SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON’S DEVERS-MIRAGE 115 KV SUBTRANSMISSION SYSTEM SPLIT PROJECT

Final Environmental Impact Report (Response to Comments) CPUC A.08-01-029 SCH#: 2008041087

Prepared for April 2010 California Public Utilities Commission

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON’S DEVERS-MIRAGE 115 KV SUBTRANSMISSION SYSTEM SPLIT PROJECT

Final Environmental Impact Report (Response to Comments) CPUC A.08-01-029 SCH#: 2008041087

Prepared for: April 2010California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102

225 Bush Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com

Los Angeles

Oakland

Olympia

Petaluma

Portland

Sacramento

San Diego

Seattle

Tampa

Woodland Hills

207059

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project i ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS Southern California Edison’s Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report (Response to Comments)

Page

1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Organization of the Final EIR ............................................................................. 1-2 2. Introduction to Comments and Responses 2-1 2.1 Opportunities for Public Comment on the Draft EIR .......................................... 2-1 2.2 Comments on the Draft EIR ............................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Responses to Comments .................................................................................. 2-2 2.4 List of Commenters and Comment Letters on the Draft EIR .............................. 2-2 3. Comment Letters 3-1 4. Responses to Comments 4-1 5. Revisions to the Draft EIR 5-1 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 5-1 5.2 Text Changes .................................................................................................... 5-1 6. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons that Received the Final EIR 6-1

Revised Draft EIR Figures ES-1 Proposed Project and Alternatives Electrical Needs Area ............................. 5-3 ES-2 Alternatives Overview .................................................................................... 5-4 4.1-1 Visual Simulation Viewpoints ...................................................................... 5-14

Final EIR Tables 2(RTC)-1 Organizations that Submitted Comments on the Draft EIR ........................... 2-3 6(RTC)-1 Agencies, Organizations and Individuals Sent the Final EIR

via Overnight Delivery Service ................................................................... 6-1 6(RTC)-2 Agencies and Individuals Sent A Compact Disc (CD) of Final EIR

via United States Postal Service ................................................................ 6-2

Table of Contents

Page

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project ii ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Revised Draft EIR Tables ES-4 Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project vs.

Alternatives Summary of Environmental Impact Conclusions .................... 5-6 5-2 Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project vs.

Alternatives Summary of Environmental Impact Conclusions .................. 5-31

Appendices A. Notice of Availability A-1 B. Draft EIR Newspaper Legal Advertisements B-1 C. CPUC Project Website C-1 D. Public Meeting Presentation D-1 E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program E-1 F. Certificate of Service F-1

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 1-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose This Response to Comments document is the finalizing addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) prepared by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for consideration of Southern California Edison’s (SCE’s) application to construct the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (Proposed Project).

The Draft EIR detailed the Proposed Project, evaluated and described the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of SCE’s Proposed Project, identified those impacts that could be significant, and presented mitigation measures, which, if adopted by the CPUC or other responsible agencies, could avoid or minimize these impacts. The Draft EIR also evaluated alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Proposed Project would serve projected electrical demand in the Electrical Needs Area, which includes the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the Thousand Palms community. The primary components of the Proposed Project include two new 115 kV subtransmission line segments and a loop-in of the existing Devers-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line into Mirage Substation. Other components include rearrangements and modifications of subtransmission line connections, construction of substation modifications in the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the Thousand Palms community, and minor modifications to existing telecommunications equipment at the Edom Hill Communications site and the Palm Springs Service Center.

This Response to Comments document, together with the January 2010 Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the Proposed Project. The CPUC, as the Lead Agency for this process, is required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15089 to prepare a Final EIR. The Final EIR will be used by the CPUC as part of its application approval process, which includes selecting project alternatives, adopting mitigation measures, and reviewing project costs.

1. Introduction

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 1-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

1.2 Organization of the Final EIR As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following elements:

(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;

(b) Comments received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary;

(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented on the Draft EIR;

(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and

(e) Any other information added by the lead agency.

The Final EIR for the Proposed Project contains information in response to concerns that were raised during the public comment period (January 8, 2010 through February 22, 2010).

This Response to Comments document consists of the following six chapters.

• Chapter 1 is an introductory chapter that describes the purpose as well as the organization of the Final EIR.

• Chapter 2 describes the organization of the comment letters, and the coding system used to identify individual comments. It also describes the organization of the responses to the comments received on the Draft EIR, and includes a list of all organizations and agencies that submitted comments.

• Chapter 3 contains copies of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR after publication of the Draft EIR.

• Chapter 4 contains responses to comments and also contains text changes to the Draft EIR that resulted from changes made in response to comments.

• Chapter 5 contains all text changes to the Draft EIR which include both (1) changes to correct errors or to clarify information presented in the Draft EIR, and (2) text changes as a result of responding to comments, as presented in Chapter 4.

• Chapter 6 lists all agencies, organizations, and persons that are receiving the Final EIR. This includes all those that submitted comments on the Draft EIR.

• Appendices, provides supporting documentation for information presented in the Response to Comments Document. A digital copy of the Draft EIR, published January 2010, and this Response to Comments document is included on a compact disc (CD) at the end of this document.

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 2-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

CHAPTER 2 Introduction to Comments and Responses

2.1 Opportunities for Public Comment on the Draft EIR

Notification On January 7, 2010, the CPUC published and distributed the Notice of Availability (NOA) of a Draft EIR to advise interested local, regional, State, and federal agencies, and the interested public, that a Draft EIR had been prepared and published for the Proposed Project. The NOA solicited both written and verbal comments on the Draft EIR during a 45-day comment period (January 8, 2010 through February 22, 2010), and provided information on a forthcoming public comment meeting. Additionally, the NOA presented the background, purpose, description, and location of the Proposed Project, as well as the contact name for additional information regarding the project.

In addition to the NOA, the CPUC notified the public about the public comment meeting through two newspaper legal advertisements and the project website. The NOA, newspaper legal advertisements, and the project website are presented in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively. Notifications provided basic project information, the date, time, and location of the public comment meeting, and a brief explanation of the public meeting process.

The CPUC published legal advertisements in The Desert Sun on January 9 and January 16, 2010. Additionally, an electronic copy of the NOA and the Draft EIR were posted on the CPUC’s website at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/esa/devers-mirage/deir_toc.html.

The public was encouraged to submit written comments and concerns regarding the Proposed Project and the adequacy of the Draft EIR by mail, facsimile, or electronic mail to the CPUC.

Public Comment Meeting The CPUC conducted a public comment meeting on Friday, January 29, 2010, from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. at the California State University San Bernardino (CSUSB) Palm Desert Campus, at 37-500 Cook Street, Palm Desert, California. Three agency representatives attended the public meeting, including Eric Chiang of the CPUC, and Doug Cover and Matthew Fagundes of Environmental Science Associates. A presentation (Appendix D) was prepared that included an overview of the environmental review process, the regional context, project background, project objectives, project description, project alternatives, and role of the public comments. No members of the public attended the comment meeting.

2. Introduction to Comments and Responses

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 2-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

2.2 Comments on the Draft EIR

Written Comments Two (2) comment letters were received during the Draft EIR public review period, one from the Native American Heritage Commission and one from Southern California Edison. These comment letters were designated as letter O1 and O2, respectively, with the ‘O’ indicating that the letter was from an organization. Individual comments within letter O1 are marked sequentially with numbers, such as O1-1, O1-2, etc. Comments from letter O2 are divided into two sections; the first includes global comments that are marked alphabetically (e.g., O2-a, O2-b, etc.) and the second includes discrete comments on the document that are marked numerically (e.g., O2-1, O2-2, etc.). Copies of both letters are provided in Chapter 3.

Public Meeting Comments As noted above, a public meeting was held on Friday, January 29, 2010, at the CSUSB Palm Desert Campus in Palm Desert, California. No members of the public attended and therefore no comments were received at the meeting.

2.3 Responses to Comments As required by Section 15132 of the Guidelines for CEQA, the responses in Chapter 4 address issues raised by commenters during the review period. They are intended to provide clarification and refinement of information presented in the Draft EIR and, in some cases, to correct or update information in the Draft EIR. In some instances, the text of the Draft EIR has been revised in response to a comment, and the revised text is included as part of the response. Where responses have resulted in changes to the text of the Draft EIR, these changes are shown within the Draft EIR text using the following conventions:

1) Text added to the wording in the Draft EIR is shown in underline, 2) Text deleted from the wording in the Draft EIR is shown in strikeout, and 3) Text changes are shown in indented paragraphs.

These text changes also appear in Chapter 5, Revisions to the Draft EIR, of this document.

2.4 List of Commenters and Comment Letters on the Draft EIR

The following table provides a list of all organizations that provided written comments on the Draft EIR during the public comment period (January 8, 2010 through February 22, 2010). No late comments or comments from public members were received.

2. Introduction to Comments and Responses

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 2-3 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

TABLE 2(RTC)-1 ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUBMITTED COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR

Comment Letter ID Name of Commenter Title Organization/Affiliation

Copy of Letter on

Page

O1 Dave Singleton Program Analyst Native American Heritage Commission

3.1-1

O2 Milissa Marona Project Manager Southern California Edison 3.1-3

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 3-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

CHAPTER 3 Comment Letters

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3-2

Comment Letter O1

3-3

Comment Letter O1

3-4

February 22, 2010 Page 1 of 10 To: Eric Chiang

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project c/o Environmental Science Associates 1425 N. McDowell Boulevard, Suite 200 Petaluma, CA 94954

From: Milissa Marona, Project Manager RE: Southern California Edison’s Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for

the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (A.08-01-029) Dear Mr. Chiang: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (A.08-01-29) (Project). This letter and attachments contain Southern California Edison’s (SCE’s) comments on the DEIR. SCE’s comments are divided into two parts: Global Comments and Specific Comments. The Global Comments, included in the text of this letter, contain a general discussion of SCE’s views regarding the DEIR selection of the environmentally superior alternatives. These Global Comments apply generally to the DEIR. Specific Comments, attached to this letter in table format, apply to specific portions of the document. (Please see attached Specific Comments.)

Comment Letter O2

3-5

February 22, 2010 Page 2 of 10 GLOBAL COMMENT: AS COMPARED TO ALTERNATIVES 3 AND 5,1 SCE’S PROPOSED PROJECT DOES NOT RESULT IN MORE LONG-TERM, LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS; IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR; IS APPROXIMATELY 20-24 MILLION DOLLARS LESS COSTLY AND SHOULD BE THE ROUTE APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION. SCE disagrees with the DEIR’s analysis and conclusion that Alternatives 3 and 5 are the environmentally superior routing options. First, although the DEIR analysis concludes that Alternatives 3 and 5 have greater air quality impacts than the Proposed Project, the analysis gives short shrift to the fact that Alternatives 3 and 5 result in much greater land disturbance than the Proposed Project. Although air quality impacts are significant and unavoidable for both Alternatives 3 and 5 and the Proposed Project, it is SCE’s position that the Proposed Project is preferred because of the much less land disturbance that would be required. Second, the DEIR asserts that Alternatives 3 and 5 would have fewer long-term impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biology, and cultural resources and are thus environmentally preferred. SCE does not believe that the Proposed Project would result in more long term impacts in these areas, and, in fact, likely has fewer long-term aesthetic impacts and potentially fewer cultural resource impacts than Alternatives 3 and 5. In any event, all long-term impacts other than air quality are all less than significant. Further, SCE believes that the Proposed Project is the preferable alternative in the resource areas of noise, public services, traffic and transportation, and utilities and service systems. Finally, it should be noted that Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost approximately five times more than the Proposed Project, approximately $20-24 million dollars greater cost. As referenced above, the DEIR acknowledges that air quality impacts would be worse for Alternatives 3 and 5 as compared to the Proposed Project because of the trenching needed for the underground portions of those alternatives, but nevertheless concludes that the “varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.” (DEIR, p. 5-9.) Further, the DEIR states that since all alternatives have significant unmitigable impacts on air quality during construction, the “selection of the

1 Alternative 3: The Alternative 3 route between Farrell Substation and Garnet Substation would be comprised of both an underground and overhead portion. Approximately 3.6 miles of new underground facilities would be constructed from Farrell Substation along Vista Chino, Sunrise Way, San Rafael Drive, and a portion of Indian Canyon. Approximately 2.9 miles of subtransmission overhead facilities would be constructed along Indian Canyon Drive into Garnet Substation; this overhead section would be constructed in an area that has existing distribution, but no existing subtransmission. The Alternative 3 proposed overhead facilities would be approximately 80-to-90-feet in height as compared to the approximately 34-to-48-foot-height of the existing facilities. Alternative 3 would also require a 95-foot-tall riser pole at the transition from overhead to underground on Indian Canyon. In contrast, the Proposed Project between Farrell-Garnet would be constructed by replacing/reconfiguring existing overhead subtransmission facilities. Alternative 5: The Alternative 5 route would consist of approximately 3.1 miles of underground facilities along Varner Road, Monterey Avenue, and Ramon Road into the Mirage Substation. In comparison, the Proposed Project would require only 1.5 miles of reconfiguration on existing subtransmission overhead facilities, adjacent to existing access roads.

Comment Letter O2

3-6

February 22, 2010 Page 3 of 10 environmentally superior alternative is based on differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation.” (DEIR, p. 5-3, emphasis added.) The DEIR further states that for several resources “there are no material environmental impact differences between the Proposed Project and alternatives including : agricultural resources; air quality; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, planning and policies; mineral resources; noise; population and housing; public services; recreation; and utilities and service systems.” (DEIR, p. 5-3, emphasis added.) Even though the DEIR states that (1)Alternatives 3and 5 have greater air quality impacts than the Proposed Project; (2) the Proposed Project has the least traffic impacts compared to either Alternative 3 or 5; and that (3) there are no material differences between environmental impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 5, the DEIR nevertheless concludes that Alternatives 3 and 5,2 as compared to the Proposed Project, will result in fewer already less than significant impacts, and are thus environmentally superior. Specifically, the DEIR asserts that Alternative 3 would result in fewer long-term aesthetics and biological impacts3 and that Alternative 5 would result in less-intense, less-than-significant long-term impacts as compared to the Proposed Project in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources. SCE disagrees with this analysis and with the selection of Alternatives 3 and 5 as the environmentally superior routes. SCE believes that a review of the differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation reveals that the Proposed Project does not result in more long-term, less than significant impacts and also reveals that the Proposed Project should be selected as the environmentally superior route. In addition to these reasons, SCE believes that the Proposed Project should be approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for construction because it is also $20-24 million dollars less costly for ratepayers than Alternatives 3 and 5. SCE’s Proposed Project does not result in more long-term, less-than-significant impacts as compared to Alternatives 3 and 5. As stated above, the DEIR asserts that, as compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative 3 would result in fewer long-term less-than-significant aesthetics and biological impacts and that Alternative 5 would result in fewer long-term less-than-significant impacts in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources. SCE disagrees with these assertions. Aesthetics

For Alternative 3, the new overhead line would be constructed along Indian Canyon Drive, where there are only existing distribution lines but no existing subtransmission

2 The DEIR selected Alternative 3 for the Farrell-Garnett portion of the route and Alternative 5 for the Mirage-Santa Rosa portion of the route. (DEIR, p. 5-10.) 3 Note that the DEIR states that Alternative 7 would have fewer cultural impacts than either Alternative 3 or the Proposed Project, but due to the length of the line, Alternative 3 was chosen as the environmentally superior alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area. (DEIR, p. 5-10.)

Comment Letter O2

3-7

February 22, 2010 Page 4 of 10

line. According to the DEIR, Alternative 3 would require removing existing distribution facilities on wooden poles that are approximately 34-to-48-feet high and installing approximately 96 new LWS poles and 10 TSP structures, approximately 80-to-98-feet high and a 95-foot-tall-riser pole. However, construction of the overhead portion of Alternative 3 might require the use of single circuit TSPs due to the number of distribution circuits that would be installed on these facilities. Also, Indian Canyon Drive is the main entrance into Palm Springs, and therefore viewers from the road would be visually sensitive. There is also a neighborhood bordering Indian Canyon Drive that would be able to see the new subtransmission conductor and the new 95-foot-tall riser pole. In contrast, the Proposed Project would likely result in fewer long-term visual impacts because the new facilities would be constructed within an existing corridor, replacing an existing subtransmission line on similar facilities. Since the Proposed Project would be collocated with an existing subtransmission line with similar visual elements, contrast, or discernable change to the landscape, would be substantially less when compared to Alternative 3, where the project would be constructed immediately adjacent to Indian Canyon Drive overbuilt above a smaller scale distribution line. Therefore, the construction and operation of Alternative 3 may result in substantially more long-term, less-than-significant visual impacts when compared to the Proposed Project.

With Alternative 5, there would be two new 95-foot-tall-riser poles, one inside of Mirage Substation and one at the intersection of Varner Road and Vista De Oro. (DEIR, p. 3-22.)

In contrast to Alternatives 3 and 5, where Alternative 3 would result in new, larger structures close to a major road and neighborhood and Alternative 5 that would include construction of two 95-foot riser poles, the Proposed Project would rebuild/reconfigure existing lines on the Farrell-Garnet and the Mirage-Santa Rosa portions. Both of these areas of the Proposed Project have existing SCE subtransmission lines that SCE would rebuild/reconfigure and then string a new set of conductors on. In other words, it would be very difficult to tell the difference between pre- and post- project visual conditions for a majority of the Proposed Project. It is therefore, SCE’s belief that the Proposed Project would not result in more long-term less-than significant impacts as compared to Alternatives 3 and 5, but in fact, could result in fewer.

Biological Resources

The DEIR concludes that Alternatives 3 and 5 would result in fewer long-term less than significant impacts as compared to the Proposed Project. Alternative 3 contains potential habitat for the fringe-toed lizard, but surveys did not find the area occupied. However, Alternative 3 would still require mitigation for loss of habitat, but, like the Proposed Project in this area, would also be less than significant. Further, if Alternative 3 were approved for construction, the existing line traversing BLM would remain, and SCE would need to still maintain the line and replace deteriorated poles; a few of these poles

Comment Letter O2

3-8

February 22, 2010 Page 5 of 10

would likely need to be replaced in the near future.4 The Proposed Project along the Farrell-Garnet portion of the route traversing Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land is confirmed that it is occupied for fringe-toed lizard; however, all impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, and the actual impact would be primarily construction-related rather than long-term. For the Proposed Project, SCE would be replacing poles in areas that poles already exist. Further, the replacement of poles would take place in areas alongside an existing road where the habitat is already somewhat degraded. For these reasons, SCE does not believe that the Proposed Project would result in more long-term biological resources as compared to Alternative 3.

The DEIR concludes that because Alternative 5 would result in only a short span of overhead line across I-10 and the UPRR, compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would include approximately 1.5 miles of overhead line, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line for biological impacts. (DEIR, p. 5-9.) However, both options, Alternative 5 and the Proposed Project, have very limited biological impacts that are less-than-significant. For these reasons, SCE does not believe that the Proposed Project would result in more long-term biological resources as compared to Alternative 5.

Cultural Resources

The Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet 115kV line would be built in the existing alignment of the Devers-Farrell-Wildland 115kV subtransmission line along the north side of Garnet Hill. The line is currently in an existing easement which is at least 30-feet wide. SCE would utilize an existing access road already in place. No new roads would need to be cut through Garnet Hill and any necessary grading would be minimal. The Proposed Farrell-Garnet overhead line would have point-specific paleontology impacts and non-physical impact on Native American topographical resource Hoon wit ten ca va /Garnet Hill. Similarly, the overhead segment of Alternative 3 would also have point-specific paleontology impacts where poles would be located and non-physical impact on Native American topographical resource Hoon wit ten ca va /Garnet Hill . Further, the underground segment would have greater paleontological impacts and possibly archaeological impacts to currently unknown resources than the overhead Farrell-Garnet line because Alternative 3 involves a trench that would potentially intrude below existing disturbed areas. In addition, Alternative 3 would still require SCE to install poles through a portion of the Garnet Hill in areas where new access roads may be required. For this reason, the DEIR states that the “ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least

4 SCE has been in the process for the past few years of working with BLM to obtain necessary environmental approvals. Please note that if Alternative 3 is approved for construction, it could result in a delay in this process, as BLM would no longer be involved in the project.

Comment Letter O2

3-9

February 22, 2010 Page 6 of 10

favorable) is as follows: Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, the Proposed Project Farell-Garnet line, and Alternative 2.” (DEIR, p. 5-9.)

With the exception of two locations, the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would be built in the existing Mirage-Tamarisk 115kV and/or the existing Mirage-Concho 115kV alignments.5 The Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would have point specific paleontological impacts where poles would be located and physical impacts to one archaeological site (CACRV 785). Sites 33-15430 and 33-15429 might be avoidable or could potentially not be impacted by the Proposed Project. Alternative 5, in contrast, would have physical impacts on Varner Road, cultural resource 33-8408, due to linear trenching within the length of roadway. Alternative 5 would also result in potentially greater paleontological impacts and possibly archaeological impacts to currently unknown resources due to the trenching required for the 3.1 miles of undergrounding that might intrude below currently disturbed areas. Therefore, it is not likely that the Proposed Project would have more long-term, less-than-significant impacts as compared to Alternative 5, and could result in fewer long-term impacts. (DEIR, pp. 5-6, 5-9.)

In sum, the DEIR asserts that one of the main reasons Alternatives 3 and 5 were chosen over the Proposed Project as environmentally superior, is due to increased long-term, less-than-significant impacts of the Proposed Project as compared to Alternatives 3 and 5, particularly in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources. As discussed above, SCE disagrees with this determination. The Proposed Project would result in very similar or even fewer long-term visual/aesthetics impacts; similar long-term biological impacts, and similar or potentially fewer long-term cultural impacts. In any event, all of these impacts are less-than-significant and the minute differences between them do not justify the choice of Alternatives 3 and 5 environmentally superior.

SCE’s Proposed Project is the environmentally superior routing option because it is less impactful than Alternatives 3 and 5 in several resource areas. Air Quality

The DEIR acknowledges that the Proposed Project would have fewer significant air quality impacts than Alternatives 3 and 5 due to the extensive trenching required for Alternatives 3 and 5, yet the DEIR concludes this difference is “not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective” and concludes that there is “no preference” between the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 5 regarding air quality impacts. (DEIR, pp. 5-9 and 5-4.) SCE disagrees with this analysis and believes that there is a difference material enough to determine that the Proposed Project is the preferred alternative regarding air quality.

5 Exception 1: a new single circuit pole line will be built west of the existing Mirage-Concho 115kV line adjacent to an existing access road and further west of the culturally sensitive areas adjacent to the existing Mirage-Concho 115kV line. Exception 2: a new single circuit wood pole line would be built east of the existing double circuit wood pole line through the Tri-Palms Estates Country Club. No cultural resources appear to be within the golf course as it is on developed property.

Comment Letter O2

3-10

February 22, 2010 Page 7 of 10

The 5.8 miles of overhead line that would be constructed for the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line would result in approximately 116,790 cubic feet of ground disturbance.6 In contrast, the 3.6 miles of underground construction and 2.9 of overhead construction required for Alternative 3 would result in approximately 320, 288 cubic feet of disturbance, nearly three times the disturbance of the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line, with correlating increases in fugitive dust.7 This is material enough in SCE’s opinion to determine that the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line is superior to Alternative 3.

The 1.5 miles of overhead line that would be constructed for the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would result in only 5,633 cubic feet of disturbance, due in part to this portion being constructed on existing alignments, and no new access roads would be required.8 In contrast, the 3-foot-wide, at least 5.5-foot-deep, 3.1-mile long trench that would be required for Alternative 5 would result in a total of 270,072 cubic feet of land disturbance, approximately 48 times the disturbance and corresponding fugitive dust impacts as compared to the Proposed Project.9 In SCE’s opinion, this is a material-enough difference in disturbance area to determine that the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line is superior to Alternative 5.

Noise

Construction of underground facilities requires approximately 100-days per mile to complete. In comparison, construction of overhead facilities requires approximately 30-days-per mile to complete. Thus, the estimated construction time for the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line would be approximately 6 months (roughly one month per mile on a total of approximately 5.8 mile-long route). In contrast, the construction of Alternative 3 would be approximately 100 days per mile of undergrounding, which would be about 360 days, or approximately one year. The overhead portion of Alternative 3 would take approximately 3 months construction time, which could possibly be performed in parallel with the underground construction work. Similarly, the estimated construction time for the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would also be less than Alternative 5. The 1.5-mile-long Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would take approximately 1.5 months to construct, while the construction of Alternative 5 would be approximately 10 months (roughly 100 days per mile for 3.1

6 Calculations for volume of earth disturbed are back-of-the-envelope estimates used to demonstrate quantitative differences in earth disturbance. For the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line: 142 LWS poles x area disturbance (пr2 ; where r= 1 foot) x depth of disturbance = 10ft; disturbed volume = 4460ft3 ; 15 TSPs x пr2 (r=2.5 ft) x 30 ft deep= 8840 ft3 ; 0.7 miles access road x 5280 x 14 ft wide x 2 ft deep= 103490 ft3 ; Total Volume Disturbed= 116790 ft3. 7 Disturbance calculations for Alternative 3: 3 ft wide underground trench x 5.5 feet deep x 3.6 miles x 5280 = 313632 ft3 ; 2.90 miles overhead= ½ disturbance of 5.8 miles of proposed overhead without access road= 6650 ft3 ; Total Disturbance= 320288 ft3 . 8 Disturbance calculations for Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa: 37 LWS + 11 wood poles x area of disturbance x depth of disturbance= 10ft; Disturbed volume = 1508 ft3 ;7 TSPs x пr2 (r=2.5ft) x 30 ft deep= 4125 ft3 ; 0.0 new access roads; Total Disturbance= 5633 ft3. 9 Disturbance calculations for Alternative 5: 3 ft wide underground trench x 5.5 ft deep x 3.1 miles x 5280=270072 ft3 .

Comment Letter O2

3-11

February 22, 2010 Page 8 of 10

miles underground construction). In other words, construction of Alternatives 3 and 5 would require significantly longer construction times than the Proposed Project.

The DEIR acknowledges that “underground portions would have greater noise and vibration impacts from construction” and asserts that Alternatives 3 and 5 would result in “less impacts from corona noise.” (DEIR, p. 5-7.) First, SCE agrees that the underground portions would result in greater noise and vibration from construction and would like to reiterate that these portions would take a 100-days-per-mile to construct, compared to a lesser construction period for the Proposed Project. Second, as acknowledged in the DEIR regarding the overhead construction associated with the Proposed Project, “because newer conductors typically have less surface imperfections than aging conductors, the conductors associated with the new circuit would likely result in lower corona noise levels than the existing circuit.”10 (DEIR, p. 4.11-16.) Further, the DEIR states that in any event, most sensitive receptors for the Proposed Project are between 100-to-150-feet away from the proposed alignment. (DEIR, p. 4.11-16.) Finally, the DEIR concludes that corona noise impacts of the Proposed Project would be a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.11-17.) SCE, therefore, disagrees with the conclusion in the DEIR that there is no preference between the alternatives regarding noise impacts. Because of the greater noise impacts from underground construction, the increased construction related to underground routing, because the Proposed Project would likely result in lower corona noise levels as compared to the existing baseline and because most sensitive receptors to the Proposed Project are at least 100-feet away from the alignment, SCE concludes that the Proposed Project should be the preferred route regarding noise impacts.

Public Services

The DEIR acknowledges that the “additional lane closure required for the underground portion[s of Alternatives 3 and 5] could lead to slightly higher impacts to emergency response times.” (DEIR, p. 5-8.) The DEIR nonetheless concludes that there is no preference between alternatives for public service impacts. SCE disagrees with this conclusion and believes that due to the additional potential for disruption to public services from extensive, prolonged road/lane closures, even though these impacts would remain less than significant, the Proposed Project is superior to Alternatives 3 and 5 in this area.

Traffic and Transportation

The DEIR acknowledges that as “[c]ompared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least amount of construction work within or above roads. Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 3 would result in the most amount of underground line construction within roads” and that as “[c]ompared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in no underground line

10 Please note that the noise level analysis for corona noise may be assuming corona noise levels for 220 kV facilities rather than levels for 115 kV facilities, which are normally less.

Comment Letter O2

3-12

February 22, 2010 Page 9 of 10

work, Alternative 5 would result in approximately three miles of underground line.” (DEIR, pp.5-9 to 5-10.) Therefore, the DEIR concludes that the Proposed Project is more favorable than either Alternative 3 or 5. SCE agrees and believes that this is an additional reason that the Proposed Project is the environmentally superior alignment. Alternatives 3 and 5 would require significantly more traffic control measures than the Proposed Project does. Both Alternatives 3 and 5 would require various lane closures for the duration of the underground portions, approximately 12 months for Alternative 3 and 10 months for Alternative 5. The lane closures associated with Alternative 3 may affect access for nearby residential area. Additionally, the route along Alternative 5 has been recently widened by the County of Riverside and may be subject to a moratorium on any street projects for five years. In order for SCE to be able to obtain permission to install the underground system along this portion of the route, it is possible that SCE may be required to grind and recap the entire street from curb to curb. Also, SCE would need to update information regarding buried utilities/services in order to determine where, if at all, the underground facilities could be placed. It is possible that additional services have been recently added to this area (e.g., potential water line along Monterey). This could result in a non-linear pattern of undergrounding, with corresponding lane/road closures, or the potential that the underground portions would need to be trenched deeper than expected, or, worst-case, that there might not be room for the underground facilities in some areas due to constraints of existing underground utilities/services. In comparison, a portion of the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line might require a two-week lane closure, but would be intermittent and would not disturb road service; other portions of the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line are on access roads or off major roadways and would not require lane closures. Similarly, the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would result in temporary road closures and limited lane closures, but would not disturb roads themselves.

Utilities and Service Systems

The DEIR determines that impacts to Utilities and Service Systems for Alternatives 3 and 5 are “similar to the Proposed Project” and that there is no preference between Alternatives 3 and 5 as compared to the Proposed Project. SCE disagrees with this conclusion. Because Alternatives 3 and 5 both require construction of substantial underground portions, approximately 6.7 miles total undergrounding for both alternatives, a greater potential for hitting, disrupting utilities and service systems exist than compared to the Proposed Project. In order to avoid existing underground utilities when trenching, SCE might be required to construct deeper trenches, which would likely increase air impacts as well. In comparison, the Proposed Project, with no underground portions, would be less likely to disrupt utilities and service systems. Thus, SCE believes that the Proposed Project is superior to Alternatives 3 and 5 in this resource area as well.

Comment Letter O2

3-13

February 22, 2010 Page 10 of 10 Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost approximately five times more than SCE’s Proposed Project. The overhead portions of the Proposed Project would cost approximately $627,000 dollars per mile.11 For the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line and the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line, this would result in approximately $4.5 million dollars total for these overhead portions of the project.12 In comparison, the approximate cost for undergrounding is $3.5 million per mile. The cost for Alternatives 3 and 5 would be approximately $25-28 million. 13 In addition to these costs, there are possible moratoriums in place on roads that have been recently repaved, such as Monterey Road. If such moratoriums are in place at the time SCE would need to construct in those areas, it is possible that SCE would be required to repave the entire road from curb-to-curb, rather than just repaving the trenching area. This could result in additional cost to the project. In sum, Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost at least approximately five times more (between $20-24 million dollars) than the Proposed Project and, as discussed above, would not result in any material environmental benefits as compared to the Proposed Project. In conclusion, the Proposed Project does not result in more long-term, less-than-significant impacts as compared to Alternatives 3 and 5, and in fact, likely results in fewer long-term impacts in the areas of aesthetics and cultural resources. Further, the Proposed Project is environmentally superior to Alternatives 3 and 5 in the areas of air quality, noise, public services, traffic and transportation, and utilities and service systems. Finally, the cost of the Proposed Project is approximately $20-24 million dollars less than that of Alternatives 3 and 5. For all of these reasons, SCE believes that the differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant justify choosing the Proposed Project as the environmentally superior and approving the Proposed Project for construction. Sincerely, /s/Milissa Marona Milissa Marona 11 Please note that these cost estimates are conceptual estimates without the benefit of final engineering. 12 Approximate cost calculations for the Proposed Project. For the Proposed Farrell-Garnet line (5.8 miles of overhead x $627,000 per mile = $3.6 million). For the Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line (1.5 miles of overhead x $627,000 per mile = $940,500). The total for the overhead portions of the Proposed Project would be $3.6 million + $940,500= $4.5 million. 13 Approximate cost calculations for Alternatives 3 and 5: Alternative 3 (2.9 miles of overhead (between $2million and $5 million per mile [depending on final engineering] + 3.6 miles of underground x $3.5 million per mile=range between $14 million and $18 million). Alternative 5 (3.1 miles of underground x $3.5 million per mile= $10.8 million). For Alternative 3 ($14-18 million) and Alternative 5 ($10.8 million) the total cost for the undergrounding portion would be a range between $25 million and $28 million. Therefore, Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost approximately 5 times more than the Proposed Project, approximately $20-24 dollars more.

Comment Letter O2

3-14

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 1 -

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

Gen

eral

1

For r

esou

rce

chap

ters

that

incl

ude

disc

ussi

on o

f loc

al p

lans

, pol

icie

s, or

dina

nces

, etc

., pl

ease

incl

ude

the

GO

131

-D p

reem

ptio

n la

ngua

ge a

s w

ell (

e.g.

Air

Qua

lity,

Cul

tura

l, et

c).

Gen

eral

Ord

er 1

31-D

cla

rifie

s tha

t loc

al ju

risdi

ctio

ns a

ctin

g pu

rsua

nt to

loca

l aut

horit

y ar

e pr

eem

pted

from

regu

latin

g el

ectri

c po

wer

line

pro

ject

s, di

strib

utio

n lin

es, s

ubst

atio

ns, o

r ele

ctric

fa

cilit

ies c

onst

ruct

ed b

y pu

blic

util

ities

subj

ect t

o th

e C

omm

issi

on’s

ju

risdi

ctio

n. H

owev

er, i

n lo

catin

g su

ch p

roje

cts,

the

publ

ic u

tiliti

es

shal

l con

sult

with

loca

l age

ncie

s reg

ardi

ng la

nd u

se m

atte

rs.

In

inst

ance

s whe

re th

e pu

blic

util

ities

and

loca

l age

ncie

s are

una

ble

to

reso

lve

thei

r diff

eren

ces,

the

Com

mis

sion

shal

l set

a h

earin

g no

la

ter t

han

30 d

ays a

fter t

he u

tility

or l

ocal

age

ncy

has n

otifi

ed th

e C

omm

issi

on o

f the

inab

ility

to re

ach

agre

emen

t on

land

use

m

atte

rs.

Exe

cutiv

e Su

mm

ary

2 ES

-1

The

prop

osed

pro

ject

incl

udes

seve

n 11

5 kV

reco

nfig

urat

ions

rath

er th

an

thre

e. P

leas

e re

vise

the

first

sent

ence

un

der E

S.1.

1 to

cla

rify

this

fact

and

to

clar

ify li

ne ty

pes.

The

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

con

sist

s of a

num

ber o

f dis

tinct

pro

ject

co

mpo

nent

s tha

t tog

ethe

r mak

e up

the

entir

e Pr

opos

ed P

roje

ct,

incl

udin

g tw

o ne

w 1

15 k

V su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

nes,

thre

e se

ven

115

kV su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne re

conf

igur

atio

ns, a

220

kV

tran

smis

sion

lin

e lo

op-in

, sub

stat

ion

mod

ifica

tions

….

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-15

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 2 -

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

3 ES

-9/F

ig.

ES-2

Th

e fig

ure

show

s Alte

rnat

ive

3 st

oppi

ng w

here

it m

eets

Alte

rnat

ive

2.

The

figur

e sh

ould

dep

ict A

ltern

ativ

e 3

turn

ing

alon

g A

ltern

ativ

e 2

and

runn

ing

adja

cent

to it

unt

il it

reac

hes

the

Farr

ell S

ubst

atio

n ic

on.

Plea

se a

men

d Fi

gure

ES-

2 to

refle

ct th

e fa

ct th

at A

ltern

ativ

e 3

cont

inue

s int

o Fa

rrel

l sub

stat

ion.

4 ES

-4

Orig

inal

ly it

was

thou

ght t

hat f

ive

new

circ

uit b

reak

ers w

ould

be

need

ed

to a

ccom

mod

ate

a ne

w li

ne p

ositi

on.

How

ever

, a m

ore

effic

ient

co

nfig

urat

ion

has b

een

inco

rpor

ated

in

to th

e de

sign

and

inst

ead

of fi

ve

circ

uit b

reak

ers,

only

thre

e w

ill b

e ne

eded

. Pl

ease

revi

se th

e la

ngua

ge

unde

r Mira

ge S

ubst

atio

n to

refle

ct

this

con

figur

atio

n.

In

stal

l fiv

e ne

w 2

20kV

circ

uit b

reak

ers a

nd fi

ve th

ree

new

11

5kV

circ

uit b

reak

ers

5 ES

-5

In o

rder

to p

rovi

de a

mor

e de

taile

d ex

plan

atio

n of

the

wor

k at

San

ta R

osa

Subs

tatio

n an

d to

be

cons

iste

nt w

ith

othe

r sub

stat

ion

desc

riptio

ns, p

leas

e re

plac

e th

e fir

st b

ulle

t und

er S

anta

R

osa

subs

tatio

n w

ith th

e tw

o bu

llets

pr

ovid

ed.

C

onve

rt th

e ex

istin

g Sa

nta

Ros

a-G

arne

t 115

kV

su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne to

the

new

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a-Ta

mar

isk

115

kV su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne

C

onve

rt th

e ex

istin

g Sa

nta

Ros

a-Ta

mar

isk

115

kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

to th

e ne

w M

irage

-San

ta R

osa

115k

V

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-16

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 3 -

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

6 ES

-5

In o

rder

to p

rovi

de a

mor

e de

taile

d ex

plan

atio

n of

the

wor

k at

Tho

rnhi

ll Su

bsta

tion

and

to b

e co

nsis

tent

with

ot

her s

ubst

atio

n de

scrip

tions

, ple

ase

repl

ace

the

first

bul

let u

nder

Tho

rnhi

ll su

bsta

tion

with

the

bulle

t pro

vide

d.

C

onve

rt th

e ex

istin

g Th

ornh

ill-T

amar

isk

115k

V

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

to th

e ne

w D

ever

s-Ei

senh

ower

-Th

ornh

ill 1

15kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

7 ES

-4

Mor

e ex

tens

ive

engi

neer

ing

has

indi

cate

d th

at w

ork

at th

e M

irage

Su

bsta

tion

shou

ld in

clud

e th

e re

loca

tion

of th

e M

irage

-Tam

aris

k lin

e. T

here

fore

, ple

ase

amen

d th

e bu

llete

d te

xt a

s sho

wn.

In

stal

l the

new

Mira

ge- S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

lin

e an

d re

loca

te th

e M

irage

-Con

cho

and

Mira

ge-T

amar

isk

115

kV su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

nes

8 ES

-22

Plea

se re

vise

the

Exec

utiv

e Su

mm

ary

to re

flect

the

pote

ntia

l im

pact

s to

pale

onto

logi

cal,

cultu

ral,

and

arch

aeol

ogic

al re

sour

ces d

ue to

un

derg

roun

ding

.

Pl

ease

see

Atta

chm

ent 1

, Cul

tura

l Com

paris

on T

able

.

Intr

oduc

tion

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-17

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 4 -

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

9 1-

2/1.

2 Th

e w

ork

allu

ded

to re

gard

ing

Dev

ers-

Cap

win

d- C

onch

o-M

irage

on

page

2-2

of t

he P

EA w

as c

ondu

cted

in

200

8 w

hen

the

Dev

ers-

Cap

win

d-C

onch

o M

irage

line

was

loop

ed in

to

Mira

ge .

The

refo

re, p

leas

e am

end

the

text

in th

e fir

st p

arag

raph

, thi

rd

sent

ence

, as s

how

n to

refle

ct th

e na

me

chan

ge th

at re

sults

from

the

prev

ious

w

ork.

Split

ting

the

exis

ting

115

kV sy

stem

is n

eces

sary

to re

lieve

ther

mal

ov

erlo

ad c

ondi

tions

on

the

exis

ting

Mira

ge-C

onch

o le

g of

the

Dev

ers-

Cap

win

d-C

onch

o-M

irage

115

kV

and

Mira

ge-T

amar

isk

115

kV su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

nes a

nd th

e M

irage

-Tam

aris

k 11

5kV

su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne.”

Proj

ect D

escr

iptio

n

10

2-13

/ B

ulle

t 2

As a

resu

lt of

mor

e ex

tens

ive

engi

neer

ing,

gro

undi

ng lo

catio

n w

as

chan

ged.

Th

eref

ore,

ple

ase

revi

se th

e se

cond

bul

let a

s fol

low

s:

Sp

lit th

e Sa

nta

Ros

a-Ta

mar

isk

at th

e sa

me

inte

rsec

tion

by

dead

-end

ing

and

grou

ndin

g th

e Sa

nta

Ros

a le

g at

the

north

wes

t sou

thea

st c

orne

r pol

e. T

he p

ortio

n of

the

Sant

a R

osa-

Tam

aris

k lin

e be

twee

n B

ob H

ope

Driv

e ea

st to

Po

rtola

Ave

nue

wou

ld b

ecom

e id

le.

11

2-13

/ B

ulle

t 3

As a

resu

lt of

mor

e ex

tens

ive

engi

neer

ing,

pol

e co

nfig

urat

ion

has

been

cha

nged

. Th

eref

ore,

ple

ase

revi

se th

e th

ird b

ulle

t as f

ollo

ws:

Con

nect

the

open

Tam

aris

k le

g of

the

exis

ting

Sant

a R

osa-

Tam

aris

k 11

5 kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

to th

e op

en G

arne

t leg

of t

he

exis

ting

Gar

net-S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

at t

he

north

east

sout

heas

t cor

ner p

ole

of B

ob H

ope

Driv

e an

d D

inah

Sh

ore

Driv

e.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-18

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 5 -

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

12

2-13

/ B

ulle

t 1

As a

resu

lt of

mor

e ex

tens

ive

engi

neer

ing

and

to e

nhan

ce th

e ap

pear

ance

of t

he p

ole,

the

pole

co

nfig

urat

ion

was

cha

nged

.

Ther

efor

e, p

leas

e re

vise

the

first

bu

llet a

s fol

low

s:

Sp

lit th

e ex

istin

g G

arne

t-San

ta R

osa

115

kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

at t

he in

ters

ectio

n of

Bob

Hop

e D

rive

and

Din

ah S

hore

Driv

e by

rem

ovin

g th

e sp

an o

f wire

that

co

nnec

ts th

e so

uthw

est a

nd n

orth

east

cor

ner p

oles

and

tra

nsfe

r it t

o th

e so

uthe

ast c

orne

r pol

e (s

ee F

igur

e 2-

5,

Exis

ting

and

Prop

osed

115

kV

Lin

e C

onfig

urat

ions

at B

ob

Hop

e an

d D

inah

Sho

re D

rives

).

13

2-14

/ Fig

. 2-

5 B

ased

on

upda

ted

engi

neer

ing

info

rmat

ion,

ple

ase

chan

ge p

ropo

sed

cond

ucto

r con

figur

atio

n to

look

like

th

e at

tach

ed d

raw

ing:

See

Atta

chm

ent 2

, U

pdat

ed S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on L

ine

Con

figur

atio

ns

14

2-18

/ B

ulle

t 1

Bas

ed o

n up

date

d en

gine

erin

g in

form

atio

n, p

leas

e re

vise

bul

let t

o th

e fo

llow

ing:

“…

at th

e so

uthe

ast

corn

er…

”

“Ins

tall

a sp

an o

f con

duct

or b

etw

een

the

exis

ting

north

segm

ent o

f th

e G

arne

t-San

ta R

osa

115

kV su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne a

nd th

e ex

istin

g w

est s

egm

ent o

f the

San

ta R

osa-

Tam

aris

k 11

5 kV

su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne a

t the

nor

thw

est s

outh

east

cor

ner o

f Bob

Hop

e D

rive

and

Din

ah S

hore

Driv

e.”

15

2-21

/ Fig

. 2-

8 B

ased

on

upda

ted

engi

neer

ing

info

rmat

ion,

ple

ase

chan

ge F

igur

e 2-

8 to

the

atta

ched

figu

re:

See

Atta

chm

ent 3

, Bob

Hop

e D

r. TS

P Pr

ofile

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-19

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 6 -

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

16

2-22

/ 3rd

Pa

ragr

aph

2nd li

ne

Dep

endi

ng o

n so

il co

nditi

ons,

foot

ings

may

ext

end

up to

40

feet

de

ep.

Ther

efor

e pl

ease

revi

se te

xt in

th

e th

ird p

arag

raph

to b

e co

nsis

tent

w

ith la

ngua

ge e

lsew

here

in th

e do

cum

ent :

The

TSPs

wou

ld b

e in

stal

led

on to

p of

cyl

indr

ical

con

cret

e fo

otin

gs

appr

oxim

atel

y si

x to

eig

ht fe

et in

dia

met

er a

nd a

ppro

xim

atel

y 20

to

25 a

t lea

st 2

2 fe

et d

eep.

17

2-22

/ 4th

Pa

ragr

aph

The

PEA

inco

rrec

tly d

escr

ibes

the

asse

mbl

y m

etho

d. E

diso

n’s a

ssem

bly

met

hod

for L

WS

pole

s and

TSP

s is a

s fo

llow

s. P

leas

e re

plac

e th

e fo

urth

pa

ragr

aph,

afte

r the

seco

nd se

nten

ce,

with

the

follo

win

g te

xt:

Whi

le o

n th

e gr

ound

the

top

and

botto

m se

ctio

ns o

f the

LW

S po

les

wou

ld b

e pu

lled

toge

ther

and

pre

conf

igur

ed w

ith th

e ne

cess

ary

insu

lato

rs a

nd w

ire st

ringi

ng h

ardw

are.

For

LW

S po

les a

line

truc

k w

ith a

boo

m o

n it,

wou

ld b

e us

ed to

pos

ition

eac

h po

le in

to

prev

ious

ly a

ugur

ed h

oles

.

The

TSPs

will

requ

ire a

cra

ne to

set t

he p

ole

base

s on

top

of

prev

ious

ly in

stal

led

conc

rete

foun

datio

ns.

Onc

e se

cure

d th

e to

p an

d, if

nec

essa

ry m

iddl

e, se

ctio

ns o

f the

TSP

will

then

be

set o

n th

e ba

se o

f the

TSP

. Fo

r bot

h st

ruct

ures

, all

sect

ions

may

be

spot

w

elde

d to

geth

er fo

r add

ed st

abili

ty.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-20

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 7 -

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

18

2-23

/ C

ondu

ctor

Pu

lling

Pa

ragr

aph

1

Nei

ther

cro

ssar

ms n

or su

spen

sion

as

sem

blie

s will

be

utili

zed,

exc

ept o

n TS

Ps.

Ther

efor

e, p

leas

e re

vise

the

text

in th

e fir

st p

arag

raph

und

er

Con

duct

or P

ullin

g as

follo

ws:

Con

duct

ors w

ould

be

inst

alle

d on

115

kV

pol

ymer

insu

lato

r as

sem

blie

s atta

ched

to e

ach

cros

sarm

in a

hor

izon

tal c

onfig

urat

ion

or su

spen

sion

ass

embl

ies c

onsi

stin

g of

sing

le p

olym

er in

sula

tors

at

tach

ed to

eac

h cr

ossa

rm in

a v

ertic

al c

onfig

urat

ion.

Ove

rhea

d gr

ound

wire

s wou

ld b

e in

stal

led

on th

e to

p of

the

stee

l pol

es.

Con

duct

ors w

ould

be

atta

ched

to 1

15kV

pol

ymer

pos

t sty

le

insu

lato

rs w

hich

are

atta

ched

to e

ach

pole

hea

d fo

r LW

S po

les,

and

susp

ende

d, o

r dea

d en

ded,

to st

eel c

ross

arm

s mou

nted

on

TSPs

. D

epen

ding

on

loca

tion,

the

insu

lato

r con

figur

atio

ns m

ay b

e m

ount

ed v

ertic

ally

, or i

n a

trian

gula

r pat

tern

. W

ith th

e ex

cept

ion

of c

erta

in lo

catio

ns n

ear s

ubst

atio

ns, t

he o

verh

ead

grou

nd w

ire

wou

ld b

e in

stal

led

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith G

.O. 9

5 Ta

ble

II.

Dis

tribu

tion

lines

tran

sfer

red

to th

e ne

w st

eel p

oles

wou

ld

typi

cally

be

inst

alle

d on

stan

dard

woo

d cr

ossa

rms w

ith p

olym

er

insu

lato

rs.

19

2-23

/ C

ondu

ctor

Pu

lling

Pa

ragr

aph

2

Vib

ratio

n da

mpe

ners

or w

eigh

ts w

ill

not b

e ut

ilize

d be

caus

e th

e sp

ans a

re

not l

ong

enou

gh a

nd c

onst

ruct

ion

does

not

cal

l for

it.

Ther

efor

e, p

leas

e re

vise

the

text

in th

e se

cond

par

agra

ph

unde

r Con

duct

or P

ullin

g as

follo

ws:

Con

duct

or p

ullin

g in

clud

es a

ll ac

tiviti

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e in

stal

latio

n of

con

duct

ors o

nto

the

LWS

and

woo

d po

les a

nd T

SPs.

Th

ese

activ

ities

incl

ude

inst

allin

g th

ree

115

kV 9

54 S

AC

co

nduc

tors

, one

221

kcm

il A

CSR

gro

und

cond

ucto

r, gr

ound

wire

, vi

brat

ion

dam

pene

rs, w

eigh

ts, a

nd p

ost,

susp

ensi

on a

nd o

r dea

d-en

d ha

rdw

are

asse

mbl

ies f

or th

e en

tire

leng

th o

f the

pro

pose

d su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

nes.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-21

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 8 -

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

20

2-41

Pl

ease

revi

se th

e fir

st p

arag

raph

to

incl

ude

addi

tiona

l det

ail.

Dev

ers S

ubst

atio

n is

staf

fed,

500

/220

/115

kV

subs

tatio

n lo

cate

d in

th

e un

inco

rpor

ated

are

a of

Riv

ersi

de C

ount

y, n

orth

of t

he C

ity o

f Pa

lm S

prin

gs. T

he p

ropo

sed

impr

ovem

ents

at D

ever

s Sub

stat

ion

incl

ude

the

conv

ersi

on o

f Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 2

20 k

V tr

ansm

issi

on li

ne

to D

ever

s-M

irage

No.

1 2

20kV

tran

smis

sion

line

and

re

conf

igur

atio

n of

the

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y-D

ever

s 220

kV

tra

nsm

issi

on li

ne to

the

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge N

o 2

220k

V tr

ansm

issi

on

line

and

rela

y up

grad

es, r

epla

cem

ent o

f tw

o …

…

21

2-41

K

iloan

num

is n

ot th

e co

rrec

t ter

m;

ther

efor

e, p

leas

e re

vise

the

first

bu

llete

d te

xt a

s fol

low

s:

Fo

ur 1

15 k

V 1

,200

Am

p., 4

0 ki

loan

num

kilo

Am

pere

s (kA

) du

ty, b

reak

ers

22

2-42

Th

e ex

istin

g la

ngua

ge re

fers

to

inst

alla

tion

of o

ne b

reak

er a

nd-a

-hal

f co

nfig

urat

ion

posi

tion

for t

wo

new

lin

es; h

owev

er, t

he p

roje

ct c

onsi

sts o

f re

loca

ting

two

exis

ting

lines

to th

is

new

pos

ition

. T

here

fore

, ple

ase

revi

se th

e te

xt u

nder

Eng

inee

ring

Plan

, sec

ond

sent

ence

, as

follo

ws:

The

prop

osed

impr

ovem

ents

at M

irage

Sub

stat

ion

incl

ude

the

inst

alla

tion

of o

ne 2

80 M

VA

, 220

/115

KV

tran

sfor

mer

ban

k, o

ne

new

220

KV

ban

k po

sitio

n, o

ne n

ew 1

15 K

V b

ank

posi

tion,

and

on

e ne

w 2

20 K

V b

reak

er-a

nd-a

-hal

f con

figur

atio

n po

sitio

n fo

r tw

o ne

w 2

20 k

V li

ne p

ositi

ons,

and

the

relo

catio

n of

the

exis

ting

Mira

ge R

amon

220

kV

tran

smis

sion

line

.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-22

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 9 -

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

23

2-42

Pl

ease

revi

se th

e la

st se

nten

ce o

f the

sa

me

para

grap

h (s

ee c

omm

ent a

bove

) to

incl

ude

furth

er d

etai

l now

av

aila

ble.

…re

loca

tion

of e

xist

ing

Mira

ge-C

onch

o 11

5 K

V su

btra

nsm

issi

on

line,

rena

min

g th

e ex

istin

g M

irage

-Cap

win

d- D

ever

s 115

kV

su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne to

Mira

ge-C

apw

ind-

Tam

aris

k-D

ever

s 115

kV

su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne, r

enam

ing

the

Mira

ge-C

onch

o 11

5 kV

su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne to

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a-Ta

mar

isk

115

kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

, and

inst

alla

tion

of n

ew p

rote

ctio

n re

lays

.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-23

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 10

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

24

2-42

O

rigin

ally

it w

as th

ough

t tha

t fiv

e ne

w 1

15 k

V c

ircui

t bre

aker

s wou

ld b

e ne

eded

to a

ccom

mod

ate

a ne

w li

ne

posi

tion.

How

ever

, a m

ore

effic

ient

co

nfig

urat

ion

has b

een

inco

rpor

ated

in

to th

e de

sign

. Th

eref

ore,

inst

ead

of

five

circ

uit b

reak

ers,

only

thre

e w

ill

be n

eede

d. A

dditi

onal

ly, f

urth

er

deta

il is

ava

ilabl

e re

gard

ing

the

220

kV e

quip

men

t and

is re

flect

ed in

the

lang

uage

pro

vide

d. P

leas

e re

vise

the

text

as f

ollo

ws:

O

ne 2

80 M

VA

220

/115

kV

tran

sfor

mer

ban

k;

Fi

ve 2

20 k

V, 3

,000

am

p, 5

0 K

A d

uty,

circ

uit b

reak

ers;

Te

n 22

0 kV

3,0

00 a

mp,

cen

ter-

side

-bre

ak d

isco

nnec

t sw

itche

s;

Fi

fteen

Eig

htee

n 22

0 kV

stat

ion

post

insu

lato

rs;

Si

x 22

0 kV

met

erin

g po

tent

ial t

rans

form

ers;

Thr

ee 2

20 k

V

coup

ling

capa

cito

r vol

tage

tran

sfor

mer

s;

Th

ree

220

kV m

eter

ing

units

Tw

o 11

5 kV

, 3,0

00 a

mp,

40

KA

dut

y ci

rcui

t bre

aker

;

Th

ree

One

115

kV

, 2,0

00 a

mp,

40

KA

dut

y ci

rcui

t bre

aker

;

Fo

ur 1

15 k

V, 3

,000

am

p, c

ente

r-si

de-b

reak

dis

conn

ect

switc

hes;

Si

x Tw

o 11

5 K

V, 2

,000

am

p, C

ente

r-si

de-b

reak

dis

conn

ect

sw

itche

s;

N

ine

Six

115

KV

, pot

entia

l tra

nsfo

rmer

; and

Tw

enty

-sev

en T

wel

ve 1

15 K

V p

ost i

nsul

ator

s.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-24

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 11

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

25

2-42

A

s a re

sult

of m

ore

exte

nsiv

e en

gine

erin

g, m

ore

deta

iled

switc

hrac

k co

nfig

urat

ion

is a

vaila

ble.

Ple

ase

revi

se th

e te

xt u

nder

Maj

or

Equi

pmen

t, in

serti

ng te

xt a

fter t

he

seco

nd b

ulle

t und

er S

witc

hrac

k C

onfig

urat

ions

as f

ollo

ws:

R

enam

ing

the

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 2

20 k

V tr

ansm

issi

on li

ne to

D

ever

s-M

irage

No.

1 tr

ansm

issi

on li

ne

26

2-43

A

s a re

sult

of m

ore

exte

nsiv

e en

gine

erin

g, m

ore

deta

iled

switc

hrac

k co

nfig

urat

ion

is a

vaila

ble.

The

refo

re,

plea

se re

vise

the

text

und

er M

ajor

Eq

uipm

ent o

n pa

ge 2

-42

as fo

llow

s:

(Ins

ert a

fter t

he fi

rst b

ulle

t on

Page

2-

43)

Ex

istin

g Ta

mar

isk

115

kV su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne w

ould

be

relo

cate

d to

line

pos

ition

1N

to c

reat

e th

e D

ever

s-C

apw

ind-

Mira

ge-T

amar

isk

115

kV su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne

V

acat

ed e

xist

ing

line

posi

tion

No.

1S

wou

ld b

e fo

r the

new

M

irage

-San

ta R

osa-

Tam

aris

k 11

5 kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-25

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 12

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

27

2-43

M

ore

exte

nsiv

e en

gine

erin

g re

sulte

d in

a d

eter

min

atio

n th

at th

e lin

e po

sitio

n re

fere

nced

in th

e th

ird b

ulle

t on

pag

e 2-

43 is

no

long

er n

eces

sary

. A

dditi

onal

ly, m

ore

deta

iled

proj

ect

info

rmat

ion

is a

vaila

ble.

Ple

ase

revi

se th

e te

xt to

incl

ude

thes

e sp

ecifi

cs.

“O

ne n

ew 1

15K

V li

ne p

ositi

on (N

o. 7

N) d

esig

ned

with

do

uble

-bre

aker

con

figur

atio

n”; a

nd a

dded

the

trans

form

er

bank

”.

C

onve

rt ex

istin

g 11

5 kV

line

pos

ition

(No.

4) f

rom

dou

ble-

brea

ker c

onfig

urat

ion

to a

bre

aker

-and

-a-h

alf c

onfig

urat

ion

for r

eloc

ated

Con

cho

115

kV li

ne P

ositi

on (N

o. 4

S) a

nd

new

San

ta R

osa

115

kV li

ne P

ositi

on (N

o. 4

N)

In

stal

l one

220

/115

kV

tran

sfor

mer

ban

k

28

2-59

B

ecau

se II

D’s

equ

ipm

ent a

nd c

ircui

t in

stal

latio

n lo

catio

n is

not

cer

tain

, we

reco

mm

end

utili

zing

orig

inal

la

ngua

ge p

rovi

ded

in th

e PE

A.

IID

equ

ipm

ent a

nd c

ircui

t ins

talla

tion

wou

ld o

ccur

at i

s exp

ecte

d to

be

in II

D’s

mec

hani

cal-e

lect

rical

equ

ipm

ent r

oom

(MEE

R)

29

2-60

Ty

pogr

aphi

cal c

orre

ctio

n:

Tabl

e 2-

7, I

ndia

n W

ells

, Eq

uipm

ent/C

ircui

t Ins

talla

tion,

ch

ange

the

valu

e in

the

num

ber o

f da

ys c

olum

n

Cha

nge

“35”

to “

5”

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-26

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 13

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

30

2-62

W

rong

not

atio

n fo

r the

app

endi

x-“A

dditi

onal

info

rmat

ion

on e

lect

ric

and

mag

netic

fiel

ds g

ener

ated

by

trans

mis

sion

line

s is p

rese

nted

in

App

endi

x D

.”

Cha

nge

to:

“App

endi

x B

”

31

2-62

A

dditi

onal

rese

arch

org

aniz

atio

n sh

ould

be

adde

d-“M

ost r

ecen

tly th

e In

tern

atio

nal A

genc

y fo

r Res

earc

h on

C

ance

r (IA

RC

)…”

Cha

nge

to:

Con

side

r rev

isio

n-“M

ost r

ecen

tly th

e W

orld

Hea

lth O

rgan

izat

ion

(WH

O),

Inte

rnat

iona

l Age

ncy

for R

esea

rch

on C

ance

r (IA

RC

)…”

Alte

rnat

ives

and

Cum

ulat

ive

Proj

ects

32

3-13

/ 3.

4.2

D

ue to

FA

A re

gula

tions

it w

ill b

e ne

cess

ary

for t

he ri

ser p

ole

refe

renc

ed

in th

e fir

st p

arag

raph

, sec

ond

sent

ence

, to

be se

t fur

ther

nor

th.

Ther

efor

e, p

leas

e re

vise

the

text

in th

e fir

st p

arag

raph

as f

ollo

ws:

At S

unris

e W

ay, t

he li

ne w

ould

turn

nor

th, a

nd p

roce

ed a

long

Su

nris

e W

ay to

app

roxi

mat

ely

1,26

5 fe

et n

orth

of F

our S

easo

ns

Blv

d, w

here

the

unde

rgro

und

segm

ent w

ould

end

and

the

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

wou

ld tr

ansi

tion

to o

verh

ead

at a

rise

r pol

e…

Aes

thet

ics

33

4.1-

44

SCE

is c

once

rned

that

a 9

0-da

y re

view

and

app

rova

l per

iod

coul

d ha

ve n

egat

ive

impa

cts o

n sc

hedu

le.

Plea

se re

vise

to re

duce

revi

ew a

nd

appr

oval

per

iod

to 3

0 da

ys.

“….a

Con

stru

ctio

n Li

ghtin

g M

itiga

tion

Plan

to th

e C

PUC

for

revi

ew a

nd a

ppro

val a

t lea

st 9

0 30

day

s prio

r to

the

star

t of

nigh

ttim

e co

nstru

ctio

n or

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-27

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 14

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

34

4.1-

46

To a

llow

for o

ther

met

hods

of g

lare

re

duct

ion,

ple

ase

revi

se M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.1

-8 a

s ind

icat

ed.

“A n

on-r

efle

ctiv

e or

wea

ther

ed fi

nish

shal

l be

appl

ied

to a

ll ne

w

stru

ctur

es a

nd e

quip

men

t ins

tall

at…

..”

All

new

stru

ctur

es a

nd e

quip

men

t sha

ll be

non

-spe

cula

r (re

duce

d gl

are)

to th

e de

gree

feas

ible

. Pl

ease

not

e: so

me

equi

pmen

t may

not

be

ava

ilabl

e in

non

-spe

cula

r fin

ish.

35

4.1-

2 Pl

ease

incl

ude

a de

scrip

tion

of In

dian

C

anyo

n D

rive

in th

e lo

cal M

ajor

R

oadw

ays s

ectio

n.

Indi

an C

anyo

n D

rive

is a

n ex

istin

g no

rth-s

outh

road

way

into

Pal

m

Sprin

gs w

ith a

cces

s fro

m/to

the

I-10

. V

iew

s fro

m th

is ro

adw

ay

incl

ude

open

spac

e an

d th

e Sa

n Ja

cint

o M

ount

ains

.

36

4.1-

4 D

eser

t Hig

hlan

d Pa

rk, l

ocat

ed

appr

oxim

atel

y .5

mile

wes

t of

Alte

rnat

ive

3 m

ay h

ave

dire

ct a

nd

unob

stru

cted

vie

ws o

f the

pro

pose

d st

ruct

ures

alo

ng In

dian

Can

yon

Roa

d.

Plea

se a

ddre

ss a

ffec

ts to

this

sens

itive

vie

win

g lo

catio

n an

d up

date

ro

ute

com

paris

on

37

Figu

re

4.1-

1 M

ap c

larif

icat

ion

need

ed.

Plea

se la

bel S

R 1

11 (V

ista

Chi

no);

Add

sym

bolo

gy th

at in

dica

tes

the

unde

rgro

und

porti

ons;

off

set t

he a

ltern

ativ

es so

that

the

read

er

can

tell

whe

re th

ey o

verla

p in

stea

d of

just

seei

ng th

e to

p m

ost

laye

r.

Air

Qua

lity

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-28

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 15

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

38

4.3-

37

SCE

conc

urs w

ith th

e st

atem

ent o

n pa

ge 4

-37

that

“th

e SC

AQ

MD

’s

met

hod

is th

e be

st a

vaila

ble

met

hod

to

dete

rmin

e G

HG

sign

ifica

nce

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e Pr

opos

ed P

roje

ct”.

Th

e So

uth

Coa

st A

QM

D h

as d

rafte

d th

eir a

ir qu

ality

gui

delin

es to

be

cons

iste

nt w

ith A

B 3

2. H

owev

er, t

he

DEI

R d

oes n

ot fo

llow

the

SCA

QM

D

met

hodo

logy

.

The

SCA

QM

D m

etho

dolo

gy is

a 5

tie

r sys

tem

, eac

h tie

r rep

rese

nts a

pr

ogre

ssiv

ely

mor

e di

ffic

ult p

ass/

fail

sign

ifica

nce

test

. Tie

r 3 is

a

com

paris

on o

f the

pro

ject

’s G

HG

em

issi

ons w

ith n

umer

ic th

resh

olds

. If

the

emis

sion

s do

not e

xcee

d th

e th

resh

olds

then

the

proj

ect i

s co

nsid

ered

to b

e le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

. If

the

emis

sion

s exc

eed

the

thre

shol

d th

en th

e m

etho

dolo

gy re

quire

s a T

ier

4 ev

alua

tion

that

incl

udes

a “

busi

ness

as

usu

al”

anal

ysis

.

The

CPU

C c

oncl

uded

that

the

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

em

issi

ons w

ould

be

“sub

stan

tially

less

” th

an th

e nu

mer

ic

Plea

se d

elet

e th

e la

st p

arag

raph

on

page

4.3

-37

and

repl

ace

with

“T

he a

nnua

lized

GH

G e

mis

sion

s ass

ocia

ted

with

the

Prop

osed

Pr

ojec

t wou

ld b

e su

bsta

ntia

lly le

ss th

an th

e SC

AQ

MD

Tie

r 3

thre

shol

ds o

r CA

RB

’s p

relim

inar

y dr

aft t

hres

hold

s” a

nd d

elet

e M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.3

-6.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-29

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 16

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

38 (c

ont).

thre

shol

ds b

ut th

en c

ontin

ued

to

cond

uct a

“bu

sine

ss a

s usu

al”

anal

ysis

. The

SC

AQ

MD

met

hodo

logy

cl

early

stat

es th

at if

the

Tier

3 th

resh

olds

are

met

then

the

proj

ect i

s le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

. Th

eref

ore,

no

miti

gatio

n is

requ

ired.

Bio

logi

cal R

esou

rces

39

4.4.

10

The

four

th c

olum

n of

Tab

le 4

.4.1

sh

ould

als

o sa

y th

at th

e pr

opos

ed

proj

ect a

rea

is w

ell a

way

(mor

e th

an 5

m

iles)

from

the

prop

osed

crit

ical

ha

bita

t for

the

Cas

ey Ju

ne B

eetle

.

Plea

se a

dd u

nder

the

four

th c

olum

n un

der C

asey

’s Ju

ne b

eetle

that

“t

he p

ropo

sed

criti

cal h

abita

t for

the

Cas

ey Ju

ne B

eetle

is

appr

oxim

atel

y 5

mile

s aw

ay”.

40

4.4.

11

The

flat-t

aile

d ho

rned

liza

rd st

atus

has

re

cent

ly b

een

chan

ged

to a

Fed

eral

C

andi

date

End

ange

red

Spec

ies.

Tabl

e 4.

4.1

and

the

disc

ussi

on fo

r the

sp

ecie

s doe

s not

indi

cate

its c

hang

e in

st

atus

.

Plea

se a

dd F

CE

to th

e se

cond

col

umn.

41

4.4.

15

The

flat-t

aile

d ho

rned

liza

rd st

atus

has

re

cent

ly b

een

chan

ge to

a F

eder

al

Can

dida

te E

ndan

gere

d Sp

ecie

s.

Plea

se c

hang

e th

e di

scus

sion

to re

flect

the

chan

ge in

stat

us o

f the

fla

t-tai

led

horn

ed li

zard

to fe

dera

l can

dida

te st

atus

. Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-30

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 17

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

42

4.4.

17

The

flat-t

aile

d ho

rned

liza

rd st

atus

has

re

cent

ly b

een

chan

ge to

a F

eder

al

Can

dida

te E

ndan

gere

d Sp

ecie

s. Pl

ease

add

to d

iscu

ssio

n.

Plea

se c

hang

e th

e di

scus

sion

of t

he fl

at-ta

iled

horn

ed li

zard

to

refle

ct it

s cha

nge

in st

atus

43

4.4.

47

2nd a

nd 3

rd p

arag

raph

s reg

ardi

ng C

V

milk

-vet

ch o

ccur

renc

e al

ong

Var

ner

Roa

d an

d al

ong

Mira

ge S

anta

Ros

a sa

ys th

ere

is a

pot

entia

l for

the

plan

t to

occ

ur a

long

the

rout

es e

ven

thou

gh

the

area

is d

istu

rbed

. In

itial

surv

eys

did

not f

ind

the

spec

ies i

n th

ose

loca

tions

.

Plea

se a

dd to

the

disc

ussi

on th

at n

o C

V m

ilk v

etch

wer

e fo

und

durin

g sp

ring

and

sum

mer

200

9 su

rvey

s.

44

4.4.

48

Miti

gatio

n ra

tio fo

r CV

-milk

-vet

ch o

f 3:

1 fo

r tem

pora

ry im

pact

and

9:1

for

perm

anen

t los

s of h

abita

t see

ms

exce

ssiv

e gi

ven

the

exte

nsiv

e di

stur

banc

e in

the

area

. N

o ra

tiona

le

is g

ive

for t

hese

miti

gatio

n ra

tios.

SC

E w

ill p

rovi

de re

plac

emen

t hab

itat

as re

quire

d by

the

appr

opria

te a

genc

y.

Plea

se re

vise

to re

flect

that

SC

E w

ill p

rovi

de a

ppro

pria

te

com

pens

atio

n as

requ

ired

by o

r neg

otia

ted

with

the

appr

opria

te

reso

urce

age

ncy.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-31

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 18

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

45

4.4.

50

SCE

will

reta

in th

e se

rvic

es o

f a

qual

ified

and

per

mitt

ed (w

here

re

quire

d) b

iolo

gist

to p

erfo

rm th

e du

ties o

f the

bio

logi

cal m

onito

r; th

eref

ore,

it is

unn

eces

sary

to re

quire

th

at th

e m

onito

r sha

ll be

a C

PUC

-au

thor

ized

bio

logi

st.

Plea

se c

hang

e te

xt u

nder

seco

nd b

ulle

t as f

ollo

ws:

SCE

and/

or it

s con

stru

ctio

n co

ntra

ctor

s sha

ll re

tain

and

hav

e av

aila

ble,

the

serv

ices

of a

n C

PUC

aut

horiz

ed b

iolo

gist

who

shal

l pe

rfor

m th

e du

ties o

f the

bio

logi

cal m

onito

r.

46

4.4.

51

Miti

gatio

n ra

tio fo

r CV

-frin

ge-to

ed

lizar

d of

3:1

for t

empo

rary

impa

ct a

nd

9:1

for p

erm

anen

t los

s of h

abita

t se

ems e

xces

sive

giv

en th

e ex

tens

ive

dist

urba

nce

in th

e ar

ea p

lus t

he o

ther

ex

tens

ive

miti

gatio

n.

No

ratio

nale

is

give

n fo

r the

se m

itiga

tion

ratio

s.

Plea

se re

vise

miti

gatio

n m

easu

re to

del

ete

the

ratio

s and

indi

cate

th

at S

CE

will

pro

vide

app

ropr

iate

com

pens

atio

n as

requ

ired

by o

r ne

gotia

ted

with

the

appr

opria

te re

sour

ce a

genc

y.

47

4.4-

56

Sand

fenc

es a

lso

exis

t in

the

area

that

pr

ovid

e pe

rchi

ng h

abita

t for

lo

gger

head

shrik

e an

d ot

her s

peci

es.

Sa

nd fe

nces

pro

vide

mor

e su

itabl

e ro

ostin

g ha

bita

t tha

n ov

erhe

ad li

nes.

Th

is m

ay b

e a

sign

ifica

nt fa

ctor

for

roos

ting

of p

reda

tors

redu

cing

the

impa

cts o

f the

pro

pose

d pr

ojec

t

Plea

se in

clud

e a

disc

ussi

on o

f the

role

of e

xist

ing

sand

fenc

es a

s pe

rchi

ng h

abita

t.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-32

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 19

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

48

4.4.

58

Alth

ough

ther

e m

ay b

e O

ther

Wat

ers

of th

e U

nite

d St

ates

, the

pro

pose

d pr

ojec

t doe

s not

con

tain

wet

land

s.

The

term

wet

land

s is m

isle

adin

g as

th

e pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct ro

ute

does

not

co

ntai

n w

etla

nds a

s def

ined

by

the

Arm

y C

orps

of E

ngin

eers

.

We

reco

mm

end

chan

ging

wet

land

s to

juris

dict

iona

l wat

ers.

49

4.4-

50

4.4-

51

Ten

year

s of m

onito

ring

is e

xces

sive

; fiv

e ye

ars i

s con

sist

ent w

ith p

ast

mon

itorin

g re

quire

men

ts.

Plea

se

revi

se th

e la

ngua

ge a

s fol

low

s:

“Eac

h pl

ant t

hat i

s des

troye

d du

e to

con

stru

ctio

n in

the

RO

W a

long

th

e ea

st a

nd w

est s

ide

of G

ene

Aut

ry T

rail

road

way

shal

l be

repl

aced

and

mon

itore

d fo

r at l

east

10

year

s fiv

e ye

ars o

r as

appr

oved

by

USF

WS…

”

50

4.4-

58

SCE

will

pro

vide

app

ropr

iate

W

etla

nds m

itiga

tion

and

repl

acem

ent,

if ap

plic

able

, as

requ

ired

by o

r ne

gotia

ted

with

the

appr

opria

te

wild

life

agen

cy.

Plea

se re

vise

text

as

indi

cate

d:

“If r

esto

ratio

n is

ava

ilabl

e an

d fe

asib

le, t

hen

a m

itiga

tion

repl

acem

ent r

atio

of a

t lea

st 2

:1 sh

all b

e us

ed.

If a

wet

land

s nee

ds

to b

e cr

eate

d, a

t lea

st a

3:1

ratio

shal

l be

impl

emen

ted

to o

ffse

t lo

sses

. W

here

pra

ctic

al a

nd fe

asib

le, o

nsite

miti

gatio

n sh

all b

e im

plem

ente

d. W

etla

nds m

itiga

tion

and

repl

acem

ent,

if ap

plic

able

, sh

all b

e pr

ovid

ed a

s req

uire

d or

neg

otia

ted

with

the

appr

opria

te

wild

life

agen

cy.to

off

set l

osse

s.”

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-33

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 20

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

51

4.4-

65

Miti

gatio

n fo

r CV

frin

ge-to

ed li

zard

an

d C

V m

ilk v

etch

are

not

dis

cuss

ed

for

Alte

rnat

ive

3 as

to ra

tios a

nd th

e ty

pe o

f miti

gatio

n.

Due

to th

e di

stur

bed

natu

re o

f the

alte

rnat

ive,

the

ratio

of m

itiga

tion

shou

ld b

e le

ss th

an th

e pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct.

This

shou

ld b

e di

scus

sed

unde

r thi

s alte

rnat

ive.

Cul

tura

l Res

ourc

es

52

4.5-

7 Th

e pr

opos

ed F

arre

ll-G

arne

t 115

kV

lin

e w

ould

be

inst

alle

d ov

erhe

ad o

n to

wer

s con

stru

cted

alo

ng a

n ex

istin

g di

rt ro

ad n

orth

of G

arne

t Hill

, pla

cing

th

e re

sour

ce w

ithin

vie

wsh

ed b

ut

outs

ide

the

Are

a of

Pot

entia

l Eff

ects

(A

PE) i

n te

rms o

f phy

sica

l im

pact

; w

heth

er b

eing

with

in v

iew

shed

wou

ld

cons

titut

e an

am

bien

ce im

pact

to th

is

reso

urce

is n

ot c

lear

at t

his t

ime.

Plea

se re

plac

e fir

st se

nten

ce w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing:

H

oon

wit

ten

ca v

a (G

arne

t Hill

). T

his r

esou

rce

is lo

cate

d w

ithin

th

e vi

ewsh

ed b

ut o

utsi

de th

e ph

ysic

al A

PE fo

r the

pro

pose

d ov

erhe

ad F

arre

ll-G

arne

t 115

kV

alig

nmen

t. [B

alan

ce o

f par

agra

ph

rem

ains

unc

hang

ed.]

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-34

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 21

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

53

4.5-

8 Th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-Cap

win

d-D

ever

s-Ta

mar

isk

115

kV li

ne

reco

nfig

urat

ion

wou

ld in

volv

e ch

ange

s to

exis

ting

stru

ctur

es, a

nd

wou

ld n

ot p

hysi

cally

aff

ect V

arne

r ro

ad. T

he p

ropo

sed

over

head

Mira

ge-

Sant

a R

ose

115

kV li

ne w

ould

be

over

head

and

run

para

llel t

o, b

ut a

way

fr

om, V

arne

r Roa

d; a

ccor

ding

ly, t

here

w

ould

be

no p

hysi

cal i

mpa

cts t

o th

e ro

adw

ay.

Plea

se re

plac

e th

e fir

st se

nten

ce w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing:

33

-840

8 (V

arne

r R

oad)

. Th

is re

sour

ce is

loca

ted

with

in th

e vi

ewsh

ed, b

ut o

utsi

de th

e ph

ysic

al A

PE fo

r the

pro

pose

d ov

erhe

ad

reco

nfig

ured

Mira

ge-C

apw

ind-

Dev

ers-

Tam

aris

k 11

5 kV

line

and

th

e pr

opos

ed o

verh

ead

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

lin

e al

ignm

ent.

[Bal

ance

of p

arag

raph

rem

ains

unc

hang

ed.]

54

4.5-

8 Th

e pr

opos

ed F

arre

ll-G

arne

t 115

kV

lin

e w

ould

be

inst

alle

d ov

erhe

ad o

n to

wer

s con

stru

cted

par

alle

l to,

but

aw

ay fr

om th

e ra

ilroa

d lin

e, p

laci

ng

the

reso

urce

with

in v

iew

shed

but

ou

tsid

e th

e A

rea

of P

oten

tial E

ffec

ts

(APE

) in

term

s of p

hysi

cal i

mpa

ct.

The

prop

osed

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

line

wou

ld b

e ov

erhe

ad a

nd

term

inat

e at

a ri

ser p

ole

situ

ated

no

rthea

st o

f the

railr

oad

line,

and

th

eref

ore

wou

ld n

ot p

hysi

cally

impa

ct

it.

Plea

se re

plac

e th

e fir

st se

nten

ce w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing:

33-9

498/

CA

-RIV

-638

1H (S

outh

ern

Paci

fic R

ailr

oad/

Uni

on

Paci

fic R

ailr

oad

line)

. Th

is re

sour

ce is

with

in th

e vi

ewsh

ed o

f, bu

t out

side

the

phys

ical

APE

for t

he p

ropo

sed

over

head

Far

rell-

Gar

net 1

15 k

V a

lignm

ent a

nd th

e pr

opos

ed o

verh

ead

Mira

ge-S

anta

R

osa

115

kV a

lignm

ent.

[Bal

ance

of p

arag

raph

unc

hang

ed.]

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-35

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 22

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

55

4.5-

9 Th

e ar

chae

olog

ical

surv

ey p

erfo

rmed

fo

r thi

s pro

ject

iden

tifie

d su

rfac

e ar

tifac

ts d

esig

nate

d as

site

P33

-154

29

at a

loca

tion

east

of t

he e

xist

ing

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

and

eas

t of t

he

prop

osed

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne a

lignm

ent,

and

sugg

este

d th

at a

pos

sibl

e su

bsur

face

co

mpo

nent

mig

ht e

xten

d w

estw

ard

into

a p

revi

ousl

y im

pact

ed a

rea

with

in

the

prop

osed

pro

ject

’s A

PE. A

fiel

d re

view

con

duct

ed o

n 4

Febr

uary

201

0 by

SC

E ar

chae

olog

ist D

avid

Han

na,

M.A

., R

PA, t

oget

her w

ith th

e SC

E de

sign

er a

nd h

is n

ewly

com

plet

ed

100%

pla

ns, r

evea

led

that

site

P33

-15

429

is si

tuat

ed a

t the

pre

viou

sly

reco

rded

UTM

coo

rdin

ates

and

abo

ut

40 m

eter

s (13

1 fe

et) e

ast o

f the

pol

es

that

cur

rent

ly c

arry

the

Mira

ge-

Tam

aris

k an

d M

irage

-Con

cho

lines

, w

hich

in th

is a

rea

wou

ld b

e re

conf

igur

ed w

ithou

t pol

e re

plac

emen

t. W

est o

f the

reco

rded

site

lim

its, n

o su

rfac

e ar

tifac

ts o

r rea

son

to

susp

ect t

he p

rese

nt o

f sub

surf

ace

artif

acts

wer

e no

ted

desp

ite n

ear-

Plea

se re

plac

e th

e fir

st se

nten

ce w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing:

33

-154

29.

This

reso

urce

is k

now

n to

be

loca

ted

adja

cent

to a

nd

outs

ide

of th

e A

PE fo

r the

pro

pose

d M

irage

-San

ta R

osa

115

kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

alig

nmen

t. [B

alan

ce o

f par

agra

ph u

ncha

nged

.]

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-36

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 23

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

55 (c

ont)

10

0% g

roun

d su

rfac

e vi

sibi

lity.

Th

eref

ore,

sinc

e th

e pr

opos

ed n

ew

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a lin

e w

ould

be

wes

t of t

he d

irt a

cces

s roa

d, si

te P

-33-

1542

9 is

wel

l out

side

the

Prop

osed

Pr

ojec

t’s A

PE.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-37

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 24

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

56

4.5-

9 Th

e ar

chae

olog

ical

surv

ey p

erfo

rmed

fo

r thi

s pro

ject

iden

tifie

d su

rfac

e ar

tifac

ts d

esig

nate

d as

site

P33

-154

30

at a

loca

tion

wes

t of t

he e

xist

ing

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

and

wes

t of t

he

area

that

wou

ld b

e ph

ysic

ally

im

pact

ed b

y th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-Sa

nta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

lin

e al

ignm

ent.

A fi

eld

revi

ew

cond

ucte

d on

4 F

ebru

ary

2010

by

SCE

arch

aeol

ogis

t Dav

id H

anna

, M

.A.,

RPA

, tog

ethe

r with

the

SCE

desi

gner

and

his

new

ly c

ompl

eted

10

0% p

lans

, rev

eale

d th

at si

te P

33-

1543

0 is

situ

ated

at t

he p

revi

ousl

y re

cord

ed U

TM c

oord

inat

es a

nd a

bout

11

met

ers (

35 fe

et) w

est o

f the

pr

opos

ed n

ew M

irage

-San

ta R

osa

line,

for t

he c

onst

ruct

ion

of w

hich

ac

cess

wou

ld b

e fr

om th

at e

xist

ing

dirt

road

to it

s eas

t. Th

e po

les t

hat

curr

ently

car

ry th

e M

irage

-Tam

aris

k an

d M

irage

-Con

cho

lines

, whi

ch in

th

is a

rea

wou

ld b

e re

conf

igur

ed

Plea

se re

plac

e th

e fir

st se

nten

ce w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing:

33-1

5430

. Th

is re

sour

ce is

loca

ted

with

in th

e vi

ewsh

ed, b

ut

outs

ide

the

phys

ical

APE

for t

he p

ropo

sed

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

alig

nmen

t. [B

alan

ce o

f par

agra

ph u

ncha

nged

.]

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-38

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 25

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

56 (c

ont)

w

ithou

t pol

e re

plac

emen

t, ar

e ea

st o

f th

e ex

istin

g di

rt ac

cess

road

. Th

eref

ore,

site

P-3

3-15

430

is w

ell

outs

ide

the

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

’s A

PE.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-39

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 26

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

57

4.5-

23

Plea

se re

vise

the

DEI

R a

naly

sis t

o in

corp

orat

e fin

ding

s in

info

rmat

ion

cont

aine

d in

the

abov

e-co

mm

ents

.

[Kee

p th

e fir

st tw

o pa

ragr

aphs

]

[Rep

lace

3rd

par

agra

ph w

ith th

e fo

llow

ing]

His

toric

reso

urce

33-

4898

(Var

ner R

oad)

wou

ld n

ot b

e im

pact

ed b

y th

e Pr

opos

ed P

roje

ct. I

t wou

ld b

e sp

anne

d by

the

prop

osed

ov

erhe

ad re

conf

igur

ed M

irage

-Cap

win

d-D

ever

s-Ta

mar

isk

115

kV

line

and

the

prop

osed

ove

rhea

d M

irage

-San

ta R

osa

115

kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

, and

no

grou

nd-d

istu

rbin

g ac

tivity

wou

ld

occu

r with

in th

e ro

adw

ay. T

here

fore

, the

re w

ould

be

no im

pact

s to

this

reso

urce

(No

Impa

ct).

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an c

ultu

ral r

esou

rce

Hoo

n w

it te

n ca

va

(Gar

net

Hill

) wou

ld n

ot b

e ph

ysic

ally

impa

cted

by

the

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

. Th

e pr

opos

ed F

arre

ll-G

arne

t 115

kV

line

wou

ld b

e in

stal

led

over

head

on

tow

ers c

onst

ruct

ed a

long

an

exis

ting

dirt

road

nor

th o

f G

arne

t Hill

, and

no

grou

nd d

istu

rbin

g ac

tivity

wou

ld o

ccur

with

in

the

limits

of t

his t

opog

raph

ical

feat

ure.

Preh

isto

ric a

rcha

eolo

gica

l site

s 33-

1542

9 an

d 33

-154

30 w

ould

not

be

impa

cted

by

the

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

. The

pro

pose

d M

irage

-San

ta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

line

wou

ld b

e co

nstru

cted

on

over

head

tow

ers w

est o

f

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-40

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 27

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

57 (c

ont.)

33

-154

29 a

nd e

ast o

f 33-

1543

0, a

nd a

ll ac

cess

wou

ld b

e fr

om a

n ex

istin

g di

rt ro

ad lo

cate

d im

med

iate

ly w

est t

he p

oles

that

cur

rent

ly

carr

y th

e M

irage

-Tam

aris

k an

d M

irage

-Con

cho

lines

, whi

ch in

this

ar

ea w

ould

be

reco

nfig

ured

usi

ng th

e di

rt ac

cess

road

.

Preh

isto

ric a

rcha

eolo

gica

l site

33-

1542

9 m

ight

be

impa

cted

by

the

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

. The

reso

urce

is lo

cate

d ea

st o

f the

exi

stin

g su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne a

nd e

ast o

f the

pro

pose

d M

irage

-San

ta R

osa

115

kV su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne a

lignm

ent.

It is

not

kno

wn

if th

ere

is a

su

bsur

face

com

pone

nt to

this

reso

urce

, and

if so

, whe

ther

it m

ight

ex

tend

into

the

prev

ious

ly im

pact

ed a

rea

that

lies

with

in th

e pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct’s

APE

.

Preh

isto

ric a

rcha

eolo

gica

l site

CA

-RIV

-785

cou

ld b

e im

pact

ed b

y th

e Pr

opos

ed P

roje

ct. A

por

tion

of it

is lo

cate

d w

ithin

the

APE

for

the

prop

osed

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

line

.

58

4.5-

23-2

4 Th

e la

st se

nten

ce u

nder

Impa

ct 4

.5-1

in

dica

tes “

…no

impa

ct to

Var

ner

Roa

d w

ould

occ

ur a

s a re

sult

of th

is

wor

k.

Plea

se re

vise

Impa

ct 4

.5-1

to st

ate

“No

Impa

ct”

as in

dica

ted

in th

e an

alys

is a

nd st

ated

in th

e la

st se

nten

ce o

f thi

s sec

tion.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-41

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 28

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

59

4.5-

26

The

arch

aeol

ogic

al su

rvey

per

form

ed

for t

his p

roje

ct id

entif

ied

surf

ace

artif

acts

des

igna

ted

as si

te 3

3-15

430

at a

loca

tion

slig

htly

wes

t of t

he

exis

ting

subt

rans

mis

sion

line

and

wes

t of

the

area

that

wou

ld b

e ph

ysic

ally

im

pact

ed b

y th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-Sa

nta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

subt

rans

mis

sion

lin

e al

ignm

ent.

The

refo

re, t

his s

ite

wou

ld n

ot b

e im

pact

ed a

nd c

an b

e de

lete

d an

d do

es n

ot re

quire

m

itiga

tion.

Plea

se re

vise

the

EIR

to re

flect

that

site

33-

1543

0 w

ill n

ot b

e im

pact

ed b

y th

e pr

opos

ed p

roje

ct.

60

4.5-

31-3

4 Pl

ease

revi

se th

e D

EIR

to in

clud

e po

tent

ial i

mpa

cts t

o pa

leon

tolo

gica

l, cu

ltura

l, an

d ar

chae

olog

ical

reso

urce

s du

e to

und

ergr

ound

ing.

Plea

se se

e A

ttach

men

t 3, C

ultu

ral C

ompa

rison

Tab

le.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-42

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 29

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

61

4.6-

2 B

ased

on

our r

evie

w, H

oloc

ene*

su

rfac

e ru

ptur

e w

as n

ot d

ocum

ente

d al

ong

the

Gar

net H

ill fa

ult i

n th

e vi

cini

ty o

f the

pro

ject

are

a (S

CED

C).

G

eom

orph

ic e

vide

nce

of th

e fa

ult i

s no

t app

aren

t alo

ng th

e pr

opos

ed

proj

ect a

lignm

ent.

The

Gar

net H

ill

faul

t is n

ot w

ithin

an

Alq

uist

-Prio

lo

Earth

quak

e Fa

ult Z

one

(Cal

iforn

ia

Geo

logi

cal S

urve

y (C

GS)

, 200

7).

Ther

efor

e, th

e st

atem

ent s

houl

d be

re

mov

ed.

*An

activ

e fa

ult i

s def

ined

as a

faul

t w

hich

has

had

surf

ace

disp

lace

men

t w

ithin

Hol

ocen

e tim

e (C

GS,

200

7).

Plea

se re

mov

e th

e fo

llow

ing

stat

emen

t:

“the

Gar

net H

ill fa

ult c

an a

ct a

s a p

lane

of w

eakn

ess a

nd m

ove

in

resp

onse

to a

n ea

rthqu

ake

on a

noth

er n

earb

y fa

ult.

Gro

und

frac

ture

s ass

ocia

ted

with

the

1986

Nor

th P

alm

Spr

ings

ear

thqu

ake

wer

e re

porte

d al

ong

the

trace

of t

he G

arne

t Hill

faul

t and

indi

cate

th

at a

nea

r-su

rfac

e re

spon

se o

f wea

k su

rfac

es o

ccur

red

at d

epth

(C

ity o

f Cat

hedr

al C

ity, 2

002)

. “

(Fol

low

ing

refe

renc

e to

be

adde

d to

p. 4

-16)

Sout

hern

Cal

iforn

ia E

arth

quak

e D

ata

Cen

ter (

SCED

C),

1986

Nor

th

Palm

Spr

ings

Ear

thqu

ake:

http

://w

ww

.dat

a.sc

ec.o

rg/

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-43

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 30

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

Geo

logy

and

Soi

ls

62

4.6-

3 In

corr

ect t

erm

inol

ogy

“gro

und

rupt

urin

g” is

use

d. P

leas

e re

vise

text

as

indi

cate

d:

“Sei

smic

Act

ivity

Th

e tw

o m

ost …

…..

The

1986

qua

ke re

gist

ered

a m

agni

tude

of 5

.6

and

caus

ed m

inor

gro

und

rupt

urin

g cr

acks

alo

ng th

e B

anni

ng, …

..“

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-44

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 31

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

63

4.6-

4

Plea

se in

corp

orat

e ad

ditio

nal

info

rmat

ion

to th

e en

d of

Sec

tion

4.6

rega

rdin

g su

bsid

ence

.

Plea

se a

dd th

e re

fere

nces

to p

age

4.6-

16.

Plea

se a

dd th

e fo

llow

ing

para

grap

h to

pag

e 4.

6-4:

The

USG

S m

onito

red

subs

iden

ce in

the

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y ar

ea

betw

een

1996

and

200

5 (S

need

and

Bra

ndt,

2007

). S

ubsi

denc

e w

as

not i

ndic

ated

for t

he p

ropo

sed

proj

ect a

rea.

In

addi

tion,

the

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y W

ater

Dis

trict

(CV

WD

) ado

pted

a

com

preh

ensi

ve W

ater

Man

agem

ent P

lan

(WM

P) fo

r the

Coa

chel

la

Val

ley

(CV

WD

, 200

7).

The

WM

P w

ill in

crea

se im

porte

d w

ater

, pr

omot

e co

nser

vatio

n an

d pr

ovid

e al

tern

ativ

e so

urce

s of w

ater

to

redu

ce th

e po

tent

ial f

or a

dditi

onal

subs

iden

ce.

Plea

se a

dd re

fere

nces

to 4

.6-1

6:

Snee

d, M

. and

Bra

ndt,

J., 2

007,

Det

ectio

n an

d M

easu

rem

ent o

f La

nd S

ubsi

denc

e U

sing

Glo

bal P

ositi

onin

g Sy

stem

Sur

veyi

ng a

nd

Inte

rfer

omet

ric S

ynth

etic

Ape

rture

Rad

ar, C

oach

ella

Val

ley,

C

alifo

rnia

: U

.S. G

eolo

gica

l Sur

vey

Scei

ntifi

c In

vest

igat

ions

R

epor

t 200

7-52

51, 3

1p.

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y W

ater

Dis

trict

, 200

7, P

ress

Rel

ease

s, D

ated

D

ecem

ber 1

7: h

ttp:w

ww

.cvw

d.or

g\ne

ws\

pres

s33.

php

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-45

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 32

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

64

4.6-

5 Th

e Fe

dera

l re

gula

tory

con

text

was

no

t inc

lude

d, a

nd sh

ould

be

adde

d.

Pl

ease

add

text

as f

ollo

ws:

Fede

ral

Inst

itute

of E

lect

rica

l and

Ele

ctro

nics

Eng

inee

rs

(IE

EE

) 693

“R

ecom

men

ded

Prac

tices

for

Se

ism

ic D

esig

n of

Sub

stat

ions

”

The

Inst

itute

of E

lect

rical

and

Ele

ctro

nics

Eng

inee

rs (I

EEE)

693

“R

ecom

men

ded

Prac

tices

for S

eism

ic D

esig

n of

Sub

stat

ions

” w

as

deve

lope

d by

the

Subs

tatio

ns C

omm

ittee

of t

he IE

EE P

ower

En

gine

erin

g So

ciet

y, a

nd a

ppro

ved

by th

e A

mer

ican

Nat

iona

l St

anda

rds I

nstit

ute

and

the

IEEE

-SA

Sta

ndar

ds B

oard

. Thi

s do

cum

ent p

rovi

des s

eism

ic d

esig

n re

com

men

datio

ns fo

r su

bsta

tions

and

equ

ipm

ent c

onsi

stin

g of

seis

mic

crit

eria

, qu

alifi

catio

n m

etho

ds a

nd le

vels

, stru

ctur

al c

apac

ities

, per

form

ance

re

quire

men

ts fo

r equ

ipm

ent o

pera

tion,

inst

alla

tion

met

hods

, and

do

cum

enta

tion.

Thi

s rec

omm

ende

d pr

actic

e em

phas

izes

the

qual

ifica

tion

of e

lect

rical

equ

ipm

ent.

IEEE

693

is in

tend

ed to

es

tabl

ish

stan

dard

met

hods

of p

rovi

ding

and

val

idat

ing

the

seis

mic

w

ithst

and

capa

bilit

y of

ele

ctric

al su

bsta

tion

equi

pmen

t. H

owev

er,

the

seis

mic

reco

mm

enda

tions

for f

ound

atio

n de

sign

shou

ld c

ompl

y w

ith th

e ap

prop

riate

cur

rent

bui

ldin

g co

de. I

EEE

693

prov

ides

de

taile

d te

st a

nd a

naly

sis m

etho

ds fo

r eac

h ty

pe o

f maj

or

equi

pmen

t or c

ompo

nent

foun

d in

ele

ctric

al su

bsta

tions

. Thi

s re

com

men

ded

prac

tice

is in

tend

ed to

ass

ist t

he su

bsta

tion

user

or

oper

ator

in p

rovi

ding

subs

tatio

n eq

uipm

ent t

hat w

ill h

ave

a hi

gh

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-46

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 33

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

64 (c

ont)

prob

abili

ty o

f with

stan

ding

seis

mic

eve

nts t

o pr

edef

ined

gro

und

acce

lera

tion

leve

ls.

It es

tabl

ishe

s sta

ndar

d m

etho

ds o

f ver

ifyin

g se

ism

ic w

ithst

and

capa

bilit

y, w

hich

giv

es th

e su

bsta

tion

desi

gner

the

abili

ty to

sele

ct e

quip

men

t fro

m v

ario

us m

anuf

actu

rers

, kn

owin

g th

at th

e se

ism

ic w

ithst

and

ratin

g of

eac

h m

anuf

actu

rer’

s eq

uipm

ent i

s an

equi

vale

nt m

easu

re.

This

reco

mm

ende

d pr

actic

e sh

ould

be

used

in a

ll ar

eas t

hat m

ay e

xper

ienc

e ea

rthqu

akes

.

Inte

rnat

iona

l Bui

ldin

g C

ode

Publ

ishe

d by

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l Cod

e-C

ounc

il (I

CC

), th

e sc

ope

of

this

cod

e co

vers

maj

or a

spec

ts o

f con

stru

ctio

n an

d de

sign

of

stru

ctur

es a

nd b

uild

ings

, Th

e 20

06 In

tern

atio

nal B

uild

ing

Cod

e re

plac

es th

e 19

97 U

nifo

rm B

uild

ing

Cod

e an

d co

ntai

ns p

rovi

sion

s fo

r stru

ctur

al e

ngin

eerin

g de

sign

. Pub

lishe

d by

the

Inte

rnat

iona

l C

onfe

renc

e of

Bui

ldin

g O

ffic

ials

, the

200

6 In

tern

atio

nal B

uild

ing

Cod

e(IB

C) a

ddre

sses

the

desi

gn a

nd in

stal

latio

n of

stru

ctur

es a

nd

build

ing

syst

ems t

hrou

gh re

quire

men

ts th

at e

mph

asiz

e pe

rfor

man

ce. T

he IB

C in

clud

es c

odes

gov

erni

ng st

ruct

ural

as w

ell

as fi

re- a

nd li

fe-s

afet

y pr

ovis

ions

cov

erin

g se

ism

ic, w

ind,

ac

cess

ibili

ty, e

gres

s, oc

cupa

ncy,

and

roof

s.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-47

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 34

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

65

4.6-

5 A

dd C

alifo

rnia

Bui

ldin

g C

ode

(CB

C)

2007

afte

r

Alq

uist

-Pri

olo

Ear

thqu

ake

Faul

t Z

onin

g A

ct a

nd

Seis

mic

Haz

ards

Map

ping

Act

.

Rep

lace

“D

esig

n St

anda

rds”

on

p. 4

.6-5

with

the

follo

win

g te

xt:

Cal

iforn

ia B

uild

ing

Cod

e Th

e C

alifo

rnia

Bui

ldin

g C

ode,

Titl

e 24

, Par

t 2 (C

BC

, 200

7)

prov

ides

bui

ldin

g co

des a

nd st

anda

rds f

or d

esig

n an

d co

nstru

ctio

n of

stru

ctur

es in

Cal

iforn

ia. T

he 2

007

CB

C is

bas

ed o

n th

e 20

06

Inte

rnat

iona

l Bui

ldin

g C

ode

with

the

addi

tion

of m

ore

exte

nsiv

e st

ruct

ural

seis

mic

pro

visi

ons.

As t

he p

ropo

sed

Proj

ect l

ies w

ithin

Se

ism

ic Z

one

4, p

rovi

sion

s for

des

ign

shou

ld fo

llow

the

requ

irem

ents

of C

hapt

er 1

6 of

the

CB

C 2

007,

whi

ch c

onta

ins

defin

ition

s of s

eism

ic so

urce

s and

pro

cedu

re u

sed

to c

alcu

late

se

ism

ic fo

rces

on

stru

ctur

es.

Cha

pter

33

of th

e C

BC

con

tain

s re

quire

men

ts re

leva

nt to

the

cons

truct

ion

of u

nder

grou

nd

trans

mis

sion

line

s.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-48

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 35

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

66

4.6-

5 Th

is se

ctio

n w

ould

be

repl

aced

with

th

e se

ctio

n tit

led

Cal

iforn

ia B

uild

ing

Cod

e (s

ee a

bove

).

Plea

se re

mov

e th

e fo

llow

ing:

D

esig

n St

anda

rds

Bui

ldin

g co

des p

rovi

de sp

ecifi

c st

anda

rds f

or d

esig

n an

d co

nstru

ctio

n of

bui

ldin

gs a

nd st

ruct

ures

. O

n Ja

nuar

y 1,

200

8, C

alifo

rnia

off

icia

lly a

dopt

ed th

e 20

07

Cal

iforn

ia B

uild

ing

Cod

e (C

BC

). Th

e pu

rpos

e of

the

CB

C is

to p

rovi

de m

inim

um st

anda

rds t

o sa

fegu

ard

life

or li

mb,

hea

lth, p

rope

rty,

and

publ

ic w

elfa

re b

y re

gula

ting

and

cont

rolli

ng th

e de

sign

, co

nstru

ctio

n, q

ualit

y of

mat

eria

ls,

use,

occ

upan

cy, l

ocat

ion,

and

mai

nten

ance

of a

ll bu

ildin

gs a

nd

stru

ctur

es w

ithin

its j

uris

dict

ion.

The

CB

C p

rovi

des c

riter

ia fo

r def

inin

g ex

pans

ive

soils

.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-49

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 36

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

67

4.6-

10

Bas

ed o

n ou

r rev

iew

, Hol

ocen

e*

surf

ace

rupt

ure

was

not

doc

umen

ted

alon

g th

e G

arne

t Hill

faul

t in

the

vici

nity

of t

he p

roje

ct a

rea

(SC

EDC

).

Geo

mor

phic

evi

denc

e of

the

faul

t is

not a

ppar

ent a

long

the

prop

osed

pr

ojec

t alig

nmen

t. T

he G

arne

t Hill

fa

ult i

s not

with

in a

n A

lqui

st -P

riolo

Ea

rthqu

ake

Faul

t Zon

e (C

alifo

rnia

G

eolo

gica

l Sur

vey

(CG

S), 2

007)

.

Rem

ove

the

follo

win

g :

The

only

faul

t tha

t wou

ld in

ters

ect a

ny o

f the

Pro

pose

d Pr

ojec

t co

mpo

nent

s is t

he G

arne

t Hill

faul

t, w

hich

is m

appe

d as

bur

ied

with

a lo

catio

n th

at is

pos

tula

ted

acro

ss th

e pr

opos

ed F

arre

ll-G

arne

t al

ignm

ent.

Whe

reas

seis

mic

act

ivity

is n

ot li

mite

d to

act

ive

faul

ts,

grou

nd ru

ptur

e is

typi

cally

ass

ocia

ted

with

act

ive

faul

ts. H

owev

er,

grou

nd fr

actu

res a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e 19

86 N

orth

Pal

m S

prin

gs

earth

quak

e w

ere

repo

rted

alon

g th

e tra

ce o

f the

Gar

net H

ill fa

ult,

but t

he fr

actu

res w

ere

a re

sult

of g

roun

d sh

akin

g ra

ther

than

faul

t ru

ptur

e. In

add

ition

, pur

suan

t to

APM

GEO

-2, t

ower

loca

tions

(in

the

case

of t

he p

ropo

sed

Farr

ell-G

arne

t sub

trans

mis

sion

line

, pol

e lo

catio

ns) w

ould

be

sele

cted

to a

ccom

mod

ate

antic

ipat

ed fa

ult

offs

et, a

nd m

inim

ize

exce

ssiv

e te

nsio

n in

line

s, sh

ould

a fa

ult

mov

emen

t occ

ur. T

here

fore

, bas

ed o

n th

e lo

catio

n of

the

prop

osed

co

mpo

nent

s and

the

activ

e fa

ults

in th

e re

gion

, the

pot

entia

l for

su

rfac

e fa

ult r

uptu

re to

aff

ect t

he P

ropo

sed

Proj

ect w

ould

be

min

imal

. Pot

entia

l gro

und

surf

ace

rupt

ure

impa

cts a

re c

onsi

dere

d to

be

less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Repl

ace

with

:

Ther

e ar

e no

act

ive

earth

quak

e fa

ults

that

are

reco

gniz

ed o

r zon

ed

by th

e St

ate

of C

alifo

rnia

in th

e im

med

iate

vic

inity

of t

he P

ropo

sed

Proj

ect a

lignm

ents

and

site

s. Po

tent

ial g

roun

d su

rfac

e ru

ptur

e im

pact

s are

con

side

red

to b

e le

ss th

an si

gnifi

cant

. Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-50

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 37

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

68

4.6-

11

In o

rder

for l

ique

fact

ion

to o

ccur

, th

ere

need

s to

be re

lativ

ely

shal

low

gr

ound

wat

er c

ondi

tions

, gen

eral

ly a

t de

pths

of l

ess t

han

50 fe

et b

elow

the

grou

nd su

rfac

e. S

hallo

w g

roun

dwat

er

cond

ition

s do

not e

xist

in th

e pr

ojec

t ar

ea a

nd th

e Pr

opos

ed P

roje

ct w

ould

no

t cau

se th

e gr

ound

wat

er ta

ble

to

rise.

The

pot

entia

l im

pact

rela

ted

to

seis

mic

-rel

ated

gro

und

failu

re,

incl

udin

g liq

uefa

ctio

n, w

ould

be

less

th

an si

gnifi

cant

.

Rev

ise

as fo

llow

s:

“In

orde

r for

liqu

efac

tion

to o

ccur

, the

re n

eeds

to b

e re

lativ

ely

shal

low

gro

undw

ater

con

ditio

ns, g

ener

ally

at d

epth

s of l

ess t

han

50

feet

bel

ow th

e gr

ound

surf

ace.

Sha

llow

gro

undw

ater

con

ditio

ns d

o no

t exi

st in

the

proj

ect a

rea

and

the

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

wou

ld n

ot

caus

e th

e gr

ound

wat

er ta

ble

to ri

se. R

egar

dles

s, th

e po

tent

ial f

or

lique

fact

ion

or o

ther

phe

nom

ena

resu

lting

in d

ynam

ic g

roun

d se

ttlem

ent,

if ev

en p

rese

nt, c

an b

e ea

sily

redu

ced

with

ade

quat

e ge

otec

hnic

al a

nd fo

unda

tion

engi

neer

ing.

The

refo

re, w

ith th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of st

anda

rd e

ngin

eerin

g pr

actic

es, a

ny p

oten

tial

impa

cts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith li

quef

actio

n, if

dis

cove

red

durin

g ge

otec

hnic

al in

vest

igat

ions

that

wou

ld b

e co

nduc

ted

for t

he

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

, wou

ld b

e re

duce

d to

less

than

sign

ifica

nt le

vels

. Th

e po

tent

ial i

mpa

ct re

late

d to

seis

mic

-rel

ated

gro

und

failu

re,

incl

udin

g liq

uefa

ctio

n, w

ould

be

less

than

sign

ifica

nt.

Haz

ards

and

Haz

ardo

us M

ater

ials

69

8-29

M

itiga

tion

mea

sure

HA

Z-2

Fire

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n is

iden

tifie

d in

D

EIR

Sec

tion

4 (p

. 4.7

-20)

, but

is n

ot

liste

d in

DEI

R S

ectio

n 8

Miti

gatio

n M

onito

ring,

Rep

ortin

g an

d C

ompl

ianc

e Pr

ogra

m (M

MR

CP)

.

Plea

se re

vise

to in

clud

e th

is m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

.

Hyd

rolo

gy a

nd W

ater

Qua

lity

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-51

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 38

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

70

4.8-

21

The

Whi

tew

ater

Was

h is

an

activ

e sa

nd a

rea

whe

re to

pogr

aphy

cha

nges

fr

eque

ntly

with

wat

er a

nd w

ind

activ

ity.

Thus

, res

tora

tion

to e

xact

pr

e-co

nstru

ctio

n co

ntou

rs w

ould

not

ne

cess

arily

ach

ieve

the

desi

red

cond

ition

. Fu

rther

, gra

ding

is n

ot

expe

cted

to b

e su

bsta

ntia

l. A

mor

e fe

asib

le m

easu

re w

ould

be

gene

ral

rest

orat

ion

of th

e di

stur

bed

area

. Pl

ease

revi

se M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.8

-4b

as i

ndic

ated

.

Reg

ardi

ng th

e en

gine

ered

ero

sion

con

trol a

nd d

rain

age

plan

de

velo

ped

as p

art o

f the

site

gra

ding

pla

n (A

PM H

YD

RO

-2A

), SC

E sh

all c

ondu

ct a

topo

grap

hic

and

grad

ient

surv

ey o

f the

W

hite

wat

er R

iver

Was

h bo

th u

pstre

am a

nd d

owns

tream

of t

he

prop

osed

pol

e(s)

repl

acem

ent l

ocat

ion

with

in th

e w

ash.

Pos

t co

nstru

ctio

n to

pogr

aphy

and

gra

dien

t of t

he W

hite

wat

er R

iver

W

ash

shal

l be

cont

oure

d to

SCE

shal

l res

tore

all

area

s in

the

Whi

tew

ater

Was

h di

stur

bed

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n of

the

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

to m

atch

the

exis

ting

cond

ition

s, to

ens

ure

that

the

drai

nage

pat

tern

is n

ot a

ltere

d in

a

man

ner t

hat w

ould

cau

se o

n- o

r off

-site

ero

sion

or s

edim

enta

tion.

Noi

se

71

4.11

-18

As t

he C

PUC

has

juris

dict

ion

over

all

elec

trica

l fac

ilitie

s, w

e re

com

men

d su

bmitt

al o

nly

to th

e C

PUC

.

Plea

se re

vise

seco

nd p

arag

raph

of M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.1

1-2

to

rem

ove

refe

renc

es to

Cou

nty

of R

iver

side

..

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-52

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 39

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

72

4.11

-18

Plea

se re

-wor

d M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.

11-2

(firs

t par

agra

ph) r

elat

ive

to th

e tra

nsfo

rmer

, as f

ollo

ws:

Noi

se c

ontro

l tec

hniq

ues m

ay in

clud

e, b

ut n

ot b

e lim

ited

to:

loca

ting

the

new

tran

sfor

mer

with

as m

uch

setb

ack

from

the

exis

ting

resi

dent

ial p

rope

rties

as p

ossi

ble,

use

of n

oise

wal

ls o

r eq

uiva

lent

soun

d at

tenu

atio

n de

vice

s, an

d th

e us

e of

a tr

ansf

orm

er

with

spec

ial n

oise

con

trol s

peci

ficat

ions

des

igne

d in

a w

ay to

sp

ecifi

cally

ach

ieve

acc

epta

ble

regu

lato

ry n

oise

stan

dard

s so

und

leve

ls a

s spe

cifie

d in

the

appr

oved

"SC

E Sp

ecifi

catio

n A

5-20

09:

Larg

e Th

ree-

Phas

e Tr

ansf

orm

ers a

nd A

utot

rans

form

ers w

ith O

LTC

fo

r a n

omin

al sy

stem

vol

tage

of 2

20/2

30kV

." "

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-53

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 40

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

73

4.11

-18

SCE

engi

neer

ing

requ

ests

a n

oise

st

udy

to b

e pe

rfor

med

dur

ing

the

initi

al d

esig

n of

the

proj

ect t

o ve

rify

that

all

nois

e le

vel

requ

irem

ents

/gui

delin

es a

re m

et.

If

the

nois

e le

vel

requ

irem

ents

/gui

delin

es a

re n

ot m

et,

then

SC

E w

ill fo

llow

the

sugg

este

d no

ise

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res a

s spe

cifie

d in

the

nois

e re

port,

thus

cap

turin

g an

d ad

dres

sing

issu

es in

the

desi

gn p

hase

an

d no

t at t

he c

onst

ruct

ion

phas

e. A

s su

ch, r

eten

tion

of a

n ac

oust

ical

en

gine

er is

unn

eces

sary

. Pl

ease

re-

wor

d M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.1

1-2

(sec

ond

para

grap

h) re

lativ

e to

an

acou

stic

al e

ngin

eer a

s fol

low

s:

Prio

r to

the

inst

alla

tion

of th

e ne

w tr

ansf

orm

er, S

CE

shal

l sub

mit

to

the

CPU

C a

nd th

e C

ount

y of

Riv

ersi

de, f

or re

view

and

app

rova

l, a

plan

that

des

crib

es th

e sp

ecifi

c m

easu

res t

hat w

ill b

e ta

ken

to

atte

nuat

e no

ise.

in o

rder

to c

ompl

y w

ith th

e C

ount

y’s s

tatio

nary

no

ise

stan

dard

s. O

nce

the

prop

osed

tran

sfor

mer

is o

pera

tiona

l, SC

E sh

all r

etai

n an

aco

ustic

al e

ngin

eer t

o pe

rfor

m n

oise

m

easu

rem

ents

in th

e vi

cini

ty o

f the

resi

denc

es w

est o

f Mira

ge

Subs

tatio

n to

ver

ify th

at tr

ansf

orm

er n

oise

leve

ls c

ompl

y w

ith th

e C

ount

y st

anda

rds.

Doc

umen

tatio

n of

com

plia

nce

shal

l be

subm

itted

to th

e C

PUC

and

Riv

ersi

de C

ount

y. I

n th

e ev

ent t

hat

trans

form

er n

oise

leve

ls v

iola

te th

e st

anda

rds,

addi

tiona

l noi

se

cont

rol t

echn

ique

s sha

ll be

initi

ated

to c

orre

ct th

e vi

olat

ion.

Popu

latio

n an

d H

ousi

ng

74

4.12

-5

Con

stru

ctio

n sc

hedu

les a

re li

kely

to

chan

ge d

ue to

the

expe

cted

CPU

C

appr

oval

sche

dule

.

“Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es in

the

proj

ect a

rea

are

expe

cted

to la

st

appr

ox 1

2 -2

4 m

onth

s, w

ithin

the

2010

-201

2 tim

e fr

ame .

beg

inni

ng

in 2

010

and

conc

ludi

ng in

mid

-201

1.”

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-54

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 41

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

75

4.15

-1

Plea

se n

ote

that

Cal

trans

use

s AA

DT.

C

ount

s cite

d fr

om C

VA

G, R

iver

side

C

ount

y, o

r City

of P

alm

Spr

ings

use

A

DT.

Plea

se re

vise

tran

spor

tatio

n an

d tra

ffic

sect

ion

to re

flect

this

di

stin

ctio

n.

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

and

Tra

ffic

76

4.15

-2

Gar

net A

venu

e pa

ralle

ls th

e I-

10, n

ot

the

I-5.

Ple

ase

revi

se th

e la

st

para

grap

h as

follo

ws:

Gar

net A

venu

e is

a tw

o la

ne ro

ad th

at p

aral

lels

the

sout

h si

de o

f I-5

I-

10 a

nd h

as n

o la

ne st

ripes

and

has

low

traf

fic le

vels

.

77

4.15

-3

Acc

ordi

ng to

the

coun

ty o

f Riv

ersi

de

2009

traf

fic c

ount

s (us

ing

AD

T),

Indi

an C

anyo

n D

r. be

twee

n I-

10 a

nd

San

Raf

ael h

as a

n A

DT

of 2

2,30

7.

This

diff

ers s

igni

fican

tly fr

om th

e ci

ted

CV

AG

figu

re o

f 15,

200.

Plea

se c

onfir

m a

nd re

vise

the

refe

renc

es.

Ele

ctri

c an

d M

agne

tic F

ield

s

78

App

endi

x B

, Sec

tion

1, P

age

1

“Uni

ts o

f mea

sure

are

Gau

ss (G

) or

mill

iGau

ss (m

G, 1

1100

0 of

a

Gau

ss).”

Cha

nge

to:

“U

nits

of m

easu

re a

re G

auss

(G) o

r mill

iGau

ss (m

G, 1

1100

0 1/

1000

of a

Gau

ss).”

79

App

endi

x B

, Sec

tion

1, P

age

2

“It’s

reco

mm

enda

tions

wer

e fie

ld

with

the

Com

mis

sion

in M

arch

of

1992

.”

Cha

nge

to:

“It’s

reco

mm

enda

tions

wer

e fie

ld fi

led

with

the

Com

mis

sion

in

Mar

ch o

f 199

2 an

d be

cam

e th

e ba

sis f

or th

e C

PUC

’s E

MF

Polic

y es

tabl

ishe

d in

D. 9

3-11

-013

.”

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-55

Dev

ers M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Sub

tran

smis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

t Dra

ft E

nvir

onm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

SCE

Com

men

ts &

Sug

gest

ed R

evis

ions

Febr

uary

22,

201

0

- 42

-

Com

men

t

Num

ber

Page

Num

ber

Com

men

t Su

gges

ted

Rev

isio

n

80

App

endi

x B

, Sec

tion

1, P

age

2

“Bas

ed o

n th

e w

ork

of th

e C

onse

nsus

G

roup

, writ

ten

test

imon

y an

d ev

iden

tiary

hea

rings

, the

CPU

C

issu

ed it

s dec

isio

n (D

.06-

01-0

42) t

o ad

dres

s…..”

Cha

nge

to:

“Bas

ed o

n th

e w

ork

of th

e C

onse

nsus

Gro

up, w

ritte

n te

stim

ony

and

evid

entia

ry h

earin

gs, t

he C

PUC

issu

ed it

s dec

isio

n (D

.06-

01-0

42)

deci

sion

s (D

. 93-

11-0

13 a

nd D

.06-

01-0

42) t

o ad

dres

s…..”

81

App

endi

x B

, Sec

tion

1, P

age

4

Glo

bal c

hang

e-“…

(App

endi

x D

Se

ctio

n 2)

…”

Cha

nge

to:

-“…

(App

endi

x D

B -

Sect

ion

2)…

”

Com

pari

son

of A

ltern

ativ

es

82

5-2

3rd p

arag

raph

, 2nd

sent

ence

is u

ncle

ar.

Rew

ord

to st

ate

that

ther

e ar

e tw

o su

bset

s of a

ltern

ativ

e ro

utes

, e.g

.; 1)

Far

rell-

Gar

net,

whi

ch in

clud

es th

e Pr

opos

ed P

roje

ct a

nd

Alte

rnat

ives

2, 3

, 6, a

nd 7

, and

(2) M

irage

-San

ta R

osa,

whi

ch

incl

udes

the

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

and

Alte

rnat

ive

5.

83

5-4

Tabl

e 5-

2, A

esth

etic

s:

Und

er “

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

” –

Num

bers

ar

e re

vers

ed:

The

Farr

ell-G

arne

t lin

e w

ould

incl

ude

5.8

mile

s of o

verh

ead

line

and

the

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a lin

e w

ould

incl

ude

1.5

mile

s of

over

head

line

.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-56

Att

achm

ent 1

, Cul

tura

l Com

pari

son

Issu

e A

rea

Prop

osed

Proj

ect

Alte

rnat

ive

2

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Alte

rnat

ive

5

Alte

rnat

ive

6

Alte

rnat

ive

7

Cul

tura

l R

esou

rces

O

verh

ead

Farr

ell-G

arne

t lin

e w

ould

ha

ve p

oint

-sp

ecifi

c pa

leon

tolo

gy

impa

cts a

nd

non-

phys

ical

im

pact

on

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an

topo

grap

hica

l re

sour

ce

Hoo

n w

it te

n ca

va

/Gar

net

Hill

; ove

rhea

d M

irage

-San

ta

Ros

a lin

e w

ould

hav

e po

int-s

peci

fic

pale

onto

logy

im

pact

s and

ph

ysic

al

impa

cts t

o ar

chae

olog

ical

Ove

rhea

d se

gmen

t w

ould

hav

e no

n-ph

ysic

al

and

poin

t-sp

ecifi

c ph

ysic

al

impa

cts o

n N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

to

pogr

aphi

cal

reso

urce

H

oon

wit

ten

ca v

a /G

arne

t H

ill;

unde

rgro

und

segm

ent

wou

ld h

ave

grea

ter

pale

onto

logy

im

pact

s and

po

ssib

ly

arch

aeol

ogy

impa

cts (

to

curr

ently

Ove

rhea

d se

gmen

t w

ould

hav

e po

int-s

peci

fic

pale

onto

logy

im

pact

s and

no

n-ph

ysic

al

impa

ct o

n N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

to

pogr

aphi

cal

reso

urce

H

oon

wit

ten

ca v

a /G

arne

t H

ill;

unde

rgro

und

segm

ent

wou

ld h

ave

grea

ter

pale

onto

logy

im

pact

s and

po

ssib

ly

arch

aeol

ogy

impa

cts (

to

curr

ently

Und

ergr

ound

se

gmen

t w

ould

hav

e ph

ysic

al

impa

cts o

n hi

stor

ic

cultu

ral

reso

urce

33-

8408

/Var

ner

Roa

d by

lin

ear

trenc

hing

w

ithin

leng

th

of ro

adw

ay

and

trenc

hing

ac

ross

ro

adw

ay,

and

grea

ter

pale

onto

logy

im

pact

s and

po

ssib

ly

arch

aeol

ogy

impa

cts (

to

curr

ently

Und

ergr

ound

se

gmen

t w

ould

hav

e gr

eate

r pa

leon

tolo

gy

impa

cts a

nd

poss

ibly

ar

chae

olog

y im

pact

s (to

cu

rren

tly

unkn

own

reso

urce

s)

than

ov

erhe

ad

Farr

ell-

Gar

net l

ine;

ov

erhe

ad

segm

ent

wou

ld h

ave

pale

onto

logy

im

pact

s and

po

ssib

ly

arch

aeol

ogy

impa

cts (

to

curr

ently

Wou

ld h

ave

pale

onto

logy

impa

cts

and

poss

ibly

ar

chae

olog

y im

pact

s (to

cur

rent

ly

unkn

own

reso

urce

s)

equi

vale

nt to

ov

erhe

ad G

arne

tt-Fa

rrel

l lin

e.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-57

si

te C

A-R

IV-

785.

un

know

n re

sour

ces)

th

an

over

head

Fa

rrel

l-G

arne

t lin

e.

unkn

own

reso

urce

s)

than

ov

erhe

ad

Farr

ell-

Gar

net l

ine.

unkn

own

reso

urce

s)

than

ov

erhe

ad

Mira

ge-

Sant

a R

osa

line.

unkn

own

reso

urce

s)

equi

vale

nt to

ov

erhe

ad

Gar

nett-

Farr

ell l

ine.

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-58

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-59

Com

men

t Let

ter O

2

3-60

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

CHAPTER 4 Responses to Comments

Letter O1, Native American Heritage Commission Response O1-1 The NAHC comment letter notes that Native American Cultural resources

were identified within one-half mile of the Proposed Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE), and the NAHC recommends early consultation with identified Native American tribes as the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. The NAHC further recommends that a Native American Monitor or Native American culturally knowledgeable person be employed whenever a professional archaeologist is needed. The NAHC letter does not state a specific concern or question regarding a significant environmental impact or the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

Potential interested parties recommended by the NAHC were contacted via letter. The Draft EIR (Section 4.5, Cultural Resources) notes that prior contact has been made to the NAHC and that the NAHC provided a list of Native American contacts that may have knowledge of resources in the study area. Potential interested parties recommended by the NAHC were contacted via letter. The Draft EIR also acknowledges that Native American Cultural resources are known to be present within one-half mile of the Proposed Project’s APE, and identified five previously recorded resources and five newly recorded resources. The Draft EIR further notes that consultation with the Cahuilla Indian Tribe has been initiated and would be on going throughout the construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Further, Applicant Proposed Measures (APMs) CUL-1 through CUL-6 identify how SCE would consult with the Native American community prior to and during construction. The Draft EIR also requires mitigation measures for avoidance and provisions for accidentally-discovered cultural resources, as well as procedures to be followed in the event of accidental discovery of human remains. No changes or additions to the Draft EIR are necessitated by the NAHC comment letter.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Letter O2, Southern California Edison Company

Global Comments Response O2-a The Applicant expresses their disagreement with several areas of analysis in

the Draft EIR. Each of the material areas of disagreement are addressed in the specific comments that follow.

Response O2-b The Applicant disagrees with the Draft EIR conclusion that Alternatives 3 and 5 would result in fewer long-term impacts to aesthetics when compared to the Proposed Project. With regard to Alternative 3, the Applicant notes that the new subtransmission line would be built on structures approximately 80- to 98-feet high compared to the existing structures that are approximately 34- to 48-feet high, and asserts that this visual impact would be greater than for the Farrell-Garnet segment of the Proposed Project which would construct the new subtransmission line on structures that are closer in height to the existing structures in that corridor. The Applicant further notes that Alternative 3 would be constructed along Indian Canyon Drive, which is a main entrance into Palm Springs. However, we note that these considerations have to be balanced against the fact that Alternative 3 would have 2.9 miles less overhead line (i.e., approximately half) than would the Proposed Project for the Farrell-Garnet segment. Nonetheless, we agree with the Applicant that the visual sensitivity along Indian Canyon Drive should be afforded greater weight in this analysis, and thus the visual impact of Alternative 3 should be considered slightly greater than that of the Proposed Project for the Farrell-Garnet segment. Accordingly, the first bullet on page 5-9 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

• Aesthetics - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Alternative 7 would involve the most amount of overhead line in the Farrell-Garnet study area, including the most overhead line in residential areas and a crossing of I-10. Alternative 3 would involve the least amount of overhead line with no I-10 crossings, but would result in nearly doubling the height and base diameter of structures along Indian Canyon Road which is a major entryway to the City of Palm Springs. Alternative 2 is considered the most favorable for aesthetics because the overhead portion of that line would be in an area with low visual sensitivity. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: Alternative 3, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 6, Alternative 7, and Alternative 73. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, Alternative 5 would result in only a short span of overhead line across I-10 and the UPRR, compared to

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-3 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would include approximately 1.5 miles of overhead line. Therefore, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

With regard to Alternative 5, the Applicant notes that this alternative would result in two 95-foot riser poles – one inside the Mirage Substation and one at the intersection of Varner Road and Vista De Oro. The Applicant claims that these two riser poles would have greater visual impact than would the Mirage-Santa Rosa segment of the Proposed Project which would involve the removal of 29 structures and the installation of 55 structures, seven of which would be bolted-based TSPs between 70 and 100 feet above ground, depending on their specific location. We disagree with the Applicant’s assertion that the two riser poles associated with Alternative 5 would have greater impacts to aesthetics than would the proposed Project for the Mirage-Santa Rosa segment. As a result, no changes are being made to the Draft EIR analysis or conclusions for aesthetics for the Mirage-Santa Rosa segment.

Response O2-c The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to biological resources. In order for a more robust ranking of alternatives with respect to biological resources, the CPUC has decided to include more weight to the integrity of the habitat along the proposed and alternative alignments, in combination with the amount of permanent impacts that would result (i.e., the amount of overhead line that would occur under each alignment). Therefore, the second bullet on Draft EIR page 5-9 is revised as follows. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

• Biological Resources - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. The Proposed Project alignments contain more suitable habitat for special status species than do the alternative alignments. Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 37 would result in the least most amount of overhead line and associated long-term impacts; however, Alternative 7 would be constructed in the least suitable habitat for special status species, making it the most favorable alternative, followed by Alternative 6, Alternative 3, Alternative 2, and the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, and Alternative 7. Compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in approximately 1.5 miles of new overhead line in more suitable habitat for special status species, Alternative 5 would result in only a short segment of overhead line associated with the I-10 and UPRR crossings and it would be in less suitable habitat for special status species.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-4 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-d The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to cultural resources. The CPUC has decided to include more weight to potential impacts associated with discovery of previously unknown archeological and paleontological resources for the ranking of alternatives. Therefore, the following revisions have been made to the cultural resources environmentally superior alternative discussion on Draft EIR page 5-9. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document. For other revisions that have been made to Draft EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, refer to Responses 52 to 60.

• Cultural Resources - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Alternative 6 and Alternative 7 would have no impact on the Garnet Hill cultural resource compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. It should be noted that Alternative 2 is the only alignment that would include direct impacts to Garnet Hill. Between Alternatives 6 and 7, Alternative 6 Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would include a higher potential for an undiscovered find compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line and Alternative 7 due to the one-mile underground line construction work that would be associated with Alternative 6 those alternatives. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, and Alternative 2. Compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 would avoid CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430. However, Alternative 5 would result in substantially more subsurface disturbance associated with trenching for the underground line compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in more severe of an impact related to undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources. Therefore, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than Alternative 5.

Response O2-e For revised text related to the rankings of alternatives with regard to aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources, refer to Responses O2-b through O2-d, above.

Response O2-f The CPUC agrees with the Applicant that the amount and duration of air emissions should be considered in ranking the alternatives within the air quality resource area even though the impact would be Class I for each. Therefore, the following revisions have been made to the first two paragraphs of the discussion of the environmentally superior alternatives on Draft EIR page 5-3.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-5 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

As discussed in the previous section, the Proposed Project and all five alternatives would have significant unmitigable impacts on air quality during construction. The extent of the unmitigable impacts on air quality varies slightly by alternative but could not be mitigated to less than significant levels for the Proposed Project or any alternative. Consequently, the selection of an environmentally superior alternative is based on differences in intensity of air quality impacts and type of as well as the differences in intensity of the other environmental issue area impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation (Table 5-2). Based on these differences the identified environmentally superior alternative is the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnett study area is Alternative 3 and the identified environmentally superior alternative for and the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area is Alternative 5.

All five alternatives studied in this EIR were variations of alignments that would use existing ROW. The alternatives studied would substitute one component of the Proposed Project (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3, 6, or 7 would be used in lieu of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line and Alternative 5 would be used in lieu of the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line). For a number of resources, there are no material environmental impact differences between the Proposed Project and alternatives including: agricultural resources; air quality; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, planning, and policies; mineral resources, noise; population and housing; public services; and recreation; and utilities and service systems.

In addition, the following revisions have been made to the first paragraphs of Draft EIR page 5-9. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

Implementation of the Proposed Project or any of the five alternatives would result in a significant unmitigable (Class I) impact on air quality during construction. Although impacts to air quality would be of varying degree (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities), the impacts would be short term and temporary in nature; therefore, impacts of varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.

Resource categories where environmental impacts would either be materially lessened or increased by implementing an alternative to the Proposed Project are discussed below.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-6 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

• Air Quality - Implementation of the Proposed Project or any of the five alternatives would result in a significant unavoidable (Class I) short-term impact on air quality during construction. The short-term impacts to air quality would be of varying degree (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line). Based on these varying degrees of impact, the ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, and Alternative 2. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than Alternative 5.

Response O2-g The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to noise. The CPUC has decided to include more weight to potential impacts associated with the duration of construction activity noise that would occur in the vicinity of sensitive receptors. Therefore, the following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph on Draft EIR page 5-10. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

• Noise - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least duration of construction work in the vicinity of sensitive receptors (i.e., residences). Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 3 would result in the highest duration of construction activity in the vicinity of sensitive receptors due to the longest length of underground line work that would occur near residences, followed by Alternative 2 and Alternative 6. Alternative 7 would not include underground line work, but would affect more sensitive receptors than the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. Compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 would result in a longer duration of construction activity in the vicinity of more sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.

Response O2-h The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to public services. The CPUC has decided to include more weight to potential impacts associated with emergency

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-7 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

response times. Therefore, the following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph on Draft EIR page 5-10. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

• Public Services - Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least potential for construction activities to affect vehicle access and fire department response times because the alternatives with underground components would require lengthier lane closures that could more severely affect emergency response times, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative and more lane closures associated with overhead road crossings compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.

Response O2-i The Applicant expresses support for the Draft EIR conclusion that the Proposed Project lines would be more favorable than the alternatives with regard to short-term impacts associated with traffic and transportation. No revisions to the Draft EIR are requested.

Response O2-j The CPUC has considered the Applicant’s points related to the ranking of alternatives in the Draft EIR with regard to utilities and service systems. The CPUC has decided to include more weight to potential impacts associated with disturbing utilities during construction activities. Therefore, the following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph on Draft EIR page 5-10. Also, Table 5-2 has been updated and is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

• Utilities and Service Systems - Impacts would be less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least potential for construction activities to disturb utilities because the alternatives with underground components would have a higher potential to disturb underground utilities, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative and the greater potential for the additional pole excavations to disturb underground utilities compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7,

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-8 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Alternative 6, Alternative 3, and Alternative 2. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.

Response O2-k The Applicant states that construction of Alternatives 3 and 5 would cost approximately five times more than would construction of the project as proposed, and that such a substantial increase in cost would not result in any material environmental benefits. Construction cost is not a factor that is considered in CEQA when determining the environmentally superior alternative. The CPUC may consider cost and other factors when making a decision on the project, and, if warranted and justified, may approve an alternative that is not the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Response O2-l The Applicant summarizes the points raised in the preceding comments O2-b through O2-k, and concludes by saying that the Proposed Project should be identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. As discussed in Responses O2-b through O2-j, above, the Applicant has clarified various aspects of the Proposed Project and the alternatives which resulted in minor shifts in how the impacts in several resource areas were considered, or in the weight that certain resource areas should be afforded in the overall determination of the Environmentally Superior Alternative. It should be emphasized that these clarifications and refinements are insignificant modifications under CEQA in that they do not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of a previously identified environmental impact. Rather, the clarifications and refinements result in changes to the ranking of alternatives for resource areas in which only less than significant (or less than significant with mitigation) impacts have been identified.

As described on page 5-2 of the Draft EIR, there would be significant unavoidable (Class I) impacts, although temporary, in air quality for the Proposed Project and all alternatives arising from construction emissions. As discussed above in Response O2-f, above, we agree that the amount and duration of air emissions should be considered in ranking the alternatives with the air quality resource area even though the impact would be Class I for each.

Also as noted on page 5-2 of the Draft EIR, the only other differentiating impacts are within resource areas for which only less than significant (or less than significant with mitigation) impacts have been identified. It therefore is reasonable to give greater weight to the alternative ranking within air quality (which has the only significant impact) and lesser weight to the alternative ranking within the other resource areas.

To implement this refinement in ranking the alternatives, we assigned a weighting factor to each resource area for which at least some differentiation between alternatives was discernable. Air quality was assigned the highest

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-9 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

weighting because it had the only significant impact. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be long term, though admittedly less than significant, were assigned the next highest weighting. Aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources fall into that category. Next, resources areas wherein the impacts would be short term but most noticeable to many people (i.e., noise, and transportation and traffic) were assigned the third highest weighting. And finally, resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but generally not noticeable to many people (i.e., hazards/hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems) were assigned the lowest weighting. No weighting was assigned to resources areas for which no discernable distinction could be made from the Draft EIR analysis (i.e., agriculture resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation).

Within each weighted resource area, the alternatives (including the Proposed Project) were ranked from most favorable to least favorable based on the Draft EIR analysis and considering any refinements discussed above in Responses O2-b through O2-j. For the Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission Line, for which Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 apply, the most favorable alternative was assigned a rank of 1 and the least favorable alternative was assigned a rank of 5. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission Line, for which only Alternative 5 applies, the most favorable alternative was assigned a rank of 1 and the least favorable alternative was assigned a rank of 2. The resource weighting and alternatives rankings were compiled in a matrix and a total weighted score was calculated for each alternative by multiplying its ranking within a resource area times the weighting of the resource area, then summing up the total for all the resource areas. In this way, the alternative with the best (lowest) overall total score is the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The ranking matrices are shown below.

Alternatives Ranking Matrix for the Farrell-Garnet Line

/-------------------------- Alternatives Rankings ---------------------------/

Resource Area ResourceWeighting

Proposed Project Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 6 Alt. 7

Air Quality 10 1 5 4 3 2

Aesthetics 7 2 1 5 3 4

Biological Resources 7 5 4 3 2 1

Cultural Resources 7 1 5 4 3 2

Noise 5 1 4 5 3 2

Transportation and Traffic 5 1 4 5 3 2

Hazards/Hazardous Materials 1 1 5 4 3 2

Public Services 1 1 4 5 3 2

Utilities and Service Systems 1 1 5 4 3 2

Weighted Ranking 79 174 187 125 95

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-10 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Alternatives Ranking Matrix for the Mirage-Santa Rosa Line

/- Alternatives Rankings -/

Resource Area ResourceWeighting

Proposed Project Alt. 5

Air Quality 10 1 2

Aesthetics 7 2 1

Biological Resources 7 2 1

Cultural Resources 7 1 2

Noise 5 1 2

Transportation and Traffic 5 1 2

Hazards/Hazardous Materials 1 1 2

Public Services 1 1 2

Utilities and Service Systems 1 1 2

Weighted Ranking 58 74

Based on the clarifications and refinements described above, the Environmentally Superior Alternative is the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission Line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission Line. Accordingly, the last paragraph under Section 5.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative, on Draft EIR page 5-10, has been replaced with the following paragraphs.

While the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least amount of transportation and traffic impacts compared to the alternatives, these impacts would be primarily short-term and would conclude at the end of construction period. Because the Alternative 5 subtransmission line would result in less long-term aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. With regard to the Farrell-Garnet study area, Alternative 3 would result in the least amount of long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line and Alternatives 2, 6, and 7; however, Alternative 7 would result in the least amount of impacts to cultural resources compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line and Alternatives 2, 3, and 6. After considering all impacts, and the long length of Alternative 7, Alternative 3 is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

For the ranking of alternatives to support the identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for each geographical study area, a weighting factor was assigned to each resource area for which at least some differentiation between alternatives was discernable. Air

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-11 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

quality was assigned the highest weighting because it had the only significant and unavoidable impact. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be long term, though admittedly less than significant, were assigned the next highest weighting. Aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources fall into that category. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but most noticeable to many people (i.e., noise, and transportation and traffic) were assigned the third highest weighting. And finally, resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but generally not noticeable to many people (i.e., hazards/hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems) were assigned the lowest weighting. No weighting was assigned to resources areas for which no discernable distinction could be made from the Draft EIR analysis (i.e., agriculture resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation).

The Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least severe air quality, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems impacts compared to the alternatives, and in the Farrell-Garnet study area the Proposed Project would result in the second least severe impacts related to aesthetics. However, the Proposed Project would result in the most severe impacts related to biological resources in both study areas and would result in the most severe impacts related to aesthetics in the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. Because the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in less severe significant and unavoidable air quality construction impacts than the alternatives, with the exception of biological resources and aesthetics, and would result in less severe impacts compared to the alternatives for all of the other resource areas where a preference is identified, the Proposed Project subtransmission lines (i.e., the proposed Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission lines) are selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for both the Farrell-Garnett and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

In addition, the text under Section 5.4.2, Summary of the Environmentally Superior Alternative and its Impacts, beginning on Draft EIR page 5-10, has been revised as follows:

The Environmentally Superior Alternatives are defined in Section 5.3 as Alternative 3 the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnet study area and Alternative 5 for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. The impacts of Alternatives 3 and 5 the Proposed Project are defined in

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-12 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

each resource area’s impact analysis in Sections 4.1 through 4.16, and are also summarized in Table 5-2, above. The Environmentally Superior Alternatives would each have the same short-term construction related significant and unmitigable (Class I) impacts on air quality. As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.16, other types of impacts would also occur under the Proposed Project, but they would be either less than significant or mitigable to less than significant levels.

Also, the text under Section 5.4.3, Conclusion: Comparison of the Environmentally Superior Alternative with the No Project Alternative, beginning on page 5-11, is revised as follows:

The Environmentally Superior Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5) as defined above would reduce long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts and would have minimal long-term impacts on residences or other sensitive land uses. Under the No Project Alternative scenario, SCE may be required to construct new subtransmission and transmission lines and/or additional power generation in or near the study area to supply power to the Electrical Needs Area. It would be overly speculative for this EIR to assume where the new subtransmission and transmission facilities and/or power generation facilities would be sited; however, it is reasonable to assume that at a minimum, environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative scenario would not be less than those from the Environmentally Superior Alternatives. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives are preferred over the No Project Alternative.

The third paragraph on page ES-1 has been revised as follows:

This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and considers the potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Project and identifies and evaluates a range of alternatives. Based on this evaluation and the documentation which follows, this Draft EIR identifies Alternative 5 the Proposed Project as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for both the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area and Alternative 3 as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

The text under Section ES.4.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative, beginning on page ES-20, is revised as follows:

Table ES-3 summarizes the environmental impact conclusions of the Proposed Project and alternatives. Implementation of the Proposed

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-13 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Project and all five alternatives would result in significant and unmitigable (Class I) impacts on air quality during construction., Aalthough impacts to air quality would be of varying degrees (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities), the impacts would be short term and temporary in nature; therefore, impacts of slightly varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.

However, impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, and traffic and transportation, while all mitigable to less than significant, do vary enough to determine a preferred alternative from the perspective of these issue areas. Consequently, the selection of an Environmentally Superior Alternative is based on differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation. Based on these differences the identified Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnett study area is Alternative 3 and the identified Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area is Alternative 5.

To determine the Environmentally Superior Alternative, resource weighting factors were assigned and a ranking matrix was used to calculate a weighted score for the Proposed Project and each alternative. The Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least severe air quality, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems impacts compared to the alternatives, and in the Farrell-Garnet study area the Proposed Project would result in the second least severe impacts related to aesthetics. However, the Proposed Project would result in the most severe impacts related to biological resources in both study areas and would result in the most severe impacts related to aesthetics in the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. Because the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in less severe significant and unavoidable air quality construction impacts than the alternatives, with the exception of biological resources and aesthetics, and would result in less severe impacts compared to the alternatives for all of the other resource areas where a preference is identified, the Proposed Project subtransmission lines (i.e., the proposed Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission lines) are selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for both the Farrell-Garnett and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-14 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

The text under Section ES.4.4, Environmentally Superior Alternative vs. No Project Alternative, beginning on page ES-21, is revised as follows:

The Environmentally Superior Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5) as defined above would reduce long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts and would have minimal long-term impacts on residences or other sensitive land uses. Under the No Project Alternative scenario, SCE may be required to construct new subtransmission and transmission lines and/or additional power generation in or near the study area to supply power to the Electrical Needs Area. It would be overly speculative for this EIR to assume where the new subtransmission and transmission facilities and/or power generation facilities would be sited; however, it is reasonable to assume that at a minimum, environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative scenario would not be less than those from the Environmentally Superior Alternatives. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives are preferred over the No Project Alternative.

Tables 5-2 and ES-4 have been revised accordingly and are included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

Specific Comments Response O2-1 The Applicant correctly notes that General Order (GO) 131-D states that

local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Applicant requests that the GO 131-D preemption language be inserted in all Draft EIR resource sections that include discussion of local plans, policies, and ordinances.

It is unnecessary to place the same insert in each resource section; rather, a single insert has been made in Section 4.0, Introduction to Environmental Analysis, at the bottom of Page 4-2, as follows:

With regard to the discussion of local plans, policies, and ordinances in each of the resource sections 4.1 through 4.16, CPUC General Order 131-D clarifies that local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. However, in locating such projects, the public utilities shall consult with local agencies regarding land use matters. In instances where the public utilities and local agencies are unable to resolve their differences, the Commission shall

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-15 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

set a hearing no later than 30 days after the utility or local agency has notified the Commission of the inability to reach agreement on land use matters.

Response O2-2 In response to the clarification provided by the Applicant, the first sentence in the Executive Summary under ES.1.1 on page ES-1 has been clarified as follows:

The Proposed Project consists of a number of distinct project components that together make up the entire Proposed Project, including two new 115 kV subtransmission lines, three seven 115 kV subtransmission line reconfigurations, a 220 kV transmission line loop-in, substation modifications, . . .

Response O2-3 Figures ES-1 and ES-2 have been revised to show that Alternative 3 would continue into Farrell Substation. The revised figures are included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

Response O2-4 The second bullet under Mirage Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows:

• Install five new 220 kV circuit breakers and five three new 115 kV circuit breakers

Response O2-5 The first bullet under Santa Rosa Substation in Table ES-1 has been replaced with two bullets for clarity:

• Connect the Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line and the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line

• Convert the existing Santa Rosa-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line to the new Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line

• Convert the existing Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line to the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115kV subtransmission line

Response O2-6 The first bullet under Thornhill Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows:

• Install the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115 kV subtransmission line Convert the existing Thornhill-Tamarisk 115kV subtransmission line to the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115kV subtransmission line

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-16 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-7 The fifth bullet under Mirage Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows:

• Install the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line and relocate the existing Mirage-Concho and Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission lines

Response O2-8 The Applicant has requested that Table ES-4 in the Executive summary be revised to reflect the Applicant’s assessment of potential impacts to paleontological, cultural, and archaeological resources due to undergrounding. It is noted that a number of minor refinements to the Proposed Project and Alternatives (identified in Comments O2-10 through O2-32, below) have resulted in the need to update Table ES-4 for several resource areas. The revised table is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

Response O2-9 The text on page 1-2 in Section 1.2, Project Objectives, Purpose and Need, has been clarified as follows:

Splitting the existing 115 kV system is necessary to relieve thermal overload conditions on the existing Mirage-Concho leg of the Devers-Capwind-Concho-Mirage 115 kV subtransmission line and the Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission lines.

Response O2-10 The first bullet on page 2-13 has been clarified as follows:

• Split the existing Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive by removing the span of wire that connects the southwest and northeast corner poles and transfer it to the southeast corner pole (see Figure 2-5, Existing and Proposed 115 kV Line Configurations at Bob Hope and Dinah Shore Drives).

Response O2-11 The second bullet on page 2-13 has been clarified as follows:

• Split the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk at the same intersection by dead-ending and grounding the Santa Rosa leg at the northwest southeast corner pole. The portion of the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk line between Bob Hope Drive east to Portola Avenue would become idle.

Response O2-12 The third bullet on page 2-13 has been clarified as follows:

• Connect the open Tamarisk leg of the existing Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line to the open Garnet leg of the existing Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line at the northwest southeast corner pole of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-17 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-13 The Applicant has provided an updated drawing depicting the changed conductor configuration at Bob Hope and Dinah Shore Drives (Figure 2-5 in the Draft EIR). The updated drawing is provided as Attachment 2 to Comment Letter O2. No substantive changes to the environmental analysis are made necessary by this minor change.

Response O2-14 The first bullet on page 2-18 has been clarified as follows:

• Install a span of conductor between the existing north segment of the Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line and the existing west segment of the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line at the northwest southeast corner of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.

Response O2-15 The Applicant has provided an updated drawing depicting the changed TSP profile at Bob Hope Drive (Figure 2-8 in the Draft EIR). The updated drawing is provided as Attachment 3 to Comment Letter O2. No substantive changes to the environmental analysis are made necessary by this minor change.

Response O2-16 The third full paragraph on page 2-22 has been clarified as follows:

The TSPs would be installed on top of cylindrical concrete footings approximately six to eight feet in diameter and approximately 20 to 25 at least 22 feet deep. After holes for the footings have been bored, a steel rebar cage would be inserted into the hole, and then concrete would be poured into the hole to a level up to two feet above the ground surface. After the concrete has cured, the TSP would be bolted onto the footing. Excess bore spoils would be distributed at each pole site, used as backfill to fill holes left after removal of nearby wood poles, or removed from the pole sites.

Response O2-17 The fourth paragraph on page 2-22 has been clarified as follows:

Both LWS poles and TSPs consist of separate base and top sections for ease of construction. Steel pole installation would begin by transporting the poles from the staging area and laying the individual sections on the ground at each new pole location. While on the ground, the top section would be pre-configured with the necessary insulators and wire-stringing hardware. A line truck with a boom on it for LWS poles, or a crane for TSPs would be used to position each pole base section into previously augured holes for the LWS poles or on top of previously prepared foundations for the TSPs. When the base section is secured, the top section would be placed above the base section. The two sections may be spot-welded together for additional stability.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-18 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

While on the ground, the top and bottom sections of the LWS poles would be pulled together and preconfigured with the necessary insulators and wire stringing hardware. For LWS poles, a line truck with a boom on it would be used to position each pole into previously augured holes.

The TSPs would require a crane to set the pole bases on top of previously installed concrete foundations. Once secured, the top, and if necessary middle, sections of the TSP would then be set on the base of the TSP. For both structures, all sections may be spot welded together for added stability.

Response O2-18 The first paragraph under Conductor Pulling on page 2-23 has been clarified as follows:

Conductors would be installed on 115 kV polymer insulator assemblies attached to each crossarm in a horizontal configuration or suspension assemblies consisting of single polymer insulators attached to each crossarm in a vertical configuration. Overhead ground wires would be installed on the top of the steel poles. Conductors would be attached to 115 kV polymer post style insulators, that would be attached to each pole head for LWS poles, and suspended, or dead ended, to steel crossarms mounted on TSPs. Depending on location, the insulator configurations may be mounted vertically, or in a triangular pattern. With the exception of certain locations near substations, the overhead ground wire would be installed in accordance with G.O. 95 Table II. Distribution lines transferred to the new steel poles would typically be installed on standard wood crossarms with polymer insulators.

Response O2-19 The second paragraph under Conductor Pulling on page 2-23 has been clarified as follows:

Conductor pulling includes all activities associated with the installation of conductors onto the LWS and wood poles and TSPs. These activities include installing three 115 kV 954 SAC conductors, one 221 kcmil ACSR ground conductor, ground wire, vibration dampeners, weights, and post, suspension, and or dead-end hardware assemblies for the entire length of the proposed subtransmission lines.

Response O2-20 The first paragraph on page 2-41 has been clarified as follows:

Devers Substation is a staffed, 500/220/115 kV substation located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County, north of the City of Palm Springs. The proposed improvements at Devers Substation include the conversion of Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line to Devers-

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-19 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Mirage No. 1 220 kV transmission line, reconfiguration of the Coachella Valley-Devers 220 kV transmission line to the Devers-Mirage No. 2 220 kV transmission line, relay upgrades, replacement of two 115 kV circuit breakers in existing Position No. 7 for the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115 kV subtransmission line and replacement of two 115 kV circuit breakers in existing Position No. 4 for the new Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line. Improvements at the substation would also include installation of new line-protection relays.

Response O2-21 The first bullet on page 2-41 has been clarified as follows:

• Four 115 kV, 1,200 Amp, 40 kiloannum Amperes (kA) duty, circuit breakers

Response O2-22 The first paragraph under Engineering Plan on page 2-42 has been clarified as follows:

Mirage Substation is an unstaffed, 220/115 kV substation located in unincorporated Riverside County in the general vicinity of the community of Thousand Palms. The proposed improvements at Mirage Substation include the installation of one 280 MVA, 220/115 kV transformer bank, one new 220 kV bank position, one new 115 kV bank position, and one new 220 kV breaker-and-a-half configuration position for two new 220 kV line positions, and the relocation of the existing Mirage-Ramon 220 kV transmission line, the existing Julian Hinds-Mirage 220 kV transmission line, and the existing Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line. Other work at the substation would include looping of the Devers-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line into the Mirage 220 kV switchrack, installation of the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, relocation of existing Mirage-Concho 115 kV subtransmission line, renaming the existing Mirage-Capwind- Devers 115 kV subtransmission line to Mirage-Capwind-Tamarisk-Devers 115 kV subtransmission line, renaming the Mirage-Concho 115 kV subtransmission line to Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line, and installation of new line protection relays.

Response O2-23 This text clarification has been included in Response O2-22, above.

Response O2-24 The bullets under Major Equipment on page 2-42 have been clarified as follows:

Major Equipment • One 280 MVA 220/115 kV transformer bank; • Five 220 kV, 3,000 amp, 50 kA duty, circuit breakers;

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-20 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

• Ten 220 kV, 3,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Fifteen Eighteen 220 kV station post insulators; • Six 220 kV metering potential transformers Three 220 kV

coupling capacitor voltage transformers; • Three 220 kV metering units; • Two 115 kV, 3,000 amp, 40 kA duty circuit breakers; • Three One 115 kV, 2,000 amp, 40 kA duty circuit breakers; • Four 115 kV, 3,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Six Two 115 kV, 2,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect

switches; • Nine Six 115 kV potential transformers; and • Twenty-seven Twelve 115 kV post insulators.

Response O2-25 The bullets under Switchrack Configurations on page 2-42 to 2-43 have been clarified as follows:

Switchrack Configurations • One new 220 kV transformer bank position No. 6S designed

with a double-breaker configuration; • One new 220 kV line position No. 5 designed with a breaker-

and-a-half configuration for relocation of the existing Julian Hinds-Mirage 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 5N) and relocation of the existing Mirage-Ramon 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 5S);

• Renaming the Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line to Devers-Mirage No. 1 transmission line;

• Existing 220 kV transmission line Position No. 3 would be upgraded and remain a breaker-and-a-half configuration for the installation of the new Devers-Mirage No. 2 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 3N) and the installation of the new Mirage-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 3S);

• Existing Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line would be relocated to line position 1N to create the Devers-Capwind-Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line;

• Vacated existing line position No. 1S would be for the new Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line;

• One new 115 kV transformer bank position (No. 6N) designed with a double-breaker configuration;

• One new 115 kV line position (No. 7N) designed with a double-breaker configuration; and

• Convert existing 115 kV line position (No. 4) from a double-breaker configuration to a breaker-and-a-half configuration for relocated Concho 115 kV line Position (No. 4S) and new Santa Rosa 115 kV line Position (No. 4N); and

• Install one 220/115 kV transformer bank.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-21 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-26 This text clarification has been included in Response O2-25, above.

Response O2-27 This text clarification has been included in Response O2-25, above.

Response O2-28 The first paragraph under Construction Plan on page 2-59 has been clarified as follows:

The existing fiber optic cables would be transferred from existing poles to the new 115 kV subtransmission poles that would be installed within existing ROWs or franchise locations. The All-Dielectric Self-Supporting (ADSS) fiber optic cables would be attached to a support block beneath the end of each 10-foot wood cross-arm on each new pole as shown in Figure 2-3. Telecommunications equipment installation would occur within existing SCE substation buildings and at the Edom Hill Communications Site. IID equipment and circuit installation would occur at is expected to be in the IID’s mechanical-electrical equipment room (MEER).

Response O2-29 The typographical error in Table 2-7 on page 2-60 has been corrected as follows:

Indian Wells, Equipment/Circuit Installation Equipment Installation

3 35 5 2 – Pick-Up (Gasoline)

Response O2-30 The last sentence in the second paragraph under Electric and Magnetic Fields

on page 2-62 has been corrected as follows:

Additional information on electric and magnetic fields generated by transmission lines is presented in Appendix D B.

Response O2-31 The third paragraph under Electric and Magnetic Fields on page 2-62 has been corrected as follows:

After several decades of study regarding potential public health risks from exposure to power line EMF, research results remains inconclusive. Several national and international panels have conducted reviews of data from multiple studies and state that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that EMF causes cancer. Most recently the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) both classified EMF as a possible carcinogen.

Response O2-32 The Applicant has made an engineering refinement to Alternative 2 to be in compliance with FAA regulations. Accordingly, the text in the first

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-22 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

paragraph, third sentence on page 3-13 (Section 3.4.2, Alternative 2) has been revised as follows:

At Sunrise Way, the line would turn north, and proceed along Sunrise Way to approximately 1,265 feet north of Four Seasons Boulevard, where the underground segment would end and the subtransmission line would transition to overhead at a riser pole . . .

Response O2-33 The second sentence of Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 has been revised as follows to provide a more reasonable lead time for submission of the Construction Lighting Mitigation Plan. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

SCE shall submit a Construction Lighting Mitigation Plan to the CPUC for review and approval at least 90 30 days prior to the start of nighttime construction or the ordering of any exterior lighting fixtures or components, whichever comes first.

Response O2-34 Mitigation Measure 4.1-8 has been revised as follows to allow for the possibility that some equipment may not be commercially available in non-specular finish. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Mitigation Measure 4.1-8: A non-reflective or weathered finish shall be applied to all All new structures and equipment installed at the Devers, Mirage, Concho, Indian Wells, Santa Rosa, Eisenhower, Farrell, Garnet, Thornhill, and Tamarisk Substations shall have non-specular (reduced glare) surface finishes, except for structures or equipment for which such finishes are not commercially available to reduce potential glare effects.

Response O2-35 A description of Indian Canyon Drive has been added to the Local Major Roadways discussion at the bottom of page 4.1-3 of Section 4.1, Aesthetics, as follows:

Indian Canyon Drive. Indian Canyon Drive is an existing north-south roadway into Palm Springs with access from/to the I-10. Views from this roadway include open space and the San Jacinto Mountains.

Response O2-36 The following discussion of potential impacts to recreational users of Desert Highland Park that would occur under Alternative 3 has been added after the first whole paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.1-50:

Recreational viewers potentially affected by the Alternative 3 subtransmission line would include those associated with Desert

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-23 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Highland Park, located approximately 0.3 mile west of where the Alternative 3 subtransmission line would be located along Indian Canyon Drive and approximately 0.6 mile northwest of the where the Alternative 3 riser pole would be located. Views of the subtransmission line and riser pole would be achieved from certain locations at the east side of the park and would range from partially to fully screened, dependent on the presence of the recreational facilities and vegetation at the park. Therefore, visual sensitivity would be low, overall visual change would be low, and impacts would be less than significant requiring no mitigation (Class III). Visual impacts to recreational viewers that would be associated with Alterative 3 at the Desert Highland Park would be approximately the same as those that would be associated with the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line at Palm Springs Country Club Golf Course.

Response O2-37 Figure 4.1-1 in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, has been updated and clarified. The updated figure is included in Section 5 of this Response to Comments document.

Response O2-38 The Applicant asserts that the SCAQMD methodology should be followed for determining the significance of the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions, and doing so would eliminate the need for Mitigation Measure 4.3-6. However, as the lead agency under CEQA, the CPUC has the authority to establish its own significance criteria and assessment methodology to ensure that the cumulative impacts of a project’s GHG emissions are reduced to a less than significant level. Page 4.3-35 of Section 4.3, Air Quality, clearly lays out the three considerations the CPUC has taken to evaluate the GHG emissions from this project. The third consideration in that list is “The project’s potential to conflict with GHG reduction goals set forth in AB32.” The Draft EIR analysis for this consideration is clearly stated at the bottom of page 4.3-37: “While the annualized GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Project would be substantially less than CARB’s preliminary draft threshold amount of 7,000 metric tons CO2e, significance for this project is also based on whether the Proposed Project would be consistent with the State’s GHG reduction goal under AB 32, which would require a minimum reduction of 30 percent of GHG emissions by 2020 compared to business as usual conditions.” The analysis concludes that Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 is necessary to ensure that the Proposed Project is consistent with the GHG reduction goals set forth in AB32. Because the Draft EIR clearly laid out the evaluation criteria, and it followed a documented methodology for assessing the Proposed Project’s GHG emissions against those criteria, no changes will be made in the Draft EIR approach for determining GHG significance and Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 will remain.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-24 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

However, it should be noted that Mitigation Measure 4.3-6 allows the Applicant to submit to the CPUC a finalized calculation of net GHG emission increases and a determination of the amount to be offset. This provides the Applicant with the opportunity to refine not only the GHG emission calculations in the Draft EIR to account for final engineering design and construction plans, but also to refine the calculations for the net increase over business as usual.

Response O2-39 The Applicant’s requested change to Table 4.4-1 regarding the proposed critical habitat for the Casey’s June beetle being more than five miles away from the project area is unnecessary. The table already concludes a Low Potential for the beetle because there have been no recent records for that species in the project vicinity.

Response O2-40 The Applicant requests that Table 4.4-1 be revised to reflect that the flat-tailed horned lizard has recently been changed to a Federal Candidate Endangered Species. This is not correct. According to the most recent (January 2010) update of the State and Federally Listed Endangered & Threatened Animals of California, published by the State of California Department of Fish and Game, the flat-tailed horned lizard has no Federal listing or candidate status. This species had previously been listed as a Federally Proposed Threatened species by the USFWS, but the USFWS determined that the proposed listing was not warranted and the proposed rule was withdrawn on June 28, 2006. Therefore, no changes to Table 4.4-1 are required for this species.

Response O2-41 Please see Response O2-40, above. No changes to the text are required.

Response O2-42 Please see Response O2-40, above. No changes to the text are required.

Response O2-43 The last sentence in the 2nd paragraph of Impact 4.4-1 on page 4.4-47 of the Draft EIR is clarified as follows.

Although this location is predominantly composed of ruderal species, and no CV milkvetch was observed during the spring and summer 2009 surveys, there is still potential for this species to occur.

The last sentence in the 3rd paragraph of Impact 4.4-1 on page 4.4-47 of the Draft EIR is clarified as follows.

Although both of these locations are currently predominantly composed of ruderal species, and no CV milkvetch was observed during the spring and summer 2009 surveys, there is still potential for the CV milkvetch to occur.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-25 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-44 In response to this comment, the second paragraph of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 on page 4.4-48 of the Draft EIR has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Temporary and permanent impacts to habitat for the CV milkvetch shall be compensated for through conservation of suitable habitat for this species. The calculated replacement for habitat loss for the CV milkvetch shall be based on a ratio of 3:1 (compensation to impact) per acre for temporary impacts and 9:1 for permanent impacts, for an estimated total of 6 acres. These ratios Ratios reflect the limited habitat and low populations of this species across its range, and the loss of habitat available for this species in the project area, and are consistent with compensation ratios established in the CVMSHCP. Greater or lesser compensation ratios may be substituted as determined though USFWS and CDFG consultation and/or permitting, considering the quality of the habitat being affected. The replacement habitat shall be within the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Total compensation funds shall include the costs of acquisition and long-term management, and shall be paid prior to the start of project operations. This replacement habitat shall mitigate for both direct and indirect impacts of construction and operations/management on this species, as well as the CV fringe-toed lizard (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, below), Palm Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel, CV giant sand-treader cricket, and Le Conte’s thrasher.

Response O2-45 The first sentence of the third bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 on page 4.4-50 is clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

• SCE and/or its construction contractors shall retain and have available, the services of a CPUC authorized qualified biologist who shall perform the duties of the biological monitor.

Response O2-46 In response to this comment, the final bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 on page 4.4-51 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

• Temporary and permanent impacts to CV fringe-toed lizard habitat shall be mitigated through conservation of suitable habitat for this species. The calculated replacement for habitat loss for this species shall be based on a ratio of 3:1 (compensation to impact) per acre for temporary impacts and 9:1 for permanent impacts, for an estimated total of 6 acres. These ratios Ratios reflect the limited habitat and low populations of

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-26 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

this species across its range, and include both the loss of habitat use by the species, and the adverse effect of raptor predation caused by the new raptor perch availability at the new poles, and are consistent with compensation ratios established in the CVMSHCP. Greater or lesser compensation ratios may be substituted as determined though USFWS and CDFG consultation and/or permitting, considering the quality of the habitat being affected. The replacement habitat shall be within the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Total compensation funds shall include the costs of acquisition and long-term management, and shall be paid prior to the start of Proposed Project operations. This replacement habitat shall mitigate for both direct and indirect impacts of construction and operations/management on this species, as well as the Palm Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel, CV giant sand-treader cricket, Le Conte’s thrasher, flat-tailed horned lizard, and CV milkvetch (habitat conserved through this measure may be the same as that conserved through Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 for the CV milkvetch).

Response O2-47 The Applicant requests that a discussion be added to Impact 4.4-8 on page 4.4-56 regarding the role of sand fences as perches for raptors and other avian predators. However, the discussion in Impact 4.4-8 deals with new structures being added as part of the Proposed Project. The presence of sand fences is part of the existing baseline, and the Proposed Project would neither add nor remove any sand fences. So a discussion of the role of sand fences as perches for avian predators would be purely academic and would not affect the analysis or conclusions regarding the new structures that would be added by the Proposed Project.

Response O2-48 The Applicant asserts that the term “wetlands” is incorrect and misleading and requests that the term “wetlands” be changed to “jurisdictional waters.” However, we note that the Applicant used the term “Jurisdictional Wetlands” in its own Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) BIO-3 (see Draft EIR page 4.4-42), so that term was used for consistency in this impact discussion.

Response O2-49 The second sentence of the fifth bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 on page 4.4-51 is clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Each plant that is destroyed due to construction in the ROW along the east and west side of Gene Autry Trail roadway shall be replaced and monitored for at least ten five years, or other period of time approved by the USFWS, . . .

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-27 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-50 In response to this comment, the first bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-10 on page 4.4-58 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

• Purchase or dedication of land to provide wetland preservation, restoration, or creation. If restoration is available and feasible, then a mitigation replacement ratio of at least 2:1 shall be used. If a wetland needs to be created, at least a 3:1 ratio shall be implemented to offset losses. Where practical and feasible, onsite mitigation shall be implemented. Greater or lesser offset ratios may be substituted through consultation and/or permitting with the appropriate wildlife agency (USFWS or CDFG).

Response O2-51 The clarifications to Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2, described above in Response O2-44 and O2-46, respectively, provide the ability to have lower compensation ratios based on habitat quality.

Response O2-52 In order to more clearly state the rational for the list of cultural resources discussed in the Draft EIR, the introduction to the Findings discussion on page 4.5-7 is clarified as follows:

Findings The cultural resources records search revealed the presence of the following five previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE for the proposed and alternative alignments.

Also, the first sentence of the first indented paragraph under Findings on page 4.5-7 is clarified as follows:

Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line alignment and the Alternative 3 alignment, but is within the APE for the Alternative 2 alignment.

Response O2-53 The first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 4.5-8 is clarified as follows:

33-8408 (Varner Road). This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead reconfigured Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV line, and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignments, and Alternative 5, 6 and 7 alignments.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-28 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-54 The first sentence of the last paragraph on page 4.5-8 is clarified as follows:

33-9498/CA-RIV-6381H (Southern Pacific Railroad/Union Pacific Railroad line). This resource was relocated during the 2009 archaeological survey and is within the viewshed of but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV alignment and alternative subtransmission line alignments and was relocated during the 2009 archaeological survey.

Response O2-55 The first sentence of the first indented paragraph on page 4.5-9 is clarified as follows:

33-15429. This resource is known to be located adjacent to and outside of within the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment.

Response O2-56 The first sentence of the second indented paragraph on page 4.5-9 is clarified as follows:

33-15430. This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment.

Response O2-57 The third paragraph under checklist questions a, b) on Draft EIR page 4.5-23 has been replaced with the following paragraphs to be consistent with the changes made above (see Responses O2-52 through O2-56). Note that the paragraphs below are not exactly those suggested by the Applicant due to a few inconsistencies and errors in the Applicant’s suggested revisions. For example, the first sentence of the third paragraph of the suggested revisions indicates that archaeological site 33-15429 would not be impacted by the Proposed Project, which is in direct conflict with the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the suggested revisions. Therefore, the revisions to the Draft EIR include no changes with regard to the potential for impacts at site 33-15429.

Historic resource 33-4808 (Varner Road), Native American cultural resource Hoon wit ten ca va and prehistoric archaeological sites CA-RIV-785, 33-15429, and 33-15430, could be impacted by the Proposed Project. Impacts are described in detail below.

Historic resource 33-4808 (Varner Road) would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. It would be spanned by the proposed overhead reconfigured Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV line and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line,

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-29 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

and no ground-disturbing activity would occur within the roadway. Therefore, there would be no impacts to this resource (No Impact).

Native American cultural resource Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) would not be physically impacted by the Proposed Project. The proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV line would be installed overhead on poles constructed along an existing dirt road north of Garnet Hill, and no ground disturbing activity would occur within the limits of this topographical feature. For the potential indirect impacts to this resource, see the Impact 4.5-2 discussion.

The proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV line would be constructed on overhead poles west of 33-15429 and east of 33-15430, and all access would be from an existing dirt road located immediately west of the poles that currently carry the Mirage-Tamarisk and Mirage-Concho lines, which in this area would be reconfigured using the dirt access road for access. Prehistoric archaeological site 33-15429 would not be directly impacted by the Proposed Project. The resource is located east of the existing subtransmission line and adjacent to and outside of the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment. However, it is not known if there is a subsurface component to this resource, and if so, whether it might extend into the area that is within the Proposed Project’s APE. Prehistoric archaeological site 33-15430 would not be impacted by the Proposed Project.

Prehistoric archaeological site CA-RIV-785 could be impacted by the Proposed Project. A portion of it is located within the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV line.

Response O2-58 The Impact 4.5-1 heading on Draft EIR page 4.5-23 has been revised as follows to indicate that there would be no direct impact associated with the Proposed Project to historic site 33-8408, Varner Road.

Impact 4.5-1: Project construction could adversely affect historic site 33-8408, Varner Road. Less than significant (Class III)

The last sentence of the second paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.5-24 has been revised as follows to indicate that there would no direct impact associated with the Proposed Project to historic site 33-8408, Varner Road.

Impacts There would be no impact to Varner Road at this location would be less than significant.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-30 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Impact 4.5-1 in the Executive Summary Table ES-5 on Draft EIR page ES-24 has been removed to reflect this revision.

Cultural Resources

4.5-1: Impacts to historic site 33-8408, Varner Road

Class III

None required Less than Significant

Response O2-59 Although SCE’s PEA indicates that the Proposed Project would potentially impact site 33-15430 (see PEA page 4.5-11, third paragraph), the CPUC concurs with SCE’s current assessment of site 33-15430 in that it is located outside of the APE for the Proposed Project and would consequently not be impacted by the Proposed Project. Therefore, Draft EIR Impact 4.5-3 and associated mitigation measures have been revised as indicated below to delete discussion of site 33-15430.

The title of Impact 4.5-3, which appears on Draft EIR page 4.5-25 has been renamed as follows.

Impact 4.5-3: Project construction could adversely affect cultural resources CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430. Less than Significant with Mitigation (Class II)

The second paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.5-26 has been revised as follows.

Construction of the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line could also impact sites 33-15429 and 33-15430. These sites This site may be related to site CA-RIV-785 and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion D/4, ability to provide information important to prehistory. Neither site, however However, the site does not appears to be within the direct APE for the proposed alignment. These sites This site should be avoided to ensure that any adverse effects are minimized. Implementation of APM CUL-3 (Construction Monitoring) as well as Mitigation Measures 4.5-3a, 4.5-3b, and 4.5-3c would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures 4.5-3a and 4.5-3b on Draft EIR page 4.5-26 has been revised as follows. The same revisions have been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Mitigation Measure 4.5-3a: Avoid and protect archaeological resources. SCE shall narrow the construction zone to avoid potentially significant archaeological resources CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430 if feasible. The resources shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to ensure avoidance. Protective

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-31 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

fencing or other markers shall be erected around ESAs prior to any ground disturbing activities; however, such ESAs shall not be identified specifically as cultural resources, in order to protect sensitive information and to discourage unauthorized disturbance or collection of artifacts.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-3b: Preparation of treatment plan if avoidance is not feasible. If avoidance of sites CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430 is not feasible, prior to issuing any grading or excavation permits and prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities, a detailed Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) shall be prepared...

Response O2-60 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 2 impact discussion on Draft EIR page 4.5-31 have been revised as follows to reflect direct impacts under Alternative 2 to Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) as well as the higher severity of impacts under Alternative 2 that would be associated with trenching for the underground line.

Similar to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, the Alternative 2 alignment could potentially impact previously recorded resource, Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). However, unlike the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) would be directly impacted by Alternative 2 because the Alternative 2 alignment would be located on the resource. This resource appears significant to the oral histories of the Cahuilla Indian Tribe and may be considered a TCP. Construction of Alternative 2 could result in impacts to Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). Potential impacts to the resource would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of APM CUL-1 and CUL-6 as well as Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, described above for the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line (Class II). This impact would be more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.

As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, impacts associated with Alternative 2 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-32 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 2 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line. With implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.

The potential impacts to human remains that would be associated with Alternative 2 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result during construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.

The following paragraphs under the Alternative 3 impact discussion on Draft EIR page 4.5-32 have been revised to reflect the higher severity of impacts under Alternative 3 that would be associated with trenching for the underground line.

As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line, construction impacts associated with Alternative 3 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b, and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 3 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under construction the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. With implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-33 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with construction of Alternative 3 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result during construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

The following paragraphs under the Alternative 5 impact discussion on Draft EIR page 4.5-33 have been revised as follows to reflect the higher severity of impacts under Alternative 5 that would be associated with trenching for the underground line.

As with the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, impacts associated with construction of Alternative 5 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.

Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with construction of Alternative 5 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line; impacts would be less than significant with implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6 (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.

The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with construction of Alternative 5 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-34 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

The following paragraphs under the Alternative 6 impact discussion on Draft EIR page 4.5-34 have been revised as follows to reflect the higher severity of impacts under Alternative 6 that would be associated with trenching for the underground line.

Portions of the Alternative 6 alignment were not subject to systematic archaeological survey due to lack of access. These segments will be surveyed if this alternative alignment is selected, per Mitigation Measure 4.5-4c. As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, impacts associated with Alternative 6 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b, and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 6 would be similar to those that would result under the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line, with the exception that Alternative 6 would not impact the high-sensitivity Imperial Formation. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6 (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with Alternative 6 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

Response O2-61 The first paragraph on page 4.6-2 of Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, is clarified as follows:

The closest known active faults to the study area are associated with the San Andreas fault system, with the northwesterly trending Banning and Coachella segments of the fault system mapped in the north, just

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-35 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

north of Interstate 10 (I-10). The northwesterly trending Garnet Hill fault is mapped north of Palm Springs, about a half mile south of I-10. The Garnet Hill fault is mapped as a buried fault and is based on a gravity anomaly survey of the Coachella Valley by a major oil company (Proctor, 1968). The Garnet Hill fault is not mapped as offsetting Holocene-age materials (Jennings, 1994) and, therefore, does not display evidence of being active (Hart et al., 1979). Although Further, the California Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey) has not designated it as an active fault, and Holocene surface rupture was not documented along the Garnet Hill fault in the vicinity of the project area (SCEDC, 2010) the Garnet Hill fault can act as a plane of weakness and move in response to an earthquake on another nearby fault. Ground fractures associated with the 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake were reported along the trace of the Garnet Hill fault and indicate that a near-surface response of weak surfaces occurred at depth (City of Cathedral City, 2002). The north-south trending Palm Canyon fault is mapped as trending towards Palm Springs from the south, but the fault is not considered active by State maps (Jennings, 1994).

In addition, the following reference is added to the References section on page 4.6-17:

Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 1986 North Palm Springs Earthquake. http://www.data.scec.org/fault_index/garnet.html. Accessed March 12, 2010.

Response O2-62 The second sentence of the first paragraph under Seismic Activity on Draft EIR page 4.6-3 has been revised as shown below to clarify that fault rupture did not occur along the Banning, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill faults in 1986.

The 1986 quake registered a magnitude of 5.6 and caused minor ground rupturing cracks along the Banning, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill faults, but these cracks were due to shaking, not surface rupture.

Response O2-63 The Applicant requests that four sentences be added to the subsidence discussion presented on Draft EIR page 4.6-4. However, the comment includes no indication of why the sentences should be added, and it is not clear what would be achieved by adding the sentences. In addition, the suggested sentences appear to be based on a USGS Scientific Investigations Report and a press release; however, those reference materials were not included with the Applicant’s comment letter. Because the referenced documents are not readily available for review and the suggested edits would

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-36 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

not add any clear value to the EIR, the CPUC has not included the requested sentences in the Final EIR.

Response O2-64 The following paragraphs have been added to the beginning of the Geology and Soils Regulatory Context discussion on Draft EIR page 4.6-5 to reflect the federal regulatory context.

Federal

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 693 “Recommended Practices for Seismic Design of Substations”

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 693 “Recommended Practices for Seismic Design of Substations” was developed by the Substations Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society, and approved by the American National Standards Institute and the IEEE-SA Standards Board. This document provides seismic design recommendations for substations and equipment consisting of seismic criteria, qualification methods and levels, structural capacities, performance requirements for equipment operation, installation methods, and documentation. This recommended practice emphasizes the qualification of electrical equipment.

IEEE 693 is intended to establish standard methods of providing and validating the seismic withstand capability of electrical substation equipment. It provides detailed test and analysis methods for each type of major equipment or component found in electrical substations. This recommended practice is intended to assist the substation user or operator in providing substation equipment that will have a high probability of withstanding seismic events to predefined ground acceleration levels. It establishes standard methods of verifying seismic withstand capability, which gives the substation designer the ability to select equipment from various manufacturers, knowing that the seismic withstand rating of each manufacturer’s equipment is an equivalent measure. Although most damaging seismic activity occurs in limited areas, many additional areas could experience an earthquake with forces capable of causing great damage. This recommended practice should be used in all areas that may experience earthquakes.

International Building Code

Published by the International Code-Council (ICC), the scope of this code covers major aspects of construction and design of structures and buildings, the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) replaced the 1997 Uniform Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. Published by the International Conference of

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-37 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Building Officials, the IBC addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire- and life-safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.

Response O2-65 The following California Building Code paragraphs replace the Design Standards paragraph of the Geology and Soils Regulatory Context discussion on Draft EIR page 4.6-5 to provide more background on the California Building Code.

California Building Code

The California Building Code (CBC) has been codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as Title 24, Part 2. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The 2007 CBC is based on the 2006 IBC published by the International Code Conference. In addition, the CBC contains necessary California amendments which are based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standards 7-05. ASCE 7-05 provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California.

The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-38 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Design Standards Building codes provide specific standards for design and construction of buildings and structures. On January 1, 2008, California officially adopted the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). The purpose of the CBC is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use, occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The CBC provides criteria for defining expansive soils.

Response O2-66 Please see Response O2-65, above.

Response O2-67 As indicated in the first paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.6-2, the Garnet Hill fault is not mapped as offsetting Holocene-age materials and, therefore, does not display evidence of being active. Geomorphic evidence of the Garnet Hill fault may not be available; however, the fault is mapped as a buried fault based on a gravity anomaly survey of the Coachella Valley by a major oil company.

Although the CPUC agrees with this comment; we do not concur with the suggested revisions. However, to clarify that fault fracture and/or rupture did not occur along the Garnet Hill fault in 1986, the following revisions have been made to the Impact 4.6-1 discussion on Draft EIR page 4.6-10. Please also refer to Response O2-62 for similar revisions that have been made to the Geology and Soils setting discussion.

There are no active earthquake faults that are recognized or zoned by the State of California in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project alignments and sites. The only fault that would intersect any of the Proposed Project components is the Garnet Hill fault, which is mapped as buried with a location that is postulated across the proposed Farrell-Garnet alignment. Whereas seismic activity is not limited to active faults, ground rupture is typically associated with active faults. However, ground fractures cracks associated with the 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake were reported along the trace of the Garnet Hill fault, but the fractures were a result of ground shaking rather than fault rupture…

Response O2-68 The Impact 4.6-3 discussion on Draft EIR page 4.6-11 has been revised as indicated below to clarify that liquefaction is not likely to occur in the Proposed Project area.

In order for liquefaction to occur, there needs to be relatively shallow groundwater conditions, generally at depths of less than 50 feet below the ground surface. Shallow groundwater conditions do not exist in the

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-39 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

project area and the Proposed Project would not cause the groundwater table to rise. Regardless, the potential for liquefaction or other phenomena resulting in dynamic ground settlement, if even present, can be easily reduced with adequate geotechnical and foundation engineering. Therefore, with the implementation of standard engineering practices, any potential impacts associated with liquefaction, if discovered during geotechnical investigations that would be conducted for the Proposed Project, would be reduced to less than significant levels. The potential impact related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.

Response O2-69 It is assumed that the comment is in reference to Applicant Proposed Measure (APM) HAZ-2 (i.e., there is no Mitigation Measure HAZ-2). APM HAZ-2 is identified in Section 8 in Table 8-1 at the top of Draft EIR page 8-30.

Response O2-70 Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b identified on Draft EIR page 4.8-21 has been revised as indicated below to offer more flexibility in implementation by requiring general restoration of the disturbed areas. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b: Regarding the engineered erosion control and drainage plan developed as part of the site grading plan (APM HYDRO-2A), SCE shall conduct a topographic and gradient survey of the Whitewater River Wash both upstream and downstream of the proposed pole(s) replacement location within the wash. Post construction topography and gradient of the Whitewater River Wash shall be contoured SCE shall restore all areas on the Whitewater Wash disturbed during construction of the Proposed Project to match the existing conditions, to ensure that the drainage pattern is not altered in a manner that would cause on- or off-site erosion or sedimentation.

The Monitoring/Reporting Requirements and Timing entries for Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b in Draft EIR Table 8-1, Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project, have been revised as follows to reflect the changes in the measure indicated above.

Monitoring/Reporting Requirements Timing

SCE to submit results of topographic and gradient survey to CPUC for review. CPUC mitigation monitor to inspect compliance. CPUC mitigation monitor to monitor compliance.

Survey results to be submitted prior to construction activities within the Whitewater River Wash. Following construction activities within the Whitewater River Wash. Inspection to be performed following completion of grading activities within the wash.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-40 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-71 Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 identified on Draft EIR page 4.11-18 has been revised as indicated below to remove the Riverside County submittal and approval requirements. The same revisions have been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Mitigation Measure 4.11-2: Mirage Substation. SCE shall ensure that noise levels associated with the Mirage Substation do not exceed the Riverside County noise standards for stationary sources. Noise control techniques may include, but not be limited to: locating the new transformer with as much setback from the existing residential properties as possible, use of noise walls or equivalent sound attenuation devices, and the use of a transformer with special noise control specifications designed in a way to specifically achieve acceptable regulatory noise standards.

Prior to the installation of the new transformer, SCE shall submit to the CPUC and the County of Riverside, for review and approval, a plan that describes the specific measures that will be taken in order to comply with the County’s stationary noise standards. Once the proposed transformer is operational, SCE shall retain an acoustical engineer to perform noise measurements in the vicinity of the residences west of Mirage Substation to verify that transformer noise levels comply with the County standards. Documentation of compliance shall be submitted to the CPUC and Riverside County. In the event the transformer noise levels violate the standards, additional noise control techniques shall be initiated to correct the violation.

The Mitigation/Reporting Requirements entry for Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 in Draft EIR Table 8-1, Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project, has been revised as follows to reflect the changes in the measure indicated above.

Monitoring/Reporting Requirements

SCE to submit plan for compliance to Riverside County and CPUC for review and approval.

SCE to retain an acoustical engineer, and submit documentation of compliance to the CPUC and Riverside County.

Response O2-72 The Applicant requests that Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 be revised to remove references to certain noise control techniques that may be used to ensure that noise levels at Mirage Substation do not exceed the Riverside County noise

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-41 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

standards for stationary sources. The CPUC sees no value in eliminating discussion of the noise control techniques that may be used at Mirage Substation. Note that the measure does not explicitly require implementation of the specific noise control techniques identified in the measure, but rather offers the techniques as examples of how noise control can be achieved.

The Applicant also suggests that the measure should be revised to indicate that a transformer would be used with sound levels as specified in SCE Specification A5-2009: Large Three-Phase Transformers and Autotransformers with OLTC for a normal system voltage of 220/230 kV. However, SCE did not indicate what those sound levels would be and it did not provide the referenced specification document with its comments. Without the benefit of knowing what the sound levels would be as specified in the SCE Specification A5-2009 document, the cannot include this suggestion as a revision to Mitigation Measure 4.11-2.

Response O2-73 The Applicant requests that Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 be revised to eliminate the requirement that an acoustical engineer perform noise measurements in the vicinity of the residences west of Mirage Substation once the proposed transformer is operational to verify that transformer noise levels comply with the County stationary source standards. However, the noise measurements of the operating proposed transformer are needed to ensure that the County’s stationary noise source standards are not exceeded. The suggested revisions have not been incorporated into the measure. Please refer to Response O2-71 for revisions that have been made to Mitigation Measure 4.11-2.

Response O2-74 The following edit was made to the first sentence of the last paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.12-5 to reflect a likely change in the construction schedule.

Construction activities in the project area are expected to last approximately 12 months, within the 2010-2012 time frame. beginning in 2010 and concluding in mid-2011.

Response O2-75 The Caltrans traffic data presented in Draft EIR Section 4.15 are clearly described as annual average daily traffic levels. To clarify that the local roadway traffic data are average daily traffic levels, the following sentence has been added to the end of second paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.15-2.

Below are summary descriptions of the roadways that would be affected by the Proposed Project components, and/or the alternatives in the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas. All traffic data presented for the local roadways are average daily traffic levels.

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-42 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-76 The last paragraph on Draft EIR page 4.15-2 has been revised as follows to correctly indicate that Garnet Avenue parallels the south side of I-10.

Garnet Avenue. The proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line alignment parallels Garnet Avenue from the Garnet Substation to the road’s eastern extent, where it dead ends at a road block. Garnet Avenue is a two lane road that parallels the south side of I-5 I-10 and has no lane stripes and has low traffic levels.

Response O2-77 The County of Riverside’s 2009 Traffic Count Database (available online at http://www.rctlma.org/trans/documents/traffic_count_book.pdf) does not include up to date traffic counts for Indian Canyon Drive. The most recent counts presented in the database for Indian Canyon Drive are for the year 2007. In addition, the County of Riverside’s 2009 Traffic Count Database does not identify an ADT level of 22,307 for any segment/year for Indian Canyon Drive. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments traffic data presented in the Draft EIR for Indian Canyon Drive is for the year 2009. Therefore, the Draft EIR includes the most up to date traffic data available for Indian Canyon Drive and changes to the traffic level discussion are not necessary.

Response O2-78 The referenced sentence in the first paragraph of Draft EIR Appendix B, on page 1, has been revised as follows to correctly indicate the units of milliGauss.

Units of measure are Gauss (G) or milliGauss (mG, 111000 1/1000 of a Gauss).

Response O2-79 The typographic error on the second page of Draft EIR Appendix B described by the Applicant (use of the word “field” instead of “filed”) does not appear in the document so no correction can be made. The Applicant’s other suggested clarification for the top of page 2 in Appendix B Section 1 has been included as follows:

Its recommendations were filed with the Commission in March of 1992, and became the basis for the CPUC’s EMF Policy established in D.93-11-013.

Response O2-80 The second paragraph on the second page of Draft EIR Appendix B refers to the findings related to the Commission’s updates to the policies and procedures related to electric and magnetic fields. Those findings are clarified as follows:

Findings – Based on the work of the Consensus Group, written testimony, and evidentiary hearings, the CPUC issued its decisions D.93-11-013 and (D.06-01-042) to address . . .

4. Responses to Comments

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 4-43 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Response O2-81 The referenced sentence in the last paragraph of Draft EIR Appendix B, on page 4, has been revised as follows to indicate the correct letter for the Draft EIR electric and magnetic fields appendix.

Specific measures to be implemented are described in the attached Field Management Plan for the Proposed Project (Appendix D B – Section 2) and alternatives (Appendix D B – Section 3).

Response O2-82 The third paragraph under 5.2, Evaluation of Project Alternatives, on page 5-2 is clarified as follows:

In addition to significant unmitigable impacts described above, there are several differentiating impacts that with mitigation would be less than significant. It should be noted that there are two groups of alternative routes: (1) Farrell-Garnet, which includes the Proposed Project and Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 are compared to each other and to the Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line portion of, and (2) Mirage-Santa Rosa, which includes the Proposed Project, and Alternative 5 is compared to the Mirage-Santa Rosa subtransmission line portion of the Proposed Project. Table 5-2 provides a comparison of potential impacts by alternative for each resource category.

Response O2-83 A typographical error on page 5-4 in the Proposed Project column of Table 5-2 for Aesthetics is corrected as follows:

Impacts determined to be Class II and Class III. The Farrell-Garnet line would include 1.55.8 miles of overhead line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa line would include 5.81.5 miles of overhead line.

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

CHAPTER 5 Revisions to the Draft EIR

5.1 Introduction Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this section presents the changes that were made to the Draft EIR to clarify or amplify its text in response to received comments. Such changes are insignificant as the term is used in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b), in that the changes merely clarify or amplify or make insignificant modifications. The changes are grouped by Draft EIR chapters and are then shown by page number in the Draft EIR and identified as to the location of the change in the body of the text or table.

Appendix E contains the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (MMRCP) for the Proposed Project, the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Consequently, clarification to mitigation measures that would affect the Proposed Project, in addition to being listed here, are included in the MMRCP in Appendix E.

Where changes are shown inserted in the existing Draft EIR text, revised or new language is underlined, deleted language is indicated by strikethrough text, and the original text is shown without underline or strikethrough text.

5.2 Text Changes Page Identification / Text Change

Executive Summary

ES-1 The following revisions have been made to the third paragraph under Section ES.1, Introduction/Background.

This Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and considers the potential environmental impacts from the Proposed Project and identifies and evaluates a range of alternatives. Based on this evaluation and the documentation which follows, this Draft EIR identifies Alternative 5 the Proposed Project as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for both the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area and Alternative 3 as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

ES-1 The first sentence under Section ES.1.1, Proposed Project, has been clarified as follows.

The Proposed Project consists of a number of distinct project components that together make up the entire Proposed Project, including two new 115 kV subtransmission lines, three seven 115 kV subtransmission line reconfigurations, a 220 kV transmission line loop-in, substation modifications, . . .

ES-2 Figure ES-1 has been revised as shown on the following page.

ES-4 The second bullet under Mirage Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows.

• Install five new 220 kV circuit breakers and five three new 115 kV circuit breakers

ES-4 The fifth bullet under Mirage Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows:

• Install the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line and relocate the existing Mirage-Concho and Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission lines.

ES-5 The first bullet under Santa Rosa Substation in Table ES-1 has been replaced with the following two bullets for clarity.

• Connect the Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line and the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line

• Convert the existing Santa Rosa-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line to the new Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line

• Convert the existing Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line to the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115kV subtransmission line

ES-5 The first bullet under Thornhill Substation in Table ES-1 has been revised as follows.

• Install the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115 kV subtransmission line Convert the existing Thornhill-Tamarisk 115kV subtransmission line to the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115kV subtransmission line

ES-9 Figure ES-2 has been revised as shown on the page that follows the next page.

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

Palm

Sp

rings

Cath

edra

l Ci

ty

Ranc

ho

Mirag

e

Palm

Des

ert

Indian

We

llsLa

Quin

ta

Indio

Dese

rt Ho

t Sp

rings

Thou

sand

Pa

lms

Coac

hella

§̈¦74

§̈¦62

§̈¦86

§̈¦10

§̈¦86

§̈¦111

§̈¦74

§̈¦111

§̈¦111

Josh

ua Tr

ee N

ation

al Pa

rk

San B

ernard

ino N

ation

al Fo

rest

Mt S

an Ja

cinto

State

Park

San B

ernard

ino N

ation

al Fo

rest

MIRA

GE

GARN

ET

DEVE

RS

CONC

HO

CAPW

IND

FARR

ELL

TAMA

RISK

THOR

NHILL

SANT

A ROS

A

EISEN

HOWE

R

INDIAN

WEL

LS

COAC

HELL

A VAL

LEY

San B

ernard

ino

Rivers

ide

Impe

rial

San D

iego

Oran

ge

New

Deve

rs 11

5kV S

ubtra

nsmi

ssion

Area

Prop

osed

Proje

ct an

d Alte

rnati

ves

04

Miles

Electr

ical N

eeds

Area

City B

ound

ary#*

SCE S

ubsta

tion

Prop

osed

Proj

ect

Deve

rs-Co

ache

lla 22

0 kV L

oop-I

nFa

rrell-G

arnet

115 k

VMi

rage-S

anta

Rosa

115 k

VSu

btran

smiss

ion Li

ne R

econ

figura

tion

Altern

ative

sAlt

ernati

ve 2

Altern

ative

3 Alt

ernati

ve 5

Altern

ative

6Alt

ernati

ve 7i

SOUR

CE: S

CE, 2

008

Deve

rs-Mi

rage 1

15 kV

Subtr

ansm

ission

Sys

tem Sp

lit Pr

oject

. 207

059

Figur

e ES-

1Pr

opos

ed Pr

oject

and A

lterna

tives

Elec

trical

Need

s Area

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

!" #$10

Cathe

dral

City

Ranc

ho

Mirag

e

Palm

Des

ert

Dese

rt Ho

t Sp

rings

Thou

sand

Pa

lms

Union

Pacifi

c Railr

oad

Palm

Sprin

gs

Riser

Pole

Altern

ative

3

Riser

Pole

Altern

ative

2

Riser

Poles

Altern

ative

6

Rise

r Pole

Alter

nativ

e 5

Palm

Dese

rt

!" #$10

Ä111

Ä62DI

LLON

VARNERPALM

20TH

CHIN

O

INDIAN CANYON

SUNRISE

DATE PALM

MOUNTAIN VIEW

FARRELL

30TH

CABALLEROS

GENE AUTRY

WORSLEY

LANDAU

SAN

RAFA

EL

RACQ

UET C

LUB

PALM CANYON

LONG CANYON

LITTLE MORONGO

20TH

TAMA

RISK

MIRA

GE

GARN

ET

DEVE

RS

CONC

HO

CAPW

IND

FARR

ELL

SANT

A ROS

A

EISEN

HOWE

R

TAMA

RISK

THOR

NHILL

Exist

ing E

lectric

al Fa

cilitie

s11

5 kV S

ubtra

nsmi

ssion

Line

220 k

V Tran

smiss

ion Li

ne#*

SCE S

ubsta

tions

Prop

osed

Proj

ect

Deve

rs-Co

ache

lla 22

0 kV L

oop-I

nFa

rrell-G

arnet

115 k

VMi

rage-S

anta

Rosa

115 k

VSu

btran

smiss

ion Li

ne R

econ

figura

tion

Altern

ative

sAlt

ernati

ve 2

Altern

ative

3 Alt

ernati

ve 5

Altern

ative

6Alt

ernati

ve 7

!.Ris

erPole

sCit

y Bou

ndary

Deve

rs-Mi

rage 1

15 kV

Subtr

ansm

ission

Sys

tem Sp

lit Pr

oject

. 207

059

Figur

e ES-

2Alt

ernati

ves O

vervi

ewSO

URCE

: SCE

, 200

8

01

Milesi

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-5 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

ES-20, -21 The paragraphs under Section ES.4.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative, is revised as follows.

Table ES-3 summarizes the environmental impact conclusions of the Proposed Project and alternatives. Implementation of the Proposed Project and all five alternatives would result in significant and unmitigable (Class I) impacts on air quality during construction., Aalthough impacts to air quality would be of varying degrees (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities), the impacts would be short term and temporary in nature; therefore, impacts of slightly varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.

However, impacts to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, and traffic and transportation, while all mitigable to less than significant, do vary enough to determine a preferred alternative from the perspective of these issue areas. Consequently, the selection of an Environmentally Superior Alternative is based on differences in intensity and type of impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation. Based on these differences the identified Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnett study area is Alternative 3 and the identified Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area is Alternative 5.

To determine the Environmentally Superior Alternative, resource weighting factors were assigned and a ranking matrix was used to calculate a weighted score for the Proposed Project and each alternative. The Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least severe air quality, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems impacts compared to the alternatives, and in the Farrell-Garnet study area the Proposed Project would result in the second least severe impacts related to aesthetics. However, the Proposed Project would result in the most severe impacts related to biological resources in both study areas and would result in the most severe impacts related to aesthetics in the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. Because the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in less severe significant and unavoidable air quality construction impacts than the alternatives, with the exception of biological resources and aesthetics, and would result in less severe impacts compared to the alternatives for all of the other resource areas where a preference is identified, the Proposed Project subtransmission lines (i.e., the proposed Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission lines) are selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for both the Farrell-Garnett and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-6 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

ES-21 The paragraph under Section ES.4.4, Environmentally Superior Alternative vs. No Project Alternative, is revised as follows.

The Environmentally Superior Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5) as defined above would reduce long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts and would have minimal long-term impacts on residences or other sensitive land uses. Under the No Project Alternative scenario, SCE may be required to construct new subtransmission and transmission lines and/or additional power generation in or near the study area to supply power to the Electrical Needs Area. It would be overly speculative for this EIR to assume where the new subtransmission and transmission facilities and/or power generation facilities would be sited; however, it is reasonable to assume that at a minimum, environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative scenario would not be less than those from the Environmentally Superior Alternatives. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives are preferred over the No Project Alternative.

ES-22 Table ES-4 has been revised as follows.

TABLE ES-4 DEVERS-MIRAGE 115KV SUBTRANSMISSION SYSTEM SPLIT PROJECT VS. ALTERNATIVES

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONCLUSIONS

Issue Area Proposed

Project Alternative

2 Alternative

3 Alternative

5 Alternative

6 Alternative

7

Aesthetics Proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line would have more of an impact than Alternative 5.

Least impact for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

Least impact for the Farrell-Garnet study area. Most impact for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

Less of an impact than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

Most impact for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

Agriculture Resources

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

Air Quality No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.

No Preference

No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

No Preference

No Preference

Biological Resources Most impacts for the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

Least impacts for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

Less impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

Least impacts for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-7 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Issue Area Proposed

Project Alternative

2 Alternative

3 Alternative

5 Alternative

6 Alternative

7

Cultural Resources MostLeast impacts for the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.

Less impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line. More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

Least impacts on cultural resources for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

Geology and Soils No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

Hazards / Hazardous Materials

No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.

No Preference

No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

No Preference

No Preference

Hydrology and Water Quality

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

Land Use, Planning and Policies

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

Minerals No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

Noise No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

No Preference

No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.

No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

No Preference

No Preference

Population and Housing

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

Public Services No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

No Preference

No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.

No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

No Preference

No Preference

Recreation No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

No Preference

Transportation and Traffic

Least impacts for the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

Most impacts for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

More impacts to than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-8 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Issue Area Proposed

Project Alternative

2 Alternative

3 Alternative

5 Alternative

6 Alternative

7

Utilities and Service Systems

No Preference Least impacts for both Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

No Preference Most impacts for Farrell-Garnet study area.

No Preference

No Preference More impacts than the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

No Preference

No Preference

ES-24 Impact 4.5-1 in the Executive Summary Table ES-5 has been removed.

Cultural Resources

4.5-1: Impacts to historic site 33-8408, Varner Road

Class III

None required Less than Significant

Chapter 1. Introduction

1-2 The following sentence in the last paragraph in Section 1.2, Project Objectives, Purpose and Need, is revised as follows.

Splitting the existing 115 kV system is necessary to relieve thermal overload conditions on the existing Mirage-Concho leg of the Devers-Capwind-Concho-Mirage 115 kV subtransmission line and the Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission lines.

Chapter 2. Project Description

2-13 The first bullet is clarified as follows.

• Split the existing Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line at the intersection of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive by removing the span of wire that connects the southwest and northeast corner poles and transfer it to the southeast corner pole (see Figure 2-5, Existing and Proposed 115 kV Line Configurations at Bob Hope and Dinah Shore Drives).

2-13 The second bullet is clarified as follows.

• Split the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk at the same intersection by dead-ending and grounding the Santa Rosa leg at the northwest southeast corner pole. The portion of the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk line between Bob Hope Drive east to Portola Avenue would become idle.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-9 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

2-13 The third bullet is clarified as follows.

• Connect the open Tamarisk leg of the existing Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line to the open Garnet leg of the existing Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line at the northwest southeast corner pole of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.

2-18 The first bullet is clarified as follows.

• Install a span of conductor between the existing north segment of the Garnet-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line and the existing west segment of the Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line at the northwest southeast corner of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.

2-22 The third full paragraph is revised as follows.

The TSPs would be installed on top of cylindrical concrete footings approximately six to eight feet in diameter and approximately 20 to 25 at least 22 feet deep. After holes for the footings have been bored, a steel rebar cage would be inserted into the hole, and then concrete would be poured into the hole to a level up to two feet above the ground surface. After the concrete has cured, the TSP would be bolted onto the footing. Excess bore spoils would be distributed at each pole site, used as backfill to fill holes left after removal of nearby wood poles, or removed from the pole sites.

2-22 The fourth full paragraph is replaced with the following paragraphs as follows.

Both LWS poles and TSPs consist of separate base and top sections for ease of construction. Steel pole installation would begin by transporting the poles from the staging area and laying the individual sections on the ground at each new pole location. While on the ground, the top section would be pre-configured with the necessary insulators and wire-stringing hardware. A line truck with a boom on it for LWS poles, or a crane for TSPs would be used to position each pole base section into previously augured holes for the LWS poles or on top of previously prepared foundations for the TSPs. When the base section is secured, the top section would be placed above the base section. The two sections may be spot-welded together for additional stability.

While on the ground, the top and bottom sections of the LWS poles would be pulled together and preconfigured with the necessary insulators and wire stringing hardware. For LWS poles, a line truck with a boom on it would be used to position each pole into previously augured holes.

The TSPs would require a crane to set the pole bases on top of previously installed concrete foundations. Once secured, the top, and if necessary middle,

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-10 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

sections of the TSP would then be set on the base of the TSP. For both structures, all sections may be spot welded together for added stability.

2-23 The first paragraph under Conductor Pulling is replaced with the following paragraph.

Conductors would be installed on 115 kV polymer insulator assemblies attached to each crossarm in a horizontal configuration or suspension assemblies consisting of single polymer insulators attached to each crossarm in a vertical configuration. Overhead ground wires would be installed on the top of the steel poles. Conductors would be attached to 115 kV polymer post style insulators, that would be attached to each pole head for LWS poles, and suspended, or dead ended, to steel crossarms mounted on TSPs. Depending on location, the insulator configurations may be mounted vertically, or in a triangular pattern. With the exception of certain locations near substations, the overhead ground wire would be installed in accordance with G.O. 95 Table II. Distribution lines transferred to the new steel poles would typically be installed on standard wood crossarms with polymer insulators.

2-23 The second paragraph under Conductor Pulling is revised as follows.

Conductor pulling includes all activities associated with the installation of conductors onto the LWS and wood poles and TSPs. These activities include installing three 115 kV 954 SAC conductors, one 221 kcmil ACSR ground conductor, ground wire, vibration dampeners, weights, and post, suspension, and or dead-end hardware assemblies for the entire length of the proposed subtransmission lines.

2-41 The first paragraph is revised as follows.

Devers Substation is a staffed, 500/220/115 kV substation located in the unincorporated area of Riverside County, north of the City of Palm Springs. The proposed improvements at Devers Substation include the conversion of Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line to Devers-Mirage No. 1 220 kV transmission line, reconfiguration of the Coachella Valley-Devers 220 kV transmission line to the Devers-Mirage No. 2 220 kV transmission line, relay upgrades, replacement of two 115 kV circuit breakers in existing Position No. 7 for the new Devers-Eisenhower-Thornhill 115 kV subtransmission line and replacement of two 115 kV circuit breakers in existing Position No. 4 for the new Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line. Improvements at the substation would also include installation of new line-protection relays.

2-41 The first bullet is revised as follows.

• Four 115 kV, 1,200 Amp, 40 kiloannum Amperes (kA) duty, circuit breakers

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-11 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

2-42 The first paragraph under Engineering Plan is revised as follows.

Mirage Substation is an unstaffed, 220/115 kV substation located in unincorporated Riverside County in the general vicinity of the community of Thousand Palms. The proposed improvements at Mirage Substation include the installation of one 280 MVA, 220/115 kV transformer bank, one new 220 kV bank position, one new 115 kV bank position, and one new 220 kV breaker-and-a-half configuration position for two new 220 kV line positions, and the relocation of the existing Mirage-Ramon 220 kV transmission line, the existing Julian Hinds-Mirage 220 kV transmission line, and the existing Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line. Other work at the substation would include looping of the Devers-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line into the Mirage 220 kV switchrack, installation of the new Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, relocation of existing Mirage-Concho 115 kV subtransmission line, renaming the existing Mirage-Capwind- Devers 115 kV subtransmission line to Mirage-Capwind-Tamarisk-Devers 115 kV subtransmission line, renaming the Mirage-Concho 115 kV subtransmission line to Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line, and installation of new line protection relays.

2-42 The bullets under Major Equipment are revised as follows.

Major Equipment • One 280 MVA 220/115 kV transformer bank; • Five 220 kV, 3,000 amp, 50 kA duty, circuit breakers; • Ten 220 kV, 3,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Fifteen Eighteen 220 kV station post insulators; • Six 220 kV metering potential transformers Three 220 kV coupling

capacitor voltage transformers; • Three 220 kV metering units; • Two 115 kV, 3,000 amp, 40 kA duty circuit breakers; • Three One 115 kV, 2,000 amp, 40 kA duty circuit breakers; • Four 115 kV, 3,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Six Two 115 kV, 2,000 amp, center-side-break disconnect switches; • Nine Six 115 kV potential transformers; and • Twenty-seven Twelve 115 kV post insulators.

2-42, -43 The bullets under Switchrack Configurations are revised as follows.

Switchrack Configurations • One new 220 kV transformer bank position No. 6S designed with a double-

breaker configuration; • One new 220 kV line position No. 5 designed with a breaker-and-a-half

configuration for relocation of the existing Julian Hinds-Mirage 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 5N) and relocation of the existing Mirage-Ramon 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 5S);

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-12 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

• Renaming the Devers-Mirage 220 kV transmission line to Devers-Mirage No. 1 transmission line;

• Existing 220 kV transmission line Position No. 3 would be upgraded and remain a breaker-and-a-half configuration for the installation of the new Devers-Mirage No. 2 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 3N) and the installation of the new Mirage-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line (Pos. No. 3S);

• Existing Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line would be relocated to line position 1N to create the Devers-Capwind-Mirage-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line;

• Vacated existing line position No. 1S would be for the new Mirage-Santa Rosa-Tamarisk 115 kV subtransmission line;

• One new 115 kV transformer bank position (No. 6N) designed with a double-breaker configuration;

• One new 115 kV line position (No. 7N) designed with a double-breaker configuration; and

• Convert existing 115 kV line position (No. 4) from a double-breaker configuration to a breaker-and-a-half configuration for relocated Concho 115 kV line Position (No. 4S) and new Santa Rosa 115 kV line Position (No. 4N); and

• Install one 220/115 kV transformer bank.

2-58, -59 The first paragraph under Section 2.7.2, Construction Plan, is revised as follows.

The existing fiber optic cables would be transferred from existing poles to the new 115 kV subtransmission poles that would be installed within existing ROWs or franchise locations. The All-Dielectric Self-Supporting (ADSS) fiber optic cables would be attached to a support block beneath the end of each 10-foot wood cross-arm on each new pole as shown in Figure 2-3. Telecommunications equipment installation would occur within existing SCE substation buildings and at the Edom Hill Communications Site. IID equipment and circuit installation would occur at is expected to be in the IID’s mechanical-electrical equipment room (MEER).

2-60 The typographical error in Table 2-7 is corrected as follows.

Indian Wells, Equipment/Circuit Installation Equipment Installation 3 35 5 2 – Pick-Up (Gasoline)

2-62 The last sentence in the first incomplete paragraph is corrected as follows.

Additional information on electric and magnetic fields generated by transmission lines is presented in Appendix D B.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-13 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

2-62 The first complete paragraph is revised as follows.

After several decades of study regarding potential public health risks from exposure to power line EMF, research results remains inconclusive. Several national and international panels have conducted reviews of data from multiple studies and state that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that EMF causes cancer. Most recently the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the California Department of Health Services (DHS) both classified EMF as a possible carcinogen.

Chapter 3. Alternatives and Cumulative Projects

3-13 The text in the third sentence of the first paragraph is revised as follows.

At Sunrise Way, the line would turn north, and proceed along Sunrise Way to approximately 1,265 feet north of Four Seasons Boulevard, where the underground segment would end and the subtransmission line would transition to overhead at a riser pole . . .

Chapter 4. Environmental Analysis

4-2 An insert has been made in Section 4.0, Introduction to Environmental Analysis, after the second full paragraph, as follows.

With regard to the discussion of local plans, policies, and ordinances in each of the resource sections 4.1 through 4.16, CPUC General Order 131-D clarifies that local jurisdictions acting pursuant to local authority are preempted from regulating electric power line projects, distribution lines, substations, or electric facilities constructed by public utilities subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction. However, in locating such projects, the public utilities shall consult with local agencies regarding land use matters. In instances where the public utilities and local agencies are unable to resolve their differences, the Commission shall set a hearing no later than 30 days after the utility or local agency has notified the Commission of the inability to reach agreement on land use matters.

Section 4.1, Aesthetics

4.1-3 The following paragraph has been added to the Local Major Roadways discussion.

Indian Canyon Drive. Indian Canyon Drive is an existing north-south roadway into Palm Springs with access from/to the I-10. Views from this roadway include open space and the San Jacinto Mountains.

4.1-14 Figure 4.1-1 has been updated as shown of the following page.

!.

!.

!.!.

!.

# *

# *

# *

# *

# *

# *

# *

!" #$10

Cathe

dral

City

Ranc

ho

Mirag

e

Palm

Des

ert

Thou

sand

Pa

lms

Union

Pacifi

c Railr

oad

Palm

Sprin

gs

4.1-4

4.1-5

4.1-12

4.1-13

4.1-14

4.1-7

4.1-8

4.1-6

4.1-11

4.1-10

4.1-20

4.1-18

4.1-19

4.1-16

4.1-17

4.1-9

4.1-2 4.1

-3

4.1-15

!" #$10

DILL

ON

VARNER

PALM

20TH

VISTA

CHI

NO

INDIAN CANYON

SUNRISE

DATE PALM

MOUNTAIN VIEW

FARRELL

30TH

CABALLEROS

GENE AUTRY

LANDAU

SAN

RAFA

EL

RACQ

UET C

LUB

PALM CANYON

LONG CANYON

LITTLE MORONGO

20TH

TAMA

RISK

MIRA

GE

GARN

ET

DEVE

RS

CONC

HO

CAPW

IND

FARR

ELL

EISEN

HOW

ER

TAMA

RISK

THOR

NHILL

Deve

rs-Mi

rage 1

15 kV

Subtr

ansm

ission

Sys

tem Sp

lit Pr

oject

. 207

059

Figur

e 4.1-

1Vis

ual S

imula

tion V

iewpo

ints

SOUR

CE: S

CE, 2

008a

, 200

8b, a

nd 20

09.

01

Milesi

Exist

ing El

ectri

cal F

acilit

ies11

5 kV S

ubtra

nsmi

ssion

Line

220 k

V Tran

smiss

ion Li

nePr

opos

ed P

rojec

tDe

vers-

Coac

hella

220 k

V Loo

p-In

Farre

ll-Garn

et 11

5 kV

Mirag

e-San

ta Ro

sa 11

5 kV

Subtr

ansm

ission

Line

Rec

onfig

uratio

n# *

SCE S

ubsta

tions

Alter

nativ

es

Altern

ative

3 Alt

ernati

ve 5

Altern

ative

6Alt

ernati

ve 7

!.Ris

erPole

s

4.1-2

Visua

l Sim

ulatio

n View

point

Altern

ative

2

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-15 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

4.1-44 The second sentence of Mitigation Measure 4.1-6 has been revised as follows. The same change has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

SCE shall submit a Construction Lighting Mitigation Plan to the CPUC for review and approval at least 90 30 days prior to the start of nighttime construction or the ordering of any exterior lighting fixtures or components, whichever comes first.

4.1-46 Mitigation Measure 4.1-8 has been revised as follows. The same change has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Mitigation Measure 4.1-8: A non-reflective or weathered finish shall be applied to all All new structures and equipment installed at the Devers, Mirage, Concho, Indian Wells, Santa Rosa, Eisenhower, Farrell, Garnet, Thornhill, and Tamarisk Substations shall have non-specular (reduced glare) surface finishes, except for structures or equipment for which such finishes are not commercially available to reduce potential glare effects.

4.1-50 The following discussion has been added after the first full paragraph.

Recreational viewers potentially affected by the Alternative 3 subtransmission line would include those associated with Desert Highland Park, located approximately 0.3 mile west of where the Alternative 3 subtransmission line would be located along Indian Canyon Drive and approximately 0.6 mile northwest of the where the Alternative 3 riser pole would be located. Views of the subtransmission line and riser pole would be achieved from certain locations at the east side of the park and would range from partially to fully screened, dependent on the presence of the recreational facilities and vegetation at the park. Therefore, visual sensitivity would be low, overall visual change would be low, and impacts would be less than significant requiring no mitigation (Class III). Visual impacts to recreational viewers that would be associated with Alterative 3 at the Desert Highland Park would be approximately the same as those that would be associated with the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line at Palm Springs Country Club Golf Course.

Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources

No changes have been made to Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources.

Section 4.3, Air Quality

No changes have been made to Section 4.3, Air Quality

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-16 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Section 4.4, Biological Resources

4.4-47 The last sentence in the second paragraph of Impact 4.4-1 is revised as follows.

Although this location is predominantly composed of ruderal species, and no CV milkvetch was observed during the spring and summer 2009 surveys, there is still potential for this species to occur.

4.4-47 The last sentence in the third paragraph of Impact 4.4-1 is revised as follows.

Although both of these locations are currently predominantly composed of ruderal species, and no CV milkvetch was observed during the spring and summer 2009 surveys, there is still potential for the CV milkvetch to occur.

4.4-48 The second paragraph of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Temporary and permanent impacts to habitat for the CV milkvetch shall be compensated for through conservation of suitable habitat for this species. The calculated replacement for habitat loss for the CV milkvetch shall be based on a ratio of 3:1 (compensation to impact) per acre for temporary impacts and 9:1 for permanent impacts, for an estimated total of 6 acres. These ratios Ratios reflect the limited habitat and low populations of this species across its range, and the loss of habitat available for this species in the project area, and are consistent with compensation ratios established in the CVMSHCP. Greater or lesser compensation ratios may be substituted as determined though USFWS and CDFG consultation and/or permitting, considering the quality of the habitat being affected. The replacement habitat shall be within the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Total compensation funds shall include the costs of acquisition and long-term management, and shall be paid prior to the start of project operations. This replacement habitat shall mitigate for both direct and indirect impacts of construction and operations/management on this species, as well as the CV fringe-toed lizard (see Mitigation Measure 4.4-2, below), Palm Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel, CV giant sand-treader cricket, and Le Conte’s thrasher.

4.4-50 The first sentence of the third bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 is clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

SCE and/or its construction contractors shall retain and have available, the services of a CPUC authorized qualified biologist who shall perform the duties of the biological monitor.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-17 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

4.4-51 The second sentence of the fifth bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 on page 4.4-51 is clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Each plant that is destroyed due to construction in the ROW along the east and west side of Gene Autry Trail roadway shall be replaced and monitored for at least ten five years, or other period of time approved by the USFWS, . . .

4.4-51 The final bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

• Temporary and permanent impacts to CV fringe-toed lizard habitat shall be mitigated through conservation of suitable habitat for this species. The calculated replacement for habitat loss for this species shall be based on a ratio of 3:1 (compensation to impact) per acre for temporary impacts and 9:1 for permanent impacts, for an estimated total of 6 acres. These ratios Ratios reflect the limited habitat and low populations of this species across its range, and include both the loss of habitat use by the species, and the adverse effect of raptor predation caused by the new raptor perch availability at the new poles, and are consistent with compensation ratios established in the CVMSHCP. Greater or lesser compensation ratios may be substituted as determined though USFWS and CDFG consultation and/or permitting, considering the quality of the habitat being affected. The replacement habitat shall be within the Whitewater Floodplain Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP. Total compensation funds shall include the costs of acquisition and long-term management, and shall be paid prior to the start of Proposed Project operations. This replacement habitat shall mitigate for both direct and indirect impacts of construction and operations/management on this species, as well as the Palm Springs pocket mouse, Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel, CV giant sand-treader cricket, Le Conte’s thrasher, flat-tailed horned lizard, and CV milkvetch (habitat conserved through this measure may be the same as that conserved through Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 for the CV milkvetch).

4.4-58 The first bullet of Mitigation Measure 4.4-10 has been clarified as shown below. The same clarification has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

• Purchase or dedication of land to provide wetland preservation, restoration, or creation. If restoration is available and feasible, then a mitigation replacement ratio of at least 2:1 shall be used. If a wetland needs to be created, at least a 3:1 ratio shall be implemented to offset losses. Where practical and feasible, onsite mitigation shall be implemented. Greater or lesser offset ratios may be substituted through consultation and/or permitting with the appropriate wildlife agency (USFWS or CDFG).

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-18 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Section 4.5, Cultural Resources

4.5-7 The introduction to the Findings discussion is clarified as follows.

Findings The cultural resources records search revealed the presence of the following five previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.5-mile radius of the APE for the proposed and alternative alignments.

4.5-7 The first sentence of the first indented paragraph under Findings is clarified as follows.

Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line alignment and the Alternative 3 alignment, but is within the APE for the Alternative 2 alignment.

4.5-8 The first sentence of the first full paragraph is clarified as follows.

33-8408 (Varner Road). This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead reconfigured Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV line, and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignments, and Alternative 5, 6 and 7 alignments.

4.5-8 The first sentence of the last paragraph is clarified as follows.

33-9498/CA-RIV-6381H (Southern Pacific Railroad/Union Pacific Railroad line). This resource was relocated during the 2009 archaeological survey and is within the viewshed of but outside the physical APE for the proposed overhead Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV alignment and alternative subtransmission line alignments and was relocated during the 2009 archaeological survey.

4.5-9 The first sentence of the first indented paragraph is clarified as follows.

33-15429. This resource is known to be located adjacent to and outside of within the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment.

4.5-9 The first sentence of the second indented paragraph is clarified as follows.

33-15430. This resource is located within the viewshed but outside the physical APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-19 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

4.5-23 The third paragraph under checklist questions a, b) has been replaced with the following paragraphs.

Historic resource 33-4808 (Varner Road), Native American cultural resource Hoon wit ten ca va and prehistoric archaeological sites CA-RIV-785, 33-15429, and 33-15430, could be impacted by the Proposed Project. Impacts are described in detail below.

Historic resource 33-4808 (Varner Road) would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. It would be spanned by the proposed overhead reconfigured Mirage-Capwind-Devers-Tamarisk 115 kV line and the proposed overhead Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, and no ground-disturbing activity would occur within the roadway. Therefore, there would be no impacts to this resource (No Impact).

Native American cultural resource Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) would not be physically impacted by the Proposed Project. The proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV line would be installed overhead on poles constructed along an existing dirt road north of Garnet Hill, and no ground disturbing activity would occur within the limits of this topographical feature. For the potential indirect impacts to this resource, see the Impact 4.5-2 discussion.

The proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV line would be constructed on overhead poles west of 33-15429 and east of 33-15430, and all access would be from an existing dirt road located immediately west of the poles that currently carry the Mirage-Tamarisk and Mirage-Concho lines, which in this area would be reconfigured using the dirt access road for access. Prehistoric archaeological site 33-15429 would not be directly impacted by the Proposed Project. The resource is located east of the existing subtransmission line and adjacent to and outside of the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line alignment. However, it is not known if there is a subsurface component to this resource, and if so, whether it might extend into the area that is within the Proposed Project’s APE. Prehistoric archaeological site 33-15430 would not be impacted by the Proposed Project.

Prehistoric archaeological site CA-RIV-785 could be impacted by the Proposed Project. A portion of it is located within the APE for the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV line.

4.5-23 The Impact 4.5-1 heading has been revised as follows.

Impact 4.5-1: Project construction could adversely affect historic site 33-8408, Varner Road. Less than significant (Class III)

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-20 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

4.5-24 The last sentence of the second paragraph has been revised as follows.

Impacts There would be no impact to Varner Road at this location would be less than significant.

4.5-25 The title of Impact 4.5-3has been renamed as follows.

Impact 4.5-3: Project construction could adversely affect cultural resources CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430. Less than Significant with Mitigation (Class II)

4.5-26 The second paragraph has been revised as follows.

Construction of the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line could also impact sites 33-15429 and 33-15430. These sites This site may be related to site CA-RIV-785 and may be eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criterion D/4, ability to provide information important to prehistory. Neither site, however However, the site does not appears to be within the direct APE for the proposed alignment. These sites This site should be avoided to ensure that any adverse effects are minimized. Implementation of APM CUL-3 (Construction Monitoring) as well as Mitigation Measures 4.5-3a, 4.5-3b, and 4.5-3c would reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

4.5-26 Mitigation Measures 4.5-3a and 4.5-3b have been revised as follows. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Mitigation Measure 4.5-3a: Avoid and protect archaeological resources. SCE shall narrow the construction zone to avoid potentially significant archaeological resources CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430 if feasible. The resources shall be designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) to ensure avoidance. Protective fencing or other markers shall be erected around ESAs prior to any ground disturbing activities; however, such ESAs shall not be identified specifically as cultural resources, in order to protect sensitive information and to discourage unauthorized disturbance or collection of artifacts.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-3b: Preparation of treatment plan if avoidance is not feasible. If avoidance of sites CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430 is not feasible, prior to issuing any grading or excavation permits and prior to any project-related ground disturbing activities, a detailed Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) shall be prepared...

4.5-31 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 2 impact discussion have been revised as follows.

Similar to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, the Alternative 2 alignment could potentially impact previously recorded resource, Hoon wit ten ca

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-21 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

va (Garnet Hill). However, unlike the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill) would be directly impacted by Alternative 2 because the Alternative 2 alignment would be located on the resource. This resource appears significant to the oral histories of the Cahuilla Indian Tribe and may be considered a TCP. Construction of Alternative 2 could result in impacts to Hoon wit ten ca va (Garnet Hill). Potential impacts to the resource would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through the implementation of APM CUL-1 and CUL-6 as well as Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, described above for the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line (Class II). This impact would be more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.

As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, impacts associated with Alternative 2 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.

Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 2 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line. With implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.

The potential impacts to human remains that would be associated with Alternative 2 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result during construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 2 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 2 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment.

4.5-32 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 3 impact discussion have been revised.

As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line, construction impacts associated with Alternative 3 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b, and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-22 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 3 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under construction the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. With implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with construction of Alternative 3 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result during construction of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 3 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 3 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

4.5-33 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 5 impact discussion have been revised.

As with the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line, impacts associated with construction of Alternative 5 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.

Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with construction of Alternative 5 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line; impacts would be less than significant with implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6 (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-23 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with construction of Alternative 5 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 5 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 5 compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line.

4.5-34 The following paragraphs under the Alternative 6 impact discussion have been revised.

Portions of the Alternative 6 alignment were not subject to systematic archaeological survey due to lack of access. These segments will be surveyed if this alternative alignment is selected, per Mitigation Measure 4.5-4c. As with the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV alignment, impacts associated with Alternative 6 related to undiscovered cultural resources would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.5-4a, 4.5-4b, and 4.5-4c (Class II). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

Impacts to paleontological resources that would be associated with Alternative 6 would be similar to those that would result under the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line, with the exception that Alternative 6 would not impact the high-sensitivity Imperial Formation. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of APMs PA-1 through PA-6 (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be slightly more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

The potential impact to human remains that would be associated with Alternative 6 would be essentially have the same impact class as those that would result under the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line. Therefore, with implementation of APM CUL-2, impacts would be less than significant (Class III). However, due to the increased ground disturbance that would occur under Alternative 6 associated with trenching for the underground line, this impact would be more severe under Alternative 6 compared to the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-24 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Section 4.6, Geology and Soils

4.6-2 The first paragraph is clarified as follows.

The closest known active faults to the study area are associated with the San Andreas fault system, with the northwesterly trending Banning and Coachella segments of the fault system mapped in the north, just north of Interstate 10 (I-10). The northwesterly trending Garnet Hill fault is mapped north of Palm Springs, about a half mile south of I-10. The Garnet Hill fault is mapped as a buried fault and is based on a gravity anomaly survey of the Coachella Valley by a major oil company (Proctor, 1968). The Garnet Hill fault is not mapped as offsetting Holocene-age materials (Jennings, 1994) and, therefore, does not display evidence of being active (Hart et al., 1979). Although Further, the California Division of Mines and Geology (California Geological Survey) has not designated it as an active fault, and Holocene surface rupture was not documented along the Garnet Hill fault in the vicinity of the project area (SCEDC, 2010) the Garnet Hill fault can act as a plane of weakness and move in response to an earthquake on another nearby fault. Ground fractures associated with the 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake were reported along the trace of the Garnet Hill fault and indicate that a near-surface response of weak surfaces occurred at depth (City of Cathedral City, 2002). The north-south trending Palm Canyon fault is mapped as trending towards Palm Springs from the south, but the fault is not considered active by State maps (Jennings, 1994).

4.6-3 The second sentence of the first paragraph under Seismic Activity has been revised as shown below.

The 1986 quake registered a magnitude of 5.6 and caused minor ground rupturing cracks along the Banning, Mission Creek, and Garnet Hill faults, but these cracks were due to shaking, not surface rupture.

4.6-5 The following paragraphs have been added to the beginning of the Geology and Soils Regulatory Context discussion.

Federal

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 693 “Recommended Practices for Seismic Design of Substations”

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 693 “Recommended Practices for Seismic Design of Substations” was developed by the Substations Committee of the IEEE Power Engineering Society, and approved by the American National Standards Institute and the IEEE-SA Standards Board. This document provides seismic design recommendations for substations and equipment consisting of seismic criteria, qualification methods and levels, structural capacities, performance requirements for equipment operation,

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-25 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

installation methods, and documentation. This recommended practice emphasizes the qualification of electrical equipment.

IEEE 693 is intended to establish standard methods of providing and validating the seismic withstand capability of electrical substation equipment. It provides detailed test and analysis methods for each type of major equipment or component found in electrical substations. This recommended practice is intended to assist the substation user or operator in providing substation equipment that will have a high probability of withstanding seismic events to predefined ground acceleration levels. It establishes standard methods of verifying seismic withstand capability, which gives the substation designer the ability to select equipment from various manufacturers, knowing that the seismic withstand rating of each manufacturer's equipment is an equivalent measure. Although most damaging seismic activity occurs in limited areas, many additional areas could experience an earthquake with forces capable of causing great damage. This recommended practice should be used in all areas that may experience earthquakes.

International Building Code

Published by the International Code-Council (ICC), the scope of this code covers major aspects of construction and design of structures and buildings, the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) replaced the 1997 Uniform Building Code and contains provisions for structural engineering design. Published by the International Conference of Building Officials, the IBC addresses the design and installation of structures and building systems through requirements that emphasize performance. The IBC includes codes governing structural as well as fire- and life-safety provisions covering seismic, wind, accessibility, egress, occupancy, and roofs.

4.6-5 The following paragraphs replace the Design Standards paragraph of the Geology and Soils Regulatory Context discussion.

California Building Code

The California Building Code (CBC) has been codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as Title 24, Part 2. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The purpose of the CBC is to establish minimum standards to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare through structural strength, means of egress facilities, and general stability by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location, and maintenance of all building and structures within its jurisdiction. The 2007 CBC is based on the 2006 IBC published by the

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-26 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

International Code Conference. In addition, the CBC contains necessary California amendments which are based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standards 7-05. ASCE 7-05 provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads as well as other loads (flood, snow, wind, etc.) for inclusion into building codes. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California.

The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients which are used to determine a Seismic Design Category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site and ranges from SDC A (very small seismic vulnerability) to SDC E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Design specifications are then determined according to the SDC.

Design Standards Building codes provide specific standards for design and construction of buildings and structures. On January 1, 2008, California officially adopted the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). The purpose of the CBC is to provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use, occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. The CBC provides criteria for defining expansive soils.

4.6-10 The following revisions have been made to the Impact 4.6-1 discussion.

There are no active earthquake faults that are recognized or zoned by the State of California in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project alignments and sites. The only fault that would intersect any of the Proposed Project components is the Garnet Hill fault, which is mapped as buried with a location that is postulated across the proposed Farrell-Garnet alignment. Whereas seismic activity is not limited to active faults, ground rupture is typically associated with active faults. However, ground fractures cracks associated with the 1986 North Palm Springs earthquake were reported along the trace of the Garnet Hill fault, but the fractures were a result of ground shaking rather than fault rupture…

4.6-11 The Impact 4.6-3 discussion has been revised as indicated below.

In order for liquefaction to occur, there needs to be relatively shallow groundwater conditions, generally at depths of less than 50 feet below the ground surface. Shallow groundwater conditions do not exist in the project area and the

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-27 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Proposed Project would not cause the groundwater table to rise. Regardless, the potential for liquefaction or other phenomena resulting in dynamic ground settlement, if even present, can be easily reduced with adequate geotechnical and foundation engineering. Therefore, with the implementation of standard engineering practices, any potential impacts associated with liquefaction, if discovered during geotechnical investigations that would be conducted for the Proposed Project, would be reduced to less than significant levels. The potential impact related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.

4.6-17 The following reference is added.

Southern California Earthquake Data Center (SCEDC), 1986 North Palm Springs Earthquake. http://www.data.scec.org/fault_index/garnet.html. Accessed March 12, 2010.

Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials

No changes have been made to Section 4.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Section 4.8, Hydrology and Water Quality

4.8-21 Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b has been revised as indicated below. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b: Regarding the engineered erosion control and drainage plan developed as part of the site grading plan (APM HYDRO-2A), SCE shall conduct a topographic and gradient survey of the Whitewater River Wash both upstream and downstream of the proposed pole(s) replacement location within the wash. Post construction topography and gradient of the Whitewater River Wash shall be contoured SCE shall restore all areas on the Whitewater Wash disturbed during construction of the Proposed Project to match the existing conditions, to ensure that the drainage pattern is not altered in a manner that would cause on- or off-site erosion or sedimentation.

Section 4.9, Land Use, Planning and Policies

No changes have been made to Section 4.9, Land Use Planning and Policies.

Section 4.10, Mineral Resources

No changes have been made to Section 4.10, Mineral Resources.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-28 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Section 4.11, Noise

4.11-18 Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 has been revised as indicated below. The same revision has been incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program (see Appendix E).

Mitigation Measure 4.11-2: Mirage Substation. SCE shall ensure that noise levels associated with the Mirage Substation do not exceed the Riverside County noise standards for stationary sources. Noise control techniques may include, but not be limited to: locating the new transformer with as much setback from the existing residential properties as possible, use of noise walls or equivalent sound attenuation devices, and the use of a transformer with special noise control specifications designed in a way to specifically achieve acceptable regulatory noise standards.

Prior to the installation of the new transformer, SCE shall submit to the CPUC and the County of Riverside, for review and approval, a plan that describes the specific measures that will be taken in order to comply with the County’s stationary noise standards. Once the proposed transformer is operational, SCE shall retain an acoustical engineer to perform noise measurements in the vicinity of the residences west of Mirage Substation to verify that transformer noise levels comply with the County standards. Documentation of compliance shall be submitted to the CPUC and Riverside County. In the event the transformer noise levels violate the standards, additional noise control techniques shall be initiated to correct the violation.

Section 4.12, Population and Housing

4.12-5 The following edit is made to the first sentence of the last paragraph.

Construction activities in the project area are expected to last approximately 12 months, within the 2010-2012 time frame. beginning in 2010 and concluding in mid-2011.

Section 4.13, Public Services

No changes have been made to Section 4.13, Public Services.

Section 4.14, Recreation

No changes have been made to Section 4.14, Recreation.

Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic

4.15-2 The following sentence is added to the end of second paragraph.

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-29 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Below are summary descriptions of the roadways that would be affected by the Proposed Project components, and/or the alternatives in the Farrell-Garnet and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas. All traffic data presented for the local roadways are average daily traffic levels.

4.15-2 The last paragraph is revised as follows.

Garnet Avenue. The proposed Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line alignment parallels Garnet Avenue from the Garnet Substation to the road’s eastern extent, where it dead ends at a road block. Garnet Avenue is a two lane road that parallels the south side of I-5 I-10 and has no lane stripes and has low traffic levels.

Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems

No changes have been made to Section 4.16, Utilities and Service Systems.

Chapter 5. Comparison of Alternatives

5-2 The third paragraph under Section 5.2, Evaluation of Project Alternatives is clarified as follows.

In addition to significant unmitigable impacts described above, there are several differentiating impacts that with mitigation would be less than significant. It should be noted that there are two groups of alternative routes: (1) Farrell-Garnet, which includes the Proposed Project and Alternatives 2, 3, 6, and 7 are compared to each other and to the Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line portion of, and (2) Mirage-Santa Rosa, which includes the Proposed Project, and Alternative 5 is compared to the Mirage-Santa Rosa subtransmission line portion of the Proposed Project. Table 5-2 provides a comparison of potential impacts by alternative for each resource category.

5-3 The following revisions have been made to the first two paragraphs under Section 5.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative.

As discussed in the previous section, the Proposed Project and all five alternatives would have significant unmitigable impacts on air quality during construction. The extent of the unmitigable impacts on air quality varies slightly by alternative but could not be mitigated to less than significant levels for the Proposed Project or any alternative. Consequently, the selection of an environmentally superior alternative is based on differences in intensity of air quality impacts and type of as well as the differences in intensity of the other environmental issue area impacts that would be less than significant with mitigation (Table 5-2). Based on these differences the identified environmentally superior alternative is the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnett study area

5. Revisions to the Draft EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-30 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

is Alternative 3 and the identified environmentally superior alternative for and the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area is Alternative 5.

All five alternatives studied in this EIR were variations of alignments that would use existing ROW. The alternatives studied would substitute one component of the Proposed Project (i.e., Alternatives 2, 3, 6, or 7 would be used in lieu of the proposed Farrell-Garnet 115 kV subtransmission line and Alternative 5 would be used in lieu of the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa 115 kV subtransmission line). For a number of resources, there are no material environmental impact differences between the Proposed Project and alternatives including: agricultural resources; air quality; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, planning, and policies; mineral resources, noise; population and housing; public services; and recreation; and utilities and service systems.

5-4 – 5-8 Table 5-2, Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project vs. Alternatives Summary of Environmental Impact Conclusions, has been updated as indicated on the following pages.

5-9 The following revisions have been made to the first two paragraphs.

Implementation of the Proposed Project or any of the five alternatives would result in a significant unmitigable (Class I) impact on air quality during construction. Although impacts to air quality would be of varying degree (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities), the impacts would be short term and temporary in nature; therefore, impacts of varying degree between alternatives is not material enough to determine a preferred alternative from an air quality perspective.

Resource categories where environmental impacts would either be materially lessened or increased by implementing an alternative to the Proposed Project are discussed below.

• Air Quality – Implementation of the Proposed Project or any of the five alternatives would result in a significant unavoidable (Class I) short-term impact on air quality during construction. The short-term impacts to air quality would be of varying degree (i.e., alternatives with an underground component would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to emissions during trenching activities, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line). Based on these varying degrees of impact, the ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, and Alternative 2. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than Alternative 5.

5. C

ompa

rison

of A

ltern

ativ

es

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15kV

Sub

trans

mis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it P

roje

ct

5-31

E

SA

/ 20

7059

(A

.08-

01-0

29) F

inal

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

Apr

il 20

10

TAB

LE 5

-2

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5kV

SUB

TRA

NSM

ISSI

ON

SYS

TEM

SPL

IT P

RO

JEC

T VS

. ALT

ERN

ATI

VES

SUM

MA

RY

OF

ENVI

RO

NM

ENTA

L IM

PAC

T C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

Res

ourc

e A

rea

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Alte

rnat

ive

6 A

ltern

ativ

e 7

Aes

thet

ics

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

and

Cla

ss

III. T

he F

arre

ll-G

arne

t lin

e w

ould

incl

ude

1.55

.8 m

iles

of

over

head

line

and

the

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a lin

e w

ould

incl

ude

5.81

.5 m

iles

of

over

head

line

.

The

prop

osed

M

irage

-San

ta R

osa

line

wou

ld h

ave

mor

e of

an

impa

ct o

n ae

sthe

tics

than

A

ltern

ativ

e 5.

Impa

ct le

vels

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct. H

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

2 w

ould

re

sult

in 2

.8 3

.0 m

iles

less

ove

rhea

d lin

e th

an

the

prop

osed

Far

rell-

Gar

net l

ine.

Leas

t im

pact

for t

he

Farr

ell-G

arne

t stu

dy

area

.

Impa

ct le

vels

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct. H

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

3 w

ould

re

sult

in 2

.9 m

iles

of

over

head

line

alo

ng

Indi

an C

anyo

n R

oad,

a

maj

or e

ntry

way

into

P

alm

Spr

ings

less

ov

erhe

ad li

ne th

an th

e pr

opos

ed F

arre

ll-G

arne

t lin

e.

Leas

t Mos

t im

pact

on

aest

hetic

s fo

r the

Fa

rrel

l-Gar

net s

tudy

ar

ea.

Impa

ct le

vels

as

soci

ated

with

the

riser

pol

e w

ould

be

sim

ilar t

o th

e P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

. How

ever

, A

ltern

ativ

e 5

wou

ld b

e co

nstru

cted

un

derg

roun

d w

ith th

e ex

cept

ion

of th

e I-

10/U

PR

R c

ross

ing.

Less

of a

n im

pact

on

aest

hetic

s th

an th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-Sa

nta

Ros

a lin

e.

Impa

ct le

vels

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct. H

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

6 w

ould

re

sult

in 2

.6 m

iles

less

ov

erhe

ad li

ne th

an th

e pr

opos

ed F

arre

ll-G

arne

t lin

e.

Impa

ct le

vels

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct. H

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

7 w

ould

re

sult

in 3

.3 m

iles

mor

e of

ove

rhea

d lin

e th

an

the

prop

osed

Far

rell-

Gar

net l

ine.

Mos

t im

pact

on

aest

hetic

s fo

r the

Fa

rrel

l-Gar

net s

tudy

ar

ea.

Agr

icul

ture

R

esou

rces

Im

pact

s de

term

ined

to

be C

lass

III.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Air

Qua

lity

Wou

ld re

sult

in

tem

pora

ry s

igni

fican

t un

miti

gabl

e ai

r qua

lity

impa

cts

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n.

Ope

ratio

nal i

mpa

cts

wou

ld b

e C

lass

III a

nd

GH

G im

pact

s w

ould

be

Cla

ss II

.

No

Pref

eren

ce L

east

im

pact

s fo

r bot

h Fa

rrel

l-Gar

net a

nd

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a Li

nes.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

cons

truct

ion

emis

sion

s w

ould

be

slig

htly

hig

her

due

to tr

ench

ing

requ

ired

for t

he

unde

rgro

und

segm

ent.

No

Pref

eren

ce M

ost

impa

cts

for F

arre

ll-G

arne

t stu

dy a

rea.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

cons

truct

ion

emis

sion

s w

ould

be

slig

htly

hig

her

due

to tr

ench

ing

requ

ired

for t

he

unde

rgro

und

segm

ent.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

cons

truct

ion

emis

sion

s w

ould

be

high

er d

ue to

tre

nchi

ng re

quire

d fo

r th

e un

derg

roun

d se

gmen

t.

No

Pref

eren

ce M

ore

impa

cts

than

the

prop

osed

Mira

ge-

Sant

a R

osa

line.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er

cons

truct

ion

emis

sion

s w

ould

be

slig

htly

hi

gher

due

to th

e gr

eate

r len

gth

of th

e lin

e.

No

Pref

eren

ce

5. C

ompa

rison

of A

ltern

ativ

es

TAB

LE 5

-2 (C

ontin

ued)

D

EVER

S-M

IRA

GE

115k

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

VS. A

LTER

NA

TIVE

S SU

MM

AR

Y O

F EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IMPA

CT

CO

NC

LUSI

ON

S

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15kV

Sub

trans

mis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it P

roje

ct

5-32

E

SA

/ 20

7059

(A

.08-

01-0

29) F

inal

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

Apr

il 20

10

Res

ourc

e A

rea

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Alte

rnat

ive

6 A

ltern

ativ

e 7

Bio

logi

cal

Res

ourc

es

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

and

Cla

ss

III.

Mos

t im

pact

s to

bi

olog

ical

reso

urce

s fo

r the

Far

rell-

Gar

net

and

Mira

ge-S

anta

R

osa

stud

y ar

eas.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss

adve

rse

than

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct g

iven

th

at:

• A

lthou

gh th

e ov

eral

l le

ngth

of t

he

alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld b

e 0.

2 m

ile lo

nger

than

th

e P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

, it w

ould

in

clud

e 2.

8 3.

0 m

iles

less

ove

rhea

d lin

e an

d as

soci

ated

op

erat

iona

l im

pact

s;

and

• Th

e al

tern

ativ

e cr

osse

s th

roug

h lo

wer

qua

lity

habi

tat

for t

he s

ame

spec

ial

stat

us s

peci

es.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss

adve

rse

than

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct g

iven

th

at:

• A

lthou

gh th

e ov

eral

l le

ngth

of t

he

alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld b

e 0.

7 m

ile lo

nger

than

th

e P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

, it w

ould

in

clud

e 2.

9 m

iles

less

ove

rhea

d lin

e an

d as

soci

ated

op

erat

iona

l im

pact

s;

• Th

e lin

e w

ould

tra

vers

e th

roug

h pr

imar

ily u

rban

and

di

stur

bed

area

s th

at

lack

sui

tabl

e ha

bita

t fo

r mos

t spe

cial

st

atus

spe

cies

; and

• Th

e al

tern

ativ

e cr

osse

s th

roug

h lo

wer

qua

lity

habi

tat

for t

he s

ame

spec

ial

stat

us s

peci

es.

Leas

t im

pact

s on

bi

olog

ical

reso

urce

s fo

r the

Far

rell-

Gar

net

stud

y ar

ea.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss

adve

rse

than

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct g

iven

th

at:

• W

ith a

lmos

t no

over

head

line

s,

oper

atio

nal i

mpa

cts

from

this

alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld b

e le

ss

adve

rse

than

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct;

and

• Th

e lin

e w

ould

tra

vers

e th

roug

h pa

ved

stre

ets

bord

ered

by

orna

men

tal t

rees

that

pr

ovid

e po

or q

ualit

y ha

bita

t for

mos

t sp

ecia

l sta

tus

spec

ies.

Less

impa

cts

on

biol

ogic

al re

sour

ces

than

the

prop

osed

M

irage

-San

ta R

osa

line.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss

adve

rse

than

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct g

iven

th

at:

• Th

e ov

eral

l len

gth

of

the

alte

rnat

ive

wou

ld

be 1

.6 m

iles

shor

ter

than

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; a

nd 2

.6

mile

s le

ss o

verh

ead

line

and

asso

ciat

ed

oper

atio

nal i

mpa

cts;

• Th

e lin

e w

ould

not

in

trodu

ce a

ny n

ew

abov

e gr

ound

pow

er

lines

whe

re th

ey

don’

t alre

ady

exis

t so

oper

atio

nal i

mpa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss

adve

rse;

• Th

e al

tern

ativ

e cr

osse

s th

roug

h lo

wer

qua

lity

habi

tat

for t

he s

ame

spec

ial

stat

us s

peci

es.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss

adve

rse

than

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct g

iven

th

at:

• Th

e lin

e w

ould

not

in

trodu

ce a

ny n

ew

abov

e gr

ound

pow

er

lines

whe

re th

ey

don’

t alre

ady

exis

t so

oper

atio

nal i

mpa

cts

wou

ld b

e le

ss

adve

rse;

• Th

e al

tern

ativ

e cr

osse

s th

roug

h lo

wer

qua

lity

habi

tat

for t

he s

ame

spec

ial

stat

us s

peci

es.

Leas

t im

pact

s on

bi

olog

ical

reso

urce

s fo

r the

Far

rell-

Gar

net

stud

y ar

ea.

Cul

tura

l Res

ourc

es

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

and

C

lass

III.

Mos

t Lea

st im

pact

s to

cul

tura

l res

ourc

es

for t

he F

arre

ll-G

arne

t an

d M

irage

-San

ta

Ros

a st

udy

area

s.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct. A

ltern

ativ

e 2

wou

ld re

sult

in th

e m

ost s

ubsu

rface

di

stur

banc

e an

d is

the

only

alte

rnat

ive

that

w

ould

resu

lt in

dire

ct

impa

cts

to G

arne

t Hill

.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct. H

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

5 w

ould

av

oid

CA

-RIV

-785

, and

33

-154

29, a

nd 3

3 -15

430.

How

ever

, A

ltern

ativ

e 5

wou

ld

resu

lt in

sub

stan

tially

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

6 w

ould

not

im

pact

Gar

nett

Hill

or

the

high

sen

sitiv

ity

Impe

rial F

orm

atio

n.

Alte

rnat

ive

6 w

ould

in

volv

e on

e m

ile o

f

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

7 w

ould

not

im

pact

Gar

nett

Hill

or

the

high

sen

sitiv

ity

Impe

rial F

orm

atio

n an

d w

ould

invo

lve

no

unde

rgro

und

line

5. C

ompa

rison

of A

ltern

ativ

es

TAB

LE 5

-2 (C

ontin

ued)

D

EVER

S-M

IRA

GE

115k

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

VS. A

LTER

NA

TIVE

S SU

MM

AR

Y O

F EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IMPA

CT

CO

NC

LUSI

ON

S

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15kV

Sub

trans

mis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it P

roje

ct

5-33

E

SA

/ 20

7059

(A

.08-

01-0

29) F

inal

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

Apr

il 20

10

Res

ourc

e A

rea

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Alte

rnat

ive

6 A

ltern

ativ

e 7

Cul

tura

l Res

ourc

es

(con

t.)

M

ost i

mpa

cts

for

Farr

ell-G

arne

t stu

dy

area

.

m

ore

subs

urfa

ce

dist

urba

nce.

Less

impa

cts

than

th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-Sa

nta

Ros

a lin

e.

Mor

e im

pact

s th

an

the

prop

osed

Mira

ge-

Sant

a R

osa

line.

unde

rgro

und

line

wor

k,

but w

ould

be

4.2

mile

s lo

ng (i

.e.,

less

pol

e dr

illin

g).

cons

truct

ion,

but

wou

ld

be a

ppro

xim

atel

y 9.

1 m

iles

long

.

Leas

t im

pact

s on

cu

ltura

l res

ourc

es fo

r th

e Fa

rrel

l-Gar

net

stud

y ar

ea.

Geo

logy

and

Soi

ls

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

I.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er ri

sk o

f ex

cess

ive

settl

emen

t an

d/or

ero

sion

wou

ld

be s

light

ly h

ighe

r due

to

tren

chin

g re

quire

d fo

r the

und

ergr

ound

se

gmen

t.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er ri

sk o

f ex

cess

ive

settl

emen

t an

d/or

ero

sion

wou

ld

be s

light

ly h

ighe

r due

to

tren

chin

g re

quire

d fo

r the

und

ergr

ound

se

gmen

t.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er ri

sk o

f ex

cess

ive

settl

emen

t an

d/or

ero

sion

wou

ld

be s

light

ly h

ighe

r due

to

tren

chin

g re

quire

d fo

r the

und

ergr

ound

se

gmen

t.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er ri

sk o

f ex

cess

ive

settl

emen

t an

d/or

ero

sion

wou

ld

be s

light

ly h

ighe

r due

to

tren

chin

g re

quire

d fo

r the

und

ergr

ound

se

gmen

t.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Haz

ards

and

H

azar

dous

M

ater

ials

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

and

C

lass

III.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Leas

t im

pact

s fo

r bo

th F

arre

ll-G

arne

t an

d M

irage

-San

ta

Ros

a st

udy

area

s.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

2 w

ould

be

loca

ted

clos

er to

ex

istin

g sc

hool

s an

d w

ould

hav

e a

grea

ter

risk

of e

ncou

nter

ing

prev

ious

ly u

nkno

wn

cont

amin

atio

n an

d im

pact

ing

an

evac

uatio

n ro

ute

due

to tr

ench

ing

requ

irem

ents

for t

he

unde

rgro

und

segm

ent.

N

o Pr

efer

ence

M

ost i

mpa

cts

for

Farr

ell-G

arne

t stu

dy

area

.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

3 w

ould

be

loca

ted

clos

er to

ex

istin

g sc

hool

s an

d w

ould

hav

e a

grea

ter

risk

of e

ncou

nter

ing

prev

ious

ly u

nkno

wn

cont

amin

atio

n an

d im

pact

ing

an

evac

uatio

n ro

ute

due

to tr

ench

ing

requ

irem

ents

for t

he

unde

rgro

und

segm

ent.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

5 w

ould

ha

ve a

gre

ater

risk

of

enco

unte

ring

prev

ious

ly u

nkno

wn

cont

amin

atio

n an

d im

pact

ing

an

evac

uatio

n ro

ute

due

to tr

ench

ing

requ

irem

ents

for t

he

unde

rgro

und

segm

ent.

N

o Pr

efer

ence

M

ore

impa

cts

than

th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-Sa

nta

Ros

a lin

e.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

6 w

ould

ha

ve a

gre

ater

risk

of

enco

unte

ring

prev

ious

ly u

nkno

wn

cont

amin

atio

n an

d im

pact

ing

an

evac

uatio

n ro

ute

due

to tr

ench

ing

requ

irem

ents

for t

he

unde

rgro

und

segm

ent.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

7 w

ould

be

loca

ted

clos

er to

ex

istin

g sc

hool

s.

No

Pref

eren

ce

5. C

ompa

rison

of A

ltern

ativ

es

TAB

LE 5

-2 (C

ontin

ued)

D

EVER

S-M

IRA

GE

115k

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

VS. A

LTER

NA

TIVE

S SU

MM

AR

Y O

F EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IMPA

CT

CO

NC

LUSI

ON

S

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15kV

Sub

trans

mis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it P

roje

ct

5-34

E

SA

/ 20

7059

(A

.08-

01-0

29) F

inal

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

Apr

il 20

10

Res

ourc

e A

rea

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Alte

rnat

ive

6 A

ltern

ativ

e 7

Hyd

rolo

gy a

nd

Wat

er Q

ualit

y Im

pact

s de

term

ined

to

be C

lass

II a

nd

Cla

ss II

I.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er, s

oil

dist

urba

nce

durin

g tre

nchi

ng fo

r the

un

derg

roun

d se

gmen

t w

ould

resu

lt in

slig

htly

hi

gher

impa

cts

to w

ater

qu

ality

.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er s

oil

dist

urba

nce

durin

g tre

nchi

ng fo

r the

un

derg

roun

d se

gmen

t w

ould

resu

lt in

slig

htly

hi

gher

impa

cts

to w

ater

qu

ality

.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er, s

oil

dist

urba

nce

durin

g tre

nchi

ng fo

r the

un

derg

roun

d se

gmen

t w

ould

resu

lt in

slig

htly

hi

gher

impa

cts

to w

ater

qu

ality

.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er, s

oil

dist

urba

nce

durin

g tre

nchi

ng fo

r the

un

derg

roun

d se

gmen

t w

ould

resu

lt in

slig

htly

hi

gher

impa

cts

to w

ater

qu

ality

.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er, t

he

grea

ter a

mou

nt o

f pol

e re

plac

emen

t wou

ld

resu

lt in

slig

htly

hig

her

impa

cts

to w

ater

qu

ality

.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Land

Use

, P

lann

ing,

and

P

olic

ies

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

and

Cla

ss

III.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Min

eral

Res

ourc

es

No

impa

cts

wer

e id

entif

ied.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Noi

se

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

and

C

lass

III.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Leas

t im

pact

s fo

r bo

th F

arre

ll-G

arne

t an

d M

irage

-San

ta

Ros

a st

udy

area

s.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

unde

rgro

und

porti

ons

wou

ld h

ave

grea

ter

nois

e an

d vi

brat

ion

impa

cts

from

co

nstru

ctio

n, th

ough

le

ss im

pact

s fro

m

coro

na n

oise

. N

o Pr

efer

ence

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

3 w

ould

ha

ve re

sult

in th

e m

ost

unde

rgro

und

cons

truct

ion

activ

ity

porti

ons

adja

cent

to

resi

denc

es a

nd w

ould

ha

ve g

reat

er n

oise

and

vi

brat

ion

impa

cts

from

co

nstru

ctio

n, th

ough

le

ss im

pact

s fro

m

coro

na n

oise

. N

o Pr

efer

ence

M

ost i

mpa

cts

for

Farr

ell-G

arne

t stu

dy

area

.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er, t

he

pres

ence

of a

gre

ater

nu

mbe

r of r

esid

ence

s in

pro

xim

ity to

this

al

tern

ativ

e co

uld

resu

lt in

gre

ater

tem

pora

ry

impa

cts

from

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Mor

e im

pact

s th

an

the

prop

osed

Mira

ge-

Sant

a R

osa

line.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er,

unde

rgro

und

porti

ons

wou

ld h

ave

grea

ter

nois

e an

d vi

brat

ion

impa

cts

from

co

nstru

ctio

n, th

ough

le

ss im

pact

s fro

m

coro

na n

oise

. N

o Pr

efer

ence

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er, t

he

alte

rnat

ive’

s pr

oxim

ity

to a

gre

ater

num

ber o

f re

side

ntia

l rec

epto

rs

wou

ld re

sult

in g

reat

er

expo

sure

to a

mbi

ent

coro

na n

oise

. N

o Pr

efer

ence

5. C

ompa

rison

of A

ltern

ativ

es

TAB

LE 5

-2 (C

ontin

ued)

D

EVER

S-M

IRA

GE

115k

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

VS. A

LTER

NA

TIVE

S SU

MM

AR

Y O

F EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IMPA

CT

CO

NC

LUSI

ON

S

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15kV

Sub

trans

mis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it P

roje

ct

5-35

E

SA

/ 20

7059

(A

.08-

01-0

29) F

inal

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

Apr

il 20

10

Res

ourc

e A

rea

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Alte

rnat

ive

6 A

ltern

ativ

e 7

Pop

ulat

ion

and

Hou

sing

N

o im

pact

s w

ere

iden

tifie

d.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Pub

lic S

ervi

ces

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

and

C

lass

III.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Leas

t im

pact

s fo

r bo

th F

arre

ll-G

arne

t an

d M

irage

-San

ta

Ros

a st

udy

area

s.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er

addi

tiona

l lan

e cl

osur

e re

quire

d fo

r the

un

derg

roun

d po

rtion

co

uld

lead

to s

light

ly

high

er im

pact

s to

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

tim

es.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er

Alte

rnat

ive

3 w

ould

re

sult

in th

e m

ost

unde

rgro

und

line

wor

k in

road

s in

the

Farr

ell-

Gar

net s

tudy

are

a, a

nd

the

addi

tiona

l lan

e cl

osur

e re

quire

d fo

r the

un

derg

roun

d po

rtion

co

uld

lead

to s

light

ly

high

er im

pact

s to

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

tim

es.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Mos

t im

pact

s fo

r Fa

rrel

l-Gar

net s

tudy

ar

ea.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er

Alte

rnat

ive

5 w

ould

re

sult

in s

ubst

antia

lly

mor

e un

derg

roun

d lin

e w

ork

in ro

ads

than

the

Mira

ge-S

anta

Ros

a lin

e, a

nd th

e ad

ditio

nal

lane

clo

sure

requ

ired

for t

he u

nder

grou

nd

porti

on c

ould

lead

to

slig

htly

hig

her i

mpa

cts

to e

mer

genc

y re

spon

se ti

mes

. N

o Pr

efer

ence

M

ore

impa

cts

than

th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-Sa

nta

Ros

a lin

e.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er

addi

tiona

l lan

e cl

osur

e re

quire

d fo

r the

un

derg

roun

d po

rtion

co

uld

lead

to s

light

ly

high

er im

pact

s to

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

tim

es.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Rec

reat

ion

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

I.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d Tr

affic

Im

pact

s de

term

ined

to

be C

lass

II a

nd

Cla

ss II

I.

Leas

t im

pact

s to

tr

affic

and

tr

ansp

orta

tion

for t

he

Farr

ell-G

arne

t and

M

irage

-San

ta R

osa

stud

y ar

eas.

Impa

ct le

vels

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er

addi

tiona

l roa

dway

cl

osur

es a

nd ro

adw

ay

dam

age

that

wou

ld

resu

lt fro

m tr

ench

ing

activ

ities

alo

ng th

e 3.

0 3.

2 -m

ile u

nder

grou

nd

segm

ent w

ould

lead

to

high

er te

mpo

rary

Impa

ct le

vels

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er

addi

tiona

l roa

dway

cl

osur

es a

nd ro

adw

ay

dam

age

that

wou

ld

resu

lt fro

m tr

ench

ing

activ

ities

alo

ng th

e 3.

6-m

ile u

nder

grou

nd

segm

ent w

ould

lead

to

high

er te

mpo

rary

Impa

ct le

vels

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er

addi

tiona

l roa

dway

cl

osur

es a

nd ro

adw

ay

dam

age

that

wou

ld

resu

lt fro

m tr

ench

ing

activ

ities

alo

ng th

e 3.

0-m

ile u

nder

grou

nd

segm

ent w

ould

lead

to

high

er te

mpo

rary

Impa

ct le

vels

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er

addi

tiona

l roa

dway

cl

osur

es a

nd ro

adw

ay

dam

age

that

wou

ld

resu

lt fro

m tr

ench

ing

activ

ities

alo

ng th

e 1.

0-m

ile u

nder

grou

nd

segm

ent w

ould

lead

to

high

er te

mpo

rary

Impa

ct le

vels

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct; h

owev

er s

ince

a

grea

ter n

umbe

r of

road

way

s w

ould

be

cros

sed

by th

is

alte

rnat

ive,

tem

pora

ry

impa

cts

to tr

affic

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

wou

ld b

e sl

ight

ly h

ighe

r tha

n th

e P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

.

5. C

ompa

rison

of A

ltern

ativ

es

TAB

LE 5

-2 (C

ontin

ued)

D

EVER

S-M

IRA

GE

115k

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

VS. A

LTER

NA

TIVE

S SU

MM

AR

Y O

F EN

VIR

ON

MEN

TAL

IMPA

CT

CO

NC

LUSI

ON

S

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15kV

Sub

trans

mis

sion

Sys

tem

Spl

it P

roje

ct

5-36

E

SA

/ 20

7059

(A

.08-

01-0

29) F

inal

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

Apr

il 20

10

Res

ourc

e A

rea

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

Alte

rnat

ive

3 A

ltern

ativ

e 5

Alte

rnat

ive

6 A

ltern

ativ

e 7

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d Tr

affic

(con

t.)

im

pact

s du

ring

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

. im

pact

s du

ring

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

.

Mos

t im

pact

s to

tr

affic

and

tr

ansp

orta

tion

for t

he

Farr

ell-G

arne

t stu

dy

area

.

impa

cts

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Mor

e im

pact

s to

tr

affic

and

tr

ansp

orta

tion

than

th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-Sa

nta

Ros

a lin

e.

impa

cts

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Util

ities

and

S

ervi

ce S

yste

ms

Impa

cts

dete

rmin

ed to

be

Cla

ss II

I. N

o Pr

efer

ence

Le

ast i

mpa

cts

for

both

Far

rell-

Gar

net

and

Mira

ge-S

anta

R

osa

stud

y ar

eas.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct. H

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

2 w

ould

re

sult

in th

e m

ost

unde

rgro

und

line

wor

k in

the

Farr

ell-G

arne

t st

udy

area

and

wou

ld

invo

lve

the

grea

test

po

tent

ial f

or

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

to

dis

turb

exi

stin

g su

bsur

face

util

ities

. N

o Pr

efer

ence

M

ost i

mpa

cts

for

Farr

ell-G

arne

t stu

dy

area

.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct. H

owev

er,

Alte

rnat

ive

5 w

ould

re

sult

in m

ore

unde

rgro

und

line

wor

k co

mpa

red

to th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-S

anta

Ros

a lin

e an

d w

ould

invo

lve

the

mos

t po

tent

ial f

or

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

to

dis

turb

exi

stin

g su

bsur

face

util

ities

. N

o Pr

efer

ence

M

ore

impa

cts

than

th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-Sa

nta

Ros

a lin

e.

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

Impa

cts

wou

ld b

e si

mila

r to

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct.

No

Pref

eren

ce

5. Comparison of Alternatives

Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-37 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

5-9 The text of the first bullet is revised as follows.

• Aesthetics – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Alternative 7 would involve the most amount of overhead line in the Farrell-Garnet study area, including the most overhead line in residential areas and a crossing of I-10. Alternative 3 would involve the least amount of overhead line with no I-10 crossings, but would result in nearly doubling the height and base diameter of structures along Indian Canyon Road which is a major entryway to the City of Palm Springs. Alternative 2 is considered the most favorable for aesthetics because the overhead portion of that line would be in an area with low visual sensitivity. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: Alternative 3, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 6, Alternative 7, and Alternative 73. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, Alternative 5 would result in only a short span of overhead line across I-10 and the UPRR, compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would include approximately 1.5 miles of overhead line. Therefore, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line.

5-9 The text of the second bullet is revised as follows.

• Biological Resources – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. The Proposed Project alignments contain more suitable habitat for special status species than do the alternative alignments. Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 37 would result in the least most amount of overhead line and associated long-term impacts; however, Alternative 7 would be constructed in the least suitable habitat for special status species, making it the most favorable alternative, followed by Alternative 6, Alternative 3, Alternative 2, and the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, and Alternative 7. Compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in approximately 1.5 miles of new overhead line in more suitable habitat for special status species, Alternative 5 would result in only a short segment of overhead line associated with the I-10 and UPRR crossings and it would be in less suitable habitat for special status species.

5-9 The text of the third bullet is revised as follows.

• Cultural Resources – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Alternative 6 and Alternative 7 would have no impact on the Garnet Hill cultural resource compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. It should be noted that Alternative 2 is the only alignment that would include direct impacts to Garnet Hill. Between Alternatives 6 and 7, Alternative 6 Alternatives 2, 3, and 6 would include a higher potential for an undiscovered find compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line and Alternative 7 due to the one-mile underground line

5. Comparison of Alternatives

Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-38 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

construction work that would be associated with Alternative 6 those alternatives. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, and Alternative 2. Compared to the proposed Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 would avoid CA-RIV-785, and 33-15429, and 33-15430. However, Alternative 5 would result in substantially more subsurface disturbance associated with trenching for the underground line compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, which would result in more severe of an impact related to undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources. Therefore, Alternative 5 is more favorable than the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than Alternative 5.

5-10 The following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph.

• Noise – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least duration of construction work in the vicinity of sensitive receptors (i.e., residences). Compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 3 would result in the highest duration of construction activity in the vicinity of sensitive receptors due to the longest length of underground line work that would occur near residences, followed by Alternative 2 and Alternative 6. Alternative 7 would not include underground line work, but would affect more sensitive receptors than the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. Compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 would result in a longer duration of construction activity in the vicinity of more sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.

5-10 The following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph.

• Public Services – Impacts would be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least potential for construction activities to affect vehicle access and fire department response times because the alternatives with underground components would require lengthier lane closures that could more severely affect emergency response times, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative and more lane closures associated with overhead road crossings compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6,

5. Comparison of Alternatives

Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-39 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Alternative 2, and Alternative 3. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.

5-10 The following paragraph has been added to the environmentally superior alternative discussion before the first complete paragraph.

• Utilities and Service Systems – Impacts would be less than significant for all of the alternatives. Compared to the alternative lines, the Proposed Project lines would involve the least potential for construction activities to disturb utilities because the alternatives with underground components would have a higher potential to disturb underground utilities, and Alternative 7 would be slightly more adverse than the Proposed Project due to the longer length of the alternative and the greater potential for the additional pole excavations to disturb underground utilities compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line. The ranking for the Farrell-Garnet study area (most to least favorable) is as follows: the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet line, Alternative 7, Alternative 6, Alternative 3, and Alternative 2. For the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area, the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line is more favorable than the Alternative 5 line.

5-10 The last paragraph under Section 5.3, Environmentally Superior Alternative, has been replaced with the following paragraphs.

While the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least amount of transportation and traffic impacts compared to the alternatives, these impacts would be primarily short-term and would conclude at the end of construction period. Because the Alternative 5 subtransmission line would result in less long-term aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources impacts compared to the Proposed Project Mirage-Santa Rosa line, Alternative 5 is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. With regard to the Farrell-Garnet study area, Alternative 3 would result in the least amount of long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line and Alternatives 2, 6, and 7; however, Alternative 7 would result in the least amount of impacts to cultural resources compared to the Proposed Project Farrell-Garnet subtransmission line and Alternatives 2, 3, and 6. After considering all impacts, and the long length of Alternative 7, Alternative 3 is selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the Farrell-Garnet study area.

For the ranking of alternatives to support the identification of the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for each geographical study area, a weighting factor was assigned to each resource area for which at least some differentiation between alternatives was discernable. Air quality was assigned the highest weighting because it had the only significant and unavoidable impact. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be long term, though admittedly less

5. Comparison of Alternatives

Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-40 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

than significant, were assigned the next highest weighting. Aesthetics, biological resources, and cultural resources fall into that category. Resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but most noticeable to many people (i.e., noise, and transportation and traffic) were assigned the third highest weighting. And finally, resource areas wherein the impacts would be short term but generally not noticeable to many people (i.e., hazards/hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems) were assigned the lowest weighting. No weighting was assigned to resources areas for which no discernable distinction could be made from the Draft EIR analysis (i.e., agriculture resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, and recreation).

The Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in the least severe air quality, cultural resources, noise, transportation and traffic, hazards and hazardous materials, public services, and utilities and service systems impacts compared to the alternatives, and in the Farrell-Garnet study area the Proposed Project would result in the second least severe impacts related to aesthetics. However, the Proposed Project would result in the most severe impacts related to biological resources in both study areas and would result in the most severe impacts related to aesthetics in the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. Because the Proposed Project subtransmission lines would result in less severe significant and unavoidable air quality construction impacts than the alternatives, with the exception of biological resources and aesthetics, and would result in less severe impacts compared to the alternatives for all of the other resource areas where a preference is identified, the Proposed Project subtransmission lines (i.e., the proposed Farrell-Garnet Subtransmission line and the Mirage-Santa Rosa Subtransmission lines) are selected as the Environmentally Superior Alternatives for both the Farrell-Garnett and Mirage-Santa Rosa study areas.

5-10, -11 The paragraph under Section 5.4.2, Summary of the Environmentally Superior Alternative and its Impacts, has been revised as follows.

The Environmentally Superior Alternatives are defined in Section 5.3 as Alternative 3 the Proposed Project for both the Farrell-Garnet study area and Alternative 5 for the Mirage-Santa Rosa study area. The impacts of Alternatives 3 and 5 the Proposed Project are defined in each resource area’s impact analysis in Sections 4.1 through 4.16, and are also summarized in Table 5-2, above. The Environmentally Superior Alternatives would each have the same short-term construction related significant and unmitigable (Class I) impacts on air quality. As discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.16, other types of impacts would also occur under the Proposed Project, but they would be either less than significant or mitigable to less than significant levels.

5. Comparison of Alternatives

Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-41 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

5-11 The paragraph under Section 5.4.3, Conclusion: Comparison of the Environmentally Superior Alternative with the No Project Alternative, is revised as follows.

The Environmentally Superior Alternatives (Alternatives 3 and 5) as defined above would reduce long-term aesthetics and biological resources impacts and would have minimal long-term impacts on residences or other sensitive land uses. Under the No Project Alternative scenario, SCE may be required to construct new subtransmission and transmission lines and/or additional power generation in or near the study area to supply power to the Electrical Needs Area. It would be overly speculative for this EIR to assume where the new subtransmission and transmission facilities and/or power generation facilities would be sited; however, it is reasonable to assume that at a minimum, environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative scenario would not be less than those from the Environmentally Superior Alternatives. Therefore, the Environmentally Superior Alternatives are preferred over the No Project Alternative.

Chapter 6. CEQA Statutory Sections

No changes have been made to Chapter 6, CEQA Statutory Sections.

Chapter 7. Report Preparers

No changes have been made to Chapter 7, Report Preparers.

Chapter 8. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program

All text changes to the Draft EIR mitigation measures described in Section 5 are also reflected in the Final EIR Appendix E, Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program.

8-32 The Monitoring/Reporting Requirements and Timing entries for Mitigation Measure 4.8-4b in Table 8-1, Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project, have been revised as follows. The same clarification has been incorporated in Appendix E.

Monitoring/Reporting Requirements Timing

SCE to submit results of topographic and gradient survey to CPUC for review. CPUC mitigation monitor to inspect compliance. CPUC mitigation monitor to monitor compliance.

Survey results to be submitted prior to construction activities within the Whitewater River Wash. Following construction activities within the Whitewater River Wash. Inspection to be performed following completion of grading activities within the wash.

5. Comparison of Alternatives

Devers-Mirage 115kV Subtransmission System Split Project 5-42 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

8-32, -33 The Mitigation/Reporting Requirements entry for Mitigation Measure 4.11-2 in Table 8-1, Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program for the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project, has been revised as follows. The same clarification has been incorporated in Appendix E.

Monitoring/Reporting Requirements

SCE to submit plan for compliance to Riverside County and CPUC for review and approval.

SCE to retain an acoustical engineer, and submit documentation of compliance to the CPUC and Riverside County.

Appendix B

B-1 The referenced sentence in the first paragraph has been revised as follows.

Units of measure are Gauss (G) or milliGauss (mG, 111000 1/1000 of a Gauss).

B-2 The following clarification to the top of the page is included.

Its recommendations were filed with the Commission in March of 1992, and became the basis for the CPUC’s EMF Policy established in D.93-11-013.

B-2 The second paragraph is clarified as follows.

Findings – Based on the work of the Consensus Group, written testimony, and evidentiary hearings, the CPUC issued its decisions D.93-11-013 and (D.06-01-042) to address . . .

B-4 The referenced sentence in the last paragraph is revised as follows.

Specific measures to be implemented are described in the attached Field Management Plan for the Proposed Project (Appendix D B – Section 2) and alternatives (Appendix D B – Section 3).

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 6-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

CHAPTER 6 Agencies, Organizations, and Persons that Received the Final EIR

The Lead Agency (the California Public Utilities Commission), the project Applicant (Southern California Edison), and listed parties on the CPUC service list received a hard copy of the Final EIR. All other agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted comments on the Draft EIR received a compact disc (CD) of the Final EIR unless a hard copy was specifically requested. Table 6(RTC)-1 shows the commenters who received a hard copy of the Final EIR via an overnight delivery service, while Table 6(RTC)-2 shows agencies and individuals who received a CD of the document.

TABLE 6(RTC)-1 AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS

SENT THE FINAL EIR VIA OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION/ INDIVIDUAL FIRST NAME LAST NAME STREET CITY STATE

ZIP CODE

LEAD AGENCY/APPLICANT

California Public Utilities Commission

Eric Chiang 505 Van Ness Avenue, Energy Division, Room 4A

San Francisco CA 94102

Southern California Edison Company

Milissa Marona 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rm. 370

Rosemead CA 91770

LOCAL LIBRARIES SERVING AS REPOSITORIES

Cathedral City Branch Library

Amy Dotson 33520 Date Palm Drive Cathedral City CA 92234-1307

Thousand Palms Branch Library

Sharon 31189 Roberts Road Thousand Palms

CA 92276-3235

STATE AGENCIES

California Native American Heritage Commission

David Singleton 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento CA 95814

California State Clearinghouse

1400 Tenth Street Sacramento CA 95814

6. Agencies, Organizations, and Persons that Received the Final EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 6-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

TABLE 6(RTC)-2 AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS SENT A COMPACT DISC (CD)

OF FINAL EIR VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION/ RESIDENT FIRST NAME LAST NAME STREET CITY STATE

ZIP CODE

LOCAL AGENCIES

City of Cathedral City Bill Bayne 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero

Cathedral City CA 92234

City of Palm Springs Marcus Fuller 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Drive Palm Springs CA 92263-2743

Riverside County Transportation Department, Dester Permit Assistance Center

Mojahed Salama 38686 El Cerrito Road Palm Desert CA 92211

County of Riverside George Johnson 4080 Lemon St. 8th Floor Riverside CA 92501

County of Riverside Ron Goldman 4080 Lemon St. 9th Floor Riverside CA 92501

County of Riverside Roy Wilson 4080 Lemon St. 5th Floor Riverside CA 92501

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Steve Smith 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765-4182

Riverside County LAFCo George J. Spiliotis 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside CA 92507-4277

City of Palm Desert City Hall - Planning Department

Lori Aylaian 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260

City of Palm Desert Public Works

Mark Greenwood 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260

City of Palm Desert Carlos Artega 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260City of Rancho Mirage Community Development Department

Randy Bynder 69-825 Highway 111 Rancho Mirage CA 92270

City of Indian Wells Planning Department

Corrie Kates 44-950 Eldorado Drive Indian Wells CA 92210

Coachella Valley Water District

Georgia Celehar P.O. Box 1058 Coachella CA 92236

STATE AGENCIES

California Dept. of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8

Bill Mosby 464 W. 4th Street, 6th Floor MF 1221

San Bernardino CA 92401

California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics--M.S. #40

Sandy Hesnard1120 N Street, P.O. Box 942873 Sacramento CA

94273-0001

California Department of Public Health Environmental Management Branch

Robin Hook 1616 Capitol Avenue, MS 7402

Sacramento CA 95814-7402

Regional Water Quality Control Board

John Carmona 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside CA 92501-3348

California Department of Toxic Substances Control

Jim Marxen 1001 I Street Sacramento CA 95814

California Department of Fish and Game, Region 6

Curt Taucher 4665 Lampson Avenue, Suite J

Los Alamitos CA 90720

California Resources Agency

Mike Chrisman 1416 9th Street, Ste 1311 Sacramento CA 95814

Office of Historic Preservation

Milford Wayne Donaldson 1416 9th Street, Room 1442-7

Sacramento CA 95814

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Inland Empire District

Enrique Arroyo 17801 Lake Perris Drive Perris CA 92571

California State Lands Commission

Paul D. Thayer 100 Howe Ave. Suite 100 South

Sacramento CA 95825

Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy

Gary Hund 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 205

Palm Desert CA 92260

California Air Resources Board

Catherine Witherspoon 1001 I Street Sacramento CA 95812

6. Agencies, Organizations and Persons that Received the Final EIR

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project 6-3 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

TABLE 6(RTC)-2 (Continued) AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS SENT A COMPACT DISC (CD)

OF FINAL EIR VIA UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION/ RESIDENT FIRST NAME LAST NAME STREET CITY STATE

ZIP CODE

FEDERAL AGENCIES US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District

David M. Van Dorpe 915 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101

Los Angeles CA 90017-3401

US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District

David Castanon 915 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1101

Los Angeles CA 90017-3401

Bureau of Land Management

Diane Gomez 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs CA 92262

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

Mark Massar 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs CA 92262

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

John Kalish 1201 Bird Center Drive Palm Springs CA 92262

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Southern California Field Office

Steven John 600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1460

Los Angeles CA 90017

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Eric Portal 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101

Carlsbad CA 92011

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Pete Sorenson 6010 Hidden Valley Road, Suite 101

Carlsbad CA 92011

Coachella Valley NWR Ginny Short P.O. Box 188 Thousand Palms CA 92276

NATIVE AMERICANS Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Richard Begay 650 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA 92262

Alvino Siva 2034 W. Westward Banning CA 92220

Anthony J. Andreas Jr. 3022 W. Nicolet Street Banning CA 92220

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

Mary Ann Green P.O. Box 846 Coachella CA 92236

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

Karen Kupcha P.O. Box 846 Coachella CA 92236

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

John A. James 84245 Indio Springs Parkway

Indio CA 92203-3499

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians

Judy Stapp 84245 Indio Springs Parkway

Indio CA 92203-3499

Morongo Band of Mission Indians

Britt W. Wilson 245 N. Murray Street, Suite C

Banning CA 92220

Ramona Band of Mission Indians

Terry Hughes P.O. Box 1291 Yucca Valley CA 92286

Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians

Ernest Morreo P.O. Box 609 Hemet CA 92546

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

P.O. Box 1160 Thermal CA 92274

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

Raymond Torres P.O. Box 1160 Thermal CA 92274

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians

William J. Contreras P.O. Box 1160 Thermal CA 92274

PUBLIC COMMENTERS

Thomas C. MacMaster 641 Dunes Court Palm Springs CA 92264

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project A-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

APPENDIX A Notice of Availability

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

A-2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

To: State Clearinghouse, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, Property Owners, & Interested Parties

From: Eric Chiang, Environmental Project Manager

Subject: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PUBLIC MEETING: Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (A.08-01-029) SCH No. 2008041087

Date: January 7, 2010

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for consideration of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) application to construct, operate, and maintain the Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project (Proposed Project). The Draft EIR details the Proposed Project, evaluates and describes thepotential environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Project, identifies those impacts that could be significant, and presents mitigation measures which, if adopted by the CPUC, could avoid or minimize these impacts. The Draft EIR also evaluates alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the No Project Alternative, as required by CEQA. Description of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project is located within central Riverside County, including portions of the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Cathedral City, and Indian Wells, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the community of Thousand Palms. See the map that follows this notice for an illustration of the project area. The Proposed Project includes the following major elements: • replacement of approximately 5.3 miles of existing 115 kilovolt (kV) single-circuit subtransmission line

with new higher capacity double-circuit 115 kV subtransmission lines and replacement of support structures within existing SCE rights-of-way (ROWs), franchise locations (public ROWs), and private property between Farrell and Garnet Substations in the City of Palm Springs;

• construction of a new 115 kV subtransmission line from Mirage Substation south to Interstate 10, adjacent to the east side of Tri-Palm Estates and within SCE’s existing ROWs or franchise locations;

• looping the existing Devers-Coachella Valley 220 kV transmission line from an existing ROW to the south for approximately 0.8 mile on double-circuit lattice steel towers to Mirage Substation, located near the community of Thousand Palms;

• installation of a new 280 megavolt amperes (MVA) 200/115 kV transformer, two new 220 kV circuit breakers, and five new 115 kV circuit breakers at SCE’s existing Mirage Substation; and

• subtransmission line reconfigurations at the intersections of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive, Portola Avenue and Gerald Ford Drive, and Varner Road and Date Palm Drive.

The Proposed Project would also include additional equipment and relay installations at Mirage, Concho, Indian Wells, Santa Rosa, Eisenhower, Farrell, Garnet, Thornhill, and Tamarisk Substations located in the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells, Cathedral City, Palm Desert, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the community of Thousand Palms. The Proposed Project would also include the transfer of existing fiber optic cable to new support structures and installation of new fiber optic and digital telecommunications equipment. The objectives of the Proposed Project are to maintain electric system reliability, enhance operational flexibility, and serve projected electrical demand in the cities of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City,

A-3

- 2 -

Palm Desert, Indian Wells, and unincorporated areas of Riverside County, including the community of Thousand Palms. Construction of the project is proposed to begin in the second quarter of 2010 and be operational by mid-2011. Public Comment on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR is available for a 45-day public comment period from January 8, 2010 through February 22, 2010. The public may present comments and concerns regarding the Proposed Project and the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Written comments on the Draft EIR must be postmarked or received by fax or e-mail no later than February 22, 2010. Please be sure to include your name, address, and telephone number in your correspondence. Written comments on the Draft EIR should be sent to:

Mr. Eric Chiang Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project

c/o Environmental Science Associates 1425 N. McDowell Boulevard, Suite 200

Petaluma, CA 94954 Voicemail: (707) 795-0940; Fax: (707) 795-0902

E-mail: devers-mirage@esassoc.com

The CPUC will also hold a public comment meeting to receive oral and written comments from interested parties. Following the end of the public comment period, responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR and submitted within the specified 45-day review period will be prepared by the CPUC and included in a response to comments document, which together with the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR for the Proposed Project. The public meeting will be held:

Friday January 29, 2010 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm

CSUSB Palm Desert Campus, Mary Stuart Rogers Gateway Building (Classroom RG-303)37-500 Cook Street (b/w Gerald Ford Dr. and Frank Sinatra Dr.)

Palm Desert, CA 92211

Availability of Draft EIR. Copies of the Draft EIR are available for public review on the project website: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/esa/devers-mirage/devers.html. This website will be used to post all public documents during the environmental review process and to announce any upcoming public meetings. Hard copies or CD copies of the Draft EIR may be requested by telephone at (707) 795-0940 or by e-mail at devers-mirage@esassoc.com.

Additionally, copies of the Draft EIR are available at the following branches of the Riverside County Library:

Cathedral City Branch 33520 Date Palm Drive.

Cathedral City, CA 92234-1307 Phone : (760) 328-4262

Thousand Palms Branch 31189 Robert Road

Thousand Palms, CA 92276-3235 Phone: (760) 343-1556

REMINDER: Draft EIR comments will be accepted by fax, e-mail, or postmark through February 22, 2010. Please be sure to include your name, address, and telephone number.

A-4

- 3 -

A-5

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project B-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

APPENDIX B Draft EIR Newspaper Legal Advertisements

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

B-2

B-3

B-4

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project C-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

APPENDIX C CPUC Project Website

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

C-2

C-3

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project D-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

APPENDIX D Public Meeting Presentation

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

D-2

1

Sou

ther

n C

alif

orn

ia E

dis

on C

omp

any

D

ever

s-M

irag

e 11

5 kV

Su

btr

ansm

issi

on

Syst

em S

plit

Pro

ject

Cal

ifo

rnia

Pu

blic

Uti

litie

s C

om

mis

sio

n

Pu

blic

Co

mm

ent

Mee

tin

g

for

the

Dra

ft E

nvi

ron

men

tal I

mp

act

Rep

ort

(DEI

R)

Jan

uar

y 2

9,

20

10

Pal

m D

eser

t, C

alif

orn

ia

D-3

2

Parti

cipa

nts a

nd th

eir R

oles

Eric

Chi

ang,

CPU

C

Lead

Age

ncy

unde

r th

e Cal

iforn

ia

Envi

ronm

enta

l Qua

lity

Act

(CEQ

A)

Dou

g Cov

er a

nd M

att

Fagu

ndes

, En

viro

nmen

tal S

cien

ce A

ssoc

iate

s (E

SA)

Envi

ronm

enta

l Con

sulta

nt f

or t

he C

PUC

Sou

ther

n Cal

iforn

ia E

diso

n:

App

lican

t

D-4

3

Mee

ting

Age

nda

CPU

C R

evie

w a

nd C

EQA P

roce

ss

Proj

ect

Ove

rvie

w

Alte

rnat

ives

Con

side

red

Sum

mar

y of

Env

iron

men

tal I

mpa

cts

Nex

t Ste

ps

Publ

ic C

omm

ent

Spe

aker

car

ds

Com

men

t fo

rms

D-5

Inve

stor

Ow

ned

Util

ity (I

OU

)P

ropo

ses

to b

uild

infra

stru

ctur

e

Per

mit

to C

onst

ruct

(PTC

)C

PC

N

Dis

cret

iona

ry D

ecis

ion

of C

omm

issi

on

App

rove

Dis

appr

ove

Per

mit

to C

onst

ruct

(PTC

)

oror

D-6

CP

UC

Rev

iew

Pro

cess

PTC

Rev

iew

may

incl

ude

Rat

esM

arke

tC

ompe

titio

nM

eet N

eeds

of

Peo

ple

Mar

ket

Stru

ctur

e

CE

QA

Rev

iew

Env

ironm

enta

l con

side

ratio

ns

Pub

lic A

war

enes

s to

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

sM

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

sA

ltern

ativ

es

Eco

nom

ic a

nd o

ther

fact

ors

D-7

Bas

ic A

pplic

atio

n an

d E

nviro

nmen

tal

R

evie

w P

roce

sses

(Ste

p 1)

Util

ity F

iles

App

licat

ion

Util

ity F

iles

App

licat

ion

CPU

C R

evie

ws

CPU

C R

evie

ws

Envi

ronm

enta

l C

onsu

ltant

Rev

iew

sEn

viro

nmen

tal

Con

sulta

nt R

evie

ws

App

licat

ion

Dee

med

Com

plet

eA

pplic

atio

nD

eem

ed C

ompl

ete

Envi

ronm

enta

l R

evie

w B

egin

sEn

viro

nmen

tal

Rev

iew

Beg

ins

Go

to

Step

2

D-8

Envi

ronm

enta

l Rev

iew

Beg

ins

Envi

ronm

enta

l Rev

iew

Beg

ins

Envi

ronm

enta

l R

evie

w in

Fie

ldEn

viro

nmen

tal

Rev

iew

in F

ield

Age

ncy

Con

sulta

tion

Age

ncy

Con

sulta

tion

Con

duct

In

itial

Stu

dy

Con

duct

In

itial

Stu

dy

Bas

ic A

pplic

atio

n an

d E

nviro

nmen

tal

Rev

iew

Pro

cess

es (S

tep

2)

Prep

are

Miti

gate

d N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Prep

are

Miti

gate

d N

egat

ive

Dec

lara

tion

Prep

are

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

Prep

are

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort

orG

o to

St

ep 3

D-9

Bas

ic A

pplic

atio

n an

d E

nviro

nmen

tal

Rev

iew

Pro

cess

es (S

tep

3)

Prep

are

Dra

ft EI

RPr

epar

eD

raft

EIR

Publ

ic N

otic

eof

Dra

ft EI

RPu

blic

Not

ice

of D

raft

EIR

Publ

ic C

omm

ents

Publ

ic C

omm

ents

Fina

l EIR

Fina

l EIR

Con

tain

s “E

nviro

nmen

tally

Su

perio

r” R

oute

s an

d O

ther

Alte

rnat

ives

Con

tain

s “E

nviro

nmen

tally

Su

perio

r” R

oute

s an

d O

ther

Alte

rnat

ives

Publ

ic S

copi

ng

Mee

ting

Publ

ic S

copi

ng

Mee

ting

Rec

eive

info

rmat

ion

from

pub

lic to

de

term

ine

the

rang

e of

issu

es

and

alte

rnat

ives

Rec

eive

info

rmat

ion

from

pub

lic to

de

term

ine

the

rang

e of

issu

es

and

alte

rnat

ives

Go

to

Step

4D

-10

Bas

ic A

pplic

atio

n an

d E

nviro

nmen

tal

Rev

iew

Pro

cess

es (S

tep

4)Fi

nal E

IRFi

nal E

IR

ALJ

Pro

pose

s D

ecis

ion

for

Com

mis

sion

ALJ

Pro

pose

s D

ecis

ion

for

Com

mis

sion

Con

tain

s R

outin

g, E

cono

mic

Issu

es, S

ocia

l Im

pact

Is

sues

, And

Nee

d fo

r Pro

ject

Con

tain

s R

outin

g, E

cono

mic

Issu

es, S

ocia

l Im

pact

Is

sues

, And

Nee

d fo

r Pro

ject

ALJ

’s P

ropo

sed

Dec

isio

nA

LJ’s

Pro

pose

d D

ecis

ion

Inte

rven

ers

Com

men

t on

Prop

osed

Dec

isio

nIn

terv

ener

s C

omm

ent o

n Pr

opos

ed D

ecis

ion

Prop

osed

Fin

al D

ecis

ion

Prop

osed

Fin

al D

ecis

ion

Com

mis

sion

ers

Vote

Com

mis

sion

ers

Vote

D-1

1

10

Proj

ect L

ocat

ion

D-1

2

11

SCE

’s Proj

ect P

urpo

se a

nd N

eed

Rel

ieve

exi

stin

g th

erm

al o

verloa

d co

nditi

ons

on

two

115

kV s

ubtr

ansm

issi

on li

nes

Res

olve

a f

orec

aste

d vo

ltage

pro

blem

on

the

220

kV t

rans

mis

sion

sys

tem

Ser

ve p

roje

cted

ele

ctrica

l dem

and

in t

he c

ities

of

Palm

Spr

ings

, Ran

cho

Mirag

e, C

athe

dral

City

, Pa

lm D

eser

t, I

ndia

n W

ells

, an

d un

inco

rpor

ated

ar

eas

of R

iver

side

Cou

nty,

incl

udin

g th

e Th

ousa

nd P

alm

s co

mm

unity

Be

oper

atio

nal b

y m

id-2

011

D-1

3

12

Proj

ect D

escr

iptio

n O

verv

iew

Farr

ell-

Gar

net

115

kV P

ropo

sed

Rou

te

Mirag

e-San

ta R

osa

115

kV P

ropo

sed

Rou

te

Dev

ers-

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y 22

0 kV

Loo

p-In

115

kV L

ine

Rec

onfig

urat

ions

Sub

stat

ions

D-1

4

13

Proj

ect D

escr

iptio

n

Farr

ell-

Gar

net

11

5 k

V P

rop

osed

Rou

te

Rep

lace

app

roxi

mat

ely

5.3

mile

s of

exi

stin

g si

ngle

-circu

it lin

es a

nd s

truc

ture

s w

ith d

oubl

e-

circ

uit

With

in e

xist

ing

SCE

righ

t-of

-way

s (R

OW

s),

publ

ic R

OW

s, a

nd p

riva

te p

rope

rty

Gen

eral

alig

nmen

t:

From

Far

rell

Sub

nor

th a

long

the

eas

t si

de o

f G

ene

Aut

ry T

rail

to a

poi

nt s

outh

of th

e RR

Cro

ss t

o w

est

of G

ene

Aut

ry T

rail

Cro

ss t

he R

R,

proc

eed

in a

new

0.8

-mile

SCE

RO

W t

o a

loca

tion

sout

h of

the

I-1

0 RO

W

Con

tinue

NW

and

W a

long

I-1

0 to

Gar

net

Sub

stat

ion

D-1

5

14

Proj

ect D

escr

iptio

n (c

ont’d

)

Mir

age-

San

ta R

osa

11

5 k

V P

rop

osed

R

oute

Rep

lace

app

roxi

mat

ely

1.5

mile

s of

exi

stin

g si

ngle

-circu

it lin

es a

nd s

truc

ture

s w

ith d

oubl

e-

circ

uit

With

in e

xist

ing

SCE

and

publ

ic r

oad

RO

Ws

Gen

eral

alig

nmen

t:

From

Mirag

e Sub

sou

th a

djac

ent

to t

he e

ast

side

of

Tri-

Palm

Est

ates

Thro

ugh

the

Tri-

Palm

Est

ates

gol

f co

urse

Sou

th o

f th

e go

lf co

urse

, cr

oss

I-10

to

join

the

exi

stin

g su

btra

nsm

issi

on s

yste

m D-1

6

15

Proj

ect D

escr

iptio

n (c

ont’d

)

Dev

ers-

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y 2

20

kV

Lo

op

-In

Loop

exi

stin

g D

ever

s-Coa

chel

la 2

20 k

V li

ne t

o M

irag

e Sub

stat

ion

From

Dev

ers-

Coa

chel

la R

OW

, so

uth

appr

oxim

atel

y 0.

8 m

ile o

n do

uble

-circu

it la

ttic

e st

eel t

ower

s to

Mirag

e Sub

stat

ion

11

5 k

V L

ine

Rec

onfi

gu

rati

ons

Line

rec

onfig

urat

ions

at

thre

e in

ters

ectio

ns:

Port

ola

Ave

nue

and

Ger

ald

Ford

Drive

Din

ah S

hore

Drive

and

Bob

Hop

e D

rive

near

Var

ner

Roa

d an

d D

ate

Palm

Drive

D-1

7

16

Proj

ect D

escr

iptio

n (c

ont’d

)

Su

bst

atio

ns

Inst

alla

tion

of a

dditi

onal

equ

ipm

ent

and

rela

ys

at M

irag

e, C

onch

o, I

ndia

n W

ells

, San

ta R

osa,

Ei

senh

ower

, Fa

rrel

l, G

arne

t, T

horn

hill,

and

Ta

mar

isk

Sub

stat

ions D

-18

17

Alte

rnat

ive

Alig

nmen

ts

Alte

rnat

ive

2

Und

ergr

ound

sin

gle-

circ

uit

alon

g G

ene

Aut

ry

Trai

l, Vis

ta C

hino

Rd,

and

Sun

rise

Way

to

Four

Sea

sons

Blv

d

Ove

rhea

d fr

om F

our

Sea

sons

Blv

d no

rth

to t

he

Prop

osed

Rou

te a

nd o

n to

Gar

net

Sub

3.0

mile

s un

derg

roun

d; 3

.0 m

iles

over

head

D-1

9

18

Alte

rnat

ive

Alig

nmen

ts (c

ont’d

)

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Und

ergr

ound

sin

gle-

circ

uit

alon

g G

ene

Aut

ry

Trai

l, Vis

ta C

hino

Rd,

Sun

rise

Way

, San

Raf

ael

Rd,

and

50

feet

of

Indi

an C

anyo

n D

r

From

ris

er p

ole,

nor

th a

long

Ind

ian

Can

yon

Drive

to

Gar

net

Sub

3.6

mile

s un

derg

roun

d; 2

.9 m

iles

over

head

Alte

rnat

ive

5

Und

ergr

ound

in R

amon

Roa

d to

Mon

tere

y Ave

so

uth

to V

arne

r Rd

Tran

sitio

n to

ove

rhea

d be

fore

cro

ssin

g I-

10

1.9

mile

s un

derg

roun

d; 5

00 f

eet

over

head

D-2

0

19

Alte

rnat

ive

Alig

nmen

ts (c

ont’d

)

Alte

rnat

ive

6

Ove

rhea

d lin

e al

ong

Gen

e Aut

ry T

rail

and

Vis

ta

Chi

no t

o La

ndau

Bou

leva

rd

Und

ergr

ound

line

alo

ng V

ista

Chi

no f

rom

La

ndau

Bou

leva

rd t

o D

ate

Palm

Drive

Ove

rhea

d lin

e fr

om L

anda

u Bou

leva

rd a

long

D

ate

Palm

Drive

and

exi

stin

g SCE

RO

W t

o th

e ex

istin

g D

ever

s-Ei

senh

ower

RO

W

1.0

mile

und

ergr

ound

; 3.

2 m

iles

over

head

D-2

1

20

Alte

rnat

ive

Alig

nmen

ts (c

ont’d

)

Alte

rnat

ive

7

Ove

rhea

d lin

e al

ong

Gen

e Aut

ry T

rail,

Vis

ta

Chi

no,

Land

au B

oule

vard

, 33

rd S

tree

t, D

ate

Palm

Drive

, an

d ex

istin

g SCE

RO

W t

o th

e ex

istin

g D

ever

s-Ei

senh

ower

RO

W

9.1

mile

s ov

erhe

ad

D-2

2

21

Alte

rnat

ive

A

lignm

ents

D-2

3

22

Sum

mar

y of

Impa

cts

No

or L

ess

than

Sig

nific

ant

Impa

cts:

Agr

icul

tura

l Res

ourc

es;

Geo

logy

and

Soi

ls;

Min

eral

Res

ourc

es;

Popu

latio

n an

d H

ousi

ng;

Rec

reat

ion;

Util

ities

and

Ser

vice

Sys

tem

s

Impa

cts

Less

tha

n Sig

nific

ant

with

M

itiga

tion:

Aes

thet

ics;

Bio

logi

cal R

esou

rces

; Cul

tura

l Res

ourc

es;

Haz

ards

/Haz

ardo

us M

ater

ials

; H

ydro

logy

/Wat

er Q

ualit

y; L

and

Use

; N

oise

; Pu

blic

Ser

vice

s; a

nd T

raff

ic a

nd T

rans

port

atio

n

Sig

nific

ant

Unm

itiga

ble

Impa

cts:

Air Q

ualit

y (t

empo

rary

dur

ing

cons

truc

tion)

D-2

4

23

Env

ironm

enta

lly S

uper

ior A

ltern

ativ

e –

Fa

rrell

-Gar

net S

tudy

Are

a

Alte

rnat

ive

3

Leas

t ov

eral

l lon

g-te

rm im

pact

s to

Aes

thet

ics

and

Bio

logi

cal R

esou

rces

due

to

unde

rgro

und

line

Mos

t ov

eral

l sho

rt-t

erm

impa

cts

to T

raffic

and

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

due

to c

onst

ruct

ion

of t

he u

nder

grou

nd li

ne

Sig

nific

ant

unav

oida

ble

shor

t-te

rm im

pact

s to

Air Q

ualit

y

Alte

rnat

ive

7

Leas

t ov

eral

l im

pact

s to

Cul

tura

l Res

ourc

es

Sig

nific

ant

unav

oida

ble

shor

t-te

rm im

pact

s to

Air Q

ualit

y

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

Leas

t ov

eral

l sho

rt-t

erm

impa

cts

to T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affic

due

to

over

head

rou

te a

nd o

vera

ll ro

ute

leng

th

Sig

nific

ant

unav

oida

ble

shor

t-te

rm im

pact

s to

Air Q

ualit

y

Co

ncl

usi

on

: Alte

rnat

ive

3

CPU

C S

tate

men

t of

Ove

rrid

ing

Con

side

ratio

nD

-25

24

Env

ironm

enta

lly S

uper

ior A

ltern

ativ

e –

M

irage

-San

ta R

osa

Stud

y A

rea

Alte

rnat

ive

5

Leas

t ov

eral

l lon

g-te

rm im

pact

s to

Aes

thet

ics

and

Bio

logi

cal R

esou

rces

due

to

unde

rgro

und

line

Mos

t ov

eral

l sho

rt-t

erm

impa

cts

to T

raffic

and

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

due

to c

onst

ruct

ion

of t

he u

nder

grou

nd li

ne

Sig

nific

ant

unav

oida

ble

shor

t-te

rm im

pact

s to

Air Q

ualit

y

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

Leas

t ov

eral

l sho

rt-t

erm

impa

cts

to T

rans

port

atio

n an

d Tr

affic

due

to

over

head

rou

te

Sig

nific

ant

unav

oida

ble

shor

t-te

rm im

pact

s to

Air Q

ualit

y

Co

ncl

usi

on

: Alte

rnat

ive

5

CPU

C S

tate

men

t of

Ove

rrid

ing

Con

side

ratio

n

D-2

6

25

Nex

t Ste

ps

Not

ice

of A

vaila

bilit

y w

as c

ircu

late

d to

sol

icit

inpu

t fr

om a

genc

ies

and

the

publ

ic

This

mee

ting

is p

art

of t

he c

omm

ent

proc

ess

Com

men

ts w

ill b

e co

nsid

ered

and

add

ress

ed

in a

Fin

al E

IR

CPU

C c

onsi

ders

EIR

/ o

ther

fac

tors

and

issu

es

a dr

aft

deci

sion

for

the

Pro

pose

d Pr

ojec

t

CPU

C c

onsi

ders

com

men

ts o

n dr

aft

and

alte

rnat

e de

cisi

ons

and

vote

s on

the

Pro

ject

D-2

7

26

How

to C

omm

ent

Plea

se s

ubm

it co

mm

ents

no

late

r th

an M

onda

y,

Febr

uary

22,

201

0: Mr.

Eric

Chi

ang

Dev

ers-

Mirag

e 11

5kV S

ubtr

ansm

issi

on

Sys

tem

Spl

it Pr

ojec

tc/

o En

viro

nmen

tal S

cien

ce A

ssoc

iate

s14

25 N

. M

cDow

ell B

lvd.

, Sui

te 2

00Pe

talu

ma,

CA 9

4954

Fax:

(70

7) 7

95-0

902

Voi

cem

ail:

(70

7) 7

95-0

940

E-m

ail:

dev

ers-

mirag

e@es

asso

c.co

mW

ebsi

te:

http

://w

ww

.cpu

c.ca

.gov

/Env

iron

men

t/

info

/esa

/dev

ers-

mirag

e/de

vers

.htm

lD

-28

27

Publ

ic Co

mm

ent

D-2

9

28

Publ

ic C

omm

ent G

uide

lines

One

per

son

to s

peak

at

a tim

e

Be

conc

ise

Sta

y on

top

ic

Sup

port

eve

ryon

e’s

part

icip

atio

n

Res

pect

oth

ers’

opi

nion

s

Writt

en c

omm

ents

are

enc

oura

ged

D-3

0

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

APPENDIX E Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

MITIGATION MONITORING, REPORTING, AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON’S DEVERS-MIRAGE 115 KV SUBTRANSMISSION SYSTEM SPLIT PROJECT (APPLICATION NO. A.08-01-029)

Introduction This document describes the mitigation monitoring, reporting, and compliance program (MMRCP) for ensuring the effective implementation of the mitigation measures required for the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC, or Commission) approval of Southern California Edison’s (SCE) application to construct, operate, and maintain the Proposed Project. All mitigations are presented in Table 8-1 provided at the end of this MMRCP.

If the Proposed Project is approved, this MMRCP would serve as a self-contained general reference for the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the Commission for the project. If and when the Proposed Project has been approved by the Commission, the CPUC will compile the Final Plan from the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), as adopted.

California Public Utilities Commission – MMRCP Authority The California Public Utilities Code in numerous places confers authority upon the CPUC to regulate the terms of service and the safety, practices, and equipment of utilities subject to its jurisdiction. It is the standard practice of the CPUC, pursuant to its statutory responsibility to protect the environment, to require that mitigation measures stipulated as conditions of approval be implemented properly, monitored, and reported on. In 1989, this requirement was codified statewide as Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Section 21081.6 requires a public agency to adopt a MMRCP when it approves a project that is subject to preparation of an EIR and where the EIR for the project identifies potentially significant environmental effects. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15097 was added in 1999 to further clarify agency requirements for mitigation monitoring and reporting.

The purpose of a MMRCP is to ensure that measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant impacts of a project are implemented. The CPUC views the MMRCP as a working guide to

E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-2 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

facilitate not only the implementation of mitigation measures by the project proponent, but also the monitoring, compliance, and reporting activities of the CPUC and any monitors it may designate.

The Commission will address its responsibility under Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 when it takes action on SCE’s applications. If the Commission approves the applications, it will also adopt a Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Program that includes the mitigation measures ultimately made a condition of approval by the Commission.

Because the CPUC must decide whether or not to approve the SCE application and because the application may cause either direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect effects on the environment, CEQA requires the CPUC to consider the potential environmental impacts that could occur as the result of its decisions and to consider mitigation for any identified significant environmental impacts.

If the CPUC approves SCE’s application for authority to construct and operate the subtransmission and transmission lines and to modify its substations, SCE would be responsible for implementation of any mitigation measures governing both construction and future operation of the subtransmission and transmission lines and substations. Though other State and local agencies would have permit and approval authority over construction of the subtransmission and transmission lines, the CPUC would continue to act as the lead agency for monitoring compliance with all mitigation measures required by this EIR. All approvals and permits obtained by SCE would be submitted to the CPUC for mitigation compliance prior to commencing the activity for which the permits and approvals were obtained.

In accordance with CEQA, the CPUC reviewed the impacts that would result from approval of the application. The activities considered include the construction of the upgraded and new subtransmission and transmission lines and modification of the Devers, Mirage, Santa Rosa, Eisenhower, Farrell, Garnet, Thornhill, Tamarisk, Concho, and Indian Wells substations, and modifications to the Edom Hill Communication Site and Palm Springs Service Center, and the future operation of these facilities. The CPUC review concluded that implementation of the Proposed Project could result in temporary significant unmitigable impacts to air quality during construction activities. All other potential impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. The CPUC has included the stipulated mitigation measures as conditions of approval of the applications and has circulated a Draft EIR.

The attached EIR presents and analyzes potential environmental impacts that would result from construction, operation, and maintenance of the new subtransmission and transmission lines and other facility modifications, and proposes mitigation measures, as appropriate. Based on the EIR, approval of the application would have no impact or less than significant impacts in the following areas:

• Agricultural Resources • Population and Housing • Geology and Soils • Recreation • Mineral Resources • Utilities and Service Systems

E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-3 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

The EIR indicates that approval of the application would result in potentially significant impacts that would be mitigated to less than significant in the areas of:

• Aesthetics • Land Use, Planning and Policies • Biological Resources • Noise • Cultural Resources • Public Services • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Transportation and Traffic • Hydrology and Water Quality

The EIR indicates that approval of the application would result in significant and unmitigable impacts in the in the area of:

• Air Quality

Roles and Responsibilities As the lead agency under CEQA, the CPUC is required to monitor this project to ensure that the required mitigation measures and any Applicant Proposed Measures are implemented. The CPUC will be responsible for ensuring full compliance with the provisions of this MMRCP and has primary responsibility for implementation of the monitoring program. The purpose of the monitoring program is to document that the mitigation measures required by the CPUC are implemented and that mitigated environmental impacts are reduced to the level identified in the Program. The CPUC has the authority to halt any activity associated with the Proposed Project if the activity is determined to be a deviation from the approved project or the adopted mitigation measures.

The CPUC may delegate duties and responsibilities for monitoring to other mitigation monitors or consultants as deemed necessary. The CPUC will ensure that the person(s) delegated any duties or responsibilities are qualified to monitor compliance.

The CPUC, along with its mitigation monitor, will ensure that any variance process, which will be designed specifically for the Proposed Project, or deviation from the procedures identified under the monitoring program, is consistent with CEQA requirements; no project variance will be approved by the CPUC if it creates new significant environmental impacts. As defined in this MMRCP, a variance should be strictly limited to minor project changes that will not trigger other permit requirements, that does not increase the severity of an impact or create a new impact, and that clearly and strictly complies with the intent of the mitigation measure. A Proposed Project change that has the potential for creating significant environmental effects will be evaluated to determine whether supplemental CEQA review is required. Any proposed deviation from the approved project and adopted mitigation measures, including correction of such deviation, shall be reported immediately to the CPUC and the mitigation monitor assigned to the construction for their review and approval. In some cases, a variance may also require approval by a CEQA responsible agency.

E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-4 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

Enforcement and Responsibility The CPUC is responsible for enforcing the procedures for monitoring through the environmental monitor. The environmental monitor shall note problems with monitoring, notify appropriate agencies or individuals about any problems, and report the problems to the CPUC. The CPUC has the authority to halt any construction, operation, or maintenance activity associated with the project if the activity is determined to be a deviation from the approved project or adopted mitigation measures. The CPUC may assign its authority to their environmental monitor.

Mitigation Compliance Responsibility SCE is responsible for successfully implementing all the adopted mitigation measures in this MMRCP. The MMRCP contains criteria that define whether mitigation is successful. Standards for successful mitigation also are implicit in many mitigation measures that include such requirements as obtaining permits or avoiding a specific impact entirely. Additional mitigation success thresholds will be established by applicable agencies with jurisdiction through the permit process and through the review and approval of specific plans for the implementation of mitigation measures.

SCE shall inform the CPUC and its mitigation monitor in writing of any mitigation measures that are not or cannot be successfully implemented. The CPUC in coordination with its mitigation monitor will assess whether alternative mitigation is appropriate and specify to SCE the subsequent actions required.

Dispute Resolution Process This MMRCP is expected to reduce or eliminate many of the potential disputes concerning the implementation of the adopted measures. However, in the event that a dispute occurs, the following procedure will be observed:

• Step 1. Disputes and complaints (including those of the public) should be directed first to the CPUC’s designated Project Manager for resolution. The Project Manager will attempt to resolve the dispute.

• Step 2. Should this informal process fail, the CPUC Project Manager may initiate enforcement or compliance action to address deviations from the Proposed Project or adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.

• Step 3. If a dispute or complaint regarding the implementation or evaluation of the MMRCP or the mitigation measures cannot be resolved informally or through enforcement or compliance action by the CPUC, any affected participant in the dispute or complaint may file a written “notice of dispute” with the CPUC’s Executive Director. This notice should be filed in order to resolve the dispute in a timely manner, with copies concurrently served on other affected participants. Within 10 days of receipt, the Executive Director or designee(s) shall meet or confer with the filer and other affected participants for purposes of resolving the dispute. The Executive Director shall issue an Executive Resolution describing his/her decision, and serve it on the filer and other affected participants.

E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-5 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

• Step 4. If one or more of the affected parties is not satisfied with the decision as described in the Resolution, such party(ies) may appeal it to the Commission via a procedure to be specified by the Commission.

Parties may also seek review by the Commission through existing procedures specified in the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure for formal and expedited relief.

General Monitoring Procedures

Mitigation Monitor Many of the monitoring procedures will be conducted during the construction phase of the project. The CPUC and the mitigation monitor are responsible for integrating the mitigation monitoring procedures into the construction process in coordination with SCE. To oversee the monitoring procedures and to ensure success, the mitigation monitor assigned to the construction must be on site during that portion of construction that has the potential to create a significant environmental impact or other impact for which mitigation is required. The mitigation monitor is responsible for ensuring that all procedures specified in the monitoring program are followed.

Construction Personnel A key feature contributing to the success of mitigation monitoring will be obtaining the full cooperation of construction personnel and supervisors. Many of the mitigation measures require action on the part of the construction supervisors or crews for successful implementation. To ensure success, the following actions, detailed in specific mitigation measures included in the MMRCP, will be taken:

• Procedures to be followed by construction companies hired to do the work will be written into contracts between SCE and any construction contractors. Procedures to be followed by construction crews will be written into a separate agreement that all construction personnel will be asked to sign, denoting agreement.

• One or more pre-construction meetings will be held to inform all and train construction personnel about the requirements of the MMRCP.

• A written summary of mitigation monitoring procedures will be provided to construction supervisors for all mitigation measures requiring their attention.

General Reporting Procedures Site visits and specified monitoring procedures performed by other individuals will be reported to the mitigation monitor assigned to the construction. A monitoring record form will be submitted to the mitigation monitor by the individual conducting the visit or procedure so that details of the visit can be recorded and progress tracked by the mitigation monitor. A checklist will be developed and maintained by the mitigation monitor to track all procedures required for each mitigation measure and to ensure that the timing specified for the procedures is adhered to. The mitigation monitor will note any problems that may occur and take appropriate action to rectify the problems. SCE shall provide the CPUC with written quarterly reports of the project, which

E. Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project E-6 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

shall include progress of construction, resulting impacts, mitigation implemented, and all other noteworthy elements of the project. Quarterly reports shall be required as long as mitigation measures are applicable.

Public Access to Records The public is allowed access to records and reports used to track the monitoring program. Monitoring records and reports will be made available for public inspection by the CPUC on request. The CPUC and SCE will develop a filing and tracking system.

Condition Effectiveness Review In order to fulfill its statutory mandates to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment and to design a MMRCP to ensure compliance during project implementation (CEQA 21081.6):

• The CPUC may conduct a comprehensive review of conditions which are not effectively mitigating impacts at any time it deems appropriate, including as a result of the Dispute Resolution procedure outlined above; and

• If in either review, the CPUC determines that any conditions are not adequately mitigating significant environmental impacts caused by the project, or that recent proven technological advances could provide more effective mitigation, then the CPUC may impose additional reasonable conditions to effectively mitigate these impacts.

These reviews will be conducted in a manner consistent with the CPUC’s rules and practices.

Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program The table attached to this program presents a compilation of applicant proposed measures (APMs) and the mitigation measures in the EIR. The purpose of the table is to provide a single comprehensive list of impacts, mitigation measures, monitoring and reporting requirements, and timing.

SCE proposed APMs to minimize impacts to the following resource areas: air quality; biological resources; cultural resources (including paleontological resources); geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; land use, planning, and policies; noise; traffic and transportation; and utilities and service systems. The impact analysis presented in this EIR assumes that these APMs would be implemented as part of the Proposed Project; therefore, implementation of these measures is required to ensure that impacts from the Proposed Project are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. Furthermore, in cases where APMs would not fully mitigate impacts, mitigation measures were added that would either strengthen or supersede the applicable APM in order to further reduce impacts. As such, all APMs that are not superseded are included in the Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting, and Compliance Program.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-7

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

TAB

LE 8

-1

MIT

IGA

TIO

N M

ON

ITO

RIN

G, R

EPO

RTI

NG

, AN

D C

OM

PLIA

NC

E PR

OG

RA

M F

OR

TH

E D

EVER

S-M

IRA

GE

115

KV

SUB

TRA

NSM

ISSI

ON

SYS

TEM

SPL

IT P

RO

JEC

T

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Aest

hetic

s

Impa

ct 4

.1-3

: Pul

ling/

splic

ing

site

s du

ring

the

cons

truct

ion

perio

d co

uld

resu

lt in

tem

pora

ry

adve

rse

impa

cts

to v

isua

l qu

ality

. Les

s th

an s

igni

fican

t w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.1-3

: SC

E s

hall

not p

lace

eq

uipm

ent o

n th

e pu

lling

/spl

icin

g si

tes

any

soon

er th

an

two

wee

ks p

rior t

o th

e re

quire

d us

e. A

fter e

ach

pulli

ng/s

plic

ing

site

is n

o lo

nger

bei

ng u

sed,

SC

E a

nd/o

r its

con

tract

or s

hall

clea

n up

the

site

and

rest

ore

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith th

e S

WP

PP

Pla

n.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.1-6

: If n

ight

ligh

ting

is

requ

ired

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n,

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct c

ould

ad

vers

ely

affe

ct n

ight

time

view

s in

the

proj

ect a

rea.

Les

s th

an

sign

ifica

nt w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.1-6

: Red

uce

cons

truc

tion

nigh

t lig

htin

g im

pact

s. S

CE

sha

ll de

sign

and

inst

all a

ll lig

htin

g at

pro

ject

faci

litie

s, in

clud

ing

cons

truct

ion

and

stor

age

yard

s an

d st

agin

g ar

eas,

suc

h th

at li

ght b

ulbs

and

re

flect

ors

are

not v

isib

le fr

om p

ublic

vie

win

g ar

eas,

lig

htin

g do

es n

ot c

ause

refle

cted

gla

re, a

nd il

lum

inat

ion

of

the

proj

ect f

acili

ties,

vic

inity

, and

nig

httim

e sk

y is

m

inim

ized

. SC

E s

hall

subm

it a

Con

stru

ctio

n Li

ghtin

g M

itiga

tion

Pla

n to

the

CP

UC

for r

evie

w a

nd a

ppro

val a

t le

ast 9

0 30

day

s pr

ior t

o th

e st

art o

f nig

httim

e co

nstru

ctio

n or

the

orde

ring

of a

ny e

xter

ior l

ight

ing

fixtu

res

or c

ompo

nent

s, w

hich

ever

com

es fi

rst.

SC

E s

hall

not o

rder

any

ext

erio

r lig

htin

g fix

ture

s or

com

pone

nts

until

th

e C

onst

ruct

ion

Ligh

ting

Miti

gatio

n P

lan

is a

ppro

ved

by

the

CP

UC

. The

Pla

n sh

all i

nclu

de b

ut is

not

lim

ited

to th

e fo

llow

ing

mea

sure

s:

• Li

ghtin

g sh

all b

e de

sign

ed s

o ex

terio

r lig

htin

g is

ho

oded

, with

ligh

ts d

irect

ed d

ownw

ard

or to

war

d th

e ar

ea to

be

illum

inat

ed a

nd s

o th

at b

acks

catte

r to

the

nigh

ttim

e sk

y is

min

imiz

ed. T

he d

esig

n of

the

light

ing

shal

l be

such

that

the

lum

ines

cenc

e or

ligh

t sou

rces

ar

e sh

ield

ed to

pre

vent

ligh

t tre

spas

s ou

tsid

e th

e pr

ojec

t bou

ndar

y.

• A

ll lig

htin

g sh

all b

e of

min

imum

nec

essa

ry b

right

ness

co

nsis

tent

with

wor

ker s

afet

y.

• H

igh

illum

inat

ion

area

s no

t occ

upie

d on

a c

ontin

uous

ba

sis

shal

l hav

e sw

itche

s or

mot

ion

dete

ctor

s to

ligh

t th

e ar

ea o

nly

whe

n oc

cupi

ed.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

Con

stru

ctio

n Li

ghtin

g M

itiga

tion

Pla

n to

C

PU

C fo

r rev

iew

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce

at le

ast

once

per

wee

k.

Sub

mit

plan

to C

PU

C a

t le

ast 9

0 da

ys p

rior t

o st

art

of c

onst

ruct

ion

or th

e or

derin

g of

any

ext

erio

r lig

htin

g fix

ture

s or

co

mpo

nent

s, w

hich

ever

co

mes

firs

t.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n th

at in

clud

e ni

ghtti

me

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

.

Impa

ct 4

.1-7

: The

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct tr

ansm

issi

on li

nes

coul

d cr

eate

new

sou

rces

of g

lare

. Le

ss th

an s

igni

fican

t with

m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.1-7

: Non

-spe

cula

r con

duct

ors

shal

l be

inst

alle

d to

redu

ce th

e po

tent

ial g

lare

effe

cts

and

the

leve

l of v

isua

l con

trast

bet

wee

n th

e su

btra

nsm

issi

on

and

trans

mis

sion

line

and

the

land

scap

e se

tting

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

insp

ect c

ompl

ianc

e.

Imm

edia

tely

follo

win

g in

stal

latio

n of

con

duct

ors.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-8

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Impa

ct 4

.1-8

: The

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct s

ubst

atio

n m

odifi

catio

ns

coul

d cr

eate

new

sou

rces

of

glar

e. L

ess

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.1-8

: A n

on-re

flect

ive

or w

eath

ered

fin

ish

shal

l be

appl

ied

to a

ll A

ll ne

w s

truct

ures

and

eq

uipm

ent i

nsta

lled

at th

e D

ever

s, M

irage

, Con

cho,

In

dian

Wel

ls, S

anta

Ros

a, E

isen

how

er, F

arre

ll, G

arne

t, Th

ornh

ill, a

nd T

amar

isk

Sub

stat

ions

sha

ll ha

ve n

on-

spec

ular

(red

uced

gla

re) s

urfa

ce fi

nish

es, e

xcep

t for

st

ruct

ures

or e

quip

men

t for

whi

ch s

uch

finis

hes

are

not

com

mer

cial

ly a

vaila

ble

to re

duce

pot

entia

l gla

re e

ffect

s.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

insp

ect c

ompl

ianc

e.

Imm

edia

tely

follo

win

g in

stal

latio

n of

new

st

ruct

ures

and

equ

ipm

ent

at P

roje

ct s

ubst

atio

ns.

Agric

ultu

ral R

esou

rces

No

AP

Ms

or m

itiga

tion

requ

ired.

Air Q

ualit

y

Impa

ct 4

.3-1

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es w

ould

gen

erat

e em

issi

ons

of c

riter

ia p

ollu

tant

s,

incl

udin

g su

spen

ded

and

inha

labl

e pa

rticu

late

mat

ter a

nd

equi

pmen

t exh

aust

em

issi

ons.

S

igni

fican

t unm

itiga

ble

(Cla

ss I)

APM

AQ

-1. C

ontro

l Exh

aust

Em

issi

ons.

Use

ultr

a-lo

w

sulfu

r die

sel f

uel (

e.g.

, few

er th

an 1

5 pa

rts p

er m

illio

n).

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

AQ

-2. C

ontro

l Exh

aust

Em

issi

ons.

Use

of c

lean

-bu

rnin

g on

- and

off-

road

die

sel e

ngin

es. W

here

feas

ible

, he

avy

duty

die

sel-p

ower

ed c

onst

ruct

ion

equi

pmen

t m

anuf

actu

red

afte

r 199

6 (w

ith fe

dera

lly m

anda

ted

“cle

an”

dies

el e

ngin

es) w

ill b

e ut

ilize

d.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

AQ

-3. C

ontro

l Exh

aust

Em

issi

ons.

Con

stru

ctio

n w

orke

rs w

ill c

arpo

ol w

hen

poss

ible

. S

CE

and

its

cont

ract

ors

to

impl

emen

t mea

sure

as

defin

ed.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

AQ

-4. C

ontro

l Exh

aust

Em

issi

ons.

Res

trict

veh

icle

id

ling

time

to le

ss th

an 1

0 m

inut

es w

hene

ver p

ossi

ble.

S

CE

and

its

cont

ract

ors

to

impl

emen

t mea

sure

as

defin

ed.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

AQ

-5. C

ontro

l Exh

aust

Em

issi

ons.

Pro

perly

m

aint

ain

mec

hani

cal e

quip

men

t. S

CE

and

its

cont

ract

ors

to

impl

emen

t mea

sure

as

defin

ed.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

AQ

-6. M

inim

ize

Die

sel P

artic

ulat

e M

atte

r. U

se

parti

cle

traps

and

oth

er a

ppro

pria

te c

ontro

ls to

redu

ce

dies

el p

artic

ulat

e m

atte

r (D

PM

) whe

re p

ossi

ble.

Util

ize

equi

pmen

t suc

h as

spe

cial

ized

cat

alyt

ic c

onve

rters

(o

xida

tion

cata

lyst

s) to

con

trol a

ppro

xim

atel

y 20

per

cent

of

DP

M, 4

0 pe

rcen

t of C

O, a

nd 5

0 pe

rcen

t of

hydr

ocar

bon

emis

sion

s.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-9

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

AP

M A

Q-8

. Con

stru

ctio

n O

pera

tions

. As

feas

ible

, res

trict

co

nstru

ctio

n op

erat

ions

dur

ing

the

mor

ning

hou

rs a

nd

durin

g hi

gh w

ind

even

ts, w

hen

NO

x em

issi

ons

are

mor

e lik

ely

to c

ontri

bute

to O

3 fo

rmat

ion.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

AQ

-9. C

onst

ruct

ion

Sch

edul

ing.

Effi

cien

tly s

ched

ule

staf

f and

dai

ly c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

to m

inim

ize

the

use

of u

nnec

essa

ry/d

uplic

ate

equi

pmen

t whe

n po

ssib

le.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

AQ

-10.

Em

issi

ons

Red

uctio

n. T

o re

duce

si

mul

tane

ous

proj

ect-r

elat

ed N

Ox,

PM

10, a

nd P

M2.

5,

emis

sion

s fro

m o

n- a

nd o

ff-ro

ad h

eavy

con

stru

ctio

n eq

uipm

ent,

give

n th

e co

nstra

ints

of t

he c

onst

ruct

ion

sche

dule

, SC

E s

hall

phas

e pr

ojec

t con

stru

ctio

n, to

the

exte

nt fe

asib

le, s

o th

at o

ff-si

te d

ispo

sal o

f exc

avat

ed

mat

eria

l fro

m P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

are

a gr

adin

g an

d ex

cava

tion

does

not

occ

ur s

imul

tane

ousl

y w

ith

trans

mis

sion

and

sub

trans

mis

sion

line

and

sub

stat

ion

cons

truct

ion

or u

pgra

de a

ctiv

ity (i

nclu

ding

, but

not

lim

ited

to, a

cces

s ro

ad g

radi

ng, e

xcav

atio

n fo

r tow

er a

nd p

ole

base

s, c

rane

pad

s, to

wer

and

pol

e de

liver

y, o

r tow

er a

nd

pole

ere

ctio

n). D

urin

g tra

nsm

issi

on a

nd s

ubtra

nsm

issi

on

line

cons

truct

ion,

SC

E s

hall

phas

e th

e pr

ojec

t co

nstru

ctio

n sc

hedu

le, t

o th

e ex

tent

feas

ible

, so

that

gr

adin

g an

d ex

cava

tion

for s

ite a

cces

s, to

wer

and

pol

e ba

ses,

or c

rane

pad

s do

not

occ

ur s

imul

tane

ousl

y w

ith

tow

er o

r pol

e de

liver

y or

ere

ctio

n.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.3-1

a: F

ugiti

ve D

ust C

ontr

ol P

lan.

S

CE

or i

ts c

onst

ruct

ion

cont

ract

or s

hall

prep

are

a fu

gitiv

e du

st c

ontro

l pla

n pr

ior t

o co

nduc

ting

activ

e co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es. T

he p

lan

shal

l inc

lude

, at a

min

imum

, the

fo

llow

ing

fugi

tive

dust

con

trol m

easu

res,

whi

ch a

re b

ased

on

Bes

t Ava

ilabl

e C

ontro

l Mea

sure

s as

out

lined

in th

e C

oach

ella

Val

ley

Fugi

tive

Dus

t Con

trol H

andb

ook.

•

Back

fillin

g. S

tabi

lize

back

fill m

ater

ial w

hen

not a

ctiv

ely

hand

ling,

dur

ing

hand

ling

and

at c

ompl

etio

n of

act

iviti

es.

This

may

be

achi

eved

by

mix

ing

back

fill s

oil w

ith w

ater

pr

ior t

o m

ovin

g, d

edic

atin

g a

wat

er tr

uck

or h

igh

capa

city

ho

se to

bac

kfilli

ng e

quip

men

t, em

ptyi

ng lo

ader

buc

kets

sl

owly

so

that

no

dust

plu

mes

are

gen

erat

ed a

nd/o

r by

the

min

imiz

ing

drop

hei

ght f

rom

the

load

er b

ucke

t. •

Cle

arin

g an

d gr

ubbi

ng. M

aint

ain

stab

ility

of s

oil t

hrou

gh

pre-

wat

erin

g of

site

prio

r to,

dur

ing,

and

imm

edia

tely

afte

r

SC

E o

r its

con

tract

ors

to

prep

are

plan

and

impl

emen

t m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

plan

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce

with

pla

n at

le

ast o

nce

per w

eek.

Sub

mit

plan

to C

PU

C p

rior

to c

omm

ence

men

t of

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

. D

urin

g al

l pha

ses

of

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-10

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

clea

ring

and

grub

bing

. Thi

s m

ay b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y m

aint

aini

ng li

ve p

eren

nial

veg

etat

ion

and

dese

rt pa

vem

ent w

here

pos

sibl

e an

d by

app

lyin

g w

ater

in

suffi

cien

t qua

ntiti

es to

pre

vent

gen

erat

ion

of d

ust p

lum

es.

• C

ut a

nd fi

ll. P

re-w

ater

soi

ls p

rior t

o an

d fo

llow

ing

cut

and

fill a

ctiv

ities

. Thi

s m

ay b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y pr

e-w

ater

ing

with

spr

inkl

ers

or w

ater

truc

ks o

r by

usin

g w

ater

tru

cks/

pulls

to w

ater

soi

l to

dept

h of

cut

prio

r to

subs

eque

nt c

uts.

•

Dem

oliti

on. S

tabi

lize

win

d er

odib

le s

urfa

ces,

sur

face

so

il w

here

sup

port

equi

pmen

t and

veh

icle

s op

erat

e,

and

loos

e so

il an

d de

mol

ition

deb

ris.

• D

istu

rbed

soi

l. S

tabi

lize

dist

urbe

d so

il th

roug

hout

the

cons

truct

ion

site

and

bet

wee

n st

ruct

ures

. Thi

s m

ay b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y lim

iting

veh

icul

ar tr

affic

and

dis

turb

ance

s on

soi

l whe

re p

ossi

ble

or b

y ap

plyi

ng w

ater

or a

st

abili

zing

age

nt to

pre

vent

gen

erat

ion

of v

isib

le d

ust

plum

es.

• E

arth

-mov

ing

activ

ities

. Pre

-app

ly w

ater

to d

epth

of

prop

osed

cut

s or

as

nece

ssar

y to

mai

ntai

n so

ils in

a

dam

p co

nditi

on. S

tabi

lize

soils

onc

e ea

rth-m

ovin

g ac

tiviti

es a

re c

ompl

ete.

Thi

s m

ay b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y in

stal

ling

upw

ind

fenc

ing

to p

reve

nt m

ater

ial

mov

emen

t, or

app

lyin

g w

ater

or a

sta

biliz

ing

agen

t to

prev

ent g

ener

atio

n of

vis

ible

dus

t plu

mes

. •

Impo

rting

/exp

ortin

g of

bul

k m

ater

ials

. Sta

biliz

e m

ater

ial

whi

le lo

adin

g to

pre

vent

fugi

tive

dust

em

issi

ons,

m

aint

ain

at le

ast s

ix in

ches

of f

reeb

oard

on

haul

ve

hicl

es, l

imit

vehi

cula

r spe

eds

to 1

5 m

iles

per h

our

whi

le tr

avel

ing

onsi

te, s

tabi

lize

mat

eria

l whi

le

trans

porti

ng a

nd/o

r unl

oadi

ng to

pre

vent

fugi

tive

dust

em

issi

ons,

and

com

ply

with

Veh

icle

Cod

e S

ectio

n 23

114.

Thi

s m

ay b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y us

ing

tarp

s or

oth

er

suita

ble

encl

osur

es o

n ha

ul tr

ucks

, che

ckin

g be

lly

dum

p se

als

regu

larly

and

rem

ovin

g an

y tra

pped

rock

s to

pre

vent

spi

llage

, com

plyi

ng w

ith tr

ack-

out p

reve

ntio

n re

quire

men

ts a

nd b

y pr

ovid

ing

wat

er w

hile

load

ing

and

unlo

adin

g to

pre

vent

vis

ible

dus

t plu

mes

. •

Land

scap

ing.

Sta

biliz

e so

ils, m

ater

ials

, and

slo

pes

by

appl

ying

wat

er to

mat

eria

ls, m

aint

aini

ng m

ater

ials

in a

cr

uste

d co

nditi

on, m

aint

aini

ng a

n ef

fect

ive

cove

r ove

r m

ater

ials

, sta

biliz

ing

slop

ing

surfa

ces

usin

g so

il bi

nder

s, o

r by

hydr

osee

ding

are

as p

rior t

o th

e ra

iny

seas

on.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-11

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

• S

tagi

ng a

reas

. Sta

biliz

e st

agin

g ar

eas

durin

g us

e an

d at

pro

ject

com

plet

ion.

•

Stoc

kpile

s/bu

lk m

ater

ial h

andl

ing.

Sta

biliz

e st

ockp

iled

mat

eria

ls o

r ins

tall

and

mai

ntai

n w

ind

barri

ers

to le

ss th

an

50 p

erce

nt p

oros

ity o

n th

ree

side

s of

the

pile

, suc

h th

at

the

barri

er is

equ

al to

or g

reat

er th

an th

e pi

le h

eigh

t. St

ockp

iles

with

in 1

00 y

ards

of o

ccup

ied

build

ings

mus

t no

t be

grea

ter t

han

eigh

t fee

t in

heig

ht a

nd s

tock

pile

s th

at

are

grea

ter t

han

eigh

t fee

t in

heig

ht a

nd n

ot c

over

ed

mus

t hav

e a

road

bla

ded

top

to a

llow

wat

er tr

uck

acce

ss

or m

ust h

ave

an o

pera

tiona

l wat

er ir

rigat

ion

syst

em th

at

is c

apab

le o

f com

plet

e st

ockp

ile c

over

age.

•

Traf

fic a

reas

for c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

. Sta

biliz

e al

l off-

road

traf

fic a

nd p

arki

ng a

reas

and

ens

ure

that

ons

ite

vehi

cula

r tra

ffic

does

not

exc

eed

15 m

iles

per h

our.

Sta

biliz

e al

l hau

l rou

tes

and

dire

ct c

onst

ruct

ion

traffi

c ov

er e

stab

lishe

d ha

ul ro

utes

. Thi

s m

ay b

e ac

hiev

ed b

y ap

plyi

ng g

rave

l or p

avin

g ha

ul ro

utes

and

by

usin

g ba

rrie

rs to

ens

ure

that

con

stru

ctio

n tra

ffic

only

use

s es

tabl

ishe

d ro

utes

. •

Tren

chin

g. S

tabi

lize

surfa

ce s

oils

whe

re tr

ench

er o

r ex

cava

tor a

nd s

uppo

rt eq

uipm

ent w

ill o

pera

te a

nd

stab

ilize

soi

ls a

t com

plet

ion

of tr

ench

ing

activ

ities

. Pre

-w

ater

soi

ls p

rior t

o tre

nchi

ng a

nd w

ash

mud

and

soi

ls

from

equ

ipm

ent a

t the

con

clus

ion

of tr

ench

ing

activ

ities

to

pre

vent

cru

stin

g an

d dr

ying

of s

oil o

n eq

uipm

ent.

•

Unp

aved

road

s/pa

rkin

g lo

ts. S

tabi

lize

soils

to m

eet t

he

appl

icab

le s

tand

ards

and

lim

it ve

hicu

lar t

rave

l to

esta

blis

hed

pave

d ro

ads

(hau

l rou

tes)

and

unp

aved

pa

rkin

g lo

ts.

• W

eath

er m

onito

ring/

wor

k pr

actic

es. M

onito

r cur

rent

w

eath

er c

ondi

tions

and

wea

ther

pre

dict

ions

from

the

SC

AQ

MD

’s to

ll fre

e w

ind

fore

cast

sys

tem

and

/or t

he

Nat

iona

l Wea

ther

Ser

vice

. Cea

se a

ll co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es if

fugi

tive

dust

em

issi

ons

exce

ed 2

0 pe

rcen

t op

acity

or i

f the

100

foot

vis

ible

plu

me

rest

rictio

ns

cann

ot b

e m

et.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.3-1

b: E

xhau

st E

mis

sion

s C

ontr

ol P

lan.

To

ensu

re a

nd m

onito

r im

plem

enta

tion

of

AP

Ms

AQ

-1 th

roug

h A

Q-6

and

AQ

-8 th

roug

h A

Q-1

0, S

CE

sh

all d

evel

op a

n E

xhau

st E

mis

sion

s C

ontro

l Pla

n ou

tlini

ng h

ow c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith e

ach

of th

ese

mea

sure

s sh

all b

e ac

hiev

ed. T

his

plan

sha

ll be

sub

mitt

ed to

the

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

plan

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce

at le

ast

once

per

wee

k.

Sub

mit

plan

prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-12

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

CP

UC

for r

evie

w a

nd s

hall

be d

istri

bute

d to

all

empl

oyee

s an

d co

nstru

ctio

n co

ntra

ctor

s pr

ior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

. The

CP

UC

con

stru

ctio

n m

onito

r sh

all m

onito

r com

plia

nce

with

the

Pla

n pe

riodi

cally

th

roug

hout

the

dura

tion

of c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

.

Impa

ct 4

.3-3

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es w

ould

gen

erat

e em

issi

ons

of c

riter

ia p

ollu

tant

s th

at w

ould

be

cons

ider

ed

cum

ulat

ivel

y co

nsid

erab

le.

Sig

nific

ant u

nmiti

gabl

e (C

lass

I)

Impl

emen

t Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.3-

1a (F

ugiti

ve D

ust

Con

trol P

lan)

and

4.3

-1b

(Exh

aust

Em

issi

ons

Con

trol

Pla

n).

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.3-

1a a

nd 4

.3-1

b.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.3-

1a

and

4.3-

1b.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.3-

1a a

nd 4

.3-1

b.

Impa

ct 4

.3-4

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es w

ould

gen

erat

e em

issi

ons

of c

riter

ia p

ollu

tant

s,

expo

sing

loca

l sen

sitiv

e re

cept

ors

to p

ollu

tant

co

ncen

tratio

ns. S

igni

fican

t un

miti

gabl

e (C

lass

I)

Impl

emen

t Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.3-

1a (F

ugiti

ve D

ust

Con

trol P

lan)

and

4.3

-1b

(Exh

aust

Em

issi

ons

Con

trol

Pla

n).

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.3-

1a a

nd 4

.3-1

b.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.3-

1a

and

4.3-

1b.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.3-

1a a

nd 4

.3-1

b.

Impa

ct 4

.3-6

: The

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct w

ould

gen

erat

e sh

ort-

term

and

long

-term

em

issi

ons

of

GH

Gs

that

cou

ld e

xcee

d ap

plic

able

thre

shol

ds o

f si

gnifi

canc

e or

con

flict

with

ap

plic

able

GH

G re

duct

ion

plan

s. L

ess

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.3-6

: With

in 6

0 da

ys o

f com

plet

ion

of p

roje

ct c

onst

ruct

ion,

SC

E sh

all e

nter

into

a b

indi

ng

agre

emen

t to

purc

hase

car

bon

offs

et c

redi

ts fr

om th

e C

alifo

rnia

Clim

ate

Actio

n R

egis

try (C

CAR

), or

any

sou

rce

that

is a

ppro

ved

by th

e C

PUC

and

that

is c

onsi

sten

t with

th

e po

licie

s an

d gu

idel

ines

of t

he C

alifo

rnia

Glo

bal W

arm

ing

Solu

tion

Act o

f 200

6 (A

B 32

), to

offs

et a

min

imum

of

30 p

erce

nt o

f the

net

ann

ualiz

ed in

crea

se o

f gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

s fro

m th

e Pr

opos

ed P

roje

ct. T

he o

ffset

s id

entif

ied

in th

e bi

ndin

g ag

reem

ent s

hall

be im

plem

ente

d no

la

ter t

han

six

cale

ndar

mon

ths

from

com

plet

ion

of

cons

truct

ion.

The

est

imat

ed a

mou

nt o

f offs

ets

requ

ired

is

105.

3 m

etric

tons

CO

2e p

er y

ear (

i.e.,

30 p

erce

nt o

f 148

m

etric

tons

CO

2e fo

r yea

rs 1

thro

ugh

5 an

d 30

per

cent

of

392

met

ric to

ns o

f CO

2e fo

r yea

rs 6

thro

ugh

30).

How

ever

, th

e ex

act a

mou

nt o

f gre

enho

use

gas

emis

sion

s to

be

offs

et

may

var

y de

pend

ing

on w

heth

er a

ny o

f the

con

stru

ctio

n pl

ans

are

mod

ified

. With

in 6

0 da

ys o

f com

plet

ion

of th

e Pr

opos

ed P

roje

ct, S

CE

shal

l sub

mit

a re

port

for t

he

CPU

C’s

revi

ew a

nd a

ppro

val,

whi

ch s

hall

iden

tify

all

cons

truct

ion-

and

ope

ratio

ns-re

late

d em

issi

ons

and

the

offs

et a

mou

nts

that

will

be p

urch

ased

from

app

rove

d pr

ogra

ms

to re

sult

in a

min

imum

30

perc

ent n

et re

duct

ion

in

annu

aliz

ed G

HG

em

issi

ons.

SC

E s

hall

ente

r int

o a

bind

ing

agre

emen

t to

prov

ide

GH

G

emis

sion

s of

fset

s as

def

ined

in

this

mea

sure

.

SC

E to

pro

vide

a re

port

to th

e C

PU

C d

ocum

entin

g th

e so

urce

an

d am

ount

of e

mis

sion

offs

ets.

Pro

vide

repo

rt w

ithin

60

days

follo

win

g co

mpl

etio

n of

con

stru

ctio

n; im

plem

ent

offs

ets

with

in s

ix c

alen

dar

mon

ths

follo

win

g co

mpl

etio

n of

con

stru

ctio

n.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-13

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Biol

ogica

l Res

ourc

es

Impa

ct 4

.4-1

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es c

ould

resu

lt in

adv

erse

im

pact

s to

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y m

ilkve

tch.

Les

s th

an s

igni

fican

t w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

APM

BIO

-1. P

reco

nstru

ctio

n S

urve

ys. P

reco

nstru

ctio

n bi

olog

ical

cle

aran

ce s

urve

ys w

ill b

e pe

rform

ed to

m

inim

ize

impa

cts

to s

peci

al-s

tatu

s pl

ant a

nd w

ildlif

e.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

prec

onst

ruct

ion

surv

ey re

sults

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

BIO

-2. M

inim

ize

Veg

etat

ion

Impa

cts.

Eve

ry e

ffort

will

be

mad

e to

min

imiz

e ve

geta

tion

rem

oval

and

pe

rman

ent l

oss

at c

onst

ruct

ion

site

s. If

nec

essa

ry, n

ativ

e ve

geta

tion

will

be

flagg

ed fo

r avo

idan

ce.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

BIO

-5. B

iolo

gica

l Mon

itors

. Bio

logi

cal m

onito

rs w

ill

be a

ssig

ned

to th

e pr

ojec

t in

area

s of

sen

sitiv

e bi

olog

ical

re

sour

ce. T

he m

onito

rs w

ill b

e re

spon

sibl

e fo

r ens

urin

g th

at im

pact

s to

spe

cial

sta

tus

spec

ies,

nat

ive

vege

tatio

n,

wild

life

habi

tat,

or u

niqu

e re

sour

ces

will

be

avoi

ded

to th

e fu

llest

ext

ent p

ossi

ble.

Whe

re a

ppro

pria

te, m

onito

rs w

ill

flag

the

boun

darie

s of

are

as w

here

act

iviti

es n

eed

to b

e re

stric

ted

in o

rder

to p

rote

ct n

ativ

e pl

ants

and

wild

life

or

spec

ial s

tatu

s sp

ecie

s. T

hose

rest

ricte

d ar

eas

will

be

mon

itore

d to

ens

ure

thei

r pro

tect

ion

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

pro

vide

resu

me

of

biol

ogic

al m

onito

rs to

CP

UC

for

revi

ew.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

BIO

-6. W

orke

r Env

ironm

enta

l Aw

aren

ess

Pro

gram

. A

Wor

ker E

nviro

nmen

tal A

war

enes

s P

rogr

am (W

EA

P)

will

be

prep

ared

. All

cons

truct

ion

crew

s an

d co

ntra

ctor

s w

ill b

e re

quire

d to

par

ticip

ate

in W

EA

P tr

aini

ng p

rior t

o st

artin

g w

ork

on th

e pr

ojec

t. Th

e W

EA

P tr

aini

ng w

ill

incl

ude

a re

view

of t

he s

peci

al s

tatu

s sp

ecie

s an

d ot

her

sens

itive

reso

urce

s th

at c

ould

exi

st in

the

proj

ect a

rea,

th

e lo

catio

ns o

f sen

sitiv

e bi

olog

ical

reso

urce

s an

d th

eir

lega

l sta

tus

and

prot

ectio

ns, a

nd m

easu

res

to b

e im

plem

ente

d fo

r avo

idan

ce o

f the

se s

ensi

tive

reso

urce

s.

A re

cord

of a

ll tra

ined

per

sonn

el w

ill b

e m

aint

aine

d.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

atte

nd fi

rst W

EA

P tr

aini

ng

sess

ion.

S

CE

to s

ubm

it re

cord

s of

tra

ined

per

sonn

el to

CP

UC

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.4-1

: Coa

chel

la V

alle

y M

ilkve

tch.

S

urve

ys fo

r Coa

chel

la V

alle

y m

ilkve

tch

shal

l be

perfo

rmed

with

in o

ne y

ear p

rior t

o co

nstru

ctio

n, b

etw

een

Febr

uary

and

ear

ly M

ay, d

urin

g th

e pl

ant’s

gro

win

g an

d flo

wer

ing

seas

on. G

PS

coo

rdin

ates

of p

lant

loca

tions

sh

all b

e re

cord

ed w

ith h

igh

prec

isio

n (to

with

in o

ne

met

er),

stor

ed in

an

elec

troni

c da

taba

se, a

nd s

ubm

itted

to

the

US

FWS

and

the

CN

DD

B w

ithin

one

yea

r of t

he

surv

ey. P

lant

s sh

all b

e m

arke

d co

nspi

cuou

sly

with

pin

fla

gs a

nd a

void

ed d

urin

g co

nstru

ctio

n to

the

grea

test

ex

tent

pos

sibl

e. F

ollo

win

g th

e co

mpl

etio

n of

con

stru

ctio

n,

area

s co

mpa

cted

dur

ing

tem

pora

ry c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

surv

ey re

sults

to

CP

UC

, US

FWS

, and

CN

DD

B.

SC

E to

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

rest

ored

hab

itat t

o C

PU

C fo

r re

view

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce

at le

ast

Sub

mit

surv

ey re

sults

w

ithin

one

yea

r of

com

plet

ion

of s

urve

ys.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f pr

ojec

t ope

ratio

ns.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-14

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

(e.g

., la

y-do

wn

area

s, p

ullin

g si

tes)

sha

ll be

sca

rifie

d, if

de

emed

nec

essa

ry, t

o en

hanc

e ge

rmin

atio

n of

this

sp

ecie

s.

Tem

pora

ry a

nd p

erm

anen

t im

pact

s to

hab

itat f

or th

e C

V

milk

vetc

h sh

all b

e co

mpe

nsat

ed fo

r thr

ough

con

serv

atio

n of

sui

tabl

e ha

bita

t for

this

spe

cies

. The

cal

cula

ted

repl

acem

ent f

or h

abita

t los

s fo

r the

CV

milk

vetc

h sh

all b

e ba

sed

on a

ratio

of 3

:1 (c

ompe

nsat

ion

to im

pact

) per

acr

e fo

r tem

pora

ry im

pact

s an

d 9:

1 fo

r per

man

ent i

mpa

cts,

for

an e

stim

ated

tota

l of 6

acr

es. T

hese

ratio

s R

atio

s re

flect

th

e lim

ited

habi

tat a

nd lo

w p

opul

atio

ns o

f thi

s sp

ecie

s ac

ross

its

rang

e, a

nd th

e lo

ss o

f hab

itat a

vaila

ble

for t

his

spec

ies

in th

e pr

ojec

t are

a, a

nd a

re c

onsi

sten

t with

co

mpe

nsat

ion

ratio

s es

tabl

ishe

d in

the

CV

MS

HC

P.

Gre

ater

or l

esse

r com

pens

atio

n ra

tios

may

be

subs

titut

ed

as d

eter

min

ed th

ough

US

FWS

and

CD

FG c

onsu

ltatio

n an

d/or

per

mitt

ing,

con

side

ring

the

qual

ity o

f the

hab

itat

bein

g af

fect

ed. T

he re

plac

emen

t hab

itat s

hall

be w

ithin

th

e W

hite

wat

er F

lood

plai

n C

onse

rvat

ion

Are

a of

the

CV

MS

HC

P. T

otal

com

pens

atio

n fu

nds

shal

l inc

lude

the

cost

s of

acq

uisi

tion

and

long

-term

man

agem

ent,

and

shal

l be

pai

d pr

ior t

o th

e st

art o

f pro

ject

ope

ratio

ns. T

his

repl

acem

ent h

abita

t sha

ll m

itiga

te fo

r bot

h di

rect

and

in

dire

ct im

pact

s of

con

stru

ctio

n an

d op

erat

ions

/man

agem

ent o

n th

is s

peci

es, a

s w

ell a

s th

e C

V fr

inge

-toed

liza

rd (s

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.4

-2,

belo

w),

Pal

m S

prin

gs p

ocke

t mou

se, P

alm

Spr

ings

ro

und-

taile

d gr

ound

squ

irrel

, CV

gia

nt s

and-

tread

er

cric

ket,

and

Le C

onte

’s th

rash

er.

once

per

wee

k.

Impa

ct 4

.4-2

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es c

ould

resu

lt in

adv

erse

im

pact

s to

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y fri

nge-

toed

liza

rd a

nd fl

at-ta

iled

horn

ed li

zard

. Les

s th

an

sign

ifica

nt w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.4-2

: Coa

chel

la V

alle

y fr

inge

-toed

liz

ard

and

flat-t

aile

d ho

rned

liza

rd. C

onst

ruct

ion

wor

k w

ithin

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y fri

nge-

toed

liza

rd h

abita

t sha

ll ad

here

to th

e fo

llow

ing

mea

sure

s:

• A

s de

term

ined

at t

he ti

me

of c

onst

ruct

ion,

dep

endi

ng

upon

exi

stin

g ha

bita

t con

ditio

ns a

nd th

e re

sults

of t

he

prot

ocol

-leve

l sur

veys

for t

he C

V fr

inge

-toed

liza

rd, a

su

rvey

for t

his

spec

ies

acco

rdin

g to

the

appr

oved

U

SFW

S a

nd C

DFG

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y fri

nge-

toed

liza

rd

surv

ey p

roto

col s

hall

be c

ondu

cted

to d

eter

min

e pr

esen

ce o

r abs

ence

of C

oach

ella

Val

ley

fring

e-to

ed

lizar

ds, w

ithin

48

hour

s of

ere

ctin

g an

Env

ironm

enta

l S

ensi

tive

Are

a (E

SA

) exc

lusi

on fe

nce.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

findi

ngs

of

prot

ocol

-leve

l sur

veys

to C

PU

C.

SC

E to

sub

mit

resu

me

of

qual

ified

bio

logi

st to

CP

UC

. S

CE

to s

ubm

it ve

geta

tion

plan

as

wel

l as

docu

men

tatio

n of

U

SFW

S a

ppro

val o

f pla

n to

C

PU

C.

SC

E to

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

repl

acem

ent h

abita

t to

CP

UC

fo

r rev

iew

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f pr

ojec

t ope

ratio

ns.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-15

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

• E

SA

exc

lusi

on fe

nces

sha

ll en

clos

e al

l con

stru

ctio

n ar

eas

in fr

inge

-toed

liza

rd h

abita

t. Th

e lo

catio

n of

thes

e fe

nces

sha

ll be

bas

ed o

n ex

istin

g co

nditi

ons

and

the

resu

lts o

f pro

toco

l-lev

el s

urve

ys fo

r thi

s sp

ecie

s, a

nd a

m

ap in

dica

ting

the

prop

osed

loca

tion

of th

ese

fenc

es

shal

l be

subm

itted

to th

e U

SFW

S fo

r app

rova

l, pr

ior t

o er

ectin

g th

em. A

t a m

inim

um, E

SA

fenc

es s

hall

be

erec

ted

alon

g th

e pr

opos

ed F

arre

ll-G

arne

t alig

nmen

t, on

bot

h si

des

of th

e G

ene

Aut

ry T

rail

sout

h of

the

UP

RR

. Fen

ces

shal

l be

erec

ted

afte

r one

pre

-co

nstru

ctio

n su

rvey

(des

crib

ed in

the

prev

ious

bul

let)

is

cond

ucte

d, a

nd s

hall

be m

aint

aine

d to

kee

p th

e C

oach

ella

Val

ley

fring

e-to

ed li

zard

s fro

m e

nter

ing

activ

e w

ork

area

s. S

ilt fe

ncin

g sh

all b

e bu

ried

to a

de

pth

of e

ight

to 1

2 in

ches

. A s

econ

d pr

e-co

nstru

ctio

n su

rvey

with

in th

e E

SA

sha

ll be

con

duct

ed to

rem

ove

any

rem

aini

ng fr

inge

-toed

liza

rds

from

the

cons

truct

ion

foot

prin

t. G

ener

ally

, ES

A fe

ncin

g is

ant

icip

ated

to b

e er

ecte

d al

ong

the

Farr

ell-G

arne

t alig

nmen

t.

• S

CE

and

/or i

ts c

onst

ruct

ion

cont

ract

ors

shal

l ret

ain

and

have

ava

ilabl

e, th

e se

rvic

es o

f a C

PU

C a

utho

rized

qu

alifi

ed b

iolo

gist

who

sha

ll pe

rform

the

dutie

s of

the

biol

ogic

al m

onito

r. Th

e bi

olog

ical

mon

itor s

hall

be

requ

ired

to c

ondu

ct a

pre

-con

stru

ctio

n su

rvey

of t

he

proj

ect s

ite a

nd a

ny a

ssoc

iate

d st

agin

g ar

eas;

pro

vide

em

ploy

ee W

EA

P tr

aini

ng (s

ee A

PM

BIO

-6 [W

orke

r E

nviro

nmen

tal A

war

enes

s P

rogr

am],

abov

e); m

onito

r th

e te

mpo

rary

ES

A fe

nce

inst

alla

tion;

and

per

form

co

nstru

ctio

n m

onito

ring.

The

con

stru

ctio

n m

onito

r sha

ll en

sure

that

the

cont

ract

or m

aint

ains

the

inte

grity

of t

he

biol

ogic

al fe

ncin

g du

ring

the

entir

e co

nstru

ctio

n du

ratio

n. T

he a

utho

rized

bio

logi

st s

hall

have

pre

viou

s ex

perie

nce

hand

ling

fring

e-to

ed li

zard

s. T

he a

utho

rized

bi

olog

ist s

hall

subm

it a

prot

ocol

for c

aptu

re a

nd re

leas

e of

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y fri

nge-

toed

liza

rds

prio

r to

initi

atin

g su

rvey

met

hods

. Cap

ture

of C

oach

ella

Val

ley

fring

e-to

ed li

zard

s an

d fla

t-tai

led

horn

ed li

zard

s sh

all b

e al

low

ed b

y ne

t, no

ose,

or b

y ha

nd. A

new

pai

r of l

atex

or

syn

thet

ic g

love

s sh

all b

e us

ed fo

r eac

h liz

ard

hand

led.

•

If an

y C

oach

ella

Val

ley

fring

e-to

ed li

zard

s of

flat

-taile

d ho

rned

liza

rds

are

capt

ured

, the

y sh

all b

e re

leas

ed

imm

edia

tely

in a

map

ped

area

app

rove

d by

the

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e at

leas

t on

ce p

er w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-16

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

US

FWS

prio

r to

the

pre-

cons

truct

ion

surv

ey. T

he

rele

ase

area

sha

ll be

sea

rche

d fo

r sna

kes,

and

if

foun

d, a

diff

eren

t loc

atio

n sh

all b

e fo

und.

Liz

ards

sha

ll be

rele

ased

in th

e sh

ade

of a

shr

ub. N

o liz

ards

sha

ll be

in

cap

tivity

or i

n tra

nspo

rt fo

r lon

ger t

han

10 m

inut

es

afte

r the

ir in

itial

cap

ture

with

in a

n en

clos

ed

cons

truct

ion

area

. Liz

ards

sha

ll be

tran

spor

ted

in c

lean

, w

hite

, pla

stic

five

-gal

lon

buck

ets.

•

All

mov

emen

t of c

onst

ruct

ion

vehi

cles

out

side

of t

he

RO

W s

hall

be re

stric

ted

to p

re-d

esig

nate

d ac

cess

or

publ

ic ro

ads.

Acc

ess

site

s al

ong

Gen

e A

utry

Tra

il an

d in

the

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y fri

nge-

toed

liza

rd c

ritic

al h

abita

t sh

all b

e de

sign

ated

on

the

ES

A fe

ncin

g m

ap a

nd

appr

oved

by

the

US

FWS

, prio

r to

cons

truct

ion.

•

If ro

ad s

tabi

lizat

ion

is re

quire

d fo

r the

tem

pora

ry a

cces

s ro

ads,

the

mat

eria

ls u

sed

for s

tabi

lizat

ion

shal

l con

sist

of

tem

pora

ry, e

asily

rem

ovab

le m

ater

ial (

e.g.

mat

s la

id

dow

n on

san

d, ra

ther

than

gra

vel).

No

grav

el s

hall

be

dum

ped

on th

e R

OW

in fr

inge

-toed

liza

rd h

abita

t.

• Th

e re

al li

mits

of c

onst

ruct

ion

with

in th

e R

OW

sha

ll be

pr

edet

erm

ined

, with

act

ivity

rest

ricte

d to

and

con

fined

w

ithin

thos

e lim

its a

nd p

lace

d on

a m

ap, s

ubm

itted

to

the

US

FWS

for t

heir

appr

oval

prio

r to

cons

truct

ion.

No

pain

t or p

erm

anen

t dis

colo

ring

agen

ts s

hall

be a

pplie

d to

rock

s or

veg

etat

ion

to in

dica

te s

urve

y or

con

stru

ctio

n ac

tivity

lim

its.

• C

onst

ruct

ion

and

mai

nten

ance

veh

icle

s sh

all n

ot

exce

ed a

spe

ed o

f 10

mile

s pe

r hou

r in

Coa

chel

la

Val

ley

fring

e-to

ed li

zard

hab

itat (

on th

e ac

cess

road

s an

d ro

ad s

houl

ders

alo

ng th

e G

ene

Aut

ry T

rail

road

way

, and

in d

esig

nate

d C

oach

ella

Val

ley

fring

e-to

ed li

zard

crit

ical

hab

itat).

•

Con

stru

ctio

n op

erat

ions

with

in o

ccup

ied

Coa

chel

la

Val

ley

fring

e-to

ed li

zard

hab

itat s

hall

occu

r whe

n th

is

spec

ies

is ty

pica

lly a

ctiv

e, w

hich

is w

hen

the

air

tem

pera

ture

s on

e in

ch a

bove

the

grou

nd in

the

shad

e ar

e be

twee

n 96

deg

rees

and

112

deg

rees

Fah

renh

eit,

pref

erab

ly b

etw

een

Apr

il 1

and

Oct

ober

30,

con

tinge

nt

upon

act

ivity

bei

ng o

bser

ved

at a

nea

rby

refe

renc

e

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-17

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

popu

latio

n. W

ork

may

occ

ur d

urin

g th

e ev

enin

g ho

urs

and

outs

ide

the

activ

e se

ason

(whe

n th

e te

mpe

ratu

res

are

cool

er a

nd th

e el

ectri

cal d

eman

d is

low

er),

if th

e ne

cess

ary

clea

ranc

e su

rvey

s ar

e co

nduc

ted

durin

g th

e ap

prop

riate

tem

pera

ture

s, th

e si

lt fe

ncin

g is

m

aint

aine

d, a

nd n

o C

oach

ella

Val

ley

fring

e-to

ed li

zard

s ha

ve e

nter

ed th

e pr

ojec

t are

a.

• S

poils

sha

ll be

sto

ckpi

led

in p

revi

ousl

y di

stur

bed

area

s th

at h

ave

been

exa

min

ed fo

r the

pre

senc

e of

Coa

chel

la

Val

ley

fring

e-to

ed li

zard

s an

d fla

t-tai

led

horn

ed li

zard

s by

the

auth

oriz

ed b

iolo

gist

. Sto

ckpi

le p

lace

men

t site

s sh

all b

e m

appe

d on

the

ES

A fe

ncin

g m

ap a

nd

subm

itted

to th

e U

SFW

S fo

r app

rova

l prio

r to

begi

nnin

g co

nstru

ctio

n.

• E

xist

ing

sand

-ret

aini

ng la

ttice

fenc

es in

the

RO

W s

hall

be re

paire

d or

repl

aced

. •

At l

east

one

mon

th p

rior t

o co

nstru

ctio

n, a

veg

etat

ion

rest

orat

ion

plan

sha

ll be

sub

mitt

ed to

the

US

FWS

for

appr

oval

in th

e ar

eas

of o

ccup

ied

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y fri

nge-

toed

liza

rd h

abita

t (ge

nera

lly, o

n th

e ea

st a

nd

wes

t sid

e of

the

Gen

e A

utry

road

way

). E

ach

plan

t tha

t is

des

troye

d du

e to

con

stru

ctio

n in

the

RO

W a

long

the

east

and

wes

t sid

e of

Gen

e A

utry

Tra

il ro

adw

ay s

hall

be re

plac

ed a

nd m

onito

red

for a

t lea

st te

n fiv

e ye

ars,

or

othe

r per

iod

of ti

me

appr

oved

by

the

US

FWS

, to

ensu

re a

t lea

st 6

0 pe

rcen

t rep

lace

men

t of t

he im

pact

ed

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y fri

nge-

toed

liza

rd h

abita

t.

• C

lear

ance

sur

veys

sha

ll be

repe

ated

if m

ore

than

72

hour

s el

apse

bet

wee

n w

ork

sess

ions

, if a

ny p

ortio

n of

a

fenc

e is

rem

oved

or b

low

n do

wn,

or i

f mea

sura

ble

rain

fall

occu

rs.

• Te

mpo

rary

and

per

man

ent i

mpa

cts

to C

V fr

inge

-toed

liz

ard

habi

tat s

hall

be m

itiga

ted

thro

ugh

cons

erva

tion

of

suita

ble

habi

tat f

or th

is s

peci

es. T

he c

alcu

late

d re

plac

emen

t for

hab

itat l

oss

for t

his

spec

ies

shal

l be

base

d on

a ra

tio o

f 3:1

(com

pens

atio

n to

impa

ct) p

er

acre

for t

empo

rary

impa

cts

and

9:1

for p

erm

anen

t im

pact

s, fo

r an

estim

ated

tota

l of 6

acr

es. T

hese

ratio

s R

atio

s re

flect

the

limite

d ha

bita

t and

low

pop

ulat

ions

of

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-18

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

this

spe

cies

acr

oss

its ra

nge,

and

incl

ude

both

the

loss

of

hab

itat u

se b

y th

e sp

ecie

s, a

nd th

e ad

vers

e ef

fect

of

rapt

or p

reda

tion

caus

ed b

y th

e ne

w ra

ptor

per

ch

avai

labi

lity

at th

e ne

w p

oles

, and

are

con

sist

ent w

ith

com

pens

atio

n ra

tios

esta

blis

hed

in th

e C

VM

SH

CP

. G

reat

er o

r les

ser c

ompe

nsat

ion

ratio

s m

ay b

e su

bstit

uted

as

dete

rmin

ed th

ough

US

FWS

and

CD

FG

cons

ulta

tion

and/

or p

erm

ittin

g, c

onsi

derin

g th

e qu

ality

of

the

habi

tat b

eing

affe

cted

. The

repl

acem

ent h

abita

t sh

all b

e w

ithin

the

Whi

tew

ater

Flo

odpl

ain

Con

serv

atio

n A

rea

of th

e C

VM

SH

CP

. Tot

al c

ompe

nsat

ion

fund

s sh

all

incl

ude

the

cost

s of

acq

uisi

tion

and

long

-term

m

anag

emen

t, an

d sh

all b

e pa

id p

rior t

o th

e st

art o

f P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

ope

ratio

ns. T

his

repl

acem

ent h

abita

t sh

all m

itiga

te fo

r bot

h di

rect

and

indi

rect

impa

cts

of

cons

truct

ion

and

oper

atio

ns/m

anag

emen

t on

this

sp

ecie

s, a

s w

ell a

s th

e P

alm

Spr

ings

poc

ket m

ouse

, P

alm

Spr

ings

roun

d-ta

iled

grou

nd s

quirr

el, C

V g

iant

sa

nd-tr

eade

r cric

ket,

Le C

onte

’s th

rash

er, f

lat-t

aile

d ho

rned

liza

rd, a

nd C

V m

ilkve

tch

(hab

itat c

onse

rved

th

roug

h th

is m

easu

re m

ay b

e th

e sa

me

as th

at

cons

erve

d th

roug

h M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.4

-1 fo

r the

CV

m

ilkve

tch)

.

Impa

ct 4

.4-3

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es c

ould

resu

lt in

adv

erse

im

pact

s to

Pal

m S

prin

gs ro

und-

taile

d gr

ound

squ

irrel

and

Pal

m

Spr

ings

poc

ket m

ouse

. Les

s th

an s

igni

fican

t with

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

APM

BIO

-4. B

MP

s. C

rew

s w

ill b

e di

rect

ed to

use

Bes

t M

anag

emen

t Pra

ctic

es (B

MP

s) w

here

app

licab

le. T

hese

m

easu

res

will

be

iden

tifie

d pr

ior t

o co

nstru

ctio

n an

d in

corp

orat

ed in

to th

e co

nstru

ctio

n op

erat

ions

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s sh

all

impl

emen

t mea

sure

as

defin

ed.

SC

E to

pro

vide

the

list o

f BM

Ps

to b

e im

plem

ente

d to

CP

UC

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.4-3

: Pal

m S

prin

gs ro

und-

taile

d gr

ound

squ

irrel

col

onie

s. S

CE

and

/or i

ts c

ontra

ctor

s sh

all f

lag

and

avoi

d al

l kno

wn

Pal

m S

prin

gs ro

und-

taile

d gr

ound

squ

irrel

bur

row

col

onie

s w

ithin

the

area

of i

mpa

ct.

To th

e ex

tent

feas

ible

, gro

und

squi

rrel

col

onie

s of

un

know

n sp

ecie

s w

ithin

the

proj

ect a

lignm

ent s

hall

also

be

avo

ided

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s sh

all

impl

emen

t mea

sure

as

defin

ed.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.4-4

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es c

ould

resu

lt in

adv

erse

im

pact

s to

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y gi

ant s

and-

tread

er c

ricke

t. Le

ss

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

Impl

emen

t Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1 an

d 4.

4-2.

S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s 4.

4-1

and

4.4-

2.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1 an

d 4.

4-2.

S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s 4.

4-1

and

4.4-

2.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-19

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Impa

ct 4

.4-5

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es m

ay im

pact

pro

tect

ed

nativ

e, n

estin

g bi

rds.

Les

s th

an

sign

ifica

nt w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

APM

BIO

-7. A

void

Impa

cts

to A

ctiv

e N

ests

. SC

E w

ill

cond

uct p

roje

ct-w

ide

rapt

or s

urve

ys a

nd re

mov

e tre

es, i

f ne

cess

ary,

out

side

of t

he n

estin

g se

ason

(nes

ting

seas

on

is u

sual

ly F

ebru

ary

1 to

Aug

ust 3

1). I

f a tr

ee o

r pol

e co

ntai

ning

a ra

ptor

nes

t mus

t be

rem

oved

dur

ing

nest

ing

seas

on, o

r if w

ork

is s

ched

uled

to ta

ke p

lace

in c

lose

pr

oxim

ity to

an

activ

e ne

st o

n an

exi

stin

g tra

nsm

issi

on

tow

er o

r pol

e, S

CE

will

coo

rdin

ate

with

the

CD

FG a

nd

US

FWS

and

obt

ain

writ

ten

verif

icat

ion

prio

r to

mov

ing

the

nest

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s sh

all

impl

emen

t mea

sure

as

defin

ed.

SC

E to

sub

mit

resu

lts o

f sur

vey

to C

PU

C.

If ne

sts

are

mov

ed, S

CE

to

subm

it ve

rific

atio

n of

CD

FG a

nd

US

FWS

con

sulta

tion

to C

PU

C.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Prio

r to

mov

ing

any

activ

e ne

sts

durin

g al

l pha

ses

of

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.4-5

: Nes

ting

nativ

e bi

rds.

SC

E

and/

or it

s co

ntra

ctor

s sh

all i

mpl

emen

t the

follo

win

g m

easu

res

to a

void

impa

cts

on n

estin

g ra

ptor

s an

d ot

her

prot

ecte

d bi

rds

for a

ctiv

ities

that

are

sch

edul

ed d

urin

g th

e br

eedi

ng s

easo

n (F

ebru

ary

1 th

roug

h A

ugus

t 31)

: •

No

mor

e th

an tw

o w

eeks

bef

ore

cons

truct

ion

with

in

each

new

con

stru

ctio

n ar

ea, a

qua

lifie

d w

ildlif

e bi

olog

ist s

hall

cond

uct p

reco

nstru

ctio

n su

rvey

s of

all

pote

ntia

l nes

ting

habi

tat w

ithin

500

feet

of c

onst

ruct

ion

site

s w

here

acc

ess

is a

vaila

ble.

•

If ac

tive

nest

s ar

e no

t ide

ntifi

ed, n

o fu

rther

act

ion

is

nece

ssar

y. If

act

ive

nest

s ar

e id

entif

ied

durin

g pr

econ

stru

ctio

n su

rvey

s, a

no-

dist

urba

nce

buffe

r sha

ll be

cre

ated

aro

und

activ

e ra

ptor

nes

ts a

nd n

ests

of

othe

r spe

cial

-sta

tus

bird

s du

ring

the

bree

ding

sea

son,

or

unt

il it

is d

eter

min

ed th

at a

ll yo

ung

have

fled

ged.

Ty

pica

l buf

fers

are

500

feet

for r

apto

rs a

nd L

e C

onte

’s

thra

sher

, and

250

feet

for o

ther

nes

ting

bird

s (e

.g.,

wat

erfo

wl,

and

pass

erin

e bi

rds)

. The

siz

e of

thes

e bu

ffer z

ones

and

type

s of

con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es th

at

are

allo

wed

in th

ese

area

s co

uld

be fu

rther

mod

ified

du

ring

cons

truct

ion

in c

oord

inat

ion

with

CD

FG, a

nd

shal

l be

base

d on

exi

stin

g no

ise

and

dist

urba

nce

leve

ls

in th

e pr

ojec

t are

a.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s sh

all

impl

emen

t mea

sure

as

defin

ed.

SC

E to

sub

mit

resu

lts o

f sur

vey

to C

PU

C.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Two

wee

ks p

rior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of

cons

truct

ion

with

in a

new

co

nstru

ctio

n ar

ea, d

urin

g al

l pha

ses

of c

onst

ruct

ion.

D

urin

g al

l pha

ses

of

cons

truct

ion.

Impa

ct 4

.4-6

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es c

ould

resu

lt in

dire

ct

and

indi

rect

impa

cts

on

burr

owin

g ow

l. Le

ss th

an

sign

ifica

nt w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.4-6

: Bur

row

ing

owl.

No

mor

e th

an tw

o w

eeks

bef

ore

begi

nnin

g co

nstru

ctio

n, a

sur

vey

for b

urro

ws

and

burr

owin

g ow

ls s

hall

be c

ondu

cted

by

a qu

alifi

ed b

iolo

gist

with

in 5

00 fe

et o

f the

pro

ject

(acc

ess

perm

ittin

g), w

here

sui

tabl

e ha

bita

t is

pres

ent.

The

surv

ey

shal

l con

form

to th

e pr

otoc

ol d

escr

ibed

by

the

Cal

iforn

ia

Bur

row

ing

Ow

l Con

sorti

um (1

995)

, whi

ch in

clud

es u

p to

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s sh

all

impl

emen

t mea

sure

as

defin

ed.

SC

E to

sub

mit

resu

me

of

qual

ified

bio

logi

st a

nd s

urve

y re

sults

to C

PU

C fo

r rev

iew

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce

at le

ast

once

per

wee

k.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-20

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

four

sur

veys

on

diffe

rent

dat

es if

ther

e ar

e su

itabl

e bu

rrow

s pr

esen

t. If

unoc

cupi

ed b

urro

ws

are

foun

d w

ithin

th

e su

rvey

are

a, th

ey s

hall

be c

olla

psed

out

side

of

nest

ing

seas

on.

If oc

cupi

ed o

wl b

urro

ws

are

foun

d w

ithin

the

surv

ey a

rea,

a

dete

rmin

atio

n sh

all b

e m

ade

by a

qua

lifie

d bi

olog

ist,

in

cons

ulta

tion

with

the

CD

FG, a

s to

whe

ther

or n

ot w

ork

will

affe

ct th

e oc

cupi

ed b

urro

ws

or d

isru

pt re

prod

uctiv

e be

havi

or.

• If

it is

det

erm

ined

that

con

stru

ctio

n w

ill n

ot a

ffect

oc

cupi

ed b

urro

ws

or d

isru

pt b

reed

ing

beha

vior

, co

nstru

ctio

n sh

all p

roce

ed w

ithou

t any

rest

rictio

n or

m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s.

•

If it

is d

eter

min

ed th

at c

onst

ruct

ion

will

affe

ct o

ccup

ied

burr

ows

durin

g th

e no

n-br

eedi

ng s

easo

n (A

ugus

t th

roug

h Fe

brua

ry),

the

subj

ect o

wls

sha

ll be

pas

sive

ly

relo

cate

d fro

m th

e oc

cupi

ed b

urro

w(s

) acc

ordi

ng to

a

plan

app

rove

d by

the

CD

FG. T

he p

lan

shal

l inc

lude

in

stal

latio

n of

one

-way

doo

rs in

occ

upie

d bu

rrow

s at

le

ast 4

8 ho

urs

befo

re th

e bu

rrow

s ar

e ex

cava

ted,

and

sh

all p

rovi

de fo

r the

ow

l’s re

loca

tion

to n

earb

y la

nds

that

pos

sess

ava

ilabl

e ne

stin

g ha

bita

t.

•

If it

is d

eter

min

ed th

at c

onst

ruct

ion

will

phy

sica

lly a

ffect

oc

cupi

ed b

urro

ws

or d

isru

pt re

prod

uctiv

e be

havi

or

durin

g th

e ne

stin

g se

ason

(Mar

ch th

roug

h Ju

ly),

then

av

oida

nce

is th

e on

ly m

itiga

tion

avai

labl

e. C

onst

ruct

ion

shal

l be

dela

yed

with

in 2

50 fe

et o

f occ

upie

d bu

rrow

s un

til it

is d

eter

min

ed th

at th

e su

bjec

t ow

ls a

re n

ot

nest

ing

or u

ntil

a qu

alifi

ed b

iolo

gist

det

erm

ines

that

ju

veni

le o

wls

are

sel

f-suf

ficie

nt o

r are

no

long

er u

sing

th

e na

tal b

urro

w a

s th

eir p

rimar

y so

urce

of s

helte

r.

Impa

ct 4

.4-7

: Ope

ratio

n of

new

su

btra

nsm

issi

on a

nd

trans

mis

sion

line

s co

uld

impa

ct

rapt

ors

as a

resu

lt of

el

ectro

cutio

n or

col

lisio

n. L

ess

than

sig

nific

ant (

Cla

ss II

I)

APM

BIO

-8. A

vian

Pro

tect

ion.

All

trans

mis

sion

and

su

btra

nsm

issi

on to

wer

s an

d po

les

will

be

desi

gned

to b

e ra

ptor

-saf

e in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Sug

gest

ed P

ract

ices

fo

r Rap

tor P

rote

ctio

n on

Pow

er L

ines

: the

Sta

te o

f the

Art

in 2

006

(Avi

an P

ower

Lin

e In

tera

ctio

n C

omm

ittee

, 200

6)

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

final

tra

nsm

issi

on li

ne d

esig

ns

dem

onst

ratin

g co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith

guid

elin

es to

CP

UC

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.4-8

: New

su

btra

nsm

issi

on a

nd

trans

mis

sion

line

pol

es/to

wer

s co

uld

be u

sed

as p

erch

es b

y

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.4-8

: Ant

i-per

chin

g de

vice

. Ant

i-pe

rchi

ng d

evic

es s

hall

be p

lace

d on

the

new

su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne p

oles

and

new

tran

smis

sion

line

to

wer

s an

d po

les.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

ant

i-per

chin

g de

vice

s to

be

inst

alle

d on

pol

es a

nd to

wer

s.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-21

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

pred

ator

y bi

rds,

whi

ch c

ould

re

sult

in in

crea

sed

pred

atio

n on

sp

ecia

l-sta

tus

spec

ies

in th

e pr

ojec

t are

a. L

ess

than

si

gnifi

cant

with

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

insp

ect c

ompl

ianc

e.

Imm

edia

tely

follo

win

g to

wer

and

pol

e in

stal

latio

n.

Impa

ct 4

.4-9

: Con

stru

ctio

n an

d op

erat

ion

activ

ities

cou

ld im

pact

ac

tive

sand

fiel

ds a

long

the

Farr

ell-G

arne

t 115

kV

su

btra

nsm

issi

on li

ne a

lignm

ent.

Less

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Impl

emen

t Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1 an

d 4.

4-2.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1 an

d 4.

4-2.

S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s 4.

4-1

and

4.4-

2.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1 an

d 4.

4-2.

Impa

ct 4

.4-1

0: C

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

cou

ld im

pact

ju

risdi

ctio

nal w

ater

s of

the

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

and

wat

ers

of th

e S

tate

, inc

ludi

ng d

rain

ages

and

se

ason

al w

etla

nds.

Les

s th

an

sign

ifica

nt w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

APM

BIO

-3. A

void

Impa

cts

to S

tate

and

Fed

eral

Ju

risdi

ctio

n W

etla

nds.

Con

stru

ctio

n cr

ews

will

avo

id

impa

ctin

g th

e st

ream

beds

and

ban

ks o

f stre

ams

alon

g th

e ro

ute

to th

e ex

tent

pos

sibl

e. If

nec

essa

ry, a

S

tream

bed

Alte

ratio

n A

gree

men

t (S

AA

) will

be

secu

red

from

the

CD

FG. I

mpa

cts

will

be

miti

gate

d ba

sed

on th

e te

rms

of th

e S

AA

. No

stre

ams

with

flow

ing

wat

ers

capa

ble

of s

uppo

rting

spe

cial

-sta

tus

spec

ies

will

be

expe

cted

to b

e im

pact

ed b

y th

e pr

ojec

t.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

If ne

cess

ary,

SC

E to

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

all

SA

As

to

CP

UC

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.4-1

0:W

etla

nds.

SC

E a

nd/o

r its

co

nstru

ctio

n co

ntra

ctor

s sh

all p

erfo

rm a

wet

land

de

linea

tion

and

inco

rpor

ate

the

resu

lts in

to th

e fin

al

desi

gn o

f sub

trans

mis

sion

line

s an

d ac

cess

road

s. T

he

proj

ect s

hall

be m

odifi

ed to

min

imiz

e di

stur

banc

e of

W

hite

wat

er W

ash,

whe

neve

r fea

sibl

e. In

the

even

t of a

ny

proj

ect c

hang

es th

at in

volv

e gr

ound

dis

turb

ance

out

side

of

the

boun

dary

of t

he e

xist

ing

wet

land

del

inea

tion,

a n

ew

wet

land

del

inea

tion

shal

l be

perfo

rmed

. W

here

juris

dict

iona

l wet

land

s an

d ot

her w

ater

s ca

nnot

be

avoi

ded,

to o

ffset

tem

pora

ry a

nd p

erm

anen

t im

pact

s th

at

occu

r as

a re

sult

of th

e pr

ojec

t, m

itiga

tion

shal

l be

prov

ided

thro

ugh

the

follo

win

g m

echa

nism

s:

• P

urch

ase

or d

edic

atio

n of

land

to p

rovi

de w

etla

nd

pres

erva

tion,

rest

orat

ion,

or c

reat

ion.

If re

stor

atio

n is

av

aila

ble

and

feas

ible

, the

n a

miti

gatio

n re

plac

emen

t ra

tio o

f at l

east

2:1

sha

ll be

use

d. If

a w

etla

nd n

eeds

to

be

crea

ted,

at l

east

a 3

:1 ra

tio s

hall

be

impl

emen

ted

to o

ffset

loss

es. W

here

pra

ctic

al a

nd

feas

ible

, ons

ite m

itiga

tion

shal

l be

impl

emen

ted.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

wet

land

de

linea

tion

and

final

des

igns

de

mon

stra

ting

wet

land

av

oida

nce

to C

PU

C.

For w

etla

nd im

pact

s th

at c

anno

t be

avo

ided

, SC

E to

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

wet

land

of

fset

s to

CP

UC

. S

CE

to s

ubm

it w

etla

nd

miti

gatio

n an

d m

onito

ring

plan

to

CP

UC

and

app

licab

le

regu

lato

ry a

genc

ies

for r

evie

w.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-22

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Gre

ater

or l

esse

r offs

et ra

tios

may

be

subs

titut

ed

thro

ugh

cons

ulta

tion

and/

or p

erm

ittin

g w

ith th

e ap

prop

riate

wild

life

agen

cy (U

SFW

S o

r CD

FG).

• A

wet

land

miti

gatio

n an

d m

onito

ring

plan

sha

ll be

de

velo

ped

by a

qua

lifie

d bi

olog

ist o

r wet

land

sci

entis

t in

coo

rdin

atio

n w

ith C

DFG

, US

FWS

, US

AC

E, a

nd/o

r R

WQ

CB

that

det

ails

miti

gatio

n an

d m

onito

ring

oblig

atio

ns fo

r tem

pora

ry a

nd p

erm

anen

t im

pact

s to

w

etla

nds

and

othe

r wat

ers

as a

resu

lt of

con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es. T

he p

lan

shal

l qua

ntify

the

tota

l acr

eage

lo

st, d

escr

ibe

miti

gatio

n ra

tios

for l

ost h

abita

t, an

nual

su

cces

s cr

iteria

, miti

gatio

n si

tes,

mon

itorin

g an

d re

porti

ng re

quire

men

ts, a

nd s

ite s

peci

fic p

lans

to

com

pens

ate

for w

etla

nd lo

sses

resu

lting

from

the

proj

ect.

The

miti

gatio

n an

d m

onito

ring

plan

sha

ll be

su

bmitt

ed to

the

appr

opria

te re

gula

tory

age

ncie

s fo

r ap

prov

al. T

he p

lan

and

docu

men

tatio

n of

suc

h ag

ency

app

rova

l sha

ll be

sub

mitt

ed to

the

CP

UC

prio

r to

con

stru

ctio

n.

Impa

ct 4

.4-1

2: T

he P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

cou

ld c

onfli

ct w

ith

prov

isio

ns s

et fo

rth in

the

Coa

chel

la V

alle

y M

ulti-

Spe

cies

C

onse

rvat

ion

Pla

n. L

ess

than

si

gnifi

cant

with

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Impl

emen

t Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1, 4

.4-2

, 4.4

-3, 4

.4-5

, 4.

4-6,

4.4

-8, a

nd 4

.4-1

0.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1, 4

.4-2

, 4.4

-3, 4

.4-5

, 4.4

-6,

4.4-

8, a

nd 4

.4-1

0.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1,

4.4-

2, 4

.4-3

, 4.4

-5, 4

.4-6

, 4.4

-8,

and

4.4-

10.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1, 4

.4-2

, 4.4

-3, 4

.4-5

, 4.

4-6,

4.4

-8, a

nd 4

.4-1

0.

Cultu

ral R

esou

rces

Impa

ct 4

.5-2

: Pro

ject

co

nstru

ctio

n co

uld

adve

rsel

y af

fect

the

Hoo

n w

it te

n ca

va

(Gar

net H

ill),

a N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

cu

ltura

l res

ourc

e. L

ess

than

si

gnifi

cant

with

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

APM

CU

L-1.

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an C

onsu

ltatio

ns. C

ontin

ued

cons

ulta

tion

and

com

mun

icat

ion

with

inte

rest

ed N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

com

mun

ity to

und

erst

and

the

conc

erns

of

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an m

embe

rs in

iden

tifyi

ng m

easu

res

that

w

ould

pre

vent

dire

ct a

nd in

dire

ct im

pact

s. O

ne s

uch

mea

sure

may

incl

ude

the

follo

win

g: if

pre

viou

sly

unid

entif

ied

arch

aeol

ogic

al re

sour

ces

are

unea

rthed

du

ring

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

, con

stru

ctio

n w

ill b

e ha

lted

in th

at a

rea

and

dire

cted

aw

ay fr

om th

e di

scov

ery,

unt

il a

qual

ified

arc

haeo

logi

st a

sses

ses

the

sign

ifica

nce

of th

e re

sour

ce. T

he a

rcha

eolo

gist

wou

ld re

com

men

d ap

prop

riate

mea

sure

s to

reco

rd, p

rese

rve,

or r

ecov

er th

e re

sour

ces.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

upda

tes

on

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an C

onsu

ltatio

ns

to C

PU

C o

n a

quar

terly

bas

is.

Prio

r to

and

thro

ugho

ut a

ll ph

ases

of c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-23

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

AP

M C

UL-

6. G

arne

t Hill

s N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

Cul

tura

l R

esou

rce.

App

ropr

iate

mea

sure

s, if

dee

med

nec

essa

ry,

wou

ld b

e de

velo

ped

in c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

co

mm

unity

mem

bers

, as

reco

mm

ende

d by

the

NA

HC

, to

addr

ess

pote

ntia

l im

pact

s to

the

Gar

net H

ills

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an c

ultu

ral r

esou

rce.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-2

. S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.

5-2

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-2

: Add

ition

al c

onsu

ltatio

n sh

all

be c

ondu

cted

with

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an c

omm

unity

mem

bers

re

gard

ing

Hoo

n w

it te

n ca

va

(Gar

net H

ill).

An

agre

emen

t do

cum

ent t

hat a

ddre

sses

pot

entia

l im

pact

s to

this

re

sour

ce a

nd s

ets

forth

an

agre

emen

t con

cern

ing

how

to

min

imiz

e im

pact

s sh

all b

e cr

eate

d an

d si

gned

by

the

tribe

s an

d S

CE

, and

sha

ll be

sub

mitt

ed to

the

CP

UC

as

docu

men

tatio

n th

at th

e co

nsul

tatio

n ha

s oc

curr

ed.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s sh

all

impl

emen

t mea

sure

as

defin

ed.

SC

E to

sub

mit

sign

ed

agre

emen

t to

CP

UC

for r

evie

w.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.5-3

: Pro

ject

co

nstru

ctio

n co

uld

adve

rsel

y af

fect

cul

tura

l res

ourc

es C

A-

RIV

-785

, and

33-

1542

9, a

nd 3

3-15

430.

Les

s th

an S

igni

fican

t w

ith M

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

APM

CU

L-3.

Con

stru

ctio

n M

onito

ring.

All

grou

nd-

dist

urbi

ng a

ctiv

ities

occ

urrin

g al

ong

the

Pro

pose

d M

irage

-S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

Sub

trans

mis

sion

Lin

e A

ltern

ativ

e (R

oute

4) w

ould

be

mon

itore

d by

a q

ualif

ied

arch

aeol

ogis

t. Th

e ro

ute

is h

ighl

y se

nsiti

ve fo

r cul

tura

l re

sour

ces.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

resu

me

of

qual

ified

arc

heol

ogis

t to

CP

UC

fo

r rev

iew

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Dur

ing

all g

roun

d di

stur

bing

ac

tiviti

es a

long

the

prop

osed

Mira

ge-S

anta

R

osa

115

kV a

lignm

ent.

APM

CU

L-4.

Dat

a R

ecov

ery

Pla

n. A

n ev

alua

tion

and

data

reco

very

pla

n sh

all b

e de

velo

ped

to a

ddre

ss im

pact

s to

CA

-RIV

-785

, 33-

1542

9, a

nd 3

3-15

430.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

data

reco

very

pl

an to

CP

UC

for r

evie

w. (

see

also

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-3

b)

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

CU

L-5.

Cul

tura

l Res

ourc

es P

lan.

A c

ultu

ral

reso

urce

man

agem

ent p

lan

shal

l be

deve

lope

d to

pre

vent

op

erat

iona

l im

pact

s to

the

cultu

ral r

esou

rce

loca

ted

betw

een

the

Mira

ge S

ubst

atio

n an

d I-1

0.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

cultu

ral

reso

urce

s pl

an to

CP

UC

for

revi

ew. (

see

also

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-3

b)

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-3

a: A

void

and

pro

tect

ar

chae

olog

ical

reso

urce

s. S

CE

sha

ll na

rrow

the

cons

truct

ion

zone

to a

void

pot

entia

lly s

igni

fican

t ar

chae

olog

ical

reso

urce

s C

A-R

IV-7

85, a

nd 3

3-15

429,

an

d 33

-154

30 if

feas

ible

. The

reso

urce

s sh

all b

e de

sign

ated

as

Env

ironm

enta

lly S

ensi

tive

Are

as (E

SA

s) to

en

sure

avo

idan

ce. P

rote

ctiv

e fe

ncin

g or

oth

er m

arke

rs

shal

l be

erec

ted

arou

nd E

SA

s pr

ior t

o an

y gr

ound

di

stur

bing

act

iviti

es; h

owev

er, s

uch

ES

As

shal

l not

be

iden

tifie

d sp

ecifi

cally

as

cultu

ral r

esou

rces

, in

orde

r to

prot

ect s

ensi

tive

info

rmat

ion

and

to d

isco

urag

e un

auth

oriz

ed d

istu

rban

ce o

r col

lect

ion

of a

rtifa

cts.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-24

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-3

b: P

repa

ratio

n of

trea

tmen

t pl

an if

avo

idan

ce is

not

feas

ible

. If a

void

ance

of s

ites

CA

-RIV

-785

, and

33-

1542

9, a

nd 3

3-15

430

is n

ot fe

asib

le,

prio

r to

issu

ing

any

grad

ing

or e

xcav

atio

n pe

rmits

and

pr

ior t

o an

y pr

ojec

t-rel

ated

gro

und

dist

urbi

ng a

ctiv

ities

, a

deta

iled

His

toric

Pro

perti

es T

reat

men

t Pla

n (H

PTP

) sha

ll be

pre

pare

d by

SC

E a

nd im

plem

ente

d by

a q

ualif

ied

arch

aeol

ogis

t. Th

e H

PTP

sha

ll in

clud

e a

rese

arch

des

ign

and

a sc

ope

of w

ork

for d

ata

reco

very

, in

conf

orm

ance

w

ith A

PM

CU

L-4,

or a

dditi

onal

trea

tmen

t of p

oten

tially

si

gnifi

cant

arc

haeo

logi

cal s

ites

that

can

not b

e av

oide

d.

Dat

a re

cove

ry o

n m

ost r

esou

rces

wou

ld c

onsi

st o

f sa

mpl

e ex

cava

tion

and/

or s

urfa

ce a

rtifa

ct c

olle

ctio

n in

the

area

of d

irect

impa

ct, a

nd s

ite d

ocum

enta

tion,

with

the

aim

to ta

rget

the

reco

very

of i

mpo

rtant

sci

entif

ic d

ata

cont

aine

d in

the

porti

on(s

) of t

he a

rcha

eolo

gica

l re

sour

ce(s

) to

be im

pact

ed b

y th

e pr

ojec

t. A

s sp

ecifi

ed in

A

PM

CU

L-5,

a lo

ng-te

rm m

anag

emen

t pla

n sh

all a

lso

be

deve

lope

d by

SC

E fo

r tho

se re

sour

ces

that

can

be

avoi

ded

durin

g pr

ojec

t con

stru

ctio

n, in

ord

er to

min

imiz

e fu

ture

impa

cts

durin

g pr

ojec

t ope

ratio

n an

d m

aint

enan

ce.

The

HP

TP s

hall

incl

ude

prov

isio

ns fo

r ana

lysi

s of

dat

a in

a

regi

onal

con

text

, rep

ortin

g of

resu

lts w

ithin

a ti

mel

y m

anne

r, cu

ratio

n of

arti

fact

s an

d da

ta a

t an

appr

oved

fa

cilit

y, a

nd d

isse

min

atio

n of

repo

rts to

loca

l and

Sta

te

repo

sito

ries,

libr

arie

s, a

nd in

tere

sted

pro

fess

iona

ls.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

HP

TP a

nd

resu

me

of th

e ar

cheo

logi

st th

at

prep

ared

the

plan

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f an

y gr

ound

dis

turb

ing

activ

ities

. D

urin

g al

l pha

ses

of

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-3

c: D

ue to

the

sens

itivi

ty o

f the

pr

ojec

t are

a fo

r Nat

ive

Am

eric

an re

sour

ces,

in a

dditi

on to

ar

chae

olog

ical

mon

itorin

g as

spe

cifie

d in

AP

M C

UL-

3, a

t le

ast o

ne N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

mon

itor s

hall

also

mon

itor a

ll gr

ound

-dis

turb

ing

activ

ities

alo

ng th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

sub

trans

mis

sion

line

alig

nmen

t. S

elec

tion

of m

onito

rs b

y S

CE

sha

ll be

mad

e by

ag

reem

ent o

f the

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an g

roup

s id

entif

ied

by

the

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an H

erita

ge C

omm

issi

on a

s ha

ving

af

filia

tion

with

the

proj

ect a

rea,

with

doc

umen

tatio

n of

su

ch a

gree

men

t sub

mitt

ed to

the

CP

UC

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

pro

vide

CP

UC

with

na

me

and

cont

act i

nfor

mat

ion

for t

he d

esig

nate

d N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

mon

itor.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Dur

ing

all g

roun

d di

stur

bing

act

iviti

es a

long

th

e pr

opos

ed M

irage

-S

anta

Ros

a 11

5 kV

al

ignm

ent.

Impa

ct 4

.5-4

: Pro

ject

co

nstru

ctio

n co

uld

adve

rsel

y af

fect

cur

rent

ly u

nkno

wn

cultu

ral

reso

urce

s. L

ess

than

sig

nific

ant

with

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-4

a: A

ny a

ccid

enta

l dis

cove

ry o

f cu

ltura

l res

ourc

es d

urin

g co

nstru

ctio

n sh

all b

e ev

alua

ted

by a

qua

lifie

d ar

chae

olog

ist.

If th

e fin

d is

det

erm

ined

to b

e po

tent

ially

sig

nific

ant,

the

arch

aeol

ogis

t, in

con

sulta

tion

with

the

CP

UC

and

app

ropr

iate

Nat

ive

Am

eric

an

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sus

pend

wor

k an

d co

ntac

t CP

UC

if a

rcha

eolo

gica

l re

sour

ces

are

disc

over

ed.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-25

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

gr

oup(

s), s

hall

deve

lop

a tre

atm

ent p

lan.

All

wor

k ad

jace

nt to

the

unan

ticip

ated

dis

cove

ry (e

stim

ated

at

25 fe

et) s

hall

ceas

e un

til th

e qu

alifi

ed a

rcha

eolo

gist

has

ev

alua

ted

the

disc

over

y, a

nd/o

r the

trea

tmen

t pla

n ha

s be

en im

plem

ente

d.

If re

sour

ce is

sig

nific

ant,

subm

it si

te tr

eatm

ent p

lan

and

reco

rds

of c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

repr

esen

tativ

es to

C

PU

C.

With

in 5

bus

ines

s da

ys o

f de

term

inin

g a

find

is

sign

ifica

nt.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-4

b: A

n ar

chae

olog

ist m

eetin

g th

e S

ecre

tary

of t

he In

terio

r’s P

rofe

ssio

nal Q

ualif

icat

ion

Sta

ndar

ds s

hall

be re

tain

ed b

y S

CE

to o

vers

ee a

nd

impl

emen

t the

app

lican

t pro

pose

d m

easu

res

and

miti

gatio

n m

easu

res

stip

ulat

ed in

this

Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Rep

ort.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

resu

me

of

arch

eolo

gist

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.5-4

c: P

rior t

o an

y gr

ound

di

stur

bing

act

ivity

, tho

se p

ortio

ns o

f the

pro

ject

are

a no

t su

rvey

ed b

ecau

se o

f low

vis

ibili

ty o

r lac

k of

acc

ess

shal

l be

sur

veye

d by

a q

ualif

ied

arch

aeol

ogis

t. A

fter a

dditi

onal

ar

chae

olog

ical

sur

vey

is c

arrie

d ou

t, th

e ar

chae

olog

ists

sh

all e

valu

ate

any

cultu

ral r

esou

rces

reco

rded

dur

ing

the

cour

se o

f the

sur

vey

for t

heir

elig

ibili

ty fo

r lis

ting

on th

e N

atio

nal R

egis

ter o

r Cal

iforn

ia R

egis

ter,

mak

e re

com

men

datio

ns fo

r tre

atm

ent o

f the

se re

sour

ces

if fo

und

to b

e si

gnifi

cant

, and

mak

e re

com

men

datio

ns

conc

erni

ng a

rcha

eolo

gica

l mon

itorin

g du

ring

cons

truct

ion

in th

e su

rvey

are

as.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

findi

ngs

of

arch

eolo

gica

l sur

veys

to C

PU

C

for r

evie

w.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.5-5

: The

pro

ject

cou

ld

adve

rsel

y af

fect

uni

dent

ified

pa

leon

tolo

gica

l res

ourc

es. L

ess

than

sig

nific

ant (

Cla

ss II

I)

APM

PA-

1. P

aleo

ntol

ogic

al F

ield

Ass

essm

ent.

Con

duct

a

pale

onto

logi

cal f

ield

ass

essm

ent o

f the

fina

lized

RO

Ws

for t

he P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

, as

need

ed.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

findi

ngs

of

pale

onto

logi

cal f

ield

as

sess

men

t to

CP

UC

for

revi

ew.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

PA-

2. P

aleo

ntol

ogic

al R

esou

rces

. Prio

r to

cons

truct

ion,

a p

aleo

ntol

ogis

t wou

ld s

alva

ge k

now

n,

expo

sed

pale

onto

logi

cal r

esou

rces

. Thi

s w

ould

con

sist

of

colle

ctin

g st

anda

rd s

ampl

es o

f fos

silif

erou

s se

dim

ents

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

reso

urce

s sa

lvag

ed to

CP

UC

fo

r rev

iew

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

PA-

3. P

aleo

ntol

ogic

al M

onito

ring.

A p

aleo

ntol

ogic

al

mon

itor w

ould

be

pres

ent d

urin

g gr

ound

-dis

turb

ing

activ

ities

with

in a

reas

des

igna

ted

as h

avin

g a

high

po

ssib

ility

for t

he p

rese

nce

of p

aleo

ntol

ogic

al re

sour

ces.

Th

e m

onito

r wou

ld b

e em

pow

ered

to te

mpo

raril

y ha

lt or

re

dire

cted

con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es to

ens

ure

avoi

danc

e of

ad

vers

e im

pact

s.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

resu

me

of

pale

onto

logi

cal m

onito

r to

CP

UC

for r

evie

w.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-26

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

AP

M P

A-4.

Sal

vage

and

Rec

over

y of

Pal

eont

olog

ical

R

esou

rces

. Upo

n en

coun

terin

g a

larg

e de

posi

t of b

one,

sa

lvag

e of

all

bone

in th

e ar

ea w

ould

be

cond

ucte

d in

ac

cord

ance

with

mod

ern

pale

onto

logi

cal t

echn

ique

s.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

If a

larg

e de

posi

t of b

one

is

disc

over

ed, S

CE

to n

otify

C

PU

C o

f fin

ding

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

PA-

5. T

rans

fer o

f Fos

sils

to M

useu

m. A

ll fo

ssils

co

llect

ed w

ould

be

prep

ared

to a

reas

onab

le p

oint

of

iden

tific

atio

n. It

emiz

ed c

atal

ogs

of a

ll m

ater

ial c

olle

cted

an

d id

entif

ied

wou

ld b

e pr

ovid

ed to

a m

useu

m re

posi

tory

al

ong

with

the

spec

imen

s. A

spe

cim

en re

posi

tory

wou

ld

be a

rran

ged,

in w

ritin

g, w

ith a

mus

eum

prio

r to

initi

atio

n of

con

stru

ctio

n ex

cava

tion.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

spe

cim

en re

posi

tory

to C

PU

C

for r

evie

w.

Sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

re

posi

tory

arr

ange

men

t pr

ior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

.

APM

PA-

6. P

aleo

ntol

ogic

al R

epor

ting.

A re

port

docu

men

ting

the

resu

lts o

f the

mon

itorin

g an

d sa

lvag

e ac

tiviti

es a

nd th

e si

gnifi

canc

e of

the

foss

ils w

ould

be

prep

ared

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

pale

onto

logi

cal

repo

rt to

CP

UC

for r

evie

w.

At t

he c

ompl

etio

n of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.5-6

: Pro

ject

co

nstru

ctio

n co

uld

resu

lt in

da

mag

e to

pre

viou

sly

unid

entif

ied

hum

an re

mai

ns.

Less

than

sig

nific

ant (

Cla

ss II

I)

APM

CU

L-2.

Dis

cove

ry o

f Hum

an R

emai

ns. I

f hum

an

rem

ains

are

enc

ount

ered

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

or a

ny o

ther

ph

ase

of d

evel

opm

ent,

wor

k in

the

area

of t

he d

isco

very

m

ust b

e ha

lted

in th

at a

rea

and

dire

cted

aw

ay fr

om th

e di

scov

ery.

No

furth

er d

istu

rban

ce w

ould

occ

ur u

ntil

the

coun

ty c

oron

er m

akes

the

nece

ssar

y fin

ding

s as

to o

rigin

, pu

rsua

nt to

Pub

lic R

esou

rces

Cod

e 50

97.9

8-99

, Hea

lth

and

Safe

ty C

ode

7050

.5. I

f the

rem

ains

are

det

erm

ined

to

be N

ativ

e Am

eric

an, t

hen

the

NAH

C w

ould

be

notif

ied

with

in 2

4 ho

urs,

as

requ

ired

by P

ublic

Res

ourc

es C

ode

5097

. The

Nat

ive

Amer

ican

Her

itage

Com

mis

sion

(NAH

C)

wou

ld n

otify

the

desi

gnat

ed M

ost L

ikel

y D

esce

ndan

ts, w

ho

wou

ld p

rovi

de re

com

men

datio

ns fo

r the

trea

tmen

t of t

he

rem

ains

with

in 2

4 ho

urs.

The

NAH

C m

edia

tes

any

disp

utes

re

gard

ing

the

treat

men

t of r

emai

ns.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

If hu

man

rem

ains

are

di

scov

ered

, SC

E is

to n

otify

the

CP

UC

and

Riv

ersi

de C

ount

y co

rone

r with

in o

ne h

our.

C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce

at le

ast

once

a w

eek.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Geol

ogy a

nd S

oils

Impa

ct 4

.6-1

: Gro

und

surfa

ce

rupt

ure

of a

n ac

tive

faul

t cou

ld

dam

age

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct

whi

ch, i

n tu

rn, c

ould

pos

e a

haza

rd to

nea

rby

stru

ctur

es o

r pe

ople

. Les

s th

an s

igni

fican

t (C

lass

III)

APM

GEO

-2. S

ubsu

rface

Tre

nchi

ng. W

here

app

ropr

iate

, su

bsur

face

tren

chin

g al

ong

activ

e fa

ult t

race

s w

ould

be

requ

ired

to e

nsur

e to

wer

foun

datio

ns a

re n

ot p

lace

d on

, or

imm

edia

tely

adj

acen

t to,

thes

e fe

atur

es. I

n ad

ditio

n,

tow

er lo

catio

ns w

ould

be

sele

cted

to a

ccom

mod

ate

antic

ipat

ed fa

ult o

ffset

, and

min

imiz

e ex

cess

ive

tens

ion

in

lines

, sho

uld

a fa

ult m

ovem

ent o

ccur

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e du

ring

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

nea

r ac

tive

faul

ts.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-27

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Impa

ct 4

.6-2

: Stro

ng s

eism

ic

grou

nd s

haki

ng c

ould

cau

se

dam

age

to P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

st

ruct

ures

whi

ch, i

n tu

rn, c

ould

po

se a

risk

of l

oss,

inju

ry, o

r de

ath.

Les

s th

an s

igni

fican

t (C

lass

III)

APM

GEO

-1. S

eism

ic D

esig

n fo

r Gro

und

Sha

king

. A

geot

echn

ical

inve

stig

atio

n of

site

soi

ls a

nd g

eolo

gic

cond

ition

s, c

oupl

ed w

ith e

ngin

eerin

g de

sign

, wou

ld

iden

tify

the

haza

rds

and

deve

lop

reco

mm

enda

tions

to

supp

ort a

ppro

pria

te s

eism

ic d

esig

ns to

miti

gate

the

effe

cts

of g

roun

d sh

akin

g. S

peci

fic re

quire

men

ts fo

r se

ism

ic d

esig

n w

ould

be

base

d on

the

IEE

E 6

93

“Rec

omm

ende

d P

ract

ices

for S

eism

ic D

esig

n of

S

ubst

atio

ns.”

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

resu

lts o

f ge

otec

hnic

al in

vest

igat

ions

to

CP

UC

for r

evie

w.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Haza

rds a

nd H

azar

dous

Mat

erial

s

Impa

ct 4

.7-1

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es w

ould

requ

ire th

e us

e of

cer

tain

mat

eria

ls s

uch

as

fuel

s, o

ils, s

olve

nts,

and

oth

er

chem

ical

pro

duct

s th

at c

ould

po

se a

pot

entia

l haz

ard

to th

e pu

blic

or t

he e

nviro

nmen

t if

impr

oper

ly u

sed

or in

adve

rtent

ly

rele

ased

. Les

s th

an s

igni

fican

t (C

lass

III)

APM

HAZ

-1. H

azar

dous

Mat

eria

ls a

nd W

aste

Han

dlin

g M

anag

emen

t. H

azar

dous

mat

eria

ls u

sed

and

stor

ed

onsi

te fo

r the

pro

pose

d co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es -

as w

ell a

s ha

zard

ous

was

tes

gene

rate

d on

site

as

a re

sult

of th

e pr

opos

ed c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

– w

ould

be

man

aged

ac

cord

ing

to th

e sp

ecifi

catio

ns o

utlin

ed b

elow

.

• H

azar

dous

Mat

eria

ls a

nd H

azar

dous

Was

te H

andl

ing:

A

pro

ject

-spe

cific

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

man

agem

ent

and

haza

rdou

s w

aste

man

agem

ent p

rogr

am w

ould

be

deve

lope

d pr

ior t

o co

nstru

ctio

n of

the

proj

ect.

The

prog

ram

wou

ld o

utlin

e pr

oper

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

use

, st

orag

e, a

nd d

ispo

sal r

equi

rem

ents

, as

wel

l as

haza

rdou

s w

aste

man

agem

ent p

roce

dure

s. T

he

prog

ram

wou

ld id

entif

y ty

pes

of h

azar

dous

mat

eria

ls to

be

use

d du

ring

the

proj

ect a

nd th

e ty

pes

of w

aste

s th

at

wou

ld b

e ge

nera

ted.

All

proj

ect p

erso

nnel

wou

ld b

e pr

ovid

ed w

ith p

roje

ct-s

peci

fic tr

aini

ng. T

his

prog

ram

w

ould

be

deve

lope

d to

ens

ure

that

all

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

and

was

tes

are

hand

led

in a

saf

e an

d en

viro

nmen

tally

sou

nd m

anne

r. H

azar

dous

was

tes

wou

ld b

e ha

ndle

d an

d di

spos

ed o

f acc

ordi

ng to

ap

plic

able

rule

s an

d re

gula

tions

. Em

ploy

ees

hand

ling

was

tes

wou

ld re

ceiv

e ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls tr

aini

ng a

nd

shal

l be

train

ed in

haz

ardo

us w

aste

pro

cedu

res,

spi

ll co

ntin

genc

ies,

was

te m

inim

izat

ion

proc

edur

es a

nd

Trea

tmen

t, S

tora

ge, a

nd D

ispo

sal F

acili

ty (T

SD

F)

train

ing

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith O

SH

A H

azar

d C

omm

unic

atio

n S

tand

ard

and

22 C

CR

. SC

E w

ould

use

la

ndfil

l fac

ilitie

s th

at a

re a

utho

rized

to a

ccep

t tre

ated

w

ood

pole

was

te in

acc

orda

nce

with

HS

C

2514

3.1.

4(b)

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n to

the

CP

UC

dem

onst

ratin

g th

at

all c

onst

ruct

ion

pers

onne

l hav

e un

derg

one

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

m

anag

emen

t tra

inin

g.

SC

E to

sub

mit

a co

py o

f the

S

WP

PP

to th

e C

PU

C fo

r re

view

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

a co

py o

f writ

ten

proc

edur

es fo

r tra

nspo

rting

ha

zard

ous

was

tes

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

a co

py o

f the

pr

oced

ures

for f

uelin

g an

d m

aint

enan

ce to

CP

UC

for

revi

ew. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce

with

pro

cedu

res

at le

ast o

nce

per w

eek

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

SC

E to

sub

mit

a co

py o

f the

E

mer

genc

y R

elea

se R

espo

nse

Pro

cedu

res

to C

PU

C fo

r rev

iew

.

Sub

mit

all a

pplic

able

pla

ns

to C

PU

C p

rior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

. M

onito

r com

plia

nce

with

pl

ans

durin

g al

l pha

ses

of

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-28

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

• C

onst

ruct

ion

Sto

rmw

ater

Pol

lutio

n P

reve

ntio

n P

lan

(SW

PP

P):

A p

roje

ct-s

peci

fic c

onst

ruct

ion

SW

PP

P

wou

ld b

e pr

epar

ed a

nd im

plem

ente

d pr

ior t

o th

e st

art

of c

onst

ruct

ion

of th

e P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

. The

SW

PP

P

wou

ld u

tiliz

e B

MP

s to

add

ress

the

stor

age

and

hand

ling

of h

azar

dous

mat

eria

ls a

nd s

edim

ent r

unof

f du

ring

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

.

• Tr

ansp

ort o

f Haz

ardo

us M

ater

ials

: Haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

th

at w

ould

be

trans

porte

d by

truc

k in

clud

e fu

el (d

iese

l fu

el a

nd g

asol

ine)

and

oil

and

lubr

ican

ts fo

r equ

ipm

ent.

Con

tain

ers

used

to s

tore

d ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls w

ould

be

pro

perly

labe

led

and

kept

in g

ood

cond

ition

. Writ

ten

proc

edur

es fo

r the

tran

spor

t of h

azar

dous

mat

eria

ls

used

wou

ld b

e es

tabl

ishe

d in

acc

orda

nce

with

U.S

. D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

porta

tion

and

Cal

trans

regu

latio

ns.

A q

ualif

ied

trans

porte

r wou

ld b

e se

lect

ed to

com

ply

with

U.S

. Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rtatio

n an

d C

altra

ns

regu

latio

ns.

•

Fuel

ing

and

Mai

nten

ance

of C

onst

ruct

ion

Equ

ipm

ent:

Writ

ten

proc

edur

es fo

r fue

ling

and

mai

nten

ance

of

cons

truct

ion

equi

pmen

t wou

ld b

e pr

epar

ed p

rior t

o co

nstru

ctio

n. V

ehic

les

and

equi

pmen

t wou

ld b

e re

fuel

ed o

nsite

or b

y ta

nker

truc

ks. P

roce

dure

s w

ould

in

clud

e th

e us

e of

dro

p cl

oths

mad

e of

pla

stic

, drip

pa

ns, a

nd tr

ays,

to b

e pl

aced

und

er re

fillin

g ar

eas

to

ensu

re th

at c

hem

ical

s do

not

com

e in

to c

onta

ct w

ith

the

grou

nd. R

efue

ling

stat

ions

wou

ld b

e lo

cate

d in

de

sign

ated

are

as w

here

abs

orbe

nt p

ads

and

trays

w

ould

be

avai

labl

e. T

he fu

el ta

nks

also

wou

ld c

onta

in a

lin

ed a

rea

to e

nsur

e th

at a

ccid

enta

l spi

llage

doe

s no

t oc

cur.

Drip

pan

s or

oth

er c

olle

ctio

n de

vice

s w

ould

be

plac

ed u

nder

the

equi

pmen

t at n

ight

to c

aptu

re d

rips

or

spill

s. E

quip

men

t wou

ld b

e in

spec

ted

daily

for p

oten

tial

leak

age

or fa

ilure

s. H

azar

dous

mat

eria

ls, s

uch

as

pain

ts, s

olve

nts,

and

pen

etra

nts,

wou

ld b

e ke

pt in

an

appr

oved

lock

er o

r sto

rage

cab

inet

.

• E

mer

genc

y R

elea

se R

espo

nse

Pro

cedu

res:

An

Em

erge

ncy

Res

pons

e P

lan

deta

iling

resp

onse

s to

re

leas

es o

f haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

wou

ld b

e de

velo

ped

prio

r to

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

. It w

ould

pre

scrib

e ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls h

andl

ing

proc

edur

es fo

r red

ucin

g

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-29

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

the

pote

ntia

l for

a s

pill

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n an

d w

ould

in

clud

e an

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

pro

gram

to e

nsur

e qu

ick

and

safe

cle

anup

of a

ccid

enta

l spi

lls. A

ll ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls s

pills

or t

hrea

tene

d re

leas

e,

incl

udin

g pe

trole

um p

rodu

cts

such

as

gaso

line,

die

sel,

and

hydr

aulic

flui

d, re

gard

less

of t

he q

uant

ity s

pille

d,

wou

ld b

e im

med

iate

ly re

porte

d if

the

spill

has

ent

ered

a

navi

gabl

e w

ater

, stre

am, l

ake,

wet

land

, or s

torm

dra

in,

if th

e sp

ill im

pact

ed a

ny s

ensi

tive

area

incl

udin

g co

nser

vatio

n ar

eas

and

wild

life

pres

erve

d, o

r if t

he s

pill

caus

ed in

jury

to a

per

son

or th

reat

ens

inju

ry to

pub

lic

heal

th. A

ll co

nstru

ctio

n pe

rson

nel,

incl

udin

g en

viro

nmen

tal m

onito

rs, w

ould

be

awar

e of

sta

te a

nd

fede

ral e

mer

genc

y re

spon

se re

porti

ng g

uide

lines

.

Impa

ct 4

.7-2

: Pro

ject

op

erat

ions

wou

ld re

quire

the

use

of c

erta

in m

ater

ials

suc

h as

fu

els,

oils

, sol

vent

s, a

nd o

ther

ch

emic

al p

rodu

cts

that

cou

ld

pose

a p

oten

tial h

azar

d to

the

publ

ic o

r the

env

ironm

ent i

f im

prop

erly

use

d or

inad

verte

ntly

re

leas

ed. L

ess

than

sig

nific

ant

(Cla

ss II

I)

APM

HAZ

-3. S

pill

Pre

vent

ion,

Cou

nter

Mea

sure

, and

C

ontro

l Pla

n (S

PC

C).

In a

ccor

danc

e w

ith T

itle

40 o

f the

C

FR, P

art 1

12, S

CE

wou

ld p

repa

re a

n up

date

d S

PC

C fo

r ap

prop

riate

sub

stat

ions

with

in th

e P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

. The

pl

ans

wou

ld in

clud

e en

gine

ered

and

ope

ratio

nal m

etho

ds

for p

reve

ntin

g, c

onta

inin

g, a

nd c

ontro

lling

pot

entia

l re

leas

es, a

nd p

rovi

sion

s fo

r qui

ck a

nd s

afe

clea

nup.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

upda

ted

SP

CC

to

CP

UC

to re

view

. P

rior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of

proj

ect o

pera

tions

.

APM

HAZ

-4. H

azar

dous

Mat

eria

ls B

usin

ess

Pla

n (H

MB

Ps)

. SC

E w

ould

pre

pare

and

sub

mit

an u

pdat

ed

HM

BP

for a

ppro

pria

te s

ubst

atio

ns w

ithin

the

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct. T

he re

quire

d do

cum

enta

tion

wou

ld b

e su

bmitt

ed

to th

e C

ertif

ied

Uni

fied

Pro

gram

Age

ncy

(CU

PA

). Th

e H

MB

Ps

wou

ld in

clud

e ha

zard

ous

mat

eria

ls a

nd

haza

rdou

s w

aste

man

agem

ent p

roce

dure

s an

d em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

pro

cedu

res,

incl

udin

g em

erge

ncy

spill

cle

anup

sup

plie

s an

d eq

uipm

ent.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

a co

py o

f the

up

date

d H

MB

P to

CP

UC

. P

rior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of

proj

ect o

pera

tions

.

Impa

ct 4

.7-3

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es c

ould

rele

ase

prev

ious

ly u

nide

ntifi

ed

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

into

the

envi

ronm

ent.

Less

than

si

gnifi

cant

with

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.7-3

: SC

E’s

Haz

ardo

us S

ubst

ance

C

ontro

l and

Em

erge

ncy

Res

pons

e P

lan

(AP

M H

YDR

O-4

) sh

all i

nclu

de p

rovi

sion

s th

at w

ould

be

impl

emen

ted

if an

y su

bsur

face

haz

ardo

us m

ater

ials

are

enc

ount

ered

dur

ing

cons

truct

ion.

Pro

visi

ons

outli

ned

in th

e pl

an s

hall

incl

ude

imm

edia

tely

sto

ppin

g w

ork

in th

e co

ntam

inat

ed a

rea

and

cont

actin

g ap

prop

riate

reso

urce

age

ncie

s, in

clud

ing

the

CP

UC

des

igna

ted

mon

itor,

upon

dis

cove

ry o

f sub

surfa

ce

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

. The

pla

n sh

all i

nclu

de th

e ph

one

num

bers

of C

ount

y an

d S

tate

age

ncie

s an

d pr

imar

y,

seco

ndar

y, a

nd fi

nal c

lean

up p

roce

dure

s. T

he H

azar

dous

S

ubst

ance

Con

trol a

nd E

mer

genc

y R

espo

nse

Pla

n sh

all

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

copy

of p

lan

to

CP

UC

for r

evie

w.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-30

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

be s

ubm

itted

to th

e C

PU

C fo

r rev

iew

and

app

rova

l prio

r to

the

com

men

cem

ent o

f con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.7-7

: Con

stru

ctio

n an

d op

erat

ion

of th

e P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

cou

ld ig

nite

dry

ve

geta

tion

and

star

t a fi

re. L

ess

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

APM

HAZ

-2. F

ire M

anag

emen

t Pla

n. T

he F

ire

Man

agem

ent P

lan

wou

ld b

e de

velo

ped

by S

CE

prio

r to

star

t of c

onst

ruct

ion.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

a co

py o

f the

Fi

re M

anag

emen

t Pla

n,

incl

udin

g do

cum

enta

tion

of

SC

E’s

con

sulta

tion

with

loca

l fir

e de

partm

ents

, to

the

CP

UC

fo

r rev

iew

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.7-7

: The

Fire

Man

agem

ent P

lan

requ

ired

purs

uant

to A

PM

HA

Z-2

shal

l inc

lude

pro

visi

ons

that

requ

ire w

ater

tank

s or

oth

er fi

re s

uppr

essi

on d

evic

es

to b

e si

ted

at th

e pr

ojec

t site

s an

d be

ava

ilabl

e fo

r fire

pr

otec

tion.

The

pla

n sh

all r

equi

re c

onst

ruct

ion

vehi

cles

to

cont

ain

fire

supp

ress

ion

equi

pmen

t. S

CE

sha

ll co

ntac

t an

d co

ordi

nate

with

all

appl

icab

le fi

re d

epar

tmen

ts to

de

term

ine

min

imum

am

ount

s of

fire

equ

ipm

ent t

o be

ca

rrie

d on

the

vehi

cles

and

app

ropr

iate

loca

tions

for t

he

wat

er ta

nks/

fire

supp

ress

ion

devi

ces.

The

Fire

M

anag

emen

t Pla

n sh

all d

ocum

ent S

CE

’s c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith th

e lo

cal f

ire d

epar

tmen

ts. T

he F

ire M

anag

emen

t P

lan

shal

l be

subm

itted

to th

e C

PU

C fo

r rev

iew

and

ap

prov

al p

rior t

o th

e co

mm

ence

men

t of c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

a co

py o

f the

Fi

re M

anag

emen

t Pla

n,

incl

udin

g do

cum

enta

tion

of

SC

E’s

con

sulta

tion

with

loca

l fir

e de

partm

ents

, to

the

CP

UC

fo

r rev

iew

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Hydr

olog

y and

Wat

er Q

ualit

y

Impa

ct 4

.8-1

: Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es c

ould

resu

lt in

in

crea

sed

eros

ion

and

sedi

men

tatio

n an

d/or

pol

luta

nt

(e.g

., fu

el a

nd lu

bric

ant)

load

ing

to s

urfa

ce w

ater

way

s, w

hich

co

uld

incr

ease

turb

idity

, su

spen

d so

ils, o

r oth

erw

ise

decr

ease

wat

er q

ualit

y in

su

rface

wat

erw

ays.

Les

s th

an

sign

ifica

nt (C

lass

III)

APM

HYD

RO

-1. G

radi

ng A

ctiv

ities

. Gra

ding

act

iviti

es

wou

ld n

ot c

omm

ence

if h

eavy

rain

is fo

reca

sted

for t

he

perio

d of

tim

e of

maj

or e

arth

mov

ing

activ

ities

thro

ugh

com

pact

ion

and

stab

iliza

tion

of th

e si

te.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

invo

lvin

g gr

adin

g.

APM

HYD

RO

-2A.

Ero

sion

Con

trol a

nd D

rain

age

Pla

n. A

n en

gine

ered

ero

sion

con

trol a

nd d

rain

age

plan

wou

ld b

e de

velo

ped

as p

art o

f the

site

gra

ding

pla

n. T

he p

lan

wou

ld b

e de

velo

ped

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith th

e C

ount

y of

R

iver

side

Hyd

rolo

gy M

anua

l and

wou

ld a

ddre

ss a

ll co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith th

e pr

ojec

t. Th

e lo

catio

n of

the

disc

harg

e of

site

runo

ff fo

r con

stru

ctio

n w

ould

be

defin

ed in

fina

l eng

inee

ring

and

in c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith R

iver

side

Cou

nty,

the

RW

QC

B, a

nd th

e C

DFG

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

plan

and

do

cum

enta

tion

of c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith R

iver

side

Cou

nty,

the

RW

QC

B, a

nd th

e C

DFG

to

CP

UC

for r

evie

w.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-31

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

AP

M H

YDR

O-2

B. C

onst

ruct

ion

Eros

ion

Con

trol P

lan.

SC

E sh

all d

evel

op a

n er

osio

n co

ntro

l pla

n in

corp

orat

ing

cons

truct

ion-

phas

e m

easu

res

to li

mit

and

cont

rol e

rosi

on

and

silta

tion.

The

ero

sion

con

trol p

lan

shal

l inc

lude

co

mpo

nent

s su

ch a

s ph

asin

g of

gra

ding

, lim

iting

are

as o

f di

stur

banc

e, d

iver

sion

of r

unof

f aw

ay fr

om d

istu

rbed

are

as,

prot

ectiv

e m

easu

res

for s

ensi

tive

area

s, o

utle

t pro

tect

ion,

an

d pr

ovis

ion

for r

eveg

etat

ion

or m

ulch

ing.

The

pla

n sh

all

also

pre

scrib

e tre

atm

ent m

easu

res

to tr

ap s

edim

ent o

nce

it ha

s be

en m

obiliz

ed, a

t a s

cale

and

den

sity

app

ropr

iate

to

the

size

and

slo

pe o

f the

cat

chm

ent.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

plan

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

. P

rior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

.

APM

HYD

RO

-2C

. Env

ironm

enta

l Tra

inin

g P

rogr

am. A

n en

viro

nmen

tal t

rain

ing

prog

ram

wou

ld b

e es

tabl

ishe

d to

co

mm

unic

ate

envi

ronm

enta

l con

cern

s an

d ap

prop

riate

w

ork

prac

tices

, inc

ludi

ng s

pill

prev

entio

n an

d re

spon

se

mea

sure

s, to

all

field

per

sonn

el in

volv

ed in

the

cons

truct

ion

of th

e P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

ele

men

ts. A

m

onito

ring

prog

ram

wou

ld b

e im

plem

ente

d to

ens

ure

that

th

e pl

ans

are

follo

wed

thro

ugho

ut th

e pe

riod

of

cons

truct

ion.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

atte

nd tr

aini

ng p

rogr

am a

nd to

m

onito

r com

plia

nce

with

pr

ogra

m p

erio

dica

lly d

urin

g co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Prio

r to

and

durin

g al

l ph

ases

of c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

.

APM

HYD

RO

-3. A

cces

s R

oad

Loca

tion.

Prio

r to

final

en

gine

erin

g of

the

prop

osed

acc

ess

road

, SC

E w

ould

co

nsul

t with

Riv

ersi

de C

ount

y, C

DFG

, and

the

RW

QC

B

rega

rdin

g th

e lo

catio

n of

the

acce

ss ro

ad.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

con

sulta

tion

with

Riv

ersi

de

Cou

nty,

the

RW

QC

B a

nd th

e C

DFG

to C

PU

C fo

r rev

iew

.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

HYD

RO

-4. H

azar

dous

Sub

stan

ce C

ontro

l and

E

mer

genc

y R

espo

nse

Pla

n. S

CE

wou

ld p

repa

re a

H

azar

dous

Sub

stan

ce C

ontro

l and

Em

erge

ncy

Res

pons

e P

lan,

whi

ch w

ould

incl

ude

prep

arat

ions

for q

uick

and

saf

e cl

eanu

p of

acc

iden

tal s

pills

. Thi

s pl

an w

ould

be

subm

itted

to

age

ncie

s w

ith th

e gr

adin

g pe

rmit

appl

icat

ion.

It w

ould

pr

escr

ibe

haza

rdou

s m

ater

ials

han

dlin

g pr

oced

ures

for

redu

cing

the

pote

ntia

l for

a s

pill

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n, a

nd

wou

ld in

clud

e an

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

pro

gram

to e

nsur

e qu

ick

and

safe

cle

anup

of a

ccid

enta

l spi

lls. T

he p

lan

wou

ld id

entif

y ar

eas

whe

re re

fuel

ing

and

vehi

cle

mai

nten

ance

act

iviti

es a

nd s

tora

ge o

f haz

ardo

us

mat

eria

ls, i

f any

, wou

ld b

e pe

rmitt

ed. O

il-ab

sorb

ent

mat

eria

ls, t

arps

, and

sto

rage

dru

ms

wou

ld b

e us

ed to

co

ntai

n an

d co

ntro

l any

min

or re

leas

es o

f min

eral

oil.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

Haz

ardo

us

Sub

stan

ce a

nd E

mer

genc

y R

espo

nse

Pla

n to

CP

UC

for

revi

ew.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-32

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Impa

ct 4

.8-4

: Pro

pose

d Pr

ojec

t co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es c

ould

im

pact

loca

l dra

inag

e pa

ttern

s, o

r th

e co

urse

of a

giv

en s

tream

, re

sulti

ng in

sub

stan

tial o

n- o

r off-

site

ero

sion

or s

edim

enta

tion.

Le

ss th

an s

igni

fican

t with

m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.8-4

a: In

add

ition

to m

easu

res

requ

ired

by A

PM H

YDR

O-1

, SC

E sh

all e

nsur

e th

at th

e co

nstru

ctio

n fo

rem

an c

heck

s da

ily w

eath

er fo

reca

sts

whe

n co

nstru

ctio

n is

occ

urrin

g w

ithin

the

Whi

tew

ater

Riv

er W

ash.

An

y pr

ecip

itatio

n fo

reca

st s

hall

requ

ire th

e co

nstru

ctio

n co

ntra

ctor

to e

nsur

e er

osio

n co

ntro

l BM

Ps id

entif

ied

in th

e SW

PPP

are

prop

erly

inst

alle

d an

d sh

all e

nsur

e th

at th

e co

nstru

ctio

n si

te is

cle

ar o

f equ

ipm

ent a

nd d

ebris

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

with

in th

e W

hite

wat

er R

iver

Was

h.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.8-4

b: R

egar

ding

the

engi

neer

ed

eros

ion

cont

rol a

nd d

rain

age

plan

dev

elop

ed a

s pa

rt of

the

site

gra

ding

pla

n (A

PM H

YDR

O-2

A), S

CE

shal

l con

duct

a

topo

grap

hic

and

grad

ient

sur

vey

of th

e W

hite

wat

er R

iver

W

ash

both

ups

tream

and

dow

nstre

am o

f the

pro

pose

d po

le(s

) rep

lace

men

t loc

atio

n w

ithin

the

was

h. P

ost

cons

truct

ion

topo

grap

hy a

nd g

radi

ent o

f the

Whi

tew

ater

R

iver

Was

h sh

all b

e co

ntou

red

SCE

shal

l res

tore

all

area

s on

the

Whi

tew

ater

Was

h di

stur

bed

durin

g co

nstru

ctio

n of

th

e Pr

opos

ed P

roje

ct to

mat

ch th

e ex

istin

g co

nditi

ons,

to

ensu

re th

at th

e dr

aina

ge p

atte

rn is

not

alte

red

in a

man

ner

that

wou

ld c

ause

on-

or o

ff-si

te e

rosi

on o

r sed

imen

tatio

n.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

resu

lts o

f to

pogr

aphi

c an

d gr

adie

nt s

urve

y to

CP

UC

for r

evie

w. C

PU

C

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

insp

ect

com

plia

nce.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Sur

vey

resu

lts to

be

subm

itted

prio

r to

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

w

ithin

the

Whi

tew

ater

R

iver

Was

h. F

ollo

win

g co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

with

in th

e W

hite

wat

er

Riv

er W

ash.

Insp

ectio

n to

be

per

form

ed fo

llow

ing

com

plet

ion

of g

radi

ng

activ

ities

with

in th

e w

ash.

Land

Use

, Plan

ning,

and P

olicie

s

Impa

ct 4

.9-2

: The

Pro

pose

d Pr

ojec

t cou

ld c

onfli

ct w

ith

appl

icab

le la

nd u

se p

lans

, po

licie

s, o

r reg

ulat

ions

of a

n ag

ency

with

juris

dict

ion

over

the

Prop

osed

Pro

ject

ado

pted

for t

he

purp

ose

of a

void

ing

or m

itiga

ting

an e

nviro

nmen

tal e

ffect

. Les

s th

an s

igni

fican

t (C

lass

III)

APM

LU

-1. A

eron

autic

al C

onsi

dera

tions

. As

indi

cate

d in

th

e S

tudy

of A

eron

autic

al C

onsi

dera

tions

(200

7), S

CE

w

ould

sub

mit

notic

e to

the

FAA

ele

ctro

nica

lly, i

n ac

cord

ance

with

FA

A p

roce

dure

s an

d as

far i

n ad

vanc

e of

con

stru

ctio

n as

pos

sibl

e.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

pro

vide

doc

umen

tatio

n to

CP

UC

dem

onst

ratin

g th

at th

e FA

A h

as b

een

notif

ied

of p

roje

ct

cons

truct

ion.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.9-3

: The

Pro

pose

d P

roje

ct c

ould

con

flict

with

pr

ovis

ions

set

forth

in th

e C

oach

ella

Val

ley

Mul

tiple

S

peci

es C

onse

rvat

ion

Pla

n.

Less

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Impl

emen

t Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1, 4

.4-2

, 4.4

-3, 4

.4-5

, 4.

4-6,

4.4

-8, a

nd 4

.4-1

0 (s

ee S

ectio

n 4.

4, B

iolo

gica

l R

esou

rces

).

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1, 4

.4-2

, 4.4

-3, 4

.4-5

, 4.4

-6,

4.4-

8, a

nd 4

.4-1

0.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1,

4.4-

2, 4

.4-3

, 4.4

-5, 4

.4-6

, 4.4

-8,

and

4.4-

10.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.4-

1, 4

.4-2

, 4.4

-3, 4

.4-5

, 4.

4-6,

4.4

-8, a

nd 4

.4-1

0.

Mine

ral R

esou

rces

No

AP

Ms

or m

itiga

tion

requ

ired.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-33

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Noise

Impa

ct 4

.11-

2: T

rans

form

er

nois

e at

Mira

ge S

ubst

atio

n w

ould

incr

ease

noi

se le

vels

in

the

vici

nity

, pot

entia

lly

conf

lictin

g w

ith a

pplic

able

noi

se

stan

dard

s. L

ess

than

Sig

nific

ant

with

Miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.11-

2: M

irage

Sub

stat

ion.

SC

E

shal

l ens

ure

that

noi

se le

vels

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

Mira

ge

Sub

stat

ion

do n

ot e

xcee

d th

e R

iver

side

Cou

nty

nois

e st

anda

rds

for s

tatio

nary

sou

rces

. Noi

se c

ontro

l te

chni

ques

may

incl

ude,

but

not

be

limite

d to

: loc

atin

g th

e ne

w tr

ansf

orm

er w

ith a

s m

uch

setb

ack

from

the

exis

ting

resi

dent

ial p

rope

rties

as

poss

ible

, use

of n

oise

wal

ls o

r eq

uiva

lent

sou

nd a

ttenu

atio

n de

vice

s, a

nd th

e us

e of

a

trans

form

er w

ith s

peci

al n

oise

con

trol s

peci

ficat

ions

de

sign

ed in

a w

ay to

spe

cific

ally

ach

ieve

acc

epta

ble

regu

lato

ry n

oise

sta

ndar

ds.

Prio

r to

the

inst

alla

tion

of th

e ne

w tr

ansf

orm

er, S

CE

sha

ll su

bmit

to th

e C

PU

C a

nd th

e C

ount

y of

Riv

ersi

de fo

r re

view

and

app

rova

l a p

lan

that

des

crib

es th

e sp

ecifi

c m

easu

res

that

will

be

take

n in

ord

er to

com

ply

with

the

Cou

nty’

s st

atio

nary

noi

se s

tand

ards

. Onc

e th

e pr

opos

ed

trans

form

er is

ope

ratio

nal,

SC

E s

hall

reta

in a

n ac

oust

ical

en

gine

er to

per

form

noi

se m

easu

rem

ents

in th

e vi

cini

ty o

f th

e re

side

nces

wes

t of M

irage

Sub

stat

ion

to v

erify

that

tra

nsfo

rmer

noi

se le

vels

com

ply

with

the

Cou

nty

stan

dard

s. D

ocum

enta

tion

of c

ompl

ianc

e sh

all b

e su

bmitt

ed to

the

CP

UC

and

Riv

ersi

de C

ount

y. In

the

even

t the

tran

sfor

mer

noi

se le

vels

vio

late

the

stan

dard

s,

addi

tiona

l noi

se c

ontro

l tec

hniq

ues

shal

l be

initi

ated

to

corr

ect t

he v

iola

tion.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

plan

for

com

plia

nce

to R

iver

side

Cou

nty

and

CP

UC

for r

evie

w a

nd

appr

oval

. S

CE

to re

tain

an

acou

stic

al

engi

neer

, and

sub

mit

docu

men

tatio

n of

com

plia

nce

to

the

CP

UC

and

Riv

ersi

de

Cou

nty.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Onc

e th

e tra

nsfo

rmer

is

oper

atio

nal.

Impa

ct 4

.11-

3: C

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

cou

ld e

xpos

e pe

ople

an

d/or

stru

ctur

es to

sub

stan

tial

vibr

atio

n le

vels

. Les

s th

an

sign

ifica

nt (C

lass

III)

APM

NO

ISE-

1. N

oise

Ord

inan

ces.

SC

E w

ould

com

ply

with

all

appl

icab

le n

oise

ord

inan

ce c

onst

ruct

ion

sche

dule

s. In

the

even

t the

con

stru

ctio

n m

ust o

ccur

ou

tsid

e th

e al

low

able

wor

k ho

urs,

a v

aria

nce

wou

ld b

e ob

tain

ed.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

SC

E to

pro

vide

CP

UC

with

ev

iden

ce th

at v

aria

nce

has

been

obt

aine

d if

nece

ssar

y.

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion.

P

rior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of

nigh

ttim

e co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.11-

5: T

rans

form

er

nois

e at

Mira

ge S

ubst

atio

n co

uld

perm

anen

tly in

crea

se

ambi

ent n

oise

leve

ls in

the

vici

nity

of t

he s

ubst

atio

n. L

ess

than

Sig

nific

ant w

ith M

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

Impl

emen

t Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.11-

2.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.11-

2.

See

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.11-

2.S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.

11-2

.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-34

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Impa

ct 4

.11-

6: A

dver

se n

oise

le

vels

wou

ld b

e ge

nera

ted

durin

g pr

ojec

t con

stru

ctio

n.

Less

than

Sig

nific

ant w

ith

Miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

APM

NO

ISE-

2. N

oise

Con

trol E

quip

men

t Mai

nten

ance

. M

aint

ain

all n

oise

-con

trol e

quip

men

t in

good

wor

king

or

der,

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith m

anuf

actu

rers

’ spe

cific

atio

ns.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

NO

ISE-

3. H

andl

ing

of N

oise

Com

plai

nts.

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion,

inve

stig

ate,

doc

umen

t, ev

alua

te, a

nd

atte

mpt

to re

solv

e le

gitim

ate

proj

ect-r

elat

ed n

oise

co

mpl

aint

s. T

his

wou

ld in

volv

e at

tem

ptin

g to

con

tact

the

sour

ce (p

erso

n or

per

sons

) of t

he n

oise

com

plai

nt w

ithin

24

hou

rs; i

nves

tigat

ing

to d

eter

min

e th

e pr

ojec

t noi

se

sour

ce(s

) tha

t led

to th

e co

mpl

aint

; and

taki

ng a

ll fe

asib

le

mea

sure

s to

redu

ce th

e no

ise

at th

e so

urce

, if t

he

com

plai

nt is

legi

timat

e.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

pro

vide

CP

UC

with

a

sum

mar

y of

all

nois

e co

mpl

aint

s no

late

r tha

n 48

hou

rs a

fter

each

com

plai

nt is

mad

e. T

he

sum

mar

y sh

all a

lso

indi

cate

ho

w th

e co

mpl

aint

was

han

dled

.

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.11-

6a: T

o st

reng

then

the

inte

nt o

f A

PM

NO

ISE

-2 a

nd A

PM

NO

ISE

-3, t

he fo

llow

ing

nois

e re

duct

ion

and

supp

ress

ion

tech

niqu

es s

hall

be e

mpl

oyed

du

ring

proj

ect c

onst

ruct

ion

to m

inim

ize

the

impa

ct o

f te

mpo

rary

con

stru

ctio

n-re

late

d no

ise

on n

earb

y se

nsiti

ve

rece

ptor

s:

• C

ompl

y w

ith m

anuf

actu

rers

’ muf

fler r

equi

rem

ents

. •

Not

ify re

side

nces

in a

dvan

ce o

f the

con

stru

ctio

n sc

hedu

le a

nd h

ow m

any

days

they

may

be

affe

cted

. P

rovi

de a

pho

ne n

umbe

r for

a c

onst

ruct

ion

supe

rvis

or

who

wou

ld h

andl

e co

nstru

ctio

n no

ise

ques

tions

and

co

mpl

aint

s.

• M

inim

ize

idlin

g of

eng

ines

; tur

n of

f eng

ines

whe

n no

t in

use,

whe

re a

pplic

able

. •

Shi

eld

com

pres

sors

and

oth

er s

mal

l sta

tiona

ry

equi

pmen

t with

por

tabl

e ba

rrie

rs w

hen

with

in 1

00 fe

et

of re

side

nces

. •

Rou

te tr

uck

traffi

c aw

ay fr

om n

oise

-sen

sitiv

e ar

eas

whe

re fe

asib

le.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

SC

E to

pro

vide

CP

UC

with

ev

iden

ce th

at re

side

nces

hav

e be

en n

otifi

ed.

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion.

P

rior t

o co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es a

t any

one

lo

catio

n.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.11-

6b: I

n th

e ev

ent t

hat n

ight

time

(i.e.

, bet

wee

n 7:

00 p

.m. a

nd 7

:00

a.m

.) co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tivity

is d

eter

min

ed to

be

nece

ssar

y; a

nig

httim

e no

ise

redu

ctio

n pl

an s

hall

be d

evel

oped

by

SC

E a

nd s

ubm

itted

to

the

CP

UC

for r

evie

w a

nd a

ppro

val.

The

nois

e re

duct

ion

plan

sha

ll in

clud

e a

set o

f site

-spe

cific

noi

se

atte

nuat

ion

mea

sure

s th

at a

pply

sta

te o

f the

art

nois

e re

duct

ion

tech

nolo

gy to

ens

ure

that

nig

httim

e co

nstru

ctio

n no

ise

leve

ls a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d nu

isan

ce a

re

redu

ced

to th

e m

ost e

xten

t fea

sibl

e.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

SC

E to

sub

mit

nigh

ttim

e no

ise

redu

ctio

n pl

an to

CP

UC

for

revi

ew a

nd a

ppro

val.

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion.

P

rior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of

nigh

ttim

e co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-35

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

The

atte

nuat

ion

mea

sure

s m

ay in

clud

e, b

ut n

ot b

e lim

ited

to, t

he c

ontro

l stra

tegi

es a

nd m

etho

ds fo

r im

plem

enta

tion

that

are

list

ed b

elow

. If a

ny o

f the

follo

win

g st

rate

gies

are

de

term

ined

by

SC

E to

not

be

feas

ible

, an

expl

anat

ion

as

to w

hy th

e sp

ecifi

c st

rate

gy is

not

feas

ible

sha

ll be

in

clud

ed in

the

nigh

ttim

e no

ise

redu

ctio

n pl

an.

• P

lan

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

to m

inim

ize

the

amou

nt o

f ni

ghtti

me

cons

truct

ion.

•

Offe

r tem

pora

ry re

loca

tion

of re

side

nts

with

in 2

00 fe

et

of n

ight

time

cons

truct

ion

area

s.

• Te

mpo

rary

noi

se b

arrie

rs, s

uch

as s

hiel

ds a

nd

blan

kets

, sha

ll be

inst

alle

d im

med

iate

ly a

djac

ent t

o al

l ni

ghtti

me

stat

iona

ry n

oise

sou

rces

(e.g

., dr

illin

g rig

s,

gene

rato

rs, p

umps

, etc

.).

• In

stal

l tem

pora

ry n

oise

wal

ls th

at b

lock

the

line

of s

ight

be

twee

n ni

ghtti

me

activ

ities

and

the

clos

est

resi

denc

es.

Popu

latio

n an

d Ho

usin

g

No

AP

Ms

or m

itiga

tion

requ

ired.

Publ

ic Se

rvice

s

Impa

ct 4

.13-

1: P

roje

ct

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

cou

ld

tem

pora

rily

incr

ease

the

dem

and

for f

ire p

rote

ctio

n an

d em

erge

ncy

med

ical

ser

vice

s.

Less

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.13-

1: S

CE

sha

ll pr

epar

e an

d im

plem

ent a

Hea

lth a

nd S

afet

y P

lan

to e

nsur

e th

e he

alth

an

d sa

fety

of c

onst

ruct

ion

wor

kers

and

the

publ

ic d

urin

g co

nstru

ctio

n. T

he p

lan

shal

l lis

t pro

cedu

res

and

spec

ific

emer

genc

y re

spon

se a

nd e

vacu

atio

n m

easu

res

that

w

ould

be

requ

ired

to b

e fo

llow

ed d

urin

g em

erge

ncy

situ

atio

ns. T

he p

lan

shal

l be

subm

itted

to th

e C

PU

C fo

r ap

prov

al p

rior t

o co

mm

ence

men

t of c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

an

d sh

all b

e di

strib

uted

to a

ll co

nstru

ctio

n cr

ew m

embe

rs

prio

r to

cons

truct

ion

and

oper

atio

n of

the

proj

ect.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

Pla

n to

CP

UC

fo

r rev

iew

and

app

rova

l. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce

at le

ast

once

per

wee

k.

SC

E to

sub

mit

plan

prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e du

ring

all p

hase

s of

con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Impa

ct 4

.13-

2: P

roje

ct

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

in

prox

imity

to p

ublic

road

way

s co

uld

pote

ntia

lly a

ffect

veh

icle

ac

cess

and

fire

dep

artm

ent

resp

onse

tim

es. L

ess

than

si

gnifi

cant

with

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.13-

2: S

CE

sha

ll co

ordi

nate

with

th

e em

erge

ncy

serv

ice

prov

ider

s of

the

appl

icab

le c

ities

an

d R

iver

side

Cou

nty

prio

r to

cons

truct

ion

to e

nsur

e th

at

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

and

ass

ocia

ted

lane

clo

sure

s w

ould

not

sig

nific

antly

affe

ct e

mer

genc

y re

spon

se

vehi

cles

. SC

E s

hall

subm

it ve

rific

atio

n of

its

cons

ulta

tion

with

em

erge

ncy

serv

ice

prov

ider

s to

the

CP

UC

prio

r to

the

com

men

cem

ent o

f con

stru

ctio

n.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

verif

icat

ion

of it

s co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith e

mer

genc

y se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

to th

e C

PU

C.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-36

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

Recr

eatio

n

Impa

ct 4

.14-

1: C

onst

ruct

ion

of

the

prop

osed

Mira

ge-S

anta

R

osa

115

kV S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on

line

wou

ld te

mpo

raril

y di

srup

t op

erat

ions

of t

he T

ri-P

alm

Gol

f C

ours

e. L

ess

than

sig

nific

ant

(Cla

ss II

I)

APM

REC

-1. R

ecre

atio

n Ar

ea C

losu

res.

Whe

n te

mpo

rary

sh

ort-t

erm

clo

sure

s to

recr

eatio

nal a

reas

are

nec

essa

ry fo

r co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es, S

CE

wou

ld c

oord

inat

e th

ose

clos

ures

with

recr

eatio

nal f

acilit

y ow

ners

. To

the

exte

nt

prac

ticab

le, S

CE

wou

ld s

ched

ule

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

to

avoi

d he

avy

recr

eatio

nal u

se p

erio

ds (e

.g.,

holid

ays

or

tour

nam

ents

). SC

E w

ould

pos

t not

ice

of th

e cl

osur

e on

site

14

cal

enda

r day

s pr

ior t

o th

e cl

osur

e.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

verif

icat

ion

of it

s co

nsul

tatio

n w

ith n

earb

y re

crea

tiona

l fac

ilitie

s to

the

CP

UC

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d Tr

affic

Impa

ct 4

.15-

1: C

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

cou

ld a

dver

sely

affe

ct

traffi

c an

d tra

nspo

rtatio

n co

nditi

ons

in th

e pr

ojec

t are

a.

Less

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

APM

TR

A-1.

Obt

ain

Per

mits

. If a

ny w

ork

requ

ires

mod

ifica

tions

or a

ctiv

ities

with

in lo

cal r

oadw

ay R

OW

s,

appr

opria

te p

erm

its w

ill b

e ob

tain

ed p

rior t

o th

e co

mm

ence

men

t of c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

, inc

ludi

ng a

ny

nece

ssar

y lo

cal p

erm

its a

nd e

ncro

achm

ent p

erm

its.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

copi

es o

f en

croa

chm

ent p

erm

its to

C

PU

C.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

TR

A-2.

Tra

ffic

Man

agem

ent a

nd C

ontro

l Pla

ns.

Traf

fic c

ontro

l and

oth

er m

anag

emen

t pla

ns w

ill b

e pr

epar

ed w

here

nec

essa

ry to

min

imiz

e pr

ojec

t im

pact

s on

lo

cal s

treet

s.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

Traf

fic

Man

agem

ent P

lan

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

and

app

rova

l. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e du

ring

all p

hase

s of

con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

APM

TR

A-3.

Min

imiz

e S

treet

Use

. Con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es

will

be

desi

gned

to m

inim

ize

wor

k on

or u

se o

f loc

al

stre

ets.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Dur

ing

all p

hase

s of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.15-

1:SC

E’s

Traf

fic M

anag

emen

t an

d C

ontro

l Pla

n, a

s re

quire

d by

APM

TR

A-2,

sha

ll in

clud

e,

at a

min

imum

, the

mea

sure

s lis

ted

belo

w. T

he P

lan

shal

l be

subm

itted

to th

e C

PUC

for a

ppro

val a

nd s

hall

be d

istri

bute

d to

all

cons

truct

ion

crew

mem

bers

prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent

of c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

. The

Pla

n sh

all:

•

Incl

ude

a di

scus

sion

of w

ork

hour

s, h

aul r

oute

s, w

ork

area

del

inea

tion,

traf

fic c

ontro

l and

flag

ging

; •

Iden

tify

all a

cces

s an

d pa

rkin

g re

stric

tion

and

sign

age

requ

irem

ents

; •

Req

uire

wor

kers

to p

ark

pers

onal

veh

icle

s at

the

appr

oved

sta

ging

are

a an

d ta

ke o

nly

nece

ssar

y pr

ojec

t ve

hicl

es to

the

wor

k si

tes;

•

Lay

out p

lans

for n

otifi

catio

ns a

nd a

pro

cess

for

com

mun

icat

ion

with

affe

cted

resi

dent

s an

d la

ndow

ners

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

Traf

fic

Man

agem

ent P

lan

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

and

app

rova

l. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e du

ring

all p

hase

s of

con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-37

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

prio

r to

the

star

t of c

onst

ruct

ion.

Adv

ance

pub

lic

notif

icat

ion

shal

l inc

lude

pos

ting

of n

otic

es a

nd

appr

opria

te s

igna

ge o

f con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es. T

he

writ

ten

notif

icat

ion

shal

l inc

lude

the

cons

truct

ion

sche

dule

, the

exa

ct lo

catio

n an

d du

ratio

n of

act

iviti

es

with

in e

ach

stre

et (i

.e.,

whi

ch ro

ad/la

nes

and

acce

ss

poin

t/driv

eway

s/pa

rkin

g ar

eas

wou

ld b

e bl

ocke

d on

w

hich

day

s an

d fo

r how

long

), an

d a

toll-

free

tele

phon

e nu

mbe

r for

rece

ivin

g qu

estio

ns o

r com

plai

nts;

•

Incl

ude

plan

s to

coo

rdin

ate

all c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

w

ith e

mer

genc

y se

rvic

e pr

ovid

ers

in th

e ar

ea,

cons

iste

nt w

ith M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.1

3-2

(see

Sec

tion

4.13

, Pub

lic S

ervi

ces)

. Em

erge

ncy

serv

ice

prov

ider

s w

ould

be

notif

ied

of th

e tim

ing,

loca

tion,

and

dur

atio

n of

co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es. A

ll ro

ads

wou

ld re

mai

n pa

ssab

le

to e

mer

genc

y se

rvic

e ve

hicl

es a

t all

times

; and

•

Iden

tify

all r

oadw

ay lo

catio

ns w

here

spe

cial

co

nstru

ctio

n te

chni

ques

(e.g

., ni

ght c

onst

ruct

ion)

wou

ld

be u

sed

to m

inim

ize

impa

cts

to tr

affic

flow

.

Impa

ct 4

.15-

2: P

roje

ct

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

cou

ld

incr

ease

pot

entia

l tra

ffic

safe

ty

haza

rds

for v

ehic

les,

bic

yclis

ts,

and

pede

stria

ns o

n pu

blic

ro

adw

ays.

Les

s th

an s

igni

fican

t w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

Impl

emen

t Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.15-

1.S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.1

-15

. S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.1

-15.

S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.

1-15

.

Impa

ct 4

.15-

3: C

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

cou

ld re

sult

in d

elay

s fo

r em

erge

ncy

vehi

cles

on

proj

ect a

rea

road

way

s. L

ess

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith m

itiga

tion

(Cla

ss II

)

Impl

emen

t Miti

gatio

n M

easu

res

4.15

-1 a

nd 4

.13-

2.S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s 4.

1-15

and

4.1

3-2.

S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s 4.

1-15

an

d 4.

13-2

. S

ee M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s 4.

1-15

and

4.1

3-2.

Impa

ct 4

.15-

ALT2

-1:*

A

ltern

ativ

e 2

unde

rgro

und

line

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

cou

ld

adve

rsel

y af

fect

traf

fic

cond

ition

s in

the

stud

y ar

ea a

nd

coul

d re

sult

in d

elay

s fo

r em

erge

ncy

vehi

cles

on

road

way

s w

ithin

the

stud

y ar

ea.

Less

than

sig

nific

ant w

ith

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.15-

ALT2

-1:*

In a

dditi

on to

the

requ

irem

ents

incl

uded

in M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

4.1

5-1,

the

Traf

fic M

anag

emen

t and

Con

trol P

lan

shal

l: •

Incl

ude

a re

quire

men

t tha

t all

open

tren

ches

be

cove

red

with

met

al p

late

s at

the

end

of e

ach

wor

kday

to

acc

omm

odat

e tra

ffic

and

acce

ss; a

nd

• In

clud

e a

circ

ulat

ion

and

deto

ur p

lan

to m

inim

ize

impa

cts

to lo

cal s

treet

circ

ulat

ion

whe

n la

ne a

nd/o

r ro

ad c

losu

res

are

requ

ired

due

to tr

ench

ing

activ

ities

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

Traf

fic

Man

agem

ent P

lan

to C

PU

C fo

r re

view

and

app

rova

l. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o m

onito

r com

plia

nce.

Prio

r to

com

men

cem

ent o

f co

nstru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e du

ring

all p

hase

s of

con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es th

at in

volv

e op

en

trenc

hing

.

E. M

itiga

tion

Mon

itorin

g, R

epor

ting

and

Com

plia

nce

Pro

gram

TAB

LE 8

-1 (C

ontin

ued)

M

ITIG

ATI

ON

MO

NIT

OR

ING

, REP

OR

TIN

G A

ND

CO

MPL

IAN

CE

PRO

GR

AM

FO

R T

HE

DEV

ERS-

MIR

AG

E 11

5 K

V SU

BTR

AN

SMIS

SIO

N S

YSTE

M S

PLIT

PR

OJE

CT

Dev

ers-

Mira

ge 1

15 k

V S

ubtra

nsm

issi

on S

yste

m S

plit

Pro

ject

E

-38

ES

A /

2070

59

(A.0

8-01

-029

) Fin

al E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct R

epor

t

Apr

il 20

10

Envi

ronm

enta

l Im

pact

M

itiga

tion

Mea

sure

s

Prop

osed

in th

is E

IR

Impl

emen

ting

Actio

ns

Mon

itorin

g/R

epor

ting

Req

uire

men

ts

Tim

ing

* Im

pact

4.1

5-A

LT2-

1 w

ould

be

appl

icab

le to

the

appr

oval

of

Alte

rnat

ives

2, 3

, 5, o

r 6.

* Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.15-

ALT

2-1

wou

ld b

e ap

plic

able

to

the

appr

oval

of A

ltern

ativ

es 2

, 3, 5

, or 6

.

Impa

ct 4

.15-

ALT2

-2:*

Tr

ench

ing

activ

ities

ass

ocia

ted

with

con

stru

ctio

n of

the

unde

rgro

und

porti

on o

f A

ltern

ativ

e 2

coul

d re

sult

in

road

way

dam

age

alon

g V

ista

C

hino

and

Sun

rise

Way

. Les

s th

an s

igni

fican

t with

miti

gatio

n (C

lass

II)

* Im

pact

4.1

5-A

LT2-

2 w

ould

be

appl

icab

le to

the

appr

oval

of

Alte

rnat

ives

2, 3

, 5, o

r 6.

Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.15-

ALT2

-2:*

In o

rder

to re

duce

po

tent

ial r

oadw

ay d

amag

e im

pact

s fro

m tr

ench

ing

activ

ities

with

in p

ublic

road

way

s, S

CE

and

/or i

ts

cont

ract

ors

shal

l rep

air a

ny d

amag

ed ro

adw

ay to

its

orig

inal

con

ditio

n im

med

iate

ly a

fter c

onst

ruct

ion

has

com

plet

ed. P

hoto

doc

umen

tatio

n sh

owin

g ro

adw

ays

prio

r to

and

follo

win

g co

nstru

ctio

n sh

all b

e su

bmitt

ed to

the

CP

UC

and

app

licab

le S

tate

and

/or l

ocal

age

ncie

s w

ith

juris

dict

ion

of th

e ro

adw

ays

to d

emon

stra

te c

ompl

ianc

e w

ith th

is m

easu

re.

* Miti

gatio

n M

easu

re 4

.15-

ALT

2-2

wou

ld b

e ap

plic

able

to

the

appr

oval

of A

ltern

ativ

es 2

, 3, 5

, or 6

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

SC

E to

sub

mit

phot

o do

cum

enta

tion

show

ing

road

way

s pr

ior t

o an

d fo

llow

ing

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

. C

PU

C m

itiga

tion

mon

itor t

o in

spec

t com

plia

nce

in th

e fie

ld.

Imm

edia

tely

follo

win

g co

mpl

etio

n of

road

way

re

stor

atio

n.

Mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e on

ce

trenc

hing

is c

ompl

ete

and

all r

oadw

ays

have

bee

n re

stor

ed.

Util

ities

and

Ser

vice

Sys

tem

s

Impa

ct 4

.16-

1: U

nder

grou

nd

utili

ty li

nes

and/

or fa

cilit

ies

coul

d be

dis

turb

ed d

urin

g P

ropo

sed

Pro

ject

con

stru

ctio

n ac

tiviti

es.

Less

than

sig

nific

ant (

Cla

ss II

I)

APM

PU

SVC

-01.

Wor

k A

roun

d H

igh

Pre

ssur

e G

as L

ines

. N

o m

echa

nica

l equ

ipm

ent w

ill b

e pe

rmitt

ed to

ope

rate

w

ithin

3 fe

et o

f the

Sou

ther

n C

alifo

rnia

Gas

Com

pany

hi

gh-p

ress

ure

pipe

lines

, and

any

clo

ser w

ork

mus

t be

done

by

hand

.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

nea

r the

hig

h-pr

essu

re p

ipel

ines

.

APM

PU

SVC

-02.

Mon

itorin

g by

the

Sou

ther

n C

alifo

rnia

G

as C

ompa

ny. A

repr

esen

tativ

e of

the

Sou

ther

n C

alifo

rnia

Gas

Com

pany

mus

t obs

erve

the

exca

vatio

n ar

ound

or n

ear t

heir

faci

litie

s to

insu

re p

rote

ctio

n an

d to

re

cord

per

tinen

t dat

a ne

cess

ary

for t

heir

oper

atio

ns.

SC

E a

nd it

s co

ntra

ctor

s to

im

plem

ent m

easu

re a

s de

fined

.

CP

UC

miti

gatio

n m

onito

r to

mon

itor c

ompl

ianc

e.

Dur

ing

cons

truct

ion

activ

ities

nea

r the

hig

h-pr

essu

re p

ipel

ines

.

Devers-Mirage 115 kV Subtransmission System Split Project F-1 ESA / 207059 (A.08-01-029) Final Environmental Impact Report April 2010

APPENDIX F Certificate of Service

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

F-2

F-3