PG&E Land Transfers Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
Previous | Next Section

SECTION 2.0
Environmental Checklist and Expanded Explanations

1. Project Title:
   Pacific Gas and Electric Company Shasta County Land Transfers
   
   
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
   California Public Utilities Commission
   Energy Division
   505 Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor
   San Francisco, CA 94102-3298
   
   
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
   Billie C. Blanchard, Regulatory Analyst III
   (415) 703-2068
   
   
4. Project Locations:
   McArthur-Burney Falls Memorial State Park
   and
   McArthur Swamp and Glenburn Dredge Properties located north of McArthur, California
   
   
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
   Pacific Gas and Electric Company
   77 Beale Street
   P.O. Box 77000
   San Francisco, CA 94177-0001
   
   
6. General Plan Designation: Various (refer to description of land use)
   
   
7. Zoning: Various (refer to description of land use)
   
   
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
   
   Refer to Section 1.0, Project Description.
   
   
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings.)
   
   Refer to description of land use.
   
   
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.)
    
    California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (refer to the Project Description)

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Evaluation of Environmental Impacts

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
   
   
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
   
   
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
   
   
4. Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
   
   
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
   
   a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
   
   b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
   
   c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
   
   
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
   
   
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
   
   
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
   
   
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
   
   a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
   
   b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant.