4. Environmental Review

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000-21176, requires the Commission, as the designated lead agency, to assess the potential environmental impact of a project in order that adverse effects are avoided, alternatives are investigated, and environmental quality is restored or enhanced to the fullest extent possible. The Commission uses the PEA, required by Rule 17.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, to focus on environmental impacts and to prepare an initial study to determine whether the project will need a Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report.

Staff of the Environmental Projects Unit of the Commission's Energy Division (staff), with the assistance of an environmental consultant under contract to the Commission, Aspen Environmental Group, commenced review of Level 3's PEA and conducted on-site inspections of the proposed construction sites. On January 14, 2000, staff were able to determine that the application is complete. Based on review of the application and the final PEA (as modified by Level 3's March 13, 2000 letter), staff have overseen the preparation by Aspen Environmental Group of a Proposed Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study (Subsequent MND) which describes the project and its potential environmental effects.

4.1 Subsequent MND

The draft environmental document is considered to be a mitigated negative declaration because, although the initial study identified potentially significant impacts, staff have determined that implementation of specific mitigation measures will reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(c)(2).) In addition, the document is a subsequent mitigated negative declaration because it reviews substantial changes in the project made after the adoption of Negative Declaration IX. (CEQA Guidelines §15162; see also Pub. Resources Code § 21166.)

In compliance with CEQA, staff prepared a Notice of Publication of Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration and distributed it to various city and county planning agencies and to public libraries throughout the state; the notice ran in newspapers throughout California, as well. Staff also submitted copies of the draft Subsequent MND to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research for circulation to affected state agencies for review and comment. At the request of the California Department of Fish and Game (Dept. of Fish and Game), staff extended the public comment period (April 10 through May 10) until May 19.

Staff received written comments from several state agencies (Dept. of Fish and Game [both the Eastern Sierra and Inland Deserts Region and the Central Coast Region]; Regional Water Quality Control Board; Department of Conservation; Department of Transportation), four counties (Shasta; Fresno; Imperial; Ventura) and two cities (San Diego; San Luis Obispo) as well as a letter from a private entity in San Luis Obispo. Staff have reviewed these comments and included written responses in the Final Subsequent MND issued on July 5, 2000. Because of its volume, the Final Subsequent MND is not appended to this decision, but the Executive Summary and Table 4-1, entitled Additional Mitigation Measure Summary, are included as part of Attachment B.

4.2 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures generally are designed to protect resource categories such as biology, hydrology and water quality, geology, cultural, air quality, visual aspects, noise and traffic impacts. Level 3's PEA commits to avoid or to reduce to less-than-significant levels any potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of project elements off-ROW. Level 3 has incorporated all mitigation measures identified for on-ROW construction and operation into the planning, design, construction, and operation of the off-ROW project elements. The mitigation measures, which consist of those specified in Negative Declaration IX and others Level 3 has agreed to perform, cumulatively comprise Level 3's corporate Environmental Commitments, which are part of its PEA. These measures include:

Level 3 also has formulated corporate polices and procedures on environmental quality as standard measures in project design, construction, and operation. These include an "Environmental Quality/Cultural Resources Philosophy" statement which employees and contractors are expected to embrace as well as monitoring and oversight by Native American specialists, archaeologists, endangered species specialists, and environmental inspectors.

Finally, Level 3 has committed to comply with any additional, project-specific mitigation measures this Commission may require. Table 4-1 of the Final Subsequent MND, entitled Additional Mitigation Measure Summary, contains a summary of such additional mitigation measures, identified on a project element basis.

The Final Subsequent MND also provides for a mitigation-monitoring plan which calls for daily posting of environmental reports and oversight inspection of all construction activities by an environmental project manager appointed by this Commission. The monitoring plan requires coordination with the Dept. of Fish and Game and other federal, state and local agencies.

Based upon their independent environmental review, staff have concluded that Level 3's proposed project will not have significant effects on the environment, provided Level 3 complies with all mitigation measures outlined in the Final Subsequent MND.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page