VI. Environmental Analysis
A. Mitigation Measures
The conclusions in the Final EIR/EIS regarding environmental impacts of the proposed project and its alternatives assume that the impact-reduction measures proposed in the PEA, called Applicant Proposed Measures or APMs, and the additional mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR/EIS will be implemented. In Section IV.C.2, we address SCE's concerns with interpretation of APM L-7. In this section, we address two additional concerns about mitigation measures. We adopt the mitigation measures proposed in the Final EIR/EIS, with one modification to mitigation measure B-16a discussed below. The applicable Applicant Proposed Measures and Final EIR/EIS mitigation measures for DPV2 are included in Attachment A. Implementation of the Applicant Proposed Measures and the applicable mitigation measures is a condition of our approval of this project.
In its Phase 2 brief, SCE takes issue with one of the Final EIR/EIS mitigation measures, specifically, mitigation measure B-16a regarding raven control.19 In addition to SCE's APM B-20 requiring that transmission lines be designed to reduce the likelihood of nesting by common ravens and removal of any common raven nests found on the structures,20 the Final EIR/EIS recommends mitigation measure B-16a, as follows:
B-16a Prepare and implement a raven control plan. SCE shall prepare a common raven control plan that identifies the purpose of conducting raven control, provides training in how to identify raven nests and how to determine whether a nest belongs to a raven or a different raptor species, describes the seasonal limitations on disturbing nesting raptors species (excluding ravens), describes the procedure for obtaining a permit from the USFWS's Division of Migratory Birds, and describes procedures for documenting the activities on an annual basis. SCE shall gain approval of the plan from the USFWS's Division of Migratory Birds. SCE shall provide this raven control plan to all transmission line companies that conduct operations within the ROW [right of way].
SCE requests that mitigation measure B-16a be modified as follows:
B-16a Contribute to an agency sponsored raven reduction plan for the California desert. SCE will work with the Bureau of Land Management and the USFWS to reduce raven populations in the desert by contributing to an agency-sponsored raven reduction program for the California Desert. The amount of contribution shall be commensurate with the expected contribution of raven nesting resulting from the DPV2 transmission line.
SCE expresses concern that mitigation measure B-16a as presented in the Final EIR/EIS would be infeasible, with unlimited scope and expenditure. SCE states that the Commission should not impose mitigation measures to be applied to existing transmission lines, or to other transmission owners. It contends that there likely would be no reduction in raven nesting activity by removing raven nests from towers on DPV2 when there is no raven control on the adjacent towers. SCE also questions the feasibility of raven control, citing its experience that ravens often will rebuild a nest as soon as it is taken down. SCE suggests that it could make a monetary contribution to an agency-sponsored raven reduction program, requesting that, at a minimum, the Commission revise mitigation measure B16-a "to place some reasonable limitations on what SCE could be required to do for this program."
Mitigation measure B-16a as recommended in the Final EIR/EIS would require that SCE develop a raven control plan for its own use and provide a copy to other transmission companies. We are perplexed by SCE's contention that this mitigation measure may not provide any benefits, in light of its own proposed measure for raven control and nest removal in APM B-20. The efficacy of SCE's proposed revision to mitigation measure B-16a is questionable. BLM and the USFWS have not indicated that they have, or are interested in creating, an agency-sponsored raven reduction program for the California desert. We agree that raven control should be implemented as proposed in the Final EIR/EIS.
In its comments on the proposed decision, SCE points out that common ravens are not raptors. We adopt mitigation measure B-16a, with a minor modification to clarify this point, as follows:
B-16a Prepare and implement a raven control plan. SCE shall prepare a common raven control plan that identifies the purpose of conducting raven control, provides training in how to identify raven nests and how to determine whether a nest belongs to a raven or a raptor species, describes the seasonal limitations on disturbing nesting raptors species (excluding ravens), describes the procedure for obtaining a permit from the USFWS's Division of Migratory Birds, and describes procedures for documenting the activities on an annual basis. SCE shall gain approval of the plan from the USFWS's Division of Migratory Birds. SCE shall provide this raven control plan to all transmission line companies that conduct operations within the ROW.
SCE's Devers-Palo Verde right of way crosses an approximately 0.1-mile stretch of land held by members of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Agua Caliente). During the DPV2 environmental review, Agua Caliente submitted a letter to the Commission and BLM asserting jurisdiction over the land and requesting that a mitigation measure be imposed requiring that SCE obtain a conditional use permit prior to construction of DPV2.
SCE asserts that it is not required to obtain a conditional use permit for this land. SCE states that it is consulting and coordinating with the Agua Caliente Planning Department regarding the right of way, but that it objects to the proposed terms of a conditional use permit, which would last no more than 25 years and may be revoked.
As explained in the Final EIR/EIS, the Commission has preemptive jurisdiction over the construction, maintenance, and operation of SCE facilities in California. However, GO 131-D requires that, in locating electric facilities such as DPV2, SCE consult with local agencies regarding land use matters. Section XIV of GO 131-D provides that, where the utility and a local jurisdiction are unable to reach agreement on a utility project, the utility may bring the conflict before the Commission for resolution. Mitigation measure L-1c in the Final EIR/EIS mirrors the provisions of GO 131-D.
The Agua Caliente opposed SCE's use of this allottee land when it constructed DPV1. The Commission authorized SCE to obtain a right of way through the land, and SCE successfully litigated an eminent domain complaint in federal district court pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 357 to condemn the allottee land needed for DPV1.21
We find that mitigation measure L-1c addresses the Agua Caliente concerns adequately. SCE should negotiate in good faith to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with the allotee and should coordinate with the Agua Caliente. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, SCE should follow the procedures in GO 131-D and mitigation measure L-1c to obtain further Commission review of the dispute. We modify Section 1.1.4 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR/EIS, as requested by SCE in its comments on the proposed decision, to describe GO 131-D requirements accurately.
B. Mitigation Monitoring
The Final EIR/EIS includes a proposed Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Program (MMCRP or Mitigation Monitoring Program) for the mitigation measures it recommends for the DPV2 project. It recommends a framework for implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Program by this Commission as the CEQA lead agency and BLM as the NEPA lead agency. We adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program, which is contained in Section X of Attachment B to this decision.
Consistent with Public Resources Code § 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines § 15097, the Commission must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring Program when it approves a project that is subject to preparation of an EIR and where the EIR identifies significant adverse environmental effects. As the NEPA lead agency, BLM is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures are implemented on its land. In the memorandum of understanding between BLM and the Commission governing the joint environmental review of DPV2, BLM and the Commission have agreed that the Commission will be responsible for implementing all adopted mitigation and monitoring provisions on both State and federal lands. BLM has agreed to provide the Commission access to federal lands as needed to conduct the adopted mitigation and monitoring activities.
C. Adequacy and Certification of the Final EIR/EIS
The Final EIR/EIS must contain specific information according to the CEQA guidelines, §§ 15120 through 15132. The various elements of the Final EIR/EIS satisfy these CEQA requirements. The Final EIR/EIS consists of the draft EIR/EIS, with revisions in response to comments and other information received. Volume 3 of the Final EIR/EIS contains the comments received on the draft EIR/EIS and individual responses to these comments.22
The Commission must conclude that the Final EIR/EIS is in compliance with CEQA before approving SCE's request for a CPCN. The basic purpose is to ensure 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 document should embody "an interdisciplinary approach that will ensure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the consideration of qualitative as well as quantitative factors."23 It must be prepared in a clear format and in plain language.24 It must be analytical rather than encyclopedic, and emphasize alternatives over unnecessary description of the project.25 Most importantly, it must be "organized and written in such a manner that [it] will be meaningful and useful to decisionmakers and the public."26
In Section VI.A above, we find that mitigation measure B-16a and Section 1.1.4 in the Executive Summary of the Final EIR/EIS should be modified. We also find that Section H.1.3 in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting section of the Final EIR/EIS should be deleted. With these changes, we believe that the Final EIR/EIS is in compliance with CEQA. It is a comprehensive, detailed, and complete document that discusses clearly the advantages and disadvantages of the environmentally superior routes, SCE's proposed route, and various alternatives. We find that, as modified, the Final EIR/EIS is a competent and comprehensive informational tool, as CEQA requires it to be. The quality of the information in the Final EIR/EIS is such that we are confident of its accuracy. We have considered the information in the Final EIR/EIS in approving the DPV2 project as described in this decision. The Commission should certify the Final EIR/EIS as modified by this order.
19 Common ravens are known to nest in transmission towers and prey upon nearby wildlife species, including juvenile tortoises and other wildlife species that may be listed as threatened or endangered, or considered sensitive.
20 As SCE points out in comments on the proposed decision, APM B-20 would apply only in the Coachella Valley region.
21 Southern California Edison Co. v. Rice, 685 F.2d 354, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16318 (9th Cir. Cal. 1982) petition for cert. denied, Rice v. Southern California Edison, 460 U.S. 1051, 103 S. Ct. 1497, 75 L. Ed. 2d 929, 1983 U.S. LEXIS 4300, 51 U.S.L.W. 3703 (1983).
22 CEQA Guidelines, § 15132.
23 Id., § 15142.
24 Id., §§ 15006(q) and (r), 15120, 15140.
25 Id., §§ 15006, 15141; Pub. Res. Code § 21003(c).
26 Pub. Res. Code § 21003(b).
