9. Certifying The EIR

A. The EIR Process

The EIR is part of the record, quite voluminous, and will not be reproduced in full here. As stated above, the EIR consists of two separate documents, the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, which cumulatively make up the EIR. We refer to the cumulative documents as the EIR, unless referring to a particular section or discussion, in which case we will specifically reference either the Draft or Final EIR. This section provides a summary of the EIR process and certifies the EIR.

Additionally, attached to this decision as Attachments B and C are two tables addressing the mitigation measures which the Final EIR proposes. Attachment B summarizes the environmental impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed project as well as the three alternatives the EIR reviews. Attachment C summarizes the mitigation monitoring plan of the composite route alternative, which is the EIR's preferred alternative. Attachment D sets forth LGS' proposed mitigation measures, which are also set forth in the Draft EIR at pp. 2-37 through 2-46.

For purposes of evaluating the project under CEQA, the "proposed project" identified in the EIR is the project formally presented in LGS' application as modified by the three amendments to the application and LGS' proposed mitigation measures. The EIR assumes that LGS will meet all the construction specifications and will complete all mitigation measures.

LGS states it has been negotiating with individual landowners to develop lease agreements and easements for the proposed pipeline and other facilities. Indeed, there has been much controversy in the non-environmental portion of the case about such negotiations, such as the alleged unequal bargaining position of LGS vis-a-vis landowners, if LGS is able to assert the power of eminent domain, etc. The EIR does not include a review of the terms of these private agreements, but rather considers broad impacts on the natural and human environment, such as the effects on prime farmland in Sacramento and San Joaquin counties.

The EIR notes that LGS will continue to negotiate with individual landowners and the negotiations may result in minor adjustments to the proposed pipeline route to accommodate individual landowner needs. The Commission does not anticipate that these minor changes would result in different environmental impacts from those described in the EIR. However, the EIR states that if the Commission approves the proposed project, LGS would have to apply to the Commission for approval of a variance, if LGS makes any changes in the proposed route or other project components. We affirm this requirement.

The EIR made the following assumptions to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the project. Each environmental issue in the EIR is analyzed based on significance criteria suggested in the CEQA Guidelines. When the Guidelines do not suggest specific significance criteria, the EIR employs professional judgment to develop reasonable significance thresholds. Potential impacts are categorized as (1) significant and unavoidable; (2) significant, but able to be mitigated to a less than significant level; or (3) less than significant. When the analysis presented in the EIR shows that no impact will occur as a result of the project, that impact is generally not discussed further. When the EIR determines that the proposed project could potentially cause significant environmental impacts, the EIR identifies feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less than significant levels.

The EIR states that during the review, consideration was given to the permits and approvals LGS must obtain from other agencies to construct and operate the proposed facilities. For many design, construction, and operation issues, the responsible federal, state, and local regulatory agencies' permit review processes require that LGS implement measures to ensure proper implementation of the project. For example, the EIR points to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, which is responsible for ensuring that the design of the pipeline meets stringent standards adopted by the federal government to protect public health and safety. Because the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety has a major role in reviewing and approving the safety of the proposed pipeline, and state and federal laws require LGS to obtain design approval from this agency, the EIR assumes that these standards will be implemented. The EIR focuses on any remaining or residual potential impacts resulting from implementation of the project. In other words, the EIR is based on the assumption that LGS would operate its facilities within the parameters of the required permits, and that operations in excess of permitted levels would require new discretionary permits and additional environmental review.

B. Alternatives to the Project

The EIR describes the screening process in which LGS engaged before filing this application. LGS reviewed alternative means of providing natural gas storage and analyzed alternative gas storage locations. From this analysis, LGS further narrowed its analysis to four gas fields. Although technically feasible as gas storage reservoirs, LGS eliminated them from further consideration because two would not meet the project objectives and two reduced economic feasibility and had the potential for greater environmental impacts.

During preparation of the Draft EIR, the Commission developed three alternative pipeline routes, all of which are technically feasible and acceptable to LGS. These alternatives were developed in response to public concerns during the scoping process regarding disruption of agriculture production and consistency with county and Delta Protection Commission policies regarding the consolidation of gas pipelines into transmission corridors. The alternative routes are: (1) the Public Right-of-Way Alternative, where the pipeline would generally run along established rights-of-way; (2) the Existing Pipeline Corridor Alternative, where the pipeline would generally run along an existing pipeline corridor; and (3) the Composite Route Alternative, which uses both established rights-of-way and existing pipeline corridors. All three alternatives include an alternative location for the compressor southwest of Lind airport, instead of northeast of Highway 99 and Peltier Road. Because of conditions and the location of various facilities in the project area, all of the alternatives use public right-of-way and existing pipeline corridors to some extent.

The EIR discusses the various alternatives at length, and determines that the Composite Route Alternative is the preferred alternative, largely because it has one less significant and unavoidable environmental impact than does the proposed project (see Attachment B). The EIR also has concerns about the other proposed alternatives. The EIR states that although use of the existing public right-of-way alternative may be preferable in some areas, in other areas this alternative route may run closer to residences than the original planned route. The EIR reasons that the pipeline would be placed outside of the current Caltrans right-of-way along Highway 12 because Caltrans typically discourages longitudinal easements and because Caltrans is studying the widening of Highway 12. East of Highway 5, the Existing Pipeline Corridor has greater impacts on private landowners because it does not follow the existing rights-of-way, as does the preferred alternative through most of that portion of the route. LGS has stated that the Composite Route Alternative is now its preferred route and includes its preferred compressor facility location. We adopt the Composite Route Alternative in our approval of this application.

C. Environmental Impacts

The EIR analyzes the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and significance after mitigation under the following categories: (1) land use, planning, and agricultural resources; (2) population and housing; (3) geology, soil, and paleontology; (4) hydrology; (5) air quality; (6) transportation and circulation; (7) biological resources; (8) energy and mineral resources; (9) public health and safety; (10) noise; (11) public services and socioeconomics; (12) visual resources; and (13) cultural resources. The EIR determines that under its preferred alternative, all significant environmental impacts except one can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The EIR discusses the potential environmental impacts at a project-wide level, but does not consider the project's impacts on specific individual landowners (i.e., any review of negotiated easement agreements between LGS and individual landowners, etc.).

This section highlights the key areas of environmental concern and the mitigation the EIR recommends to address those concerns. This discussion focuses primarily on the environmental impacts for which the EIR requires mitigation. Unless otherwise stated, the EIR finds that the mitigation measure reduces the identified environmental impact to a less than significant level. This discussion is not set out under the 13 categories listed above, but is organized around the key community concerns. Because the EIR's recommended mitigation for the proposed project and alternatives is identical except in the area of land use, planning, and agricultural resources, the mitigation measures discussed apply to all alternatives unless otherwise stated.¹⁷

1. Safety

Safety is important in the design and construction of any facility that handles or stores natural gas, because natural gas is explosive in certain conditions. The EIR examines the potential for a fire or catastrophic explosion resulting from facility operation, including during a major earthquake, and analyzes the systems and procedures proposed by LGS to ensure the project's safety.

The EIR's safety analysis also relies on the U.S. Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety (Office of Pipeline Safety), which is the agency primarily charged with regulating safety of natural gas pipeline facilities. The EIR's safety analysis is based on the assumption that LGS will construct and operate the project in accordance with the Office of Pipeline Safety regulations. The Office of Pipeline Safety regulations govern where a pipeline can be placed, the design features of the pipeline, the minimum depth it must be buried, and how often and thoroughly it must be inspected. As required by the U.S. Department of Transportation, an operating and maintenance plan would establish the written procedures for the operation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of the project pipelines, equipment, and facilities.

Additionally, the EIR requires LGS to comply with the requisite safety management programs of other regulatory bodies by instituting the following plans and programs: (1) operating and maintenance plan and inspection program; (2) damage prevention program; (3) emergency response plan; (4) hazardous materials release response plan; (5) fire prevention plan; (6) fire fighting training program; (7) employee drug testing program; (8) safety program; (9) stormwater pollution prevention plan; and (10) groundwater monitoring program.

The EIR also identifies the potential peat fire hazard during the construction of the pipeline as an environmental impact. This is because in the Delta portion of the pipeline alignment, the pipe would be buried in peat soils that are combustible. The EIR states that there is a slight possibility that pipeline joint preparation and welding may initiate a peat fire causing harmful air emissions and damage to property. In mitigation, the EIR requires LGS to develop and implement a peat fire prevention plan as required by the Office of Pipeline Safety, and in consultation with the local authorities. (See Mitigation Measure 3.9-1.)

The location of a portion of the pipeline and the compressor station at and near the airport site raises both land use and safety concerns. In the evidentiary and public participation hearings, people raised safety concerns about locating the compressor near the airport. The EIR requires LGS to construct the project according to federal, state, and local agency requirements. In addition, the Final EIR states that LGS recently received a letter from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that indicates that the proposed project meets all FAA safety requirements.

The Final EIR re-examined safety issues with respect to the location of the compressor facility and confirms that no additional mitigation measures are required. According to the Final EIR,

"[i]n the unlikely event that an aircraft collided with the compressor facility, gas could be released to the atmosphere. If an ignition source were present, the likely outcome would be a fire that would be directed upward and that would continue until all natural gas has escaped from the damaged portion of the facility. Because natural gas is not a liquid, the fire would not spread from the source of the gas leak. Considering the very low density of residences in the area, the low rate of aircraft collisions with buildings, the safety of natural gas, and the lack of substantial quantities of hazardous materials, the location of the alternate compressor site and the buried pipeline facilities is not considered to pose an unacceptable safety risk." (Final EIR at p. 2-11.)

The EIR recommends a mitigation measure to address land use issues surrounding the pipeline and compressor facility's location. The EIR notes that there is uncertainty regarding the applicability of the Airport Land Use Plan to the project facilities. Therefore, as a mitigation measure, the EIR requires LGS to obtain a determination from the Airport Land Use Commission that the project is consistent with the local land use plan, and if not, to obtain an amendment to the plan to allow the project. (Mitigation Measure 3.1-3.) If the Airport Land Use Commission finds that Airport Land Use Plan applies to the project, that no amendment to the plan is appropriate, and if that decision is affirmed on appeal to the County Board of Supervisors, LGS could not build the compressor facility at the site set out in the preferred alternative. If, at that point, LGS were to relocate the compressor facility, such relocation may require further environmental review.

The EIR finds that the potential for increased demand for fire control and emergency response services during both the project's construction and operation is a less than significant impact. This is in part because LGS has committed to providing equipment and training to local fire agencies. To ensure this commitment is met, the Final EIR adds an additional mitigation measure on this issue. (Mitigation Measure 3.11-1.)

To address the project's temporary disruption of traffic and the potential for interference with emergency response routes, the EIR requires LGS to develop and implement a traffic control plan. (Mitigation Measure 3.6-1.)

2. Agricultural Impacts

LGS proposes to drill several wells into the underground gas reservoir northeast of Lodi and to construct a pipeline to connect the wells to PG&E's pipeline system. For the most part, both the wells and the pipeline would be located on or adjacent to land currently used for agricultural purposes, with scattered rural residences and businesses. The EIR addresses the impact the project would have on agricultural resources and operations in the regions, and identifies measures to reduce the impacts to agricultural land.

One such measure is to avoid pipeline construction in and near vineyards during harvest season. (Mitigation Measure 3.1-1.) Another is to bury the pipeline deeper than normal in some areas where certain agricultural practices are used. For example, a mitigation measure requires LGS to bury pipelines at a depth of eight feet in lands that are suitable for grape production but have not been deep ripped, and at least two feet below the bottom of existing irrigation and drainage ditches, or obtain the landowner's agreement to bury the pipeline at a shallower depth. (Mitigation Measure 3.1-2.) LGS also states that it will bury the pipeline deeper than 4 feet where agreed during individual negotiations.

Another mitigation measure requires LGS to prepare and submit a report to this Commission identifying where there the pipeline may potentially interfere with agricultural practices in the future, primarily because of soil conditions, and to undertake necessary remedial actions. (Mitigation Measure 3.3-1.)

These actions could include (1) reburying the pipeline to an appropriate depth; (2) looping the pipeline segment by placing a replacement pipeline segment at a greater depth and removing the shallow segment; (3) importing additional soil cover to maintain the pipeline depth at least four feet below the ground surface, unless it will interfere with existing agricultural practices; or (4) other measures which LGS proposes and this Commission approves. Also, when the project is abandoned, then this same mitigation measure requires LGS to remove pipeline segments in subsiding lands to prevent future interference with agricultural operations.

Another mitigation measure requires LGS weight or anchor the pipeline in areas where saturated soils would not prevent the pipeline from floating. (Mitigation Measure 3.4-1.) LGS must submit the engineering designs and supporting soil studies to the Commission for review.

Comments to the Draft EIR were concerned about subsidence of peat lands in the Delta, and focused on three primary issues: interference with agricultural activities, reduction in levee stability and rate of subsidence. The Final EIR analyzes more information developed for the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to explain subsidence issues. Because this information demonstrates that subsidence rates are less than historic rates, the EIR concludes that its recommended mitigation measures are sufficient.

3. Rural Character

Because the project would be located on rural lands in the Central Valley and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the EIR examines potential impacts of the project on rural aesthetics and character. The EIR identifies measures for reducing or eliminating visual or noise impacts. Key issues analyzed by the EIR include whether constructed facilities are visually compatible with the surrounding landscape, whether scenic view is affected by construction, and whether the project would result in noise impacts on people living, working, or attending school near the facilities. The EIR also examines consistency with the Sacramento and San Joaquin County General Plans and other regional plans.

The EIR describes the measures LGS has agreed to implement to minimize disturbance of the visual character of the site including, but not limited to, painting the facilities in earthtone colors to blend with the surrounding vegetation and landscape; screening the compressor facility with trees and other facility components with vegetative landscape; and using shielded non-glaring light at the facility. The EIR states that LGS has agreed to provide a surety bond in the amount of the estimated annual cost of maintaining the landscaping. This bond will remain in effect until one year following the termination of the project's operations.¹⁸ Mitigation Measure 3.12-1 also requires LGS to develop and implement a landscaping and site design plan to address the potential some of the larger project facilities have to degrade the view.

The EIR also addresses the project's compatibility with local land uses. In addressing the proposed project, the EIR finds a significant and unavoidable environmental impact in its pipeline alignment, and that no mitigation is available to reduce the inconsistency of this alignment with local and Delta Protection Commission policies to a less than significant level. This finding is not present in all the alternative pipeline routes, and is not present in the alternative route we're approving in this decision. In addressing the alternative routes' compatibility with surrounding land uses, the EIR recommends several mitigation measures to minimize the project's effects on the surrounding communities. (See Mitigation Measures 3.1-4 and 3.1-5 for the Pubic Right-of-Way Alternative and Mitigation Measures 3.1-5 and 3.1-6 for the Existing Pipeline Corridor and the Composite Route Alternatives.)

The Draft EIR discusses the temporary disruption that residences and businesses would experience during construction activities. As proposed mitigation, the Draft EIR recommends two mitigation measures. The first is for LGS to employ noise-reducing practices to reduce construction noise. (Mitigation Measure 3.10-1.) The second is to reduce the project construction noise by restricting construction activities from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, installing noise-reducing barriers around drilling sites, and employing other noise-reduction activities. In its comments to the Draft EIR, the California Division of Gas, Geothermal, and Oil Resources had concerns about the recommendation to suspend drilling activities in the evening and weekend hours because requiring well-drilling activities to stop at night could compromise the safety and integrity of the wells.

In response, the Final EIR allows nighttime construction but requires LGS to follow a list of additional noise reduction measures. If, after LGS attempts all reasonable and practicable attempts to reduce noise, but nighttime noise levels remain above the significance threshold, the Final EIR requires LGS to offer temporary relocation assistance to affected residents. (See Mitigation Measure 3-10.2.)

Commenters on the Draft EIR expressed concern about regular releases of gas to the atmosphere from the compressor facility, or compressor facility venting. The Final EIR explains that normal operation of such facilities requires an operator to depressurize portions of the system regularly for maintenance. Additionally, LGS may have to release relatively large quantities of natural gas at high pressures in an emergency. The comments focused on three primary issues: noise, false emergency response alarms and odor.

Since publication of the Draft EIR, LGS performed additional engineering studies and design work. Based on this additional work, LGS will burn or "flare" all normal depressurization events, with the flare tip located in an excavated area on the compressor facility site, surrounded by a berm. The flames associated with normal operations should not rise above the berms and therefore should not generate false emergency response calls. The Final EIR states that CEQA would not require the noise produced from this approach to be mitigated, since it would be less than the noise significance threshold established in the Draft EIR.

Flaring repair and maintenance events will result in a minor increase in compressor facility emissions from those analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, the Final EIR concludes that this small increase does not affect the Draft EIR's emissions analysis.

The Final EIR also concludes that its air quality analysis is sufficient for emergency depressurization events, because they are expected to occur infrequently, about every five to 10 years, and will result in a small increase in emissions. The Final EIR states that because emergency depressurization will result in the release of larger quantities of gas to the flare system, the flare would not rise higher than the landscaping surrounding the project site and therefore would not be highly visible. The Final EIR states that LGS will notify all appropriate agencies in the case of emergency depressurization.

The Final EIR determines that the potential noise impacts from these emergency events are less than significant because such events: (1) would not be excessively loud at the nearest sensitive receptor; (2) are not predictable; (3) are anticipated to occur infrequently, once every 5 to 10 years; (4) are expected to last no more than 1 hour and noise levels would decline during this period as pressure in the system decreased; and (5) are related to emergency events.

Additionally, the Final EIR adds an additional mitigation measure in order to minimize the occurrence of emergency depressurization events. (Mitigation Measure 3.10-3.)

4. Levee Stability

The pipeline would cross under several major waterways, all of which are kept in their channels by levees, before the pipeline terminates at Sherman Island in the Delta. The EIR discusses the issue of levee stability during and after pipeline placement because much of the surrounding land would be inundated in the event of a levee failure. The EIR also examines the potential impacts from the directional drilling process which LGS proposes to route the pipeline under the waterways.

The EIR states that the State Lands Commission will require LGS to prepare and have approved detailed engineering plans before LGS will be granted a lease to cross state lands, and the State Reclamation Board requires LGS to obtain an encroachment permit from the local flood control or reclamation district. The EIR states that the local districts have the opportunity to impose similar or more stringent requirements than the State Lands Commission on permits to drill under their respective levees. The EIR also notes that requiring LGS to use directional drilling under the levees reduces the risk of a levee failure. With respect to this, and any other state or local discretionary permits, we clarify that the discretionary decision as to whether or not, or pursuant to what conditions, to issue the permits is the sole decision of the state or local entity.

The EIR also states that portions of the proposed pipeline within the 100 year floodplain could potentially be damaged if flood waters erode the soil cover. Also, because the pipeline is lighter in weight than the soil materials it displaces, the pipeline may float out of the trench when the over covering soil materials become saturated, especially in areas of low strength soil in the Delta. Exposing the pipe to flowing water may impose shear and bending loads that exceed design capacity, possibly causing the pipeline to rupture. Therefore, as a mitigation measure, the EIR requires LGS to use concrete coating, concrete collars, or other suitable methods to weight the pipeline in all areas subject to the 100-year flood, where saturated soils would not prevent the pipeline from floating. (Mitigation Measure 3.4-1.)

5. Water Quality

The EIR examines the potential for groundwater contamination from drilling activities, including contamination from drilling fluids and cross-connection of water tables. Cross-connection occurs when drilling opens a pathway between two separate sources of groundwater. The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources closely monitors well drilling procedures to prevent groundwater contamination. The EIR also examines surface water contamination that could occur wherever the project encounters waterways, including boring under rivers, canals, and ditches. In examining the potential for water quality effects, the EIR relies on the federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations, the California State Water Resources Control Board's and the Regional Water Quality Control Board's rules, regulations, and guidelines, and assumes that the project would be constructed and operated consistent with these agencies' requirements.

6. Geology

The EIR analyzes the potential effect of seismic and other geologic hazards on the project. The EIR considers the potential for destruction of unique paleontologic resources. The EIR also examines soils in the project area and discusses the potential for erosion and loss of top soil caused by construction and operation of the project. The EIR identifies measures to reduce or eliminate significant impacts, such as having LGS identify in a report to the Commission the areas of unstable soils where pipeline placement could interfere with agricultural practices, and undertaking necessary remedial actions as more fully described above in the discussion on agricultural impacts.

The EIR states that geologic hazards such as seismic activity must be considered in the design of the project, and that when the detailed engineering design of the project is completed, it will be submitted to several responsible agencies for approval. The EIR identifies numerous federal, state, and local agencies which have oversight responsibilities to ensure safety including (1) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Pipeline Safety, which provides oversight of pipeline construction, operation, and safety; (2) the California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, which provides oversight of design, installation, and operation of gas wells; and (3) San Joaquin County, which provides oversight of aboveground structures and buildings. The EIR states that at a minimum, the project will be designed to meet the seismic safety standards of the Uniform Building Code. The EIR also states that the Office of Pipeline Safety records of natural gas leaks in California show no relationship between pipeline leaks and major seismic events that have occurred since 1985.

7. Wetlands, Wildlife, and Habitat

The EIR examines potential impacts on wetlands, plants, wildlife, and habitats, including seasonal wetlands, vernal pools, and riparian areas. The EIR also identifies measures to avoid, minimize, or reduce impacts on biological resources to less-than-significant levels, such as confining construction activities and equipment to the designated construction work area, and, in areas that are not agricultural or developed, to restore the construction zone to preconstruction site conditions. (See Mitigation Measures 3.7-3a; 3.7-3b; and 3.7-3c.) Mitigation Measure 3.7-2 also requires LGS to control dispersal of noxious and invasive weeds and pests during construction.

The EIR analyzes potential impacts on fish and wildlife, including species designated as listed and sensitive under the state and federal Endangered Species Act, including the greater sandhill crane, Swainson's hawk, and giant garter snake. The EIR also analyzes the corridors, nesting areas, and habitats used by wildlife in the project's vicinity. The EIR also examines seasonal issues, and addresses the issue of when to avoid construction to protect nesting birds during the mating season.

Sandhill cranes winter in the Delta from September 1 through March 15, and these areas are important for foraging and roosting habitat. The Draft EIR conditioned construction in key areas during these months. In response to comments on the Draft EIR from the California Department of Fish and Game, the Final EIR modified its mitigation and prohibits LGS from constructing near important foraging and roosting habitats from September 1 through March 15 unless, after coordination with the Department of Fish and Game, the Commission determines construction can occur during this period without significantly affecting the sandhill crane. (Mitigation Measure 3.7-6.)

Additionally, Mitigation Measures 3.7-5; 3.7-7; 3.7-8; and 3.7-9 requires LGS to conduct preconstruction surveys, or consult with appropriate government agencies, and follow appropriate mitigation for potential construction disturbances of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle; nesting raptors, owls, and tricolored blackbirds; and nesting Swainson's hawks. Mitigation Measures 3.7-1a; 3.7-1b; and 3.7-1c require LGS to conduct a floristic survey and follow appropriate mitigation to minimize impacts on special-status plant populations.

8. Air Quality

Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have designated the San Joaquin Valley as a nonattainment area, that is, an area that does not meet the relevant federal or state air quality standard, for ozone and PM 10. The EIR identifies both stationary and mobile sources of emissions resulting from the project, such as the natural gas-fueled compressors used for moving gas through project facilities, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate those impacts from a CEQA analysis.

For example, the EIR directs LGS to comply with the San Joaquin Air District's regulations for, among other things, reducing exhaust from construction equipment and for fugitive dust prohibitions. The EIR requires LGS to water the construction site frequently to control dust. (Mitigation Measures 3.5-1a and 3.5-2.) The EIR also requires LGS to obtain emission offsets for NOx and ROG emission increases or install electric compressor facilities. (Mitigation Measure 3.5-3.) In order to reduce the potential for the release of small amounts of odorized natural gas, the EIR requires LGS to properly maintain above-ground piping components to minimize leaking of odorized gas, and that piping connections be welded to the extent practicable given design considerations. The EIR also requires LGS to inspect and maintain the facilities quarterly and to submit a report to the Commission identifying all detected leaks and repair actions taken no more than one month following each quarterly inspection. This mitigation measure also requires LGS to maintain a hotline to handle odor complaints. (Mitigation Measure 3.5-4.)

The EIR finds that the construction-related ROG and NOx emissions in Sacramento County are a significant and unavoidable environmental impact for the proposed project and all three alternatives. Although no mitigation is available to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the EIR recommends as a best management practice, the Commission should require LGS to comply with the San Joaquin Air District's recommendation for construction equipment mitigation measures to reduce exhaust emissions from construction equipment for construction activities within Sacramento County.

Several commenters on the Draft EIR stated that although the compressor facility would comply with the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District requirements, the EIR should impose additional mitigation on LGS because local residents would still be exposed to substantial emissions. The commenters suggested that the EIR should require LGS to install electricity-driven compressors to eliminate air quality impacts and to reduce potential noise impacts.

In response, the Final EIR concludes that after additional air quality modeling of ozone precursors, their levels would not be considered substantial under CEQA. The Final EIR also refers to the Draft EIR where the noise generated by a gas-fired compressor facility does not require mitigation under CEQA. The Commission's EIR consultant also contracted with an independent consulting firm, Henwood Energy Services, to evaluate information on cost and reliability of electric compressors. In light of this new information, the Final EIR concludes that the potential air quality and noise impacts associated with the compressor facility are not significant under CEQA, and that requiring electric motors for gas compression could affect the viability of the project. Therefore, the Final EIR does not adopt additional mitigation for this issue.

D. Other EIR Sections

As required by CEQA, the EIR also contains a section addressing the cumulative and growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project. For the most part, the EIR determines that the project has very little potential for cumulatively considerable effects as defined by the CEQA Guidelines, mainly because most of the project's effects are temporary, and the long-term effects are either not additive to the effects of other projects or are so minor as to not be cumulatively considerable.

Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6 provides that when a public agency approves a project subject to implementing and monitoring measures, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or adopted conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the reporting or monitoring program is to ensure compliance during project implementation.

The EIR presents a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting framework for the mitigation measures proposed by LGS and incorporated into the project, and a mitigation and monitoring plan for the mitigation measures proposed for the Composite Route Alternative. Attachments C and D to this decision update those mitigation and monitoring plans with the changes made in the Final EIR.

The Final EIR responds to public agency and general comments to the Draft EIR, and includes a clarification of major issues, revisions to the Draft EIR, and a verbatim copy of comments to the Draft EIR and responses to each comment.

E. EIR Certification

The Commission must conclude that the EIR¹⁹ is in compliance with CEQA before any final approval can be given to the application. This is to insure that the environmental document is a comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased tool to be used by the lead agency and other decisionmakers in addressing the merits of the project.

The EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The EIR reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis on the issues addressed by the EIR, and the Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR before issuing this decision on the project. We will certify the EIR.