5. Significant Environmental Impacts

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.