STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION AND UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE Southern California Edison's Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement Summary

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.

Draft EIR/EIS Summary
Draft EIR/EIS Summary Cover
Cover Sheet
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
	1.1 Background 1.2 The CEQA/NEPA Process 1.3 Overview of the Proposed Project and Alternatives 1.4 Summary of Public Involvement Activities 1.5 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved 1.6 Purpose and Need
2. Description of Alternatives
	2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 2.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 2.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 2.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 2.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 2.6 Alternative 6: Segments 6 and 11 Double-Circuit Structures Alternative 2.7 Alternative 7: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 2.8 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Evaluation
3. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
3.1 Introduction to Environmental Analysis
3.2 Agricultural Resources
	3.2.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.2.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.2.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.2.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.2.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.2.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.2.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.3 Air Quality
	3.3.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.3.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.3.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.3.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.3.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.3.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.3.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.4 Biological Resources
	3.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.4.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.4.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.4.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.4.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.4.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.4.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.5 Cultural Resources
	3.5.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.5.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.5.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.5.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.5.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.5.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.5.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.6 Environmental Contamination and Hazards
	3.6.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.6.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.6.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.6.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.6.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.6.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.6.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.7 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology
	3.7.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.7.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.7.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.7.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.7.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.7.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.7.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
	3.8.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.8.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.8.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.8.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.8.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.8.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.8.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.9 Land Use
	3.9.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.9.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.9.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.9.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.9.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.9.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.9.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.10 Noise
	3.10.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.10.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.10.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.10.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.10.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.10.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.10.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.11 Public Services and Utilities
	3.11.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.11.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.11.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.11.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.11.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.11.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.11.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.12 Socioeconomics
	3.12.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.12.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.12.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.12.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.12.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.12.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.12.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.13 Traffic and Transportation
	3.13.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.13.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.13.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.13.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.13.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.13.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.13.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.14 Visual Resources
	3.14.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.14.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.14.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.14.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.14.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.14.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.14.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.15 Wilderness and Recreation
	3.15.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.15.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.15.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.15.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.15.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.15.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.15.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.16 Wildfire Prevention and Suppression
	3.16.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.16.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.16.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.16.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.16.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.16.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.16.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
3.17 Electrical Interference and Hazards
	3.17.1 Alternative 1: No Project/Action 3.17.2 Alternative 2: SCE’s Proposed Project 3.17.3 Alternative 3: West Lancaster Alternative 3.17.4 Alternative 4: Chino Hills Route Alternatives 3.17.5 Alternative 5: Partial Underground Alternative 3.17.6 Alternative 6: Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative 3.17.7 Alternative 7: 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
4. Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts
	4.1 Air Quality 4.2 Cultural Resources 4.3 Land Use 4.4 Noise 4.5 Visual Resources 4.6 Wildfire Prevention and Suppression
5. Summary Comparison of Proposed Project and Alternatives
	5.1 Agricultural Resources 5.2 Air Quality 5.3 Biological Resources 5.4 Cultural Resources 5.5 Environmental Contamination and Hazards 5.6 Geology, Soils and Paleontology 5.7 Hydrology and Water Quality 5.8 Land Use 5.9 Noise 5.10 Public Services and Utilities 5.11 Socioeconomics 5.12 Traffic and Transportation 5.13 Visual Resources 5.14 Wilderness and Recreation 5.15 Wildfire Prevention and Suppression
6. Cumulative Impacts
7. Development of the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area
	7.1 Study Area 7.2 Programmatic Analysis
8. Summary of Mitigation Measures
9. References
Figures
	Figure 1 Project Location Map Figure 2 West Lancaster Alternative Figure 3 Chino Hills Route A Alternative Figure 4 Chino Hills Route B Alternative Figure 5 Chino Hills Route C Alternative Figure 6 Chino Hills Route D Alternative Figure 7 Partial Underground Alternative Route 8A – Chino Hills Figure 8 Alternative 6 Candidate Helicopter Staging Areas in ANF Figure 9 Alternative 7 Duck Farm 66-kV Figure 10 Alternative 7 Whittier Narrows 66-kV Underground and Overhead Re-Routes Figure 11 Typical 500-kV Lattice Steel Towers Figure 12 Typical 500-kV Tubular Steel Poles Figure 13 Typical 220-kV Lattice Steel Towers Figure 14 Typical 220-kV Tubular Steel Poles Figure 15 Typical 66-kV Double-Circuit Tubular Steel Pole Figure 16 TWRA Study Area

Project Home Page - CPUC Environmental Information - CPUC Home – Angeles National Forest Home