DRAFT EIR/EIS STUDY
- Front Page/Executive Summary
- Table of Contents
- Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action
- Chapter 2 - Project Description and Alternatives
- Chapter 3 (Parts 1 - 24)
- Part 1 Organization Chapter 3
- Part 2 Land Use and Planning
- Part 3 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
- Part 4 Recreation
- Part 5 Cultural (Heritage) Resources
- Part 6 Traffic and Transportation
- Part 7 Air Quality
- Part 8 Greenhouse Gases
- Part 9 Noise
- Part 10 Vegetation Resources
- Part 11 Fire and Fuels
- Part 12 Geology
- Part 13 Soil Resources
- Part 14 Hydrology & Watershed Resources
- Part 15 Aquatic Wildlife
- Part 16 Terrestrial Wildlife
- Part 17 Management Indicator Species
- Part 18 Special Status Plant Species
- Part 19 Noxious and Invasive Weeds
- Part 20 Agricultural Resources
- Part 21 Public Health and Safety
- Part 22 Social and Economic Conditions
- Part 23 Environmental Justice
- Part 24 Other NEPA and CEQA Considerations and Issues
- Chapter 4 - Monitoring
- Chapter 5 - Consultation and Coordination
- Figures
- Figure 1 Vicinity Map
- Figure 2.1 Alternatives 2, 3, & 4
- Figure 2.2 Alternatives 2 & 3
- Figure 2.3 Alternatives 2 & 3
- Figure 3.1 KM Green Substation Plan View
- Figure 3.2 KM Green Substation Vertical Profile
- Figure 4 KM Green Substation Representative Photosimulation Immediately After Construction
- Figure 5 Sectionalizing Cabinet Detail
- Figure 6 Power Line Buried Vault Detail
- Figure 7 Volcano Telecommunications Vault Detail
- Figure 8 Typical Transmission Line Construction Activities
- Figure 9 Single Pole Structure with 115kV Overbuild
- Figure 10 Single Pole Structure With 34.5kV Overbuild
- Figure 11 Basic Transmission Line Wire-Handling Equipment
- Figure 12 Typical Direct Burial Installation Detail
- Figure 13 Typical Direct Burial Installation Profile
- Figure 14 Typical 6” Conduit in Paved Road Installation Detail
- Figure 15 Buried Line in Paved Roadways Typical Equipment Staging
- Figure 16 Typical KMPUD/Volcano Shared Trench Installation Detail
- Figure 17 Steel Bridge Crossing Section
- Figure 18 Typical Bridge Crossing Section
- Figure 19 Trench Breakers
- Figure 20 Meyers Service Route Alternatives
- Figure 21 Minden Service Route Alternatives
- Figure 22 Land Use Map
- Figure 23 Zoning Map
- Figure 24.1 Adopted Visual Quality Objectives
- Figure 24.2 Adopted Visual Quality Objectives
- Figure 24.3 Adopted Visual Quality Objectives
- Figure 25 Developed Recreation Areas & Trails
- Figure 26 California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Type
- Figure 27 Fire History
- Figure 28.1 Soil Mapping Units
- Figure 28.2 Soil Mapping Units
- Figure 28.3 Soil Mapping Units
- Figure 29 Soil Erosion Hazard Rating
- Figure 30 Distribution of Soil Disturbance Types
- Figure 31 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 7th Field Watersheds
- Figure 32 Special Status Aquatic Species and Habitat
- Figure 33 California Spotted Owl Protection Activity Centers and Home Range Core Areas
- Figure 34 Special Status Plant Species and Fen Occurrences
- Figure 35 Noxious and Invasive Weed Occurrences
- Figure 36 Eldorado National Forest Grazing Allotments
- References
- Glossary
- Appendices
- Appendix A Project Design Features and Selected USFS Best Management Practices (BMPs)
- Appendix B State and Local BMPs Applicable Within Non-Federal Land
- Appendix C Equipment Cleaning Clause
- Appendix D Compaction Risk
- Appendix E Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
- Appendix F The USDA Forest Service Visual Management System (VMS)
- Appendix G Visual Resources Existing Condition Report
- Appendix H Calculations for Evaluation of Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
- Appendix H Attachments
- Year 1, Underground, Unpaved Conduit
- Year 1, Underground, Paved Conduit
- Year 1, Underground, Direct Bury
- Year 1, Overhead
- Year 1, KM Green
- Year 1, KM Blue
- Appendix I Hydrologic Information
- Appendix J Instructions, California Soil Survey Committee (CSSC) Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) System for Sheet and Rill Erosion
- Appendix K Soil Map Unit Descriptions
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report
Kirkwood Meadows Power Line Reliability Project
Amador, Alpine & El Dorado Counties, California
|
NEPA Lead Agency: |
USDA Forest Service |
|
CEQA Lead Agency: |
Kirkwood Meadows Public Utility District |
|
Responsible Official: |
Ramiro Villalvazo, Forest Supervisor |
|
For Information Contact: |
Susan A. Rodman, Forest Planner |
|
Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). The opportunity to Comment ends 60 days following publication of the notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register. |
|
|
Send Comments to: |
Ramiro Villalvazo, Forest Supervisor |
The acceptable format(s) for electronic comments is MS Word or Rich Text Format.
View the January 2011 Electric Power Update Here
September 27, 2010
Subject:Electric Service Options - Jeff Bodington's Report September 24, 2010 Special KMPUD Board Meeting
July 19, 2010
Subject:KMPUD In-Valley Project - Air Permit - Hearing Update
Raejean Fellows' (Kirkwood Smart Energy) attempt to appeal the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District's (GBUAPCD) Authority to Construct Permit to the Kirkwood Meadows Public Utility District was defeated on July 16, 2010. More updates to follow.
July 4, 2010
Subject:KMPUD In-Valley Project - Air Permit
On June 8, 2010, the District was notified by the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) that our Authority to Construct Permit issued was being appealed. An approved extension of that appeal is pushing the public hearing date to July 16, 2010. The Appeal Board will then have until August 16, 2010 to make a determination on the appeal.
The public hearing is at 10:00 am on Friday July 16, 2010 in the Alpine County Administrative Center, 99 Water Street, Markleeville, CA. If you are unable to attend the public hearing and would like to post your opinion, please email Tori DeHavane, Hearing Board Clerk, at tdehaven@gbuapcd.org no later than close of business on July 7, 2010.
June 2010
SUBJECT:KMPUD Interconnection Project - Update
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The Kirkwood Meadows Public Utility District (KMPUD) is proposing to construct a 35kV power line from PG&E's Salt Springs Powerhouse to its service area in Kirkwood, CA. The proposed project would involve the El Dorado National Forest authorizing a 50-year term Special Use Permit (SUP) for the construction, use, and maintenance of a KMPUD power line connecting KMPUD (in Alpine, Amador, and El Dorado Counties) to an existing 115kV transmission line owned by PG&E near the PG&E hydroelectric facility at Salt Spring reservoir, in Amador County. The proposed project proposes to over build the existing overhead lines from Salt Springs Reservoir to Bear River Reservoir. From the termination of these lines, the proposed power line will be buried within roadways and other existing disturbance corridors to Kirkwood. No new overhead lines will be constructed. The proposed project also includes two substations to be built; one within the KMPUD service area and the other near PG&E's Salt Springs hydroelectric facility, as well as ancillary structures on National Forest Service lands needed to maintain this system (e.g. sectional cabinets).
UPDATE:It is now a little over a year since this interconnection project has started an we are happy to say that the project is right on schedule. This is a complicated project that involves the coordination of several large agencies such as the USFS, Caltrans, PG&E, EID, Amador County, KMR, and the community of Kirkwood. Through the hard work of KMPUD staff and their consultants, this coordination has been working well and the project has been proceeding as planned and on budget.
Looking back over the course of the last summer and fall (2009), 90% of all field work needed for the project to proceed had been completed. This work included coordination with the agencies, physically walking the entire route to determine the actual power line route, then mapping this route, conducting all sensitive resource surveys, and the aerial topographic survey.
This past winter was spent on getting the EIR/EIS document ready for submittal to the agencies by the coming spring 2010. This work included further coordination with all different agencies to ensure tht all parties were on the same page and were fully engaged. It is critically important for the success and approval of the EIR/EIS document that all possible issues and impacts from all power line route alternatives have been discussed prior to submittal. This was accomplished by numerous meeting and discussions between KMPUD consultants and with the USFS, Caltrans, and PG&E.
Currently we have successfully completed the draft EIR/EIS documentation and associated technical reports and it has been submitted to the agencies for preliminary review and comment. We hope to have all comments and concerns back from the agencies by the end of July 2010. The submittal of the final EIR/EIS document is estimated to occur around the beginning of August with the public review period beginning in October.
Over the course of the next few months, the remaining sensitive resource surveys needed for the EIR/EIS document will be done.
Additional topographic field survey work has commenced along Highway 88. This additional information will be used to develop the final engineering plans. Electrical studies regarding the power line are being performed by KMPUD's consulting electrical engineers. They have been coordinating with PG&E to ensure that PG&E's internal electrical studies are consistent with the intent of the project.
Coordination with the agencies has been ongoing and most recently in June, a field meeting was held along sections of Highway 88 with the USFS and with Caltrans to identify any visual or maintenance issues associated with the location of the power line vaults and cabinets. This meeting was quite successful in resolving many concerns the the USFS and Caltrans had about these issues.
In summary, all field work will be completed by the end of this fall and we will be moving towards focusing on the EIR/EIS approval and completion of engineering plans.