Docstoc

Applicant

Document Sample
Applicant Powered By Docstoc
					Applicant

1

6-190

Applicant

1

A1-1

A1-1

The applicable sections of the EIS/EIR have been revised to incorporate the analysis of the Arrowhead Alternative into the proposed Project.

6-191
A1-2a A1-2b A1-2c A1-2d A1-2c A1-2d A1-3 A1-3 A1-2a A1-2b See the responses to comments A1-19 and A1-20. The Executive Summary has been revised to incorporate the suggested deletion. The Executive Summary has been revised to incorporate the suggested addition. See the responses to comments A1-19 and A1-20. Section 1.4.1 has been revised to reflect that the environmental review for the IID’s Unit 3 Repower has been completed by the CEC, and that the CEC determined that the project would cause no unmitigated significant environmental impacts or adverse impact on energy resources. Table 1.6-1 has been revised to remove references to Storm Water Construction Permits. A1-4 A1-4

Applicant
A1-5 A1-6 A1-7 A1-6 A1-5

1

Section 2.3.1 has been revised to reflect the results of North Baja’s recent consultation with the BLM in which the BLM stated that it had no concerns regarding compaction levels in native desert soils along the existing A-Line and potential compaction along the B-Line. Section 2.3.1 has been revised to state that North Baja would replant desert wash woodland species at specified locations along the right-of-way to provide a visual barrier to deter off-highway vehicle (OHV) traffic on the right-of-way. Section 2.3.2 has been revised to note that blasting was only necessary at MP 29.5 during construction of the A-Line. Table 3.2.1-1 has been revised to note that the emissions may be underestimated if natural gas were to be curtailed to power plants rather than industrial boilers. Based on confirmation from the BLM, Section 3.2.3.2 has been revised to note that the BLM has indicated that it plans to maintain the referenced vehicle closure to protect the Peirson’s milk-vetch for the foreseeable future.

A1-8

A1-7 A1-8

A1-9 A1-9

6-192
A1-10 A1-10 Section 4.2.3 has been revised to delete the discussion of the requirements of the CRWQCB. See also the response to comment SA2-1.

Applicant
A1-11 A1-11

1

Section 4.2.3 has been revised to reflect the results of North Baja’s recent consultation with the BLM in which the BLM stated that it had no concerns regarding compaction levels in native desert soils along the existing A-Line and potential compaction along the B-Line.

A1-12 A1-12 A1-13 A1-13 The recommendation in Section 4.3.3.3 requiring a revised Horizontal Directional Drill Plan (HDD Plan) has been revised to clarify that the revised HDD Plan shall be filed with the FERC and the CSLC for review and approval before commencement of any horizontal directional drill operation. The recommendation in Section 4.3.4 of the final EIS/EIR, which has been revised from the recommendation that was in Section 4.3.3.4 of the draft EIS/EIR, requires North Baja to file with the FERC and the CSLC for review and approval before construction a revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan that specifies the sources of water that would be used for dust control, the anticipated quantities of water that would be used, and the measures that would be implemented to prevent fish and fish egg entrainment during dust control water withdrawals. Because much of the Project crosses Federal land, it is appropriate for North Baja to first submit the plan to the BLM for approval as North Baja has stated. Section 4.12.4 of the final EIS/EIR includes a recommendation that North Baja file with the FERC and the CSLC for review and approval before construction a revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan that specifies additional details regarding dust control measures that would be implemented to protect air quality. It would be confusing to construction and inspection personnel to have more than one Project-wide Dust Control Plan for the Project. Therefore, recommendations in Section 4 associated with the revised Project-wide Dust Control Plan (combined into one recommendation in Section 5.6 of the final EIS/EIR) require that the revised plan be submitted before construction (i.e., before construction of any phase of the Project). See also the response to comment LA8-7. Section 4.5.5 has been revised to reflect the results of North Baja’s recent consultation with the BLM in which the BLM stated that the weed control measures contained in North Baja’s CM&R Plan are adequate.

6-193

A1-14

A1-14

Applicant
A1-14 (cont’d) A1-15 A1-15 A1-16 See the response to comment A1-14.

1

A1-16 A1-17

The recommendation in Section 4.6.2.3 has been revised to clarify that Preclearing Plans would be required to be filed before initiation of Phase IA and Phase II construction activities. Based on North Baja’s currently proposed construction schedule for these phases, it appears likely that some construction would occur in native desert habitats during the migratory bird breeding season. If that is not the case at the time of construction, North Baja may address whether Preclearing Plans are necessary in its Implementation Plan (see recommended mitigation measure number 7 in Section 5.6 of the final EIS/EIR). The recommendation in Section 4.7.3 that restricts the speed limit for stringing trucks to 10 miles per hour within the area of relatively high desert tortoise density between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 was re-evaluated. However, because North Baja has not committed to have biological monitors conduct “sweeps” of the construction right-of-way for desert tortoises immediately ahead of the arrival of stringing trucks in this stretch of high desert tortoise density, the FERC, the CSLC, and the BLM continue to believe that limiting the speed of stringing trucks to 10 miles per hour between MPs 48.0 and 68.0 would provide a greater level of protection for the desert tortoise. This is not an arbitrarily imposed measure. Rather it was the result of reports from the FERC/BLM/CSLC Compliance Monitors that were present during construction of the A-Line about the excessive speed of stringing trucks traveling along the right-of-way. The BO issued by the FWS for the A-Line included more stringent biological monitoring requirements for the desert tortoise than are included in the BO for the proposed Project. Given that there would be less biological monitoring of the right-of-way before the arrival of the stringing trucks, and the speed limit restriction has been identified well in advance of construction (i.e., in time to be factored into the schedule and incorporated into the construction bid documents), this measure has been retained in the final EIS/EIR. Follow-up consultation with the FWS has confirmed that eliminating the requirement to erect an abatement wall would not affect the FWS’ concurrence with the FERC’s determination of effect for the southwestern willow flycatcher. Accordingly, the recommendation in Section 4.7.4.1 requiring an abatement wall has been eliminated. As discussed in Section 4.7.1, a project’s impacts on a species would be considered significant if the project would result in the loss or alteration of designated critical habitat. Even with mitigation, temporary alteration of critical habitat falls under this criterion. Accordingly, the Project’s impacts on the desert tortoise and desert tortoise critical habitat would be considered significant according to the significance criteria established for this Project under the CEQA, regardless of the determination made for the original North Baja Pipeline Project.

A1-17

6-194
A1-18 A1-18 A1-19 A1-19

Applicant
A1-19 (cont’d)

1

A1-20

A1-20

A1-21

FWS guidance documents state that if any adverse effect on listed species may occur as a result of a proposed project, the appropriate finding for the species is “likely to adversely affect.” In the case of the Peirson’s milkvetch, the clearing of occupied habitat during construction of the Project would result in direct impacts on the species. Although the species may recolonize the area following construction due in part to conservation measures agreed to by North Baja, existing individuals would be removed. The EIS/EIR acknowledges that the species is likely to re-establish in the construction area, but re-establishment does not replace avoidance as a measure needed to avoid adverse impacts. Specifically, the EIS/EIR states “nonetheless, the proposed Project would result in direct impacts on the species, including crushing and cutting of individuals and populations. Thus, although construction in locations adjacent to populations of this species may increase habitat suitability or otherwise make the area suitable for proliferation of the species, the likelihood of overall positive benefits is uncertain. The clearing and grading of areas currently containing individuals and populations of this species would result in direct and adverse impacts on existing populations.” The EIS/EIR provides a clear discussion of how the proposed Project would adversely affect the species and exceed the significance criteria established for the Project under the CEQA. The Agency Staffs’ conclusion remains as stated in the draft EIS/EIR. In a letter dated November 1, 2006, the FWS agreed with this determination of effect. In the BO issued on April 20, 2007, the FWS concluded that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Peirson’s milk-vetch. Section 4.7.5.3 has been revised to include North Baja’s acceptance of the recommendation regarding surveys and monitoring for Gila woodpeckers including North Baja’s commitment to cease construction activities within 200 feet of active nest cavities if disturbance is noted until the young have fledged. Accordingly, the recommendation has been removed.

6-195
A1-21

Applicant

1

A1-22

A1-22

Section 4.7.6.13 has been revised to clarify that impacts associated with the Project are not expected to reduce the overall population size, but that loss of individuals would still result in a reduction in abundance in the area. Therefore, impacts on the flat-tailed horned lizard would still be considered significant according to the significance criteria established for the Project under the CEQA.

A1-23

A1-23

As North Baja states, it is reasonable to expect that agencies responsible for finalizing consultation would support existing consultation into the future unless substantive changes in listing status or Project details occur. The inclusion of “previous consultation” in the recommendation in Section 4.7.8 would ensure that North Baja considers consequences of a Project delay on all comments previously provided by an agency. It is not expected that such a requirement would necessarily allow or prompt consulting agencies to reconsider previous consultations. Accordingly, the recommendation has been retained in its entirety in the final EIS/EIR.

6-196

A1-24

A1-24

Section 4.8.3.2 has been revised to indicate that North Baja has reached an agreement with the developer of the proposed Edgewater Lane Planned Residential Community.

A1-24 (cont’d) A1-25

Applicant
A1-25 Section 4.8.5 has been revised to clarify that blocking measures would be proposed only where it has been determined that such measures may be effective in discouraging OHV use.

1

A1-26

A1-26

Section 4.10.2 has been revised to correct the reference to the Traffic Management Plan. Section 4.11.3 has been updated with the current status of North Baja’s consultations with the CSLC, the BLM, the BOR, and the California State Historic Preservation Office. Section 4.11.3 has been updated with the current status of the BLM’s comments on the cultural resources survey reports and plans. Section 4.11.3 has been revised to incorporate the suggested addition.

A1-27

A1-27

A1-28

A1-28

A1-29

A1-29

6-197

A1-30

A1-30

The text in Section 4.14.2 of the draft EIS/EIR correctly stated the distance between mainline valves within the various class areas (i.e., at least one valve every 20 miles in Class 1 locations, every 15 miles in Class 2 locations, every 8 miles in Class 3 locations, and every 5 miles in Class 4 locations). Accordingly, no change has been made to the final EIS/EIR.. Because the proposed Project would result in adverse impacts on sensitive species that would be considered significant according to the significance criteria established for the Project under the CEQA, the Project would result in cumulative impacts on sensitive species if other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of the proposed Project would also adversely impact sensitive species. See also the responses to comments A1-19, A120, and A1-22.

A1-31

A1-31

Applicant

1

6-198

Applicant

1

6-199

Applicant

1

6-200

Applicant

1

6-201


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:11/11/2009
language:English
pages:12