STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

 

Southern California Edison's

El Casco System Project

 

 

 


 

 

 

Final Environmental Impact Report

 

 

 

 


These files are in Portable Document Format (PDF). To view them, you will need to download the free Adobe Acrobat Reader if it is not already installed on your PC. Note: For faster results in displaying the largest files (see sizes shown in parentheses below for files over 3.0 MB), right-click the file's link, click "Save Target As" ("Save Link As" in Netscape) to download the file to your hard drive, then double-click the downloaded file.

 

Notice of Availability

 

Cover

 

Title Page

 

Table of Contents

 

 

1.

Introduction

 

1.1. Background
1.2. Final EIR Document Organization
1.3. Purpose of the Response to Comments Document
1.4. Decision-Making Process

2.

Summary of Public Review Process

 

2.1. Public Involvement Milestones
2.2. EIR Information and Repository Sites
2.3. Public Review Period

3.

Draft EIR Comments and Responses

 

3.1. List of Commenters and Responses

3.2. Comments and Responses to Comments

3A

Public Agencies

 

A1. Morongo Band of Mission Indians

A2. US Department of Transportation-Federal Aviation Administration

A3. County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department

A4. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

A5. San Bernardino National Forest

A6. California Department of Transportation-Division of Aeronautics

A7. City of Calimesa

3B

Community Groups, Organizations, and Private Companies

 

B1. Sun Lakes Country Club

3C

Individuals

 

Comment/Response Sets C1- C19

C1. Nancy Darling

C2. Marvin Friedman

C3. Edward H. Leonhardt

C4. Marvin Friedman

C5. James W. and Nancy R. Brown

C6. Edward H. Leonhardt

C7. Robert and Ruth King

C8. Mary Baines

C9. Jackie M. Snyder

C10. Larry and Christine Cobel

C11. Alfred and Carol Spinden

C12. Steve Fabeck

C13. Susan Crosby

C14. Judith Root

C15. Bill and Judy Cadman

C16. Jim McDonald

C17. James P. and Pamela J. Mara

C18. M & M

C19. Julie R. Jeffery

Comment/Response Sets C20_part1

Comment/Response Sets C20_part2

Comment/Response Sets C20_part3

C20. Edward H. Leonhardt

Comment/Response Sets C21- C60

C21. Diane Stone

C22. Judith and Gary Root

C23. Joe Metz

C24. John Buccheri

C25. Nancy Darling

C26. Richard and Karen Keating

C27. Jacquelyn Battaglia

C28. William M. and Kay Ross

C29. Jack L. and Shirley E. Hyslop

C30. Kenneth and Marcella Euken

C31. Gary Laba

C32. Gerald and Barbara Lohrke

C33. Max and Mary Lou Mauk

C34. Edward Miller

C35. Phyllis Enet

C36. Preston Herd

C37. Jack and Rea Jones

C38. Pat Malberg

C39. Bob and Marti Peck

C40. Bob and Gerri Piechowski

C41. Bill and Enid Porter

C42. Don and Karen Dorsey

C43. Julie R. Jeffery

C44. Lena Lentine

C45. Mel Mulder

C46. Camille Smith

C47. Fred and Lorene Sowash

C48. Kevin and Carol Wolfswinkel

C49. Arnold E. Eigenhuis

C50. Shirley Majors

C51. George J. Tod

C52. Dale and Phyllis Leeper

C53. Joan and Maurice Aronzon

C54. Helen Dow

C55. Barbara Habeger

C56. Philip and Betty Harrington

C57. Tom and Mary Lou Meyers

C58. Patricia Morris

C59. Stella Zaremba

C60. Deborah D. Williams

3D

Transcript from Public Meetings

 

D1. Dennis Sauer

D2. Marvin Friedman

D3. Rosalyn Friedman

D4. Phyllis Enet

D5. Edward H. Leonhardt

D6. Marvin Friedman

D7. Nancy Darwin (Darling)

3E

Applicant Southern California Edison Company

 

Comment/Response Sets E1

Comment/Response Sets E2

Comment/Response Sets E3

Comment/Response Sets E4

 

4

REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

 

4.1. Executive Summary

4.2. Section A Introduction

4.3. Section B - Project Description

4.4. Section C Alternatives

4.5. Section D.2- Air Quality

4.6. Section D.3 Land Use

4.7. Section D.4 Biological Resources

4.8. Section D.5 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

4.9. Section D.6 Geology and Soils

4.10. Section D.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.11. Section D.8 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.12. Section D.9 Noise

4.13. Section D.10 Public Services and Utilities

4.14. Section D.11 Transportation and Traffic

4.15. Section D.12 Visual Resources

4.16. Section F Other Considerations

4.17. Section I References and Organizations/Persons Consulted

4.18. Revised Attachment VR-2 and Revised Figures

Attachment VR-2 Visual Resources Summary of Key Viewpoint Analysis

Figure B-2 Proposed El Casco Substation Site and 115 kV Subtransmission Line

Figure C-6 Underground Transmission Duct Bank Cross-Section

Figure D.12-5B Key Viewpoint 4 State Route 60 Visual Simulation

Figure D.12-6B Key Viewpoint 5 Faircliff Street Visual Simulation

Figure D.12-7B Key Viewpoint 6 Pine Valley Road Visual Simulation

 

This page contains tables and is best viewed with Netscape or Internet Explorer. Please report any problems to the Energy Division web coordinator.

 

 

 

Project Home Page - CPUC Environmental Information - CPUC Home