Energia Sierra Juarez US Transmission Line

Transcrição

Volume 3
Comments and Responses
Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Transmission Line Final EIS
600-59
May 2012
Volume 3
600-60
May 2012
Volume 3
600-61
May 2012
Volume 3
600-62
May 2012
Volume 3
600-63
May 2012
Volume 3
600-64
May 2012
Volume 3
600-65
May 2012
Volume 3
600-66
May 2012
Volume 3
600-67
May 2012
Volume 3
600-68
May 2012
Volume 3
600-69
May 2012
Volume 3
600-70
May 2012
Volume 3
600-71
May 2012
Volume 3
600-72
May 2012
Volume 3
600-73
May 2012
Volume 3
600-74
May 2012
Volume 3
600-75
May 2012
Volume 3
600-76
May 2012
Volume 3
600-77
May 2012
Volume 3
600-78
May 2012
Volume 3
600-79
May 2012
Volume 3
600-80
May 2012
Volume 3
600-81
May 2012
Volume 3
600-82
May 2012
Volume 3
600-83
May 2012
Volume 3
600-84
May 2012
Volume 3
RESPONSE TO 602-1: The fire hazard severity map used
for Figure 3.9-1 is from CAL FIRE, 2007, as noted in the
figure sources. DOE reviewed the relevant fire hazard maps
and confirmed that the CAL FIRE 2007 fire hazard severity
map is the current adopted fire hazard severity zone map. As
shown in the 2007 map, the ESJ U.S. Transmission Line
project would be constructed primarily in an area that has a
fire hazard designated of “very high.” A more recent CAL
FIRE map published in May 2008, which is not yet adopted,
indicates a recommended designation of “Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone” for the ESJ U.S. Transmission Line
project site. This more recent map, if adopted, would appear
to retain the currently adopted fire hazard severity rating for
the project site. These fire hazard severity ranking maps are
available online at:
http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention.php
600-85
May 2012
Volume 3
RESPONSE TO 602-2: Section 3.9 is revised to indicate
that in San Diego County as a whole, there have been
several major wildfires in the past 10 years.
RESPONSE TO 602-3: The Insurance Services Office, Inc.
(ISO) publishes information regarding its numerical grading
system for fire protection, which is one determinant of fire
insurance rates. That information indicates that the scores
are based on a community’s fire suppression capabilities.
The presence of potential hazards in the area is not
identified as a factor in the ISO score. Additional
information is available online at:
http://www.isomitigation.com/ppc/2000/ppc2007.html.
600-86
May 2012
Volume 3
600-87
May 2012
Volume 3
600-88
May 2012
Volume 3
RESPONSE TO 602-4: Refer to the response to comment
305-1 for information on assurances that the transmission
line would be used only to transmit electricity generated
from renewable sources.
600-89
May 2012
Volume 3
600-90
May 2012
Volume 3
RESPONSE TO 602-5: A performance bond of this nature
would be best addressed by local agencies that have the
authority to monitor for compliance and provide
enforcement. DOE will consider this as a potential
mitigation in the Presidential permit.
600-91
May 2012
Volume 3
600-92
May 2012
Volume 3
600-93
May 2012
Volume 3
600-94
May 2012
Volume 3
600-95
May 2012
Volume 3
600-96
May 2012
Volume 3
600-97
May 2012
Volume 3
600-98
May 2012
Volume 3
600-99
May 2012
Volume 3
600-100
May 2012
Volume 3
600-101
May 2012
Volume 3
600-102
May 2012
Volume 3
RESPONSE TO 602-6: Refer to Section 3.5.2 for
information on the procedures the applicant would follow if
unanticipated archaeological finds are encountered during
project construction.
600-103
May 2012
Volume 3
RESPONSE TO 602-7: Potential socioeconomic impacts
associated with short-term jobs from the ESJ U.S.
Transmission Line project are addressed in EIS Section
3.13. Comments pertaining to the merits of the project with
respect to labor policy, federal energy policy, and California
utility regulations are outside the scope of the NEPA
process. DOE will consider these comments as well as all
other comments received in that proceeding before making a
final determination on the permit application.
600-104
May 2012
Volume 3
600-105
May 2012
Volume 3
600-106
May 2012
Volume 3
600-107
May 2012
Volume 3
600-108
May 2012
Volume 3
600-109
May 2012
Volume 3
600-110
May 2012
Volume 3
600-111
May 2012
Volume 3
600-112
May 2012
Volume 3
600-113
May 2012
Volume 3
600-114
May 2012
Volume 3
600-115
May 2012
Volume 3
600-116
May 2012
Volume 3
600-117
May 2012
Volume 3
600-118
May 2012
Volume 3
RESPONSE TO 602-8: Section 2.8.1, which was added to
the EIS in response to comments, addresses the potential of
a direct interconnection to Mexican transmission lines using
the WECC transmission corridor and explains that this
alternative was considered but dismissed from detailed
analysis. Refer to Section 2.8.1 and the response to
comment 101-8 for more information.
600-119
May 2012
Volume 3
600-120
May 2012
Volume 3
600-121
May 2012
Volume 3
600-122
May 2012
Volume 3
600-123
May 2012
Volume 3
600-124
May 2012
Volume 3
600-125
May 2012
Volume 3
600-126
May 2012
Volume 3
600-127
May 2012
Volume 3
This page intentionally left blank
600-128
May 2012

Energia Sierra Juarez US Transmission Line

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

for perusal only

Unidade 03 - JS - Exemplo 12 - js