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