V. Environmental Matters

A. Proponent's Environmental Assessment

With its application, PacifiCorp filed a Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA), as required by Commission rule. In it, PacifiCorp details its construction methods and the possible environmental impacts of the First Project. The PEA concludes that all potentially significant impacts of the First Project can be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant level.

B. Commission's Mitigated Negative Declaration

The Commission conducted an independent review of the potential environmental impacts of the project pursuant to CEQA.¹² On September 1, 2006, it released a Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) regarding the First and Second Projects for public review and comment. (As noted above, because of the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling that separate CEQA review of the First and Second Projects would constitute impermissible piecemealing, we evaluated both projects together. We approve only the Northern Portion of the First Project in this decision, however.)

The DMND identified the potential effects on the environment from the construction and operation of the First Project in order to evaluate the environmental significance of these effects. The DMND is based on information presented in PacifiCorp's PEA, site inspection by the Commission's environmental team, and independent environmental analysis by the Commission's environmental consultants, ESA.

The DMND found that there might be temporary and permanent environmental impacts in the following areas, but concluded that all such impacts could be mitigated so that the impact on the environment could be less than significant: Aesthetics; Agricultural Resources; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use, Plans and Policies; Noise; Public Services; Transportation and Traffic; and Utilities and Services.¹³

Aesthetics - the DMND found the project could affect views.

Agricultural Resources - the DMND found the project could cause the temporary removal of prime farmland.

Air Quality - the DMND found there would be a temporary impact due to construction activity.

Biological Resources - the DMND found that construction activities could potentially impact habitat elements such as dens and burrows and transient wildlife; impact special status plant species; spread noxious or invasive weeds; disturb nesting birds (including Swainson's hawk and the greater sandhill crane); affect Chinook, steelhead and possibly Coho salmon in spawning areas; disturb bald eagles; result in loss of habitat within the mule deer winter range; pose a collision or electrocution risk to birds (particularly larger species such as greater sandhill cranes and raptors); and impact existing wetlands.

Cultural Resources - the DMND found that project construction could result in disturbance of unknown cultural resources.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials - the DMND found that construction of the project would require the use of certain fuels, oils, solvents and other chemical products that in large quantities could be hazardous; or could release previously unidentified hazardous materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality - the DMND found that the proposed project could impact water quality by exacerbating erosion, and impact local drainage or the course of a given stream.

Land Use, Plans and Policies - the DMND found the project could conflict with constraints in the Siskiyou County General Plan relating to Surface Hydrology, Deer Wintering Areas, Woodland Productivity and Erosion.

Noise - the DMND found that project construction could generate adverse noise levels.

Public Services - the DMND found that project construction could temporarily increase the demand and response time for fire protection and police services.

Transportation and Traffic - the DMND found that project construction could adversely affect traffic and transportation conditions.

Utilities and Services - the DMND found that the project could inadvertently contact underground utility facilities, leading to short term outages.

After release of the DMND, the Commission took comments for a period of 30 days. Five parties submitted timely written comments, and eight parties gave verbal comments at a public meeting on September 20, 2006. Written comments were from the California Department of Transportation, the County of Siskiyou, PacificCorp, Don and Judy Mackintosh, and Leonard and Barbara Luiz.¹⁴ None of the comments alter the conclusion in the DMND that all potentially significant environmental impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level with appropriate mitigation measures.

Therefore, on October 17, 2006, the Commission issued its FMND, containing responses to all comments received on the DMND. We admit the FMND into evidence in the record of this proceeding as Exhibit 1 as of the date of its issuance. The FMND is available on the Commission's website at http://www.yreka-weed.com/fmnd_toc.shtml.

A Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program (MMRCP) has been prepared to ensure that the mitigation measures are property implemented. MMRCP describes specific actions required to implement each mitigation measure, including information on the timing of implementation and monitoring requirements. As a condition of the approval to construct the Northern Portion of the First Project that we grant in this decision, PacifiCorp shall agree in writing to implementation of all recommended mitigation measures.

Consistent with CEQA's requirements, we find that the Initial Study, the DMND and the FMND together provide a detailed and competent informational document and reflect the independent judgment and analysis of the Commission. Accordingly, we adopt the FMND including the MMRCP prepared for this project.

¹² Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., California Code of Regulations, Title 14 CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15002 & 15063.

¹³ The DMND found no impact or less than significant impact in the following areas: Geology, Soils, and Seismicity; Mineral Resources; Population and Housing; and Recreation.

¹⁴ The comment letters and the Commission's response are contained in the FMND, which is available on the Commission's web site.