7. Environmental Review and EMF Compliance
CEQA requires that the Commission consider the environmental consequences before acting upon or approving the Project.1 Under CEQA, the Commission must act as either the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency for project approval. The Lead Agency is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole.2 Here, the Commission is the lead agency. The actions and steps taken for environmental review of the Project, in accordance with GO 131-D and CEQA, are discussed below.
7.1. Proponent's Environmental Assessment
Pursuant to GO 131-D, Section IX.B.1.e, the application must include a PEA. SCE separately filed its PEA in this proceeding on June 1, 2006. The PEA evaluates the environmental impacts that may result from the construction or operation of the Project. The PEA filed by SCE contains a project description in Section 3.0, and maps and diagrams in Sections 3.0 and 4.0.
The PEA found that no significant impacts would occur as a result of operations, but that some less than significant impacts would occur during construction. The PEA initially proposed no mitigation measures be taken since all Project impacts were considered as being less than significant.
7.2. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration
As the next step in the environmental review, the Commission's Energy Division Staff (Staff) reviewed the PEA and prepared an Initial Study (IS) to address the environmental issues related to the Project. The IS determined the Project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, conditioned on certain mitigation measures. Similar to the PEA, all of the project impacts identified in the IS as requiring mitigation are related to construction.
In connection with the IS, Staff then prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Draft MND). Combined with the IS, the Draft MND found that approval of the Project would have no, or a less than significant, environmental impact in the following areas: agricultural resources; cultural resources; geology, soils and seismicity; hydrology and water quality; land use, plans and policies; mineral resources; population and housing; public services; recreation; transportation and traffic; and utilities and services.
The Draft IS/MND also found that, with mitigation incorporated, approval of the Project would result in less than significant impacts in the areas of: aesthetics; air quality; biological resources; hazards and hazardous materials; and noise. A general description of the mitigation measures, all related to construction activities, in each of the above areas follows:
Aesthetics:
Mitigations include that SCE shall:
1) restore and revegetate ground disturbances due to construction staging;
2) retain walnut trees or establish evergreen vegetative screen around the substation;
3) construct visually opaque gate at substation entrance;
4) provide TSP riser surfaces galvanized with appropriate colors, textures and finishes; and
5) Shroud and minimize unnecessary sources of light.
Air Quality:
Construction impacts include emissions of certain particulate pollutants and equipment exhaust.
Mitigations include that SCE shall:
1) implement enhanced dust control measures in the event that occupied homes occur nearby; and
2) minimize construction equipment exhaust by using Tier 1 engines.
Biological Resources:
Construction impacts include possible effect on populations of the San Joaquin kit fox.
Mitigations include that SCE shall:
1) implement the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's "Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin kit fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance;" and
2) provide to the Commission the results of surveys prior to ground disturbance.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
Certain fuels, oils or chemicals used in construction could pose a potential threat to the public or the environment if used improperly; previously unidentified materials could be released into the environment; and construction activities could ignite dry vegetation, thereby posing a fire risk.
Mitigations include that SCE shall control release of residual herbicides, pesticides and/or fumigants.
Noise:
Construction activities could generate adverse noise levels.
Mitigations include that SCE shall:
1) properly minimize construction vehicle noise, including maintenance of mufflers in accordance with vendor specifications; and
2) avoid unnecessary construction traffic noise, where possible routing around noise-sensitive areas such as residences, schools, religious facilities, hospitals and parks.
As required by CEQA, the Draft IS/MND included a Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Plan (MMRCP). The MMRCP describes the mitigation measures and specifically details how each mitigation measure would be implemented, and includes information on the timing of implementation and monitoring requirements. The Commission also uses the MMRCP as a guide and record of monitoring the utility's compliance with its provisions. SCE has agreed to each measure and provision of the MMRCP.
CEQA does not define or adopt any standards to address the potential health risk impacts of possible exposure to EMF, primarily because of the lack of scientific evidence of such risk. The Commission also has examined EMF impacts in several previous proceedings. We found the scientific evidence presented in those proceedings was uncertain as to the possible health effects of EMF, and we did not find it appropriate to adopt any related numerical standards.
However, recognizing that public concern remains, we do require (pursuant to GO 131-D, Section X) that all requests for a PTC must include a description of the measures taken or proposed by the utility to reduce the potential for exposure to EMF generated by the proposed project. We developed an interim policy addressing the matter that requires utilities, among other things, to identify the no-cost measures undertaken, and the low-cost measures implemented, to reduce the potential impacts of EMF.3 The benchmark established for low-cost measures is 4% of the total budgeted project cost that result in an EMF reduction of at least a 15% (as measured at the edge of the utility right-of-way).
The Draft IS/MND addresses the EMF mitigation measures related to the Project. As "no and low-cost" mitigation measures, SCE will do the following:
1) Phase the currents of the 66 kV subtransmission lines;4
2) Locate transformers to maintain distances greater than 15 feet away from the substation property lines;
3) Locate switchracks, capacitors and busses to maintain distances greater than eight feet away from the substation property lines; and
4) Configure the transfer and operating bus with the transfer bus facing the nearest property/fence line.
7.3. Public Notice and Review
On May 31, 2007, Staff took the following actions, as required by CEQA, related to the Project: 1) filed a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research (State Clearing House # 2007051159); 2) published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND; and 3) released the Draft IS/MND for a 30-day public review and comment period.
The Draft IS/MND was distributed to federal, state and local agencies; property owners within 300 feet of the Project; and other interested parties (identified in the Draft IS/MND). A Public Notice of the Project also was published in the local newspaper, announcing the availability of the Draft IS/MND. The 30-day public review and comment period ended on June 30, 2007.
7.4. Comments on Draft IS/MND
One comment letter on the Draft IS/MND was received from the CNAHC. The letter recommended several activities be completed. Almost all of these recommendations had already been satisfied by the Draft IS/MND. The only new unsatisfied recommendation was to contact six Native American organizations to ensure that they did not have any concerns. All were contacted by mail, and no responses were received.
7.5. Final MND
A Final MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA guidelines, and released by Staff on July 26, 2007. The Final MND: includes all aspects of the Draft IS/MND; outlines the steps required to develop the Final MND; incorporates comments from the applicant, public agencies and the public; addresses responses to those comments by the staff acting as Lead Agency; and includes a final version of the MMRCP.
Though a few modifications were made in the Final MND to clarify and further explain certain mitigation measures described in the Draft IS/MND, the Final MND does not identify any new significant environmental impacts, and does not omit any existing mitigation measures, from those identified in the Draft IS/MND.
Before granting the subject application, we must consider the Final MND.5 We have done so and find that the Final MND (which incorporates the Draft IS/MND) was prepared in compliance with and meets the requirements of CEQA. We adopt the Final MND it in its entirety, and incorporate it by reference in this decision approving the project.
The Final MND concludes that the Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, because the mitigation measures described therein, and agreed to and incorporated by SCE into the Project, will ensure that any potentially significant impacts that have been identified with the Project will remain at less-than-significant levels.
On, July 13, 2006, Commission staff informed SCE by letter that the application was deemed complete. The Draft IS/MND and the Final MND will be received into the record of this proceeding as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. [The latter is available for inspection on the Commission's website, www.cpuc.ca.gov (Regulated Areas/California Transmission Information and Projects/Environmental Review/Current Projects).]
1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 (CEQA Guidelines), Section 15050(b).
2 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15050(b).
3 See Decision (D.) 06-01-042, and D.93-11-013.
4 SCE listed underground construction of the subtransmission line as a "no and low-cost" mitigation measure. However, it is actually a mitigating feature, as the underground construction was chosen for reasons separate from EMF mitigation.
5 CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(a).
