants or a direct loss of habitat for listed or sensitive plants;
· disturbance to wildlife and wildlife mortality;
· direct or indirect loss of listed or sensitive wildlife or a direct loss of habitat for listed or sensitive wildlife;
· potential loss of nesting birds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and
· electrocution of, and/or collisions by, listed or sensitive bird or bat species.
With the following exceptions, these biological impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Plan.
The proposed ECO Substation Project, and all project alternatives, would have significant adverse and unmitigable impacts on Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat. Quino checkerspot butterfly is a federally endangered species found only in western Riverside Country, southern San Diego County, and northern Baja California, Mexico. The proposed substation would result in the permanent loss of 2.27 acres of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) critical habitat for this species. Because comparable habitat compensation may not be obtainable as mitigation for project impacts, this impact cannot be mitigated. The impacts on Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat under the ECO Substation Site Alternative would be similar to those under the proposed project, while impacts under the other three alternatives would be greater than the proposed project due to increased ground disturbance during construction and/or an increase in sensitive riparian habitat and Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat.
The proposed Tule Wind Project and all wind project alternatives would have similar adverse and unmitigable impacts to birds, such as golden eagles, due to the risk of mortality from collision with operating wind turbines. While mitigation is provided, including the requirement of USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game approval of the mitigation measures and adaptive management program related to golden eagle pursuant to the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the California Fish and Game Code, this impact would remain adverse and unmitigable.
5.3. Visual Resources
The proposed project would result in the following significant impacts on visual resources:
· Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
· Degradation of the existing visual character of quality of the site and its surrounding;
· Creation of a substantial new source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area; and
· Inconsistency with federal, state, or local regulations, plans, and standards applicable to the protection of visual resources.
With the following exceptions, these visual impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance and Reporting Program (MMCRP).
The proposed ECO Substation and substation alternatives would be located in a predominantly undeveloped desert landscape in eastern San Diego County, approximately 0.5 mile to the west of the Jacumba Mountains Wilderness, and approximately 0.7 mile to 1.5 miles south of the Table Mountain ACEC and Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. Under all alternatives, the substation would be mainly visible by travelers and dispersed residences along Interstate 8 and Old Highway 80, and views would also be possible from the Jacumba Mountains Wilderness, the Table Mountain ACEC and other BLM-administered public lands, and would have adverse impacts on scenic vistas and substantially degrade the area's existing visual character. The ECO Highway 80 138 kV Transmission Route alternative would have greater impacts than the proposed project due to the installation of a new transmission line along a more visible corridor. The ECO Partial Underground 138 kV Transmission Route alternative and ECO Highway 80 Underground 138 kV Transmission Route alternative would avoid adverse impacts on scenic vistas; however, the levels of other visual impacts would be similar to that of the proposed project.
The proposed Tule Wind Project, and all project alternatives, would have significant adverse and unmitigable impacts on visual resources. The proposed wind turbines and associated overhead and underground 34.5 kV collector cable systems would be situated in a natural, undeveloped desert landscape of eastern San Diego County in the In-Ko-Pah Mountains near the McCain Valley. The northern extent of the project area would be bordered by high mountainous terrain to the north, northwest, and east including the Sawtooth Mountains Wilderness Area to the north, the Laguna Mountains to the northwest, and Sombrero Peak to the northeast in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. The wind turbines would be visually dominant and prominent against the skyline. The Tule Wind 138 kV transmission line would create significant impacts to scenic views where it would cross Interstate 8 and parallel and cross Old Highway 80 into the Boulevard Substation, and would introduce a moderate to strong industrial feature into a landscape characterized by a mixture of natural and rural community elements.
The impacts of Tule Wind Alternatives 1 and 3 would be nearly identical to those of the proposed project. Although the impacts of the Tule Wind Alternatives 2 and 4 would be less than that of the proposed project due to the undergrounding of a portion of the transmission line, the overall impact levels of these alternatives would remain adverse and unmitigable. Likewise, although the impacts of Tule Wind Alternative 5 would be less than that of the proposed project due to the removal of turbines from the highest ridgelines, the overall impact levels would remain adverse and unmitigable due to the remaining turbines on elevated ridgelines.
The proposed ESJ Gen-Tie Project and all project alternatives would be situated in a predominantly natural, undisturbed desert landscape in eastern San Diego County immediately south of the proposed ECO Substation. While the 500 kV or 230 kV gen-tie would not be openly visible or cause adverse visual impacts, the ESJ Phase 1 wind turbine to be located in Mexico would create strong, openly visible and sky-lined visual contrasts along the ridgeline and slopes of the Sierra de Juarez Mountains. These impacts would be adverse and unmitigable under all project alternatives.
5.4. Land Use
The proposed project would result in the following significant impacts on land use:
· Temporary disturbance of land uses at or near project components;
· Division of an established community or disruption of land uses at or near project components; and
· Conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
All of these land use impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
5.5. Wilderness and Recreation
Construction of the proposed project and project alternatives would temporarily reduce access and visitation to the wilderness or recreation areas. This wilderness and recreation impact can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
5.6. Agriculture
The proposed project and project alternatives would not result in any significant adverse impacts on agriculture.
5.7. Cultural and Paleontological Resources
The proposed project would result in the following significant impacts on cultural and paleontological resources:
· Cause an adverse change to known significant prehistoric and historic archaeological resources;
· Cause an adverse change to sites known to contain human remains either in formal cemeteries or buried Native American remains;
· Cause an adverse change to Traditional Cultural Property (TCP);
· Destroy or disturb significant paleontological resources; and
· Cause an adverse change to known significant historical architectural (build environment) resources.
With the following exception, these cultural and paleontological impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
The proposed ECO Substation Project, and all project alternatives, would have potential adverse and unmitigable impacts to TCP. Although no TCPs have been identified, potential National Registry of Historic Places eligibility of unknown TCPs is assumed. In some cases, avoiding direct and indirect impacts to TCPs such as traditional landscapes, topographic elements including sacred mountains, or use areas may not be completely feasible. In this event, the impact on TCPs would be adverse and, while mitigation is provided, the impacts would not be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. Impacts would be similar under the proposed ECO Substation Project, the ECO Substation Site Alternative, and the ECO Highway 80 138 kV Transmission Route alternative. Impacts would increase under the ECO Partial Underground 138 kV Transmission Route and ECO Highway 80 Underground 138 kV Transmission Route alternatives due to open trenching along the undergrounded routes.
As with the ECO Substation Project, the Tule Wind Project and all project alternatives may cause adverse and unmitigable impacts to potential, unknown TCP. The impacts of Tule Wind Alternatives 1 and 3 would be reduced due to the operations and maintenance and substation facilities being located in a more disturbed area, but their overall impacts would remain significant and unmitigable. The impacts of Tule Wind Alternatives 2 and 4 would likewise be reduced due to the operations and maintenance and substation facilities being located in a more disturbed area, but would be increased where trenching would occur; in any event, their overall impacts would remain significant and unmitigable. The impacts of Tule Wind Alternative 5 would be reduced due to less ground disturbance as a result of fewer turbines, but its overall impacts would also remain significant and unmitigable.
As with the ECO Substation Project, the proposed ESJ Gen-Tie Project and all project alternatives, impacts would increase under the underground alternatives due to open trenching along the undergrounded route.
5.8. Noise
The proposed project would result in the following significant impacts on noise:
· Substantially disturb sensitive receptors and violate local rules, standards, and/or ordinances during construction;
· Temporarily cause groundborne vibration during construction; and
· Permanently increase noise levels due to corona noise from operations of the transmission lines and noise from other project components.
With the following exception, these noise impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
The proposed ECO Substation Project, and all project alternatives, would have adverse and unmitigable noise impacts that would occur temporarily during construction due to construction-related nighttime noise, helicopters and blasting. Noise impacts under all of the project alternatives would be similar, except that noise impacts under the ECO Substation Site Alternative would be less than those of the proposed project (but still significant) due to the increased distance to residences.
The proposed Tule Wind Project, and all project alternatives, would have adverse and unmitigable noise impacts that would occur temporarily during construction due to construction-related blasting and drilling activities. Noise impacts of Tule Wind Alternatives 1 and 5 would be similar to those of the proposed project. Noise impacts of the other alternatives would be greater than those of the proposed project due to trenching activities along the underground portion of the transmission line (Tule Wind Alternative 2), an increase in sensitive receptors along the alternate route (Tule Wind Alternative 3), or both (Tule Wind Alternative 4).
5.9. Transportation and Traffic
The proposed project would result in the following significant impacts on transportation and traffic:
· Construction would cause temporary road and lane closures that would temporarily disrupt traffic;
· Construction activities would restrict the movements of emergency vehicles, and there are no reasonable alternative access routes available;
· Construction activities would result in unstable flow, or fluctuations in volumes of traffic that temporarily restrict flow; or in an unacceptable reduction in performance of the circulation system, as defined by an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system;
· Construction would substantially disrupt bus or rail transit service, and there would be no suitable alternative routes or stops; or would impede pedestrian movements or bike trails, and there are no suitable alternative pedestrian/bicycle access routes or accommodation through construction zones; or would conflict with planned transportation projects in the project area;
· Cause a noticeable increase in deterioration of roadway surfaces used for the construction zone as a result of heavy truck or construction equipment movements;
· A project structure, crane, or wires would be positioned such that they/it could adversely affect aviation activities, or a proposed land use would conflict with the applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
These impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
5.10. Public Health and Safety
The proposed project would result in the following significant impacts on public health and safety:
· Impacts to soil or groundwater could result from an accidental spill or release of hazardous materials due to improper handling or storage of hazardous materials during construction activities;
· Residual pesticides and/or herbicides could be encountered during grading or excavation;
· Previously unknown soil and/or groundwater contamination could be encountered during grading or excavation;
· Potential safety hazards could adversely affect construction workers or the general public accessing the project site during construction, operation, or decommissioning;
· Impacts to soil or groundwater could result from an accidental spill or release of hazardous materials during operations and maintenance;
· Undue risks could result due to the breaking of a rotor blade;
· Operation could result in electromagnetic interference, including interference with radar, radio, television, and electrical equipment; and
· Operation could result in induced currents and shock hazards in joint use corridors.
These impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
5.11. Air Quality
Construction of the proposed project and project alternatives would have a significant impact on air quality. Construction of the ECO Substation Project and its alternatives will generate emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10) in excess of the significance levels recommended by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District; construction of the Tule Wind Project and its alternatives will generate volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOx, particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and PM10 emissions in excess of the recommended significance levels; and construction of the ESJ Gen-Tie Project and its alternatives will generate PM10 emissions in excess of the recommended significance levels. Construction of all three projects in combination will generate carbon monoxide (CO) emissions, as well as emissions of NOx, VOC, PM10 and PM2.5, in excess of the recommended significance levels. With the mitigation identified in the MMCRP, these impacts would be reduced but would remain significant and unmitigable.
5.12. Water Resources
The proposed project would have the following significant impacts on water resources:
· Construction activity could degrade water quality due to erosion and sedimentation;
· Construction activity could degrade water quality through spills of potentially harmful materials;
· Excavation could degrade groundwater quality in areas of shallow groundwater;
· The project could deplete local water supplies;
· Project features located in a floodplain or watercourse could result in flooding, flood diversions, or erosion, or could expose people or structures to significant risk;
· Accidental releases of contaminants from project facilities could degrade water quality; and
· Creation of new impervious areas could cause increased runoff, resulting in flooding or increased erosion downstream.
These impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
5.13. Geology, Mineral Resources, and Soils
The proposed project would have the following significant impacts on geology, mineral resources, and soils:
· Erosion would be triggered or accelerated due to construction activities;
· Corrosive soils could cause deterioration of concrete and reinforcing steel in project structures exposing people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects;
· Seismically induced ground shaking, ground failure, or fault rupture would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects; and
· Landslides, earthflows, rockfall, and/or subsidence would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects.
These impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
5.14. Public Services and Utilities
The proposed project would have the following significant impacts on public services and utilities:
· Construction of the project would disrupt the existing utility systems or cause a co-location accident; and
· Sufficient water supplies are not available to serve the project from existing entitlements, and resources and new or expanded entitlements would be needed.
These impacts can be mitigated to less than significant with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
5.15. Fire and Fuels Management
The proposed project would be located primarily within a very high fire hazard severity zone characterized by highly flammable, dense, drought-adapted desert chaparral vegetation; seasonal, strong winds; and a Mediterranean climate that results in vegetation drying during the months most likely to experience Santa Ana winds. The proposed project would have the following significant impacts on fire and fuels management:
· Construction and operational maintenance activities would significantly increase the probability of a wildfire;
· Presence of project facilities including overhead transmission lines would increase the probability of a wildfire;
· Presence of the overhead transmission lines would reduce the effectiveness of firefighting; and
· Project activities would introduce non-native plants, which would contribute to an increased ignition potential and rate of fire spread.
With the following exception, these fire and fuels management impacts can be mitigated to less than significant under the environmentally superior alternatives which would underground a portion of the overhead transmission lines and with the mitigation measures identified in the MMCRP.
As part of the plan for mitigating the increased probability of a wildfire and the reduced firefighting effectiveness associated with the ECO Substation overhead transmission lines, SDG&E is required to develop a fire protection plan for the ECO Substation, which will be subject to review and comment by responsible agencies and final approval by the lead agencies (Mitigation Measure FF-4), and to provide funding assistance to the San Diego Rural Fire Protection District (District) (as well as to the San Diego County Fire Authority) to support fire code specialist positions in an amount to be determined by the lead agencies (Mitigation Measure FF-3). Because the fire protection plan and funding assistance arrangements have yet to be approved by the lead agencies, the EIR/EIS states that the effectiveness of this mitigation in reducing these impacts "is not known and therefore, [the impacts are] considered unavoidable for purposes of the analysis conducted in this EIR/EIS." (Exhibit 11 at D.15-58 and D.15-68.)
5.16. Social and Economic Conditions
The proposed project and project alternatives would not result in any significant impacts on social and economic conditions.
5.17. Environmental Justice
The proposed project and project alternatives would not result in any impacts on environmental justice.
5.18. Climate Change
The proposed project and project alternatives would not result in any significant impacts on climate change.