HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationShoshone -Glenwood Springs 69/115kV
ElectricTransmission Line Upgrade Project
Garfield County, Colorado
Land Use Application
Administrative Record
Prepared for
Garfield County
City of Glenwood Springs
and
Public Service Co. of Colorado
December 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
QLD'l&'�%RL:Yc'4bYc�7.�:L.'�::d.'4T.X`.6lY,dii�f:�.5NA2�So7�Y3:}k:Y,�fi'6:i�Gw�.l.![.'-05.'3"',4,`i�.",k2'.RSA'�S7.a�A;�i�:�:A,'G.£i7�.?b'.xi,�Y23.Ak9ZOA'.^£d;SmS.:saiP9.':oY"d?o'��n,i.,;�;'3X::k�162'0�6.:on�ti41:>hti.C.4�R•: tR�:a2:✓?fi,
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING
THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-1
2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2-1
2.3 ALTERNATIVES NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR
DETAILED ANALYSIS 2-1
2.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL 2-1
2.4.1 Corridor Alternatives 2-1
2.4.2 Detailed Construction and Operation Information 2-1
2.4.2.1 Right -of -Way Needs 2-1
2.4.2.2 Construction Procedures 2-2
Permission to Survey 2-2
Land Acquisition 2-2
Surveying 2-4
Environmental Resource Surveys 2-4
Access Layout 2-4
Vegetation Management 2-4
Structure Site Clearing and Hole Excavation 2-5
Construction Yards and Material Staging 2-5
Exist 2-5
2-5
2-6
2-6
2-6
Landscape Rehabilitation 2-6
Selective Mitigation 2-6
2.4.2.3
2.4.2.4 Operation and Maintenance
Use of the Right -of -Way
Operations
Maintenance
Structure Assembly and Erection Where Roads
Structure Assembly in Staging Yards
Structure Erection by Helicopter
ShieIdwire and Conductor Stringing
Cleanup
2-13
2-13
2-13
2-13
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION 3-1
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONDITIONS 3-1
3.2.1 Visual Resources 3-1
3.2.2 Land Use 3-1
3.2.3 Cultural Resources 3-2
3.2.4 Electrical Characteristics 3-2
3.2.4.1 Corona 3-2
Audible Noise (AN) 3-3
Table of Contents (continued)
�io%!d•.':?:-0`�'fi.;4`�r}>.'::sa:�:'i;}:};:,kph}kfRn.;S:X.%S:tb'.7o}��c:.o,:�R,��`�'.?s,��2victa.:%Ss:��?o.:aeo:;d6.r2e5:'7.'.•:i;xis,#t:`.:'kb]:'t5?ib'o.4%•...:'hx...t•:.....•;:i.::Yi.:�:�.e:..'e..00�a.:nLidP.:c�x K:iC`.�•'..:: ::�tt:G:w;S,'.7R�uf?�4,".::
Radio Interference/Television Interference (RI/TVI) . 3-4
Visible Light 3-5
Photochemical Oxidants 3-5
3.2.4.2 Electric Fields 3-5
3.2.4.3 Shock Hazards 3-6
3.2.4.4 EIectrically Induced Currents 3-7
Steady -State Current 3-7
3.2.4.5 Magnetic Fields 3-8
3.2.5 Socioeconomics 3-10
3.2.5.1 Population 3-10
3.2.4.2 Economy and Employment 3-12
3.2.5.3 Housing 3-13
3.2.5.4 Community Services 3-14
3.2.6.3 Soil and Geologic Hazards 3-16
3.2.6.4 Surface Water 3-21
3.2.6.5 Ground Water 3-21
3.2.6.6 Floodplains 3-21
3.2.7 Biological Resources 3-22
3.2.7.1 Vegetation 3-22
Meadow 3-22
Desert Shrub 3-22
Mountain Shrub 3-22
Wetlands and Riparian Communities 3-25
Deciduous Tree Woodland 3-25
Pinyon/Juniper Woodland 3-25
Threatened and Endangered Species 3-25
3.2.7.2 Wildlife 3-26
Big Game 3-26
Furbearers/Predators 3-30
Raptors 3-30
Songbirds 3-30
Small Mammals 3-30
Reptiles and Amphibians 3-30
Fish 3-37
Threatened and Endangered Species 3-37
Wetlands/Important Habitats 3-40
3.2.8 Resources Identified as Not Requiring Detailed Study 3-40
3.2.8.1 Air Quality 3-40
3.2.8.2 Climate 3-40
3.2.8.3 Paleontology 3-40
ii
Table of Contents (continued)
S.r,`.,Yii;�:.2Ye�!R:a::?,ff.,o;,4:.'�kt`�`.kaX'd'Mw;r:flax?'S.A,'T�6:so.;'k':so!°AtGsv'.:3t;;Lt:::KSorrcod:9.24i:.:0:v:U..;.h�:�`.:fell:a:Z:;.cv:4C,bb.2a�'c'tt'a'�'.2:icazacb:;a,':oSci7�Ak%<L.`.S.SbSS?ritiY.w:GRS�:�oYGcs.Cto;�+hrn:�..n's`.rn�2
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES SELECTED 4-1
4.2 EVALUATION OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.3 IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 4-1
4.3.1 Impacts on Visual Resources 4-1
4.3.2 Impacts on Land Use 4-1
4.3.3 Impacts on Cultural Environmental 4-1
4.3.4 Impacts on Electrical Characteristics 4-2
4.3.4.1 Corona 4-2
4.3.4.2 Audible Noise (AN) 4-2
4.3.4.3 Radio Interference/Television Interference (RI/TI) . 4-2
4.3.4.4 Visible Light 4-2
4.3.4.5 Photochemical Oxidants 4-2
4.3.4.6 Electric Fields 4-3
4.3.4.7 Induced Currents 4-3
4.3.4.8 Steady State Currents 4-3
4.3.4.9 Spark Discharge Shocks 4-3
4.3.4.10 Field Perception 4-4
4.3.4.11 EIectric Field Mitigation 4-4
4.3.4.12 Magnetic Fields 4-5
4.3.5 Impacts on Socioeconomics 4-6
4.3.5.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives 4-6
Population 4-6
Economy and Employment 4-7
Housing 4-7
Community Services 4-8
Environmental Justice 4-8
4.3.5.2 No Action Alternative- Impacts on Socioeconomics 4-8
4.3.6 Impacts on Earth Resources 4-9
4.3.6.1 Soils 4-9
Corridor Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 4-9
Corridor Alternatives 2, 4, and 6 4-9
4.3.6.2 Geology 4-9
Corridor Alternatives 1 and 3 4-10
Corridor Alternatives 2 and 4 4-10
Corridor Alternatives 5 and 6 4-10
4.3.6.3 Water Resources 4-10
Corridor Alternative 1 4-11
Corridor Alternative 2 4-11
iii
Table of Contents (continued)
Corridor Alternative 3 4-12
Corridor Alternative 4 4-12
Corridor Alternative 5 4-12
Corridor Alternative 6 4-12
4.3.6.4 Floodplains 4-12
4.3.6.5 No Action Alternative - Impacts on Earth Resources 4-12
4.3.7 Impacts on Biological Resources 4-13
4.3.7.1 Impacts on Vegetation 4-13
Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-13
Impacts Specific to Route Alternatives 4-14
4.3.7.2 Impacts on Wildlife 4-15
Impacts Common to All Alternatives 4-15
Impacts Specific to Corridor Alternatives 4-15
Threatened and Endangered Species 4-17
Wetlands/Important Habitats 4-18
4.3.7.3 No Action Alternative - Impact on Biological
Resources 4-18
5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1
Figures
Figure 3-8 Soil Hazards 3-17
Figure 3-9 Slope Hazards 3-19
Figure 3-10 Vegetation 3-23
Figure 3-11 Mule Deer 3-27
Figure 3-12 Elk 3-31
Figure 3-13 Bighorn Sheep 3-33
Figure 3-14 Avian 3-35
iv
..is.<500:SYKa'R:#%;:»:aiSEPSAi.
Tables
Table of Contents (continued)
:o:Si:G:'Gf%R:<:Jm»SA;Ab!eRai:rio.:iAA:R:»bYtnJk:iiRS:up?.:R:»:;R;»:S!<R
Table 1-1 Garfield County Regulatory Requirements Cross -Reference 1-2
Table 1-2 Glenwood Springs Regulatory Requirements Cross -Reference 1-4
Table 2-3 Typical Personnel and Equipment for Transmission Line Construction 2-3
Table 2-4 Standard Construction Practices and Selective Mitigation 2-7
Table 3-2 Audible Noise Decibel Ratings of Some Common Noises 3-4
Table 3-3 Magnetic Field Environment 3-9
Table 3-4 Population Growth in Garfield County and the City of Glenwood Springs 3-11
Table 3-5 1993 Employment by Economic Sector in Garfield County 3-12
Table 3-6 Labor Force Characteristics, Garfield County 3-13
Table 3-7 Housing Characteristics in Garfield County, 1980 - 1990 3-13
Table 4-6 Short-term Disturbance to Vegetation Communities by Alternative 4-14
Table 4-7 Route Alternative Evaluation Summary of Wildlife Habitats Affected 4-16
Appendices
Appendix A Bibliography
Appendix B Glossary Acronyms and Abbreviations
Appendix C Consultation Summaries
Appendix D Standard Easement Agreement
Appendix E Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) Characteristics
Appendix F Fire Protection Districts
Appendix G Floodplain/Wetlands Assessment
Appendix H Biological Assessment
Appendix I Evaluation Criteria Explanation
Appendix J Mitigation
v
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
r.'f::Aif;::::'ex::RYo?:t;:::,n,}:!:L'4:�'::Rv::;;:k.::::a::::,a,• Ao:R}cr:e:.o:.tiS::SxiGr:,'f.:k:�:;•::�::.o,;S'>,'.;•MCo".i6;.CS:.�.`x�::cZ7:tr:?c,+s.:,`d�:w:T!�`..:;,:#.,:rti.�.,'h�i:L5k4Y.Ycr;:OSYatC.ob"..�:Y6:�5:6:GRGd•.'.?c9.:4ti'r.`,�:t°'aX'Y�ii^:2eGik
Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) provides bulk electric service to the City of
Glenwood Springs. Because of the continually increasing electric demand of local customers, the
existing PSCo electric system soon will be incapable of providing acceptable and reliable service.
PSCo and Glenwood Springs have entered into an agreement to upgrade the existing electric
transmission system serving the Glenwood Springs area. Existing electrical facilities in the area
are shown on Figure 1-1 in the EA. The first project (Project) involved in the system upgrade is
to replace the 69,000 volt (69kV) transmission line in Glenwood Canyon. A future project will
involve rebuilding the 69kV transmission line from the Glenwood Springs Substation to the Rifle
Substation, the only other source of power to the Glenwood Springs area.
In addition to the EA, this project also requires Iocal land use approvals and the issuance of
permits from Garfield County and the Town of Glenwood Springs. PSCo is required to obtain a
Conditional Use Permit under Section 5.03.07, titled "Industrial Operations", of Garfield
County's Zoning Resolution amended in 1995. PSCo must also obtain a Special Use Permit under
Section 070.040.040 of Glenwood Springs Regulatory Requirements. Table 1-1 is a cross-
reference for the Garfield County submittal requirements. Table 1-2 provides a cross-reference
for the Glenwood Springs submittal requirements.
Section 1.2 of the Environmental Assessment (EA) details the purpose and need of this project.
It explains characteristics and limitations of the existing line. The results of the public
involvement and scoping process are also included in this section of the EA.
Adm.rec.567lDecember 8. 1997
1-1
Purpose and Need
Table 1-1 (continued)
Garfield County Regulatory Re9uirements Cros,--Reference
Garfield County Zoning Resolution
(as amended through January 16, 1995)
5.00 Supplementary Regulations
Refer to Following Sections) of
the Environmental Assessment
5.03.07(1) Impact Statement Submittal requirements
Location Chapter 1, Chapter 2
Scope Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 4.
Design Chapter 2.
Construction Schedule Chapter 2.
Operational Characteristics Chapter 2.
5,03.07(1)(A) Existing lawful use of water through depletion or pollution of surface run-off, Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Appendix H.
stream flow or ground water
5.03.07(1)(B) Impacts on adjacent land from the generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare Chapter 4.
or vibration, or other emanations
5.03.07(1)(C) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through the creation of hazardous Chapter 2, Chapter 4.
attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes, use patterns or
other disruptions
5.03.07(1)(D) Affirmatively show the impacts of truck and automobile traffic to and from Chapter 4.
such uses and their impacts to areas in the County
5.03.07(1)(E) That sufficient distances shall separate such use from abutting property which Chapter 2, Chapter 4.
might otherwise be damaged by operations of the proposed use(s)
5.03.07(1)(F) Mitigation measures proposed for all of the foregoing impacts identified and for Chapter 2.
the standards identified in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution
5.03.07(2) Permits may be granted for those uses with provisions that provide adequate
mitigation for the following:
5.03.07(2)(A) A plan for site rehabilitation must be approved by the County Commissioners Chapter 2.
before a permit for conditional or special use will be issues
5.03.07(2)(B) The County Commissioners may require security before a permit for special or Not Applicable.
conditional use is issued, if required. The applicant shall furnish evidence of a bank
commitment of credit, bond, certified check or other security deemed acceptable by the
County Commissioners in the amount calculated by the County Commissioners to secure the
execution of the site rehabilitation plan in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with the
specification and construction schedule established or approved by the County
Commissioners. Such commitments, bonds or check shall be payable to and held by the
County Commissioners.
5.03.07(2)(C) impacts set forth in the impact statement and compliance with the standards Refer to Section 5.03.08 and its
contained in Section 5.03.08 of this Resolution. (A.93-061) subsections.
5.03.08 Industrial Performance Standards
5.03.08(1) Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Chapter 3, Chapter 4.
Colorado Revised Statutes at the time any new application is made. (A.93-061)
Adm-rec.567/Decembcr 8, 1997
1-2
Purpo-e and Need
Table 1-1 (continued)
Garfield County Regulatory Recjuirements Cross -Reference
Garfield County Zoning Resolution
(as amended through January 16, 1995)
5.00 Supplementary Regulations
Refer to Following Section(s) of
the Environmental Assessment
5.03.08(2) Vibration generated: every use shall be so operated that the ground vibration
inherently and recurrently generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of
any boundary line of the property on which the use is located.
Not Applicable.
5.03.08(3) Emissions of smoke and particulate matter: every use shall be operated so as to Chapter 3.
comply with all Federal and County air quality laws, regulations and standards.
5.03.08(4) Emission of heat, glare, radiation and fumes: every use shall be so operated that it
does not emit heat, glare, radiation or fumes which substantially interfere with the existing use
of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance or hazard. Flaring of gases,
aircraft warning signals, reflective painting of storage tanks, or other such operations which
may be required by law as safety or air pollution control measures shall be exempted from
this provision.
Chapters 3 and 4.
5.03.08(5) Storage area, salvage yard, sanitary landfill and mineral waste disposal areas Chapter 2.
5.03.08(6) Water pollution: in a case in which potential hazards exist, it shall be necessary to
install safeguards designed to comply with the Regulations of the Environmental Protection
Agency before operation of the facilities may begin,
Chapter 2, Appendix H.
Adm•rec.567lDecember 8. 1997
1-3
Purpose and Need
Table 1-2
Glenwood S.rin•s Re•ulato Re•uirements Cross -Reference
Glenwood Springs
Refer to Following Section(s) of
the Environmental Assessment
070.040.040 Special Review
070.040.040 1. All special use permits: The proposal is consistent with Ciry goals and policies Chapter 3, Chapter 4.
and plans and will be compatible with existing and allowed uses surrounding or affected by the
proposed use.
070.040.040 9. Special Use Permit for Power Transmission Lines With a Capacity of 69kV Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 4.
or More.
(a) The transmission line is necessary for the proper rendition of public utility service and the
location of the facilities does not seriously impair the use of neighboring property.
(b) The power transmission line shall not have an undue adverse effect on existing and future Chapter 3, Chapter 4.
development of the surrounding area as set forth in duly adopted City policies and master plans,
including the following types of development:
I. Arterial and collector highways and streets,
ii. Schools, churches, theaters, clubs, museums, fairgrounds, racetracks, or other places
where people congregate,
iii. Flight paths, airports and airport clear zones,
iv. Fire hazards or other areas where there is a possibility of interference with fire
equipment.
(c) Design of the power transmission line shall mitigate negative impacts on surrounding areas Chapter 3, Chapter 4.
to the greatest extent feasible and shall insure that the public health, safety and welfare are
protected.
(d) The nature and location of the power transmission line shall not unreasonably interfere with Chapter 3, Chapter 4.
significant wildlife habitat nor unreasonably affect and endanger wildlife species, unique natural
resources, historic landmarks or archeological sites within the area.
(e) in applying the foregoing criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission may require that Chapter 2.
power transmission lines or portions of lines be located underground in cables or conduits;
however, any such condition shall require ratification by the City Council.
Adm-rec.567(December 5, 1997
1-4
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING
THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
A description of the No Action Alternative and its viability is found in Section 2.1 of the EA.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A discussion of the various action alternatives including those involving alternative structure
designs, alternative corridors, alternative electric systems, and alternative methods of construction
are found in this section of the EA. Figures 2-1 (Structure Design), 2-2 (Opportunity/Constraint
Map), and 2-3 (Corridor Segments) as well as Tables 2-1 (Typical Transmission Line
Characteristics) and 2-2 (Transmission Line Routing Opportunity, Avoidance, and Constraint
Criteria) are all found in this section of the EA.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR DETAILED
ANALYSIS
This section of the EA includes brief descriptions of alternatives which were not analyzed in detail
and the reasons for their rejection.
2.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL
2.4.1 Corridor Alternatives
The six potential corridor alternatives identified are described in this sub -section of the EA.
2.4.2 Detailed Construction and Operation Information
The ROW needs, construction procedures, standard construction practices and selective mitigation,
and operation and maintenance activities would be the same for all route alternatives.
2.4.2.1 Right -of -Way Needs
Typically, the ROW would be 75 feet wide for that portion of the transmission line that would use
H -frame structures/three-pole angle structures and double circuit single steel poles, and 50 feet -
wide for the portion using single circuit single steel -poles. These widths are required to meet
clearance specifications for electric safety codes, to provide working space for maintenance
Adm-rec.567lDecember 8, 1997
2-1
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
activities, and to protect adjacent uses from electrical hazards. Easements would be acquired from
private property owners, the BLM, and the Forest Service for the new transmission line ROW.
A standard easement agreement is presented in Appendix D.
All land rights would be acquired in accordance with PSCo's policies and other applicable laws
governing acquisition of property rights. Private landowners would be paid a negotiated fee for
rights to use their property. All transmission line easements acquired would also provide for the
payment of any damages to private lands caused by construction or maintenance of the line.
General ROW needs are shown on Table 2-1.
2.4.2.2 Construction Procedures
Construction of the transmission line includes the following activities listed in sequential order:
1. Permission to survey;
2. Land acquisition;
3. Surveying;
4. Environmental resource survey;
5. Access layout;
6. Vegetation management;
7. Site clearing and hole excavation;
8. Material staging;
9. Structure assembly where roads exist;
10. Structure assembly in staging yards;
11. Structure erection by helicopter;
12. Shieldwire and conductor stringing;
13. Cleanup; and
14. Landscape rehabilitation.
The approximate number of people and equipment required to construct the proposed line is shown
in Table 2-3. Construction of the line is scheduled to begin in 1997 and take approximately 7-8
months to complete.
Permission to Survey
Land acquisition negotiations and land surveying may occur simultaneously, depending on the
specific location of the line. The granting of survey permission does not jeopardize any landowner
rights.
Land Acquisition
Easements and other property rights necessary to construct the proposed facility would be
purchased from the owners of the properties crossed by the line. Negotiations would be based on
the current fair market value of the parcels being crossed as determined by an independent fee
appraisal. Every effort would be made to acquire these rights through negotiations with each
landowner; however, if negotiations are not successful, eminent domain proceedings would be
initiated to obtain the necessary land rights. PSCo is a public utility authorized by the statutes of
Colorado to acquire property by eminent domain (CRS 1973: 38-5-105), which provides for an
Adm-rec.5671December 8, 1997
2-2
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
impartial commission or jury of fee holders in the county or city, as appropriate, to establish the
value of the land rights being acquired and the amount of damages, if any, due to the owner.
Table 2-3
Typical Personnel and Equipment for
Transmission Line Construction
Activity
Permission to Survey
Land Acquisition
Surveying
Environmental Resource Survey
Access Layout
Vegetation Management
Site Clearing/Hole Excavation
Material Staging
Structure Assembly Where
Roads Exist
Structure Assembly in Staging
Yards
Structure Erection by
Helicopter
Shieldwire and Conductor
Stringing
CIeanup
Landscape Rehabilitation
Number of Persons Equipment
1-2 1-2 Automobiles
1-2 1-2 Automobiles
2-6 1-3 Pickup Trucks
2-8 1-2 Pickup Trucks
1-2 1-2 Pickup Trucks
2-8 1-2 Pickup Trucks or Automobiles
10-20 1 Cat Digger, 2-4 Backhoes or Menzi-
mucklKiser Spiders, 2 Bobcats,
Miscellaneous hand digging and blasting
equipment, 1-2 Pickup Trucks
8-12 2 Tractor Trailers, 1 Hydrocrane, 2 Pole
Trailers, 3 Pickup Trucks, 1-3 Flatbed
Trucks, 1 Helicopter
4-6 1 Crane (50-100 ton capacity), 1 Flatbed
Truck, 2 Pickup Trucks
4-6 1 Hydrocrane, 1 FIatbed Truck, 1 Pickup
Truck
10-20 1 Helicopter (80001b. lift), 2-8 Pickup
Trucks, 4-10 ATVs, 1 Fuel Truck, 1 Parts
Trailer
5-20 1 Helicopter, 1 Reel Trailer, 1 Tensioner, 1
Winch Truck, 1 Caterpillar, 5-6 Pickup
Trucks, 1 Flatbed Truck
3-6 1 Pickup Truck, 1 Flatbed Truck
3-6 1 Tractor, 1 Discing Machine, Shovels,
Rakes, 1-2 Pickup Trucks
Adm-rec-567JDecember 8, 1997
2-3
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Surveying
Aerial surveying and ground control work would be done to locate the transmission line
centerlines, angle points, accurate ground profiles under the conductors, and to prepare legal
descriptions of easements. PSCo personnel would use this information to determine exact
structure locations and heights and to plan for access.
Environmental Resource Surveys
Intensive environmental surveys (as required) of the agency preferred alternative would be
performed prior to construction activities. All structure sites, wire pulling set ups and staging
yards would be surveyed. A detailed cultural resource survey plan is provided with PSCo's
Construction, Operation and Maintenance Plan which outlines the activities proposed by PSCo.
Access Layout
Once a final corridor and an alignment within the corridor is established, an access plan would be
prepared and incorporated with the Construction, Operation and Maintenance Plan. The access
plan would be prepared by PSCo with coordination of the BLM and affected landowners. PSCo
would not construct any new roads on BLM or private property, unless requested to do so.
Vegetation Management
Treatment of vegetation within the ROW would include the selective removal or trimming of trees
to prevent contact of trees from beside or beneath the transmission line. Some trees would have
to be removed if classified as danger trees, i.e., trees which upon falling would come within 10
feet of the structure or conductors. Where appropriate with the character of vegetation patterns
near the transmission line, feathering or scalloping of trees would be done to mimic natural
vegetation growth patterns. Where possible, the route alignment would attempt to avoid forest
vegetation or to pass as near to the edge of a stand of trees as possible. Disposal of cut trees and
brush would be in a manner acceptable to the BLM or Landowner. It is not anticipated that PSCo
will need to clear a large number of trees from the ROW. The nature of the vegetation is such
that its height is much shorter than the required clearance for the conductors.
The transmission line would be built using three levels of access.
• Air Access. All access to structure sites would be by foot, excavations would be made by
hand, and all construction equipment and materials would be flown in by helicopter.
• Limited Access. Access to structure sites for hole excavation would be made where overland
travel (off road) by specialized excavating equipment is possible. No new roads would be
Adm•rec.567(December B, 1997
2-4
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
constructed. Specialized equipment such as crawling backhoes may be used to minimize
impact to soils and vegetation. Structures would be assembled in staging yards and flown in
pieces by helicopter to structure sites for erection.
• Full Access. In addition to air and limited access methods, the use of trucks, drill rigs, pole
hauling trailers, and cranes will be used for hole excavations, material hauling, structure
assembly, and erection. Full access methods would be used where existing roads and trails
allow. Exceptionally large or heavy equipment may be reviewed on an individual basis. No
new roads will be constructed.
Structure Site Clearing and Hole Excavation
An area would be disturbed at each structure site for excavation of pole holes, movement of
personnel, and erection of structures. Additional excavations would be required for installing
anchors at structures that require guy lines. The amount of disturbance for each structure type
would depend on the access available to each site. Disturbance would vary from 200 square feet
for single pole, structures using air access to 8,000 square feet for three -pole guyed angle structures
constructed with full access. Excavations may be made using mechanized equipment, blasting,
pneumatic, or hand methods.
Construction Yards and Material Staging
A temporary material staging site would be required to store materials, assemble structures, and
stage materials and equipment for the duration of the Project to meet BLM or landowner
requirements. The site would be optimally located near the halfway point between the substations
at each end of the line. The site would be revegetated and landscape reclaimed after completion
of the Project. Where existing roads allow for full access to a structure site, construction
materials, men, and equipment would be driven to the site using conventional equipment. For air
and limited access sites, materials, men, and equipment would arrive at sites either via helicopter
or pickup truck respectively.
Structure Assembly and Erection Where Roads Exist
Erection crews would assemble structures at the structure sites and place them in the foundation
excavation using cranes or large boom trucks.
Structure Assembly in Staging Yards
Where there are no existing roads and a structure site has been designated "limited" or "air
access" only, structure components would be pre -assembled in a temporary staging site.
Adm-rcc.S67lDecember 8. 1997
2-5
Description of Alternatives Includinj the Proposed Action
Structure Erection by Helicopter
More unconventional construction methods, such as the use of a helicopter to transport crews,
structures, and/or equipment into each structure site will be used for this project. Helicopters
would be used for delivering materials, setting poles, and conductor stringing. Also, pre -
assembled structure sections would be flown from the temporary staging site to their respective
locations by helicopter, where final assembly takes place as the structure is being erected.
Shieldwire and Conductor Stringing
Reels of shieldwire and conductor would be delivered to wire pulling sites spaced about every two
miles along the line route. These locations would require sufficiently level areas of approximately
50 feet by 250 feet. Reasonable efforts would be made to select locations that would not require
grading or removal of vegetation, however, vehicular movement over the site would be necessary.
All ground disturbance would be repaired to the satisfaction of the appropriate landowner and
BLM. The wire would then be pulled in by helicopter and wire pulling equipment from these
locations. Pulling sites would be located where full access is possible or where access is approved
in the Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Plan.
Cleanup
Waste construction materials and rubbish from all construction areas would be collected, hauled
away, and disposed of in an approved manner.
Landscape Rehabilitation
All disturbed areas would be graded and/or resloped to their original contours, in order to
minimize erosion and visual alteration. AlI disturbed areas would be reseeded with an approved
seed mixture. All damaged fences and gates would be repaired. Access roads or trails identified
by the landowner or BLM would be blocked, if requested, to prevent future access by the public.
2.4.2.3 Selective Mitigation
The mitigation plan for the Project includes general construction practices and selective mitigation
for specific areas of resource concern. General construction practices consist of measures or
techniques that PSCo has committed to undertake on a non-specific basis as part of the proposed
project plan. Selective mitigation consists of measures or techniques to which PSCo has
committed and will apply on a case-by-case (or "selective") basis to reduce environmental
impacts. Application of mitigation measures to general conditions along the alternatives and
preferred route are described in the resource impact assessments in Chapter 4 and Appendix J.
Adm•rec.567/December 8. L997
2-6
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
These construction practices and selective mitigation for specific areas of resource concern are
described in Table 2-4 and Appendix J.
Table 2-4 (continued)
Standard Construction Practices and Selective Mitigation
Standard Construction Practices
1. Construction plans, methods, and practices are extremely important for the success of this Project, and will
be designed to minimize damage to lands involved. All work will, therefore, be performed in a manner
which will minimize marring and scarring of the landscape or degradation of waterways and wetlands.
The methods of construction will take into account soil stability, the protection of natural vegetation, and
protection of adjacent resources, such as the protection of natural habitat for wildlife, and appropriate
measures for the prevention of silt deposition in water courses; therefore, the selection of equipment and
construction methods and practices is of primary importance to the success of this Project.
The best environmental planning can be reversed or defeated by uncontrolled or improperly supervised
construction activities; therefore, the entire construction force will be advised that all aspects of the
construction operation and activity will be geared to the preservation and enhancement of natural beauty and
the conservation of our natural resources.
PSCo will have company employees as inspectors on the project while work is being performed. Also, a
ROW agent will be assigned as a liaison with landowners and tenants. The inspectors and the ROW agent will
ensure that construction is in compliance with the construction requirements and these mitigation measures.
2. Helicopter construction will be used where conventional construction methods will require the construction
or substantial upgrading of access roads and trails, or where overland travel access is unacceptable. No new
roads will be built for construction or maintenance unless otherwise approved by landowner or authorized
officer. Any upgrading of existing roads will be undertaken in accordance with the BLM, and/or landowner,
and all roads will be returned, as near as practical, to their existing condition following construction.
3. The movement of crews and equipment will be limited to the ROW and to specified access routes. Movement
on the ROW will be limited to minimize damage to property and to avoid marring the land.
4. Temporary culverts, bridges, and gates, will be supplied by PSCo; repairs will be made promptly to any
bridges, culverts, fences, gates, phone lines, or ditches damaged during construction. Ditches, roads, fences,
gates, culverts, phone lines, and bridges will be left in as good a condition as found.
5. All property damaged in any way will be repaired to the satisfaction of the property owner, land manager,
and PSCo.
6. All crates, boxes, metal bands, lagging, wrappings, and other material, equipment, and refuse of every kind
will be cleaned up and disposed of during and following construction of this project. Burning or burying of
waste materials on the ROW or at the construction site will not be allowed. All waste materials will be
properly disposed at an approved location.
7. All excavated holes left open overnight will be sufficiently covered to prevent livestock or wildlife from
falling into the hole.
Adm-rec.567/December 8, 1997
2-7
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-4 (continued)
Standard Construction Practices and Selective Miti ation
Standard Construction Practices (Continued)
S. Care will be taken to protect the natural landscape and construction operations will be conducted to prevent
any unnecessary destruction, scarring, or defacing of the natural surroundings in the vicinity of the work.
Except where clearing is required for structures, conductor clearances, permanent facilities, approved
construction roads, or excavation operations, all trees, native shrubbery, and vegetation will be protected from
damage by construction operations and equipment.
9. The flow of public traffic will be maintained in accordance with all pertinent safety regulations and
requirements, and construction operations will be conducted to offer the least possible obstruction and
inconvenience to public traffic.
10. PSCo will do everything reasonably within its power to prevent and suppress fires on or near the lands to be
occupied. This will include making available such construction and maintenance forces as may be reasonably
obtainable for the suppression of such fires. A fire plan will be prepared as a requirement for the proposed
Project on BLM lands. The fire plan will include such items as names and phone numbers of persons to be
contacted in case of fire to coordinate with Garfield County, The Glenwood Springs Fire Protection District,
the Carbondale Rural Fire Protection District, the BLM, and the Forest Service. The fire plan will also
identify personnel and equipment that may be made available to help suppress any fire, and access routes to
PSCo facilities.
11. Varying access levels will be used for this Project, depending on terrain, vegetation, and proximity to existing
roads. Construction methods and equipment will be used to minimize the effect of construction activities on
the environment. Such methods and equipment may include, but is not limited to, oversized rubber tire
equipment, walking backhoes, helicopters, and hand digging or blasting for excavations. Exact access types
will be defined in consultation with the affected landowner or the BLM.
Selective Mitigation
Land Use
1. The line will be rerouted to the extent possible to avoid sensitive features. Structures will be located, where
practical, to span small occurrences of sensitive land uses. Construction access ways will be located to avoid
sensitive conditions.
2. Private easements will be purchased at fair market value and payment will be made to private landowners for
any property damage.
3. The precise location of all access, staging sites, conductor pulling sites and other areas which may be
disturbed will be determined in cooperation with affected landowners, the BLM, or the Forest Service.
4. A program for handling and resolving complaints will be established and will be administered by a designated
person with a published telephone number. The program will work to resolve any complaints within the areas
of construction activities, audible and radio noise, television interference and electrical (including
electromagnetic and electrostatic) influence on any equipment, instruments, and appliances.
5. PSCo will mitigate by appropriate methods, any problems of induced voltages onto conductive objects (e.g.
fences) sharing the ROW to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved.
Adm•rec.5671December 8, 1997
2-8
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-4 (continued)
Standard Construction Practices and Selective Mitigation
Visual
1. Materials will be used which harmonize with the natural surroundings as much as possible. All structures
will be either wood or steel. The finish on all steel poles will be self -weathering steel. Wood poles and
structures will have a dark brown to brown-green color. Conductors and all hardware will also have a dulled,
non -reflective finish. Insulators will be a dark shade of neutral color such as brown or gray. Conductors will
be non -specular (non -reflective).
2. Where vegetation is removed for structures or conductor clearance, the clearing edges will be feathered to
give a natural appearance; vegetation on the ROW will not be clear-cut.
3. hi designated areas, structures will be placed so as to avoid sensitive features or to allow conductors to clearly
span the features, within limits of standard tower design. This will minimize the amount of disturbance to
sensitive features, or reduce visual contrast.
4. The line will be rerouted, to the extent possible, to avoid unmitigable sensitive features. This will eliminate
or substantially reduce visual or physical conflict with the feature.
5. Every reasonable attempt will be made to allow for visual absorption of the power line features into the
background and to minimize placing of structures where they will be seen against the skyline ("skylining").
6. Excavations and other disturbed areas will be recontoured to existing grades.
7. At highway, canyon, or trail crossings, structures will be placed at a maximum feasible distance from the
crossing.
8. Selection of structure type, material and height, where possible, will be made to minimize visual impacts.
Surface Water
1. Structure sites and other disturbed areas will be located at least 300 feet, where practical, from rivers, streams
(including ephemeral streams), ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, wetlands and riparian areas, and the line will
be rerouted to the extent possible to avoid sensitive features. Where these facilities must be located within
300 feet of surface waters, temporary erosion control measures will be applied to protect these areas from
increased sedimentation. Protection in these areas will include the installation of silt fencing or hay bales to
contain any eroded material. Following rehabilitation efforts, these devices will be removed.
Adm-rec.567fDecember 8. 1997
2-9
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-4 (continued)
Standard Construction Practices and Selective Mitigation
2. At crossings of perennial streams by access ways, culverts of adequate size to accommodate the estimated
peak flow of the stream will be temporarily installed. Culverts will also be installed at crossings of ephemeral
streams where stream banks are high and steep enough that the crossing would cause excessive disturbance.
During installation of culverts, care will be taken to minimize disturbance of the stream banks and beds. All
culverts will be installed with the culvert inlet and outlet at natural stream grade to minimize disturbance,
unless exceptions are approved. Sediment traps or other approved methods will be installed whenever culverts
are to be placed in live stream crossings. Approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be obtained
prior to culvert installation in any jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
3. Construction activities wilI be performed by methods that will prevent entrance, or accidental spillage, of solid
matter, contaminants, debris, and other objectionable pollutants or wastes into ephemeral or perennial
streams, ponds, Takes, reservoirs, or underground water bodies. Such pollutants or wastes include but are not
restricted to: sediment, refuse, garbage, cement, concrete, sanitary waste, oil and other petroleum products.
4. Waste waters from any construction operation will not enter streams, watercourses, or other surface waters
without the use of such turbidity control methods as settling ponds, gravel -filter entrapment dikes, approved
flocculating processes that are not harmful to fish, recirculation systems for washing of aggregates, or other
approved methods. Any such waste waters discharged into surface waters will be monitored in accordance
with applicable state and federal regulations to ensure that it is essentially free of settle able material. Settle
able material is defined here as that material which will settle from the water by gravity during a one-hour
quiescent detention period.
5. Dewatering work for structure foundations or earthwork operations adjacent to, or encroaching on, streams
or watercourses will be conducted in a manner to prevent silted water and eroded materials from entering the
streams or watercourses by construction of intercepting ditches, bypass channels, barriers, settling ponds, or
by other approved means. Applicable Dewatering permits will be applied for prior to construction.
6. Excavated material or other construction materials will not be stockpiled or deposited near or on stream
banks, lake shorelines, or other watercourse perimeters where they can be washed away by high water or
storm runoff or can in any way encroach upon the actual watercourse itself.
Vegetation
1. Ali work areas except existing access trails will be revegetated as soon as practical, using an approved seed
mixture. Alternatively, in areas where mutually acceptable, the ground will be scarified or left in a condition
to facilitate natural revegetation, provide for proper drainage, and prevent erosion. Site-specific revegetation
measures will be developed after consultation with the landowner, BLM, or Forest Service.
2. Local rerouting will be made to the extent possible to avoid sensitive features. Structures will be carefully
located, where practical, to span any sensitive vegetative conditions, including wetlands.
3. During overland travel, sensitive vegetation conditions, including wetlands, will be avoided where practical.
Areas that cannot be avoided will be addressed on a case-by-case basis consulting with the landowner, BLM,
or Forest Service.
Adm-rec.567/December a, 1997
2-10
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-4 (continued)
Standard Construction Practices and Selective Mixon
4. Vegetation will be selectively removed to blend with the natural vegetative patterns where possible.
5. In the vicinity of any identified rare plant populations or associations, a botanist will survey zones of probable
disturbance and locate and flag exact areas where disturbance of any sort must be avoided due to the presence
of populations or specimens of the species of concern. Structure sites and other disturbed areas will be sited
to avoid these areas. Supervisory construction personnel will be instructed on the necessity of avoiding
disturbance of the resource, with reference to the applicable laws. Construction will be monitored to ensure
avoidance of activity in the critical areas.
Soils and Erosion
1. Unless programmed for future management requirements, such as recreation access, no new access roads will
be constructed.
2. Construction equipment and methods will be utilized in areas of steep cross slopes to minimize impacts to
existing contours and soil features.
3. Ground disturbance at tower sites, and conductor pulling areas, will be graded and reclaimed following
construction.
4. The area of disturbance at each structure Iocation will be held to a minimum and sensitive areas avoided
where possible, through local reroutes.
5. Excess spoils from excavations not used in backfilling operations will be scattered and spread in disturbed
areas only.
6. Topsoil will be removed, stockpiled, and respread at all disturbed areas. All disturbed areas will be regraded
to their original contours and reseeded.
7. On steep slopes, appropriate measures will be taken to contain materials removed by excavation from
sloughing down the slope and to allow such materials to be used for backfill.
S. Construction activities will be curtailed, if necessary, to minimize damage to saturated soils.
9. Structures will be located to conform with the terrain. No benching and leveling of structure sites will be
allowed.
10. Performance of routine maintenance activities will be done when roads are firm, dry, or frozen to minimize
soil disturbance.
Adm-rec.567/Deamher 8. 1997
2-11
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
Table 2-4 (continued)
Standard Construction Practices and Selective Mitigation
11. When weather and ground conditions permit, all deep ruts will be repaired. Such ruts will be leveled, filled,
and graded, or otherwise eliminated in an appropriate manner. At the end of the construction season, all ruts
will be obliterated, and all trails and areas that are hard -packed as a result of construction operations will be
loosened and leveled. All areas disturbed during construction will be restored, as nearly as practical, to their
original condition.
12. Water bars or small terraces will be constructed across all disturbed areas where erosion potential exists in
order to prevent soil erosion and to facilitate natural revegetation.
Wildlife
1. Mitigation measures listed for Soils, Visual and Vegetation Resources, also apply to wildlife resources, to
minimize habitat loss.
2. The need for mitigation of sensitive, endangered, or threatened species and their habitat will be identified
during consultation with the BLM, the Forest Service, and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
All mitigation will be designed on an as -needed and case-by-case basis.
3. Prior to construction, supervisory construction personnel will be instructed on the necessity for avoiding
disturbance of the resource, with reference to the applicable laws.
4. In designated areas, construction activities will be modified during seasons that are critical to the species
maintenance, including critical winter, breeding and rearing periods, for threatened, endangered, and sensitive
species. These areas will be evaluated individually on a site-specific basis.
5. The proposed I -1 -frame structure design will eliminate the risk of raptors coming into electrical contact with
energized phases of the transmission line.
Cultural Resources
1. A Class III intensive pedestrian cultural resources survey will be conducted prior to construction on all federal
lands affected by the proposed project, as well as all private lands where permission is granted.
2. Prior to construction, all construction personnel will be instructed on the protection of cultural resources with
reference to relevant laws and penalties, and the need to cease work in the location if cultural resource items
are discovered.
3. Construction activities will be monitored or sites flagged to prevent inadvertent destruction of any cultural
resource for which the agreed mitigation was avoidance.
4. Construction crews will be monitored to prevent vandalism or unauthorized removal or disturbance of cultural
artifacts or materials form sites where the agreed mitigation was avoidance.
5. If any historic or pre -historic artifacts or items are uncovered during excavation work, all construction
activities in the affected area will immediately cease. PSCo will immediately notify the BLM, and a qualified
archaeologist will be contracted to perform the necessary inventory. PSCo will not resume excavation work
in the affected area until written approval is granted by the BLM.
Adm.rec.567/December 8. 1997
2-12
Description of Alternatives Including the Proposed Action
2.4.2.4 Operation and Maintenance
Use of the Right -of -Way
PSCo will acquire easements specifically for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the
transmission line. The fee ownership rights will remain with the individual landowners.
Although permanent structures are not allowed within the ROW, any land use activity that does
not interfere with the safe operation and maintenance of the line can continue. A standard
easement agreement is included in Appendix D.
Operations
The day to day operation of the line is directed by system dispatchers in power control centers.
These dispatchers use PSCo's communication facilities to operate circuit breakers that control the
transfer of power through the Iine. Circuit breakers also operate automatically in the event of a
short in the line (for example, due to a lightning strike) to ensure safety of the public.
Maintenance
PSCo's preventative maintenance programs for transmission lines includes routine aerial and
ground patrols. Aerial patrols are conducted approximately four times per year, and special
patrols are conducted a'-er severe wind, ice, or lightning storms, when damage to structures,
insulators or conductors may occur.
Vehicular ground patrols will be made when there is sufficient access to structures and the line.
Foot patrols will be made where there is no access for vehicles. Ground patrols are made at least
once per year and may be made up to six times per year. Whenever possible, ground patrols and
any repair activities would be scheduled to minimize property damage. Maintenance would
include repairing frayed or worn conductors, replacement of broken insulators and hardware,
inspection and repair of wood poles and structures, and application of preservatives to wood poles.
In addition to maintaining the structures, conductors, and ROW, PSCo will maintain gates on
access roads and keep such roads in passable condition and properly maintained to prevent
erosion, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the ROW easement documents.
Transmission lines are sometimes damaged by storms, equipment failures or vandalism, and
require immediate repair. Emergency maintenance will involve prompt movement of crews to
repair damage and replace any equipment. If property damage results from PSCo's emergency
activities, PSCo representatives will meet with the affected landowners to arrange for repair or
compensation.
Adm•rec.567fDeccmber 8, 1997
2-13
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
�:.,.:v...4. .,., ;..;.��....rv..::. r •v vr..0 :.0'"A'r.4;%v r•},4.xSry wrvnrvir vrY vrvvry r rG... {,.t b. V4. {
mvi:vn:. •..4:..W:Y.S+}:iS:iw.4nS'{}.Cv�:kn''�riiASh�r:�l'n�{i��R��M.J?iY+$:•.4$]}.4�}+�{Wr.4rkriLi}:•}✓':..G.O'r "iY�:. ''. ii•: �:$4: ].U. }i: •v.:rQ.�::S).:: iw' :'ii:•:iii..'i�Fi4::Yi:.�.{:.i�::.�v:7.Q�:. �✓N.eG}vf, 4.:4.\�i:�n�nG..4 �.'..iti:�i �L:�•::
This chapter presents a description of the Project Study Area's environmental conditions that could
be affected by transmission line construction, operation and maintenance. The development of
project alternatives considered the information provided in this chapter.
3.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project Study Area includes an area where construction activity would be most likely. The
Area of Influence surrounding the Project Study Area indicates the area in which indirect effects
might occur. Further details regarding the Project Study Area and Area of Influence are contained
in Section 3.1 of the EA.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONDITIONS
The description of the affected environment is organized to discuss the environmental issues that
were raised during the public workshop are discussed in the EA. These are visual resources, land
use, and cultural resources. Those issues receiving less comment are discussed in the following
sections of this Administrative Record. They include socioeconomics, electrical characteristics
and public safety, water resources, threatened and endangered species and wetlands/important
habitats, floodplains, soils, geology, and physiography. As summary of resources existing in the
Project Study Area but identified as not requiring detailed study are also included in the
Administrative Record.
3.2.1 Visual Resources
Existing visual resources within the Project Study Area and Area of Influence are described in
Section 3.2.1 of the EA. Figure 3-1 (Visual Resources) is also located in this section of the EA.
3.2.2 Land Use
Section 3.2.2 of the EA describes the various land use planning and management policies for
Garfield County as well as current land ownership and land use in the Project Study Area and Area
of Influence. Figures 3-2 (Land Ownership), 3-3 (Existing Land Use), 3-4 (Recreation
Resources), 3-5 (Planned Land Use), 3-6 (Garfield County Zoning Map), and 3-7 (Glenwood
Springs Zoning) as well as Table 3-1 (Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Use) are all included
in this section of the EA.
Adm•rec.567/December a. 1997
3-1
Affected Environment
3.2.3 Cultural Resources
Details regarding prehistoric and historic cultural resources within the Project Study Area and
general area of the project are found in Section 3.2.3 of the EA.
3.2.4 Electrical Characteristics
PSCo is committed to programs and policies that ensure a safe and healthy environment. Safety
and health are essential elements of the working environment and are demonstrated daily in
everyday work practices. PSCo is concerned with the health of their employees and the general
public.
This section discusses the electrical characteristics of transmission lines and the possible effects
on public health and safety. The electrical characteristics of the environment near transmission
lines and substations are due primarily to the electric and magnetic fields (EMF) associated with
the voltage and current running through the facilities. An electric field is associated with the
voltage, and a magnetic field is associated with the current. Because the current and voltage on
alternating current (A.C.) transmission lines in the United States oscillate at a frequency of 60
Hertz (Hz) or 60 cycles per second, the electric and magnetic fields also oscillate at 60 Hz.
EMF extend out from the conductors of transmission lines and the substation equipment and
decrease as distance from the facilities increases. The relative strength of the fields in the vicinity
of the facilities is influenced by the location on the property or ROW, the arrangement and spacing
of the electrical conductors, and the voltage and current on the line, as well as other engineering
considerations. A variety of effects are associated with EMF and are discussed in detail below.
The electric field at the surface of the conductors is responsible for an effect known as "corona"
occurring at that location which may result in audible noise (AN), electromagnetic interference
in the form of radio interference or television interference (RI/TVI), and visible light. The EMF
at ground level is responsible for induced currents and voltages. These phenomena are commonly
referred to as field effects. The minimal conductor ground clearance used for analyzing
characteristics was 26 feet.
3.2.4.1 Corona
The electric field from the energized conductors of a transmission line may cause corona to occur
on the conductors, insulators, and hardware of electric lies. Corona is a "luminous discharge due
to the ionization of the air surrounding a conductor caused by the voltage gradient exceeding a
critical values. (IEEE Standard Dictionary of Electrical and Electronics Terms, ANSI/IEEE Std.
100-1988, Fourth Edition, 1988). Corona on conductors occurs where the field has been enhanced
by protrusions is small, and corona is insignificant. However, during rain and fog, the number
Adm-rec.567/December 8, 1997
3-2
Affected Environment
of these protrusions increases substantially because of raindrops and condensation on the surface
of the conductors. Therefore, corona is more Iikely to occur during foul weather.
Corona effects include audible noise (AN), communication interference, visible light, and
photochemical oxidants. Corona from transmission lines has been studied extensively. Standard
equations used to evaluate corona levels have been shown to accurately represent the corona
performance of the existing transmission lines. The parameters of importance in the calculations
are the line voltage, line configuration or geometry, number and diameter of the conductors, and
the weather conditions.
Audible Noise (AN)
Corona -generated AN from transmission lines is generally characterized as a crackling, hissing,
or humming noise. The noise is most noticeable during wet conductor conditions such as rain or
fog. Since each oscillation of the 60 Hz power frequency cycle has both a positive and negative
peak wavelength, this creates a 120 Hz hum that is also present during foul weather. During fair
weather, AN. from transmission, lines is a very sporadic crackling sound which is barely
perceptible. Transmission line AN _is measured and predicted in units of decibels (A -weighted),
abbreviated dBA. The A -weighted sound level scale weights the various frequency components
of a noise to correspond to the way that the human ear responds, or hears the noise.
Transmission line noise is commonly expressed in terms of exceedance levels; for example L50
refers to the noise Ievels in dBA that are exceeded 50 percent of the time. Separate exceedance
levels are generally given for fair weather and wet weather. The L50 wet weather level
corresponds closely to an average value over all wet weather conditions for a long period of time,
usually one year. The overall average noise level depends on the amount of four weather at a
particular location.
Average AN levels (L50) for the edge of the ROW of the existing lines during wet weather is
28.4. The calculated average (L50) fair weather noise levels at the edge of the ROW is 3.4 dBA.
Typical noise levels encountered in daily activities are shown in Table 3-2.
Adm-rec.567/December 8, 1997
3-3
Affected Environment
Table 3-2
Audible Noise Decibel Ratings of Some Common Noises
Typical Decibel
T,evel (dBA)
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
120
140
180
Common Nnices
Lowest Level Audible to Human Ear
Quiet Library, Soft Whisper
Quiet Office, Living Room
Light Traffic, Refrigerator
Air Conditioner, Conversation
Busy Traffic, Noisy Restaurant
Subway, Heavy City Traffic
Truck Traffic, Shop Tools, Lawn Mower
Chain Saw, Pneumatic Drill
Rock Concert, Thunderclap
Jet Plane
Rocket Pad During Launch
Resulting Effect
Audible Noise From Electric
Transmission Lines
Generally Occurs in This
Range (30 - 60)
Critical Level Begins
a Danger Level
a Hearing Loss
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Radio Interference/Television Interference (RI/TVI}
Corona on transmission line conductors can generate electromagnetic noise at the frequencies at
which radio and television signals are transmitted. This noise can interfere with the reception of
these signals (primarily with AM radio stations) and is called radio interference (RI) and television
interference (TVI), depending on the frequency.
Another more prevalent source of RI and TVI from electrical systems is spark gaps on distribution
and low voltage transmission lines. If for some reason, such as mechanical failure, vibration, or
corrosion, a connection between two parts that is usually conducting becomes nonconducting, then
a voltage can develop across the gap between the two components. If the voltage is large enough,
then a spark occurs which may generate RI, TVI, and sometimes AN. This type of interference
is primarily a fair weather phenomenon. Water tends to short out the gaps during foul weather.
Spark gaps will occur more often on old lines with loose or damaged hardware, or dirty insulators,
than on new lines. PSCo conducts routine maintenance on transmission lines to minimize these
occurrences.
Corona -generated interference can conceivably cause disruption on other communication bands
such as the citizens (CB) and mobile bands. However, complaints or interference from
transmission Iines to CB radio are rare. This is because the high operating frequency of CB (about
Adm-rec.567/December S, 1997
3-4
Affected Environment
27 megaHertz, MHZ) is above the frequency of most corona -generated noise. A more likely cause
of interference to CB is spark gaps on a transmission or distribution line. Mobile radio
communications are not susceptible to transmission line interference because they are generally
frequency modulated (FM). In the unlikely event interference occurs with these or other
communications, mitigation can be achieved with the same techniques utilized for RI and TVI.
Visible Light
Corona is visible as a bluish glow or as bluish plumes. Corona on the conductors of the existing
transmission lines may be observable when the conductor surface gradient is high, and then only
under the darkest and/or wettest conditions when the corona is most intense, and would most likely
be visible only with the aid of binoculars. Without a period of adaptation for the eyes, and without
intentionally looking for the corona, it is generally not noticeable on lines below 345kV.
Photochemical Oxidants
When corona is present, the air surrounding the conductors is ionized and chemical reactions may
take place producing small amounts of ozone and other oxidants. Measurements in the laboratory
and near transmission Iines have shown that the amount of oxidants produced by operating
transmission lines is usually not measurable for 230kV lines and is barely measurable for larger
lines.
3.2.4.2 Electric Fields
The electric field associated with a high voltage transmission line extends from the energized
conductors to other objects such as the ground, towers, vegetation, buildings, and vehicles. The
electric field strength is associated with the voltage of the transmission line and is expressed in
units of volts/meter (V/m) or kilovolts/meter (kV/m). The unperturbed electric field at a height
of one meter, or 3.3 feet, above the ground is used to describe the field under transmission lines.
The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) describes the maximum allowable electric field under
transmission lines with voltages greater than 98kV. The NESC requires that the conductor
clearance at a conductor temperature of 120°F be sufficient to keep the induced short-circuit
current to the largest anticipated vehicle to less than 5 mA. Because the induced current is
proportional to the electric field, this criteria establishes the maximum field that can occur for a
known vehicle.
Adm-rec.567IDecember S, 1997
3-5
Affected Environment
3.2.4.3 Shock Hazards
By far, the greatest hazard from transmission lines is direct contact with the conductors.
Powerlines, as with electrical wiring in homes and businesses, can cause serious electric shocks
if precautions are not taken to minimize shock hazard. All PSCo transmission lines are designed
and constructed in accordance with the NESC standards which specify the minimum allowable
distance between the lines and the ground or other objects. These requirements determine the edge
of the ROW, the height of the conductors, and the minimum safe distance between conductors and
other objects such as buildings and cars.
Still, extreme caution must be taken when operating tall equipment, such as cranes and drilling
equipment, and when moving irrigation pipe near any powerline. Vehicles and large equipment
up to 15 feet in height, including antennas, can normally travel safely under PSCo transmission
lines. Trees adjacent to transmission lines should not be felled onto the lines. Kites should not
be flown near transmission lines.
Irrigation systems can be operated safely near transmission lines if certain precautions are taken:
• Irrigation equipment should not be raised to a vertical position anywhere near a powerline
since irrigation pipe is often long enough to reach within flashover distance of the conductors.
• Steady streams of water contacting the conductor can provide a direct path to ground for the
current or flashover. Therefore, irrigation nozzle risers should be equipped with spoilers and
automatic shutoffs.
• Magnetically induced voltages can occur on long sections of irrigation pipe and other metallic,
conducting, objects, such as fences. Maintenance of long pipe systems should be done
perpendicular to the transmission line and the system should be grounded at each end.
• Transferred potential during electrical faults can be avoided by not burying portions of the
irrigation system or pipe near structures or structure grounding systems.
When there is any doubt, questions should be referred to PSCo at 1-800-621-9427.
Large fires near transmission lines are a potential electrical hazard. Hot gases and smoke can
create a conductive path to ground producing flashovers that can cause outages and electrical
shocks to people near the line. The potential for fires are reduced by the prohibition of the storage
of flammables and construction of flammable structures on PSCo ROW. Also, refueling should
not be done near transmission lines unless necessary. If refueling is necessary, proper grounding
techniques should be used. Transmission lines can interfere with circuits used to detonate
explosives, and explosives can also damage power lines. Check with PSCo or your local utility
before initiating blasting.
Adm•rec.567/December 8, 1997
3-6
ected Environment
Another source of fires is lightning. Tall objects, including transmission line structures, are the
most likely points to be struck by lightning during a thunderstorm. PSCo transmission lines are
designed with overhead ground wires and grounded structures to protect the system from
lightning. If lightning strikes the overhead ground wire, the strike is conducted to ground at the
structure locations.
3.2.4.4 Electrically Induced Currents
When a conducting object, such as a vehicle, is in an electric field, currents and voltages are
induced, or flow, in the object. The magnitude of the induced current depends on the electric field
strength, the size and shape of the object, and the degree of grounding. If the object is completely
grounded, then the induced current flows to earth and is called the short-circuit current of the
object. In this case, the voltage on the object is effectively zero. If the object is completely
insulated (not grounded), then it assumes some voltage relative to ground. These induced currents
and voltages can represent a potential source of nuisance shocks.
Steady -State Current
Steady-state currents are those that flow continuously after a person contacts an object and
provides a path to ground (acts as a conductor) for the induced current. The response of persons
to such currents has been extensively studied and levels of response documented are briefly
discussed below.
Primary Shocks
These are shocks that can result in direct physiological harm. The lowest category of primary
shocks is "let go" which represents the steady-state current that cannot be released voluntarily.
The let go threshold was established for adult males at 9.0 milliAmperes (mA) and 6.0 mA for
adult females. These thresholds have been established for adult men weighing 180 pounds and
adult women weighing 120 pounds. Let go thresholds for adults have been established from actual
experimentation. Thresholds for children, however, have been derived from the data for adults,
since no actual measurements were taken from children. The derivation of a threshold for children
was based on body weight, and is generally accepted as 5.0 mA -- the value adopted by the NESC.
No information is readily available on the body weight of the children for whom the 5.0 mA
threshold was adopted. Primary shocks are not possible from the induced currents under the
existing lines because of the relatively low field strengths and the grounding practices of PSCo.
Adm-rcc.567/Decembcr 8, 1997
3-7
Affected Environment
Spark Discharge Shocks
Induced voltages appear on objects such as vehicles and people partially insulated from ground by
non -conducting materials such as rubber tires or shoe soles. If the voltage is sufficiently high,
then a spark discharge shock will occur when two objects come very close together (withing a
fraction of a centimeter). Such shocks are similar to "carpet" shocks, which occur when reaching
for a door knob after walking across a carpet on a dry day. Spark discharge shocks could,
theoretically, occur under the existing and proposed transmission lines. However, the magnitude
of the electric field is low enough that this type of shock rarely occurs, and then only under certain
conditions.
Handling conducting objects under the transmission line can also result in spark discharges that
are a nuisance. Irrigation pipe, and other similar objects, should be carried as low to the ground
as possible and preferably unloaded at a distance from the transmission lines to eliminate spark
discharge nuisance shocks. The primary hazard with irrigation pipe, and other similar objects,
is direct contact with the conductors.
3.2.4.5
Magnetic Fields
In general, a field is a space where energy exists. For example, the warm space around a glowing
light bulb is a temperature or heat field. Electric fields are associated with the voltage of an
electrical source. Magnetic fields are associated with the current or flow of electricity in an
electrical device or conductor. Electric and magnetic fields sometimes are referred to as
electromagnetic fields (or EMF).
Field = space where energy exists
Electric Field = field created by voltage from an electrical source
Magnetic Field = field created by current of flow of electricity
Electric + Magnetic Fields = Electromagnetic Fields or EMF
Electric and magnetic fields are found everywhere electricity is used, such as personal computers,
telephone lines and household appliances. Magnetic fields are usually expressed in units of
magnetic flux density, ("gauss" or "milligauss", which is one -thousandth of a gauss). The
magnetic fields that are associated with appliances typically are within the same range or larger
than those fields found near power lines. For example, the magnetic fields at the edge of rights-
of-way of electric transmission lines typically are between three and 20 milligauss under normal
operating conditions. In comparison, magnetic fields created by a clothes dryer average between
one and 24 milligauss.
Many of the studies on the effects of electric and magnetic fields have been conducted. Findings
from most of the studies have been weak and inconsistent. In July 1997, a comprehensive study
Adm-rec,5671December 8, 1997
3-8
Affected Environment
by researchers from the National Cancer Institute and the Children's Cancer Group found no
evidence that electric and magnetic fields in the home increase the risk for the most common form
of childhood cancer (acute lymphoblastic leukemia or ALL).
PSCo is committed to providing safe and reliable electricity to our customers. The company has
always been concerned for the health and well-being of the people it serves. PSCo is actively
involved in trying to better understand the issue. These experts have advised PSCo that the large
body of existing research and scientific information does not indicate that electric and magnetic
fields cause any adverse health effects.
Since it is not known if EMF exposure is harmful, it is not known what intensity of field is safe
or unsafe. In turn, one cannot say what is a safe distance. The bottom line from the research is
that there is not an established cause and effect relationship between EMF exposure and cancer
or other disease. For this reason, a hazardous level of EMF exposure cannot be defined.
EMF's are produced by all electrical and electronic devices, such as microwave ovens, home
wiring, appliances, light fixtures, and video display terminals. It would be impossible to avoid
EMF's completely, but field levels get Lower the further you are away from the source. Table 3-3
provides the magnetic field levels of common household appliances. As Table 3-3 demonstrates,
the magnetic field levels from the existing lines are similar to those encountered in everyday life.
Table 3-3
Magnetic Field Environment
Typical Range of Exposure Maximum Range of
Sources of Ex ods re* (mG) Ex o
Electric Alarm Clock 1-12 50-450
Electric Blanket 3-50 65-250
Waterbed Heater 1-9 20-51
Electric Shaver 50-300 500-6875
Hair Dryer 1-75 112-2125
Sewing Machine 1-23 26-1125
Computer 1-25 1875
Circular Saw 19-48 84-562
Electric Drill 56-194 300-1500
Clothes Dryer 1-24 45-93
Clothes Washer 1-10 12-20
Vacuum Cleaner 1-I1 15-60
Ceiling Fan 1-11 125
Stereo 4-100 200-500
Television 1-3 5-100
Portable Heater 1-10 100-200
Adm-rec.567IDceember 8, 1997
3-9
Affected Environment
Table 3-3 (continued)
Magnetic Field Environment
Refrigerator 1-8 12-187
Electric Can Opener 30-225 288-2750
Microwave Oven 3-40 65-812
Dishwasher 1-15 28-712
Electric Mixer 2-11 16-387
Oven 1-8 14-67
Garbage Disposal 1-5 8-33
Electric Range 1-80 175-625
M.S. Silva, et al., 1988; Power Frequency Magnetic Fields in the Home; IEEE Transaction on Power Delivery; vol. 4:1:465-477; Paper
No. 88WM101-8.
3.2.5 Socioeconomics
This section describes the existing socioeconomic structure of Garfield County and the Town of
Glenwood Springs, including population, economy, housing, and community services. This data
will be used to examine the impacts to the socioeconomic environment that would result from
implementation of the proposed Project or the alternatives, and to determine whether these impacts
would be beneficial or detrimental. Available socioeconomic data was collected from local and
state government sources. The primary source of information was the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan.
Garfield County is located in west -central Colorado. The city of Glenwood Springs is the county
seat, and is located 159 miles west of Denver along the U.S. Interstate 70 corridor. Other
communities in the vicinity of Glenwood Springs include Carbondale, unston,Chacra New
Castle, Silt, and Rifle. Most of the communities in the county are located along the Interstate 70
corridor. Glenwood Springs is the primary community that would be affected by the Project.
3.2.5.1 Population
Historically, population trends in Garfield County have been tied to resource development,
particularly mining and ranching. In recent years, tourism has had an expanding role in the local
economy. The Glenwood Hot Springs helped establish Glenwood Springs as a popular resort
community. Tourist -related services provide employment for a significant portion of the
population.
Adm-rec.567nhcember 8, 1997
3-10
Affected Environment
The population of Garfield County and Glenwood Springs has shown steady growth in the past 25
years, reflecting the region's continuing popularity and growth as a tourist destination. In the
years between 1970 and 1980, the population of the county increased by 51.9 percent. The
population grew to 29,974 people in 1990, an increase of 33.1 percent over the 1980 population.
The proposed Project would be located in new and existing ROW in a rural area adjacent to the
city of Glenwood Springs. The 1990 Census identified 573 residents, or 9 percent of the total
population, below poverty level in Glenwood Springs. No residents below poverty level were
identified for rural areas in the vicinity of Glenwood Springs. The population of Glenwood
Springs is predominantly white (97.4%). Other minority groups in the area constitute a small
percentage of the total population. There were no areas identified in the Project Study Area, Area
of Influence, or in Glenwood Springs that consisted of predominately minority populations.
Glenwood Springs is the most developed urban area in Garfield County, accounting for 21.9
percent of the county population in 1990. Population densities outside of Glenwood Springs in
the Project Study Area and in the Area of Influence range from less than one person per square
mile to 11-25 persons per square mile. Continued population growth, summarized in Table 3-4,
and further development of the area are issues that currently concern residents of the county.
Table 3-4
Population Growth in
Garfield County and the City of Glenwood Springs
Year Garfield County Percent Glenwood Percent Change
Champ Springs
1970 14,821 NA
1980 22,514 51.9 4,637 -
1990 29,974 33.1 6,561 41.5
1991 30,668 2.3 NA
1992 31,455 2.6 6,757
1993 32,187 2.3 7,061 4.5
1994 32,196 5.4 7,266 2.9
2000 projected 32,959 7,214
Source: CEDIS, 1996. Garfield County, 1995. Glenwood Springs, 1996.
Population projections prepared from the Demographic Section of the Colorado Division of Local
Government are based on the 1990 Census. The projections forecast an increase of 2,985
residents in the county from 1990, which translates to a average annual growth rate of 1.0 percent,
well below the average rate between 1980 to 1990. Based on past growth trends, Garfield County
is expected to continue to grow at a steady rate.
Adm-rcc.567/December 8, 1997
3-11
Affected Environment
3.2.4.2 Economy and Employment
The entire county features numerous attractions and activities, and is a popular year-round tourist
destination. In addition to Glenwood Springs, county attractions include Glenwood Canyon, the
Flat Tops Wilderness in the White River National Forest, Rifle Falls State Park, Rifle Gap State
Recreation Area, and Harvey Gap State Recreation Area. Rocky Mountain National Park and
Roosevelt National Forest. As such, service industries and retail trade employ the largest number
of workers in Garfield County. Support services for tourists and residents account for about 30
percent of employment. Retail trade accounts for 20.8 of employment. Table 3-5 surnmarizes
employment by economic sector in Garfield County. Mining and agriculture are also important
economic industries in the county.
Table 3-5
1993 Employment by Economic Sector in Garfield County
Economic Sector
Number of
Employees
Percent
Total Employment 19,834 100.0
Farming 601 3.0
Total Non -Farming Employment 19,233 97.0
Agriculture Services, Forestry, Fisheries & Other 392 2.0
Mining 145 0.7
Construction 2,397 12.1
Manufacturing 624 3.1
Transportation & Public Utilities 863 4.4
Wholesale Trade 551 2.8
Retail Trade 4,133 20.8
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 1,516 7.6
Services 5,954 30.0
Government 2,658 13.4
Source: CED1S, 1996.
Segments of employment opportunities in the county are seasonal, primarily consisting of tourism
and recreation industries. Agriculture employment is also seasonal. Large numbers of residents
commute to jobs in other counties, particularly in Pitkin County. The 1994 unemployment rate
was 4.6 percent, the lowest rate in the years between 1990 and 1994. Table 3-6 summarizes labor
force characteristics between 1990 and 1994.
Adm-rcc.567JDccembcr 8, 1997
3-12
Affected Environment
Table 3-6
Labor Force Characteristics, Garfield County
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Total Labor Force 16,932 17,000 16,818 17,941 18,945
Total Employed 16,106 15,901 15,411 16,821 18,114
Total Unemployed 826 1,099 1,407 1,120 831
Percent Unemployed 5.1 6.9 9.1 6.7 4.6
Source:
The major economic force in the Glenwood Springs area is tourism. Glenwood Springs is a resort
town which provides lodging and other resort services to the more than one million yearly visitors
to the area. It is the most visited area on the western slope by front range visitors. The city is
also the regional center for retail, education, medical and professional services.
3.2.5.3 Housing
Housing shortages and development pressures outside of Garfield County have resulted in
increased numbers of persons seeking residence in Garfield County and Glenwood Springs. New
residents and potential homeowners may be employed either within or outside of the county.
Recreation -related real estate development is also a stimuli for growth within the county.
The 1990 U.S. Census of Population and Housing estimates a total of 12,517 housing units in
Garfield County, of which 7,761 units, or 62 percent, are owner occupied. Approximately 2,882
housing units are in the city of GIenwood Springs. The 1990 homeowner vacancy rate in the
county was 2.1 percent and the rental vacancy rate was 6.2 percent (U.S. Census 1990). Table
3-7 summarizes the housing characteristics in Garfield County in 1980 and 1990. In 1994, the
average resale value of single-family housing units was $171,000, an increase of 13 percent from
the 1993 resale value. The owner vacancy rate has dropped to 0.8 percent in 1994.
Table 3-7
Housin Characteristics in Garfield County, 1980 -1990
C LmrartPrictir 1950 1O__________________________
Total Units 9,345 12,517 +33.9
Single Units/ % of Total 5,654/60.5% 6,414/51.2% +13.4
Mobile Units/ % of Total 1,673/17.9% 2,572/20.5% +53.75
Single Attached/ % of Total 2,018/21.6% 3,531/28.3% +74.9
Average Household Size 2.72 2.6 - <1
Number of Households 8,131 11,266 +37.9
Number of Families 5,920 7,966 +34.6
% of Owner Occupied 0.649 0.62 -0.029
Vacancy Rate (Owner/Rental) 4.0%19.7% 2.1%/6.2% -1.9/-3.5
Source:
Adm-ree.567/December 8, 1997
3-13
Affected Environment
Real estate activity in the Glenwood Springs area between 1990 and 1994 reflects the increasing
price of housing in the region. In 1992, the average sale price of a single family house was
$130,068. By 1994, the average sale price rose more than 31 percent, to $171,017. In 1994,
rentals of 2 -bedroom apartments started at $600 per month, and a 3 -bedroom house rented for
approximately $800-$1,200 per month (Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association, 1995).
It is expected that the demand for new housing in the county will continue to rise if current
employment trends continue. The demand for new units in the county are expected to range from
300 to 400 units annually. The available housing data suggest that building activity is not keeping
pace with current population and employment growth. The units currently being built do not meet
the housing demands at the low end of the price spectrum.
3.2.5.4 Community Services
There are four school districts in Garfield County. Glenwood Springs and the Roaring Fork
Valley are served by the Roaring Fork RE -1 School District. There are three schools in the
district, including an elementary school, a middle school, and a high school. In September 1994,
there were a total of 2,015 students enrolled in public schools in the district. Adult education is
provided through the Colorado Mountain College, a community college located south of Glenwood
Springs.
Law enforcement in Garfield County is provided by the Garfield County Sheriff's Department in
Glenwood . s and the Colorado State Highway Patrol. The Sheriff's department employs a
• i . 1 . eo • le and has eighteen vehicles. Law enforcement in Glenwood Springs is provided
by the Glenwood Springs Police Department.
Fire protection services in Glenwood Springs are provided by a fire department manned by a
combination of paid and volunteer personnel. Fire protection in areas surrounding Glenwood
Springs are provided by the Glenwood Springs Rural Fire Protection District and the Carbondale
Rural Fire Protection District. The two districts are shown in Appendix F.
The Valley View Hospital in Glenwood Springs provides comprehensive health care facilities,
including a full-service hospital, sports medicine center, a family birth place, day surgery, a youth
recovery center, and 24-hour emergency care.
Electricity is provided to customers by the City of Glenwood Springs. Electric power is purchased
from PSCo and the Holy Cross Rural Electric Association. -Drinking—water1S provided -to -tie
--regtt bythe alley-Metro-Water_District. The county landfill is located in Rifle.
Adm-ree.567/December 9, 1497
3-14
Affected Environment
3.2.6 Earth Resources
3.2.6.1 Soils
Given that soils usually experience only direct, physical impacts, (as opposed to indirect impacts)
this section identifies and addresses only those soils in the Project Study Area. It is not anticipated
that soils in the Area of Influence will experience any indirect impacts.
The Soil Survey of the Rifle Area (Harman and Murray 1985) covers the portion of the Project
Study Area within T 6 S, R 89 W. The Soil Survey of the Aspen -Gypsum Area (Alstatt and
Moreland 1992) covers the portion of the Project Study Area within T 6 S, R 88 W. The soil
associations identified by each survey do not correlate with each other.
Two associations were identified within the Project Study Area in T 6 S, R 89 W. The Arvada-
torrifluvents-Heldt association is found at the western edge of the Project Study Area. It consists
of deep, well drained to somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils on benches,
terraces, alluvial fans, and floodplain. The Morval-Villa Grove association is found in the
balance of the Project Study Area within T 6 S, R 89 W. These soils are deep, well drained,
moderately sloping to moderately steep, and are found on mesas, mountainsides, and alluvial fans.
Two associations are located within the Project Study Area in T 6 S, R 88 W. The Emperado-
Morval-Evanston association is found within the southern 2/3 of T 6 S, R 88 W. These are gently
sloping to very steep, well drained, deep soils on hills, fans, and valley sides. The northern third
is occupied by the Jerry-Cochetopa-Forsey association. These soils are gently sloping to very
steep, well drained, deep soils on alluvial fans, hills, valley sides, mountainsides, and ridges.
3.2.6.2 Geology
Given that geologic formations usually experience only direct, physical impacts, (as opposed to
indirect impacts) this section identifies and addresses only the geology of the Project Study Area.
It is not anticipated that geologic formations in the Area of Influence will experience any indirect
impacts.
Several geologic formations are located at or near the ground surface within the Project Study
Area (Tweto et al. 1978). These range in age from unconsolidated quaternary deposits which have
accumulated over the last 100,000 years to bedrock from the Pennsylvanian epoch of geological
time dating back approximately 350 million years ago.
Eagle Valley Evaporite (Pennsylvanian age bedrock) is found at the western edge of the Project
Study Area. This formation consists of gypsum and anhydrite with interbedded siltstone and
minor beds of dolomite.
Adm-rec.567IDecember 8, L997
3-15
Affected Environment
The Maroon Formation and Weber Sandstone (Permian and Pennsylvanian age) are found
throughout large portions of the central and western portions of the Project Study Area. The
Maroon Formation consists of maroon and grayish red sandstone, conglomerate, and mudstone.
The Weber is a yellow -gray sandstone.
Several areas of tertiary basalt outcrop exist in the central portion of the Project Study Area. This
bedrock is a dense, black, resistant alkali basalt found in lava flow layers with interbedded tuffs
and volcanic conglomerate.
Quaternary landslide deposits are found at the surface in the southeastern third of the Project Study
Area. They include slump blocks of basalt, mudflows, and talus deposits.
3.2.6.3 Soil and Geologic Hazards
The Project Study Area and Area of Influence is located within the Zone 1 seismic risk area (on
a scale of 0 to 3 with 3 being the highest risk) (Algermissen 1969). Minor damage to structures
could be expected as a result of distant earthquakes. In the Glenwood Springs area, two
earthquakes with magnitudes of V on the Modified Mercalli Scale (on a scale of I to XII) have
been recorded in the past 76 years (Stover, Reagor and Algermissen 1988). A magnitude V,
earthquake is felt indoors by practically everyone and outdoors by many or most. An earthquake
of this magnitude would awaken many or most and would cause buildings to tremble throughout.
One small landslide area and one small debris fan area have been identified along the western edge
of the Project Study Area in Glenwood Springs. The landslide area in the southeastern third of
the Project Study Area was not identified as a "geologic hazard" presumably because slopes are
not steep and have been stabilized by vegetation. An engineering geology study of the Roaring
Fork Valley (Fox and Assoc. 1974) identified potential avalanche and rockfall areas in Sections
10 and 15, T6S, R88W at the western end of the Project Study Area, immediately east of
Glenwood Springs.
Moderate and major slope hazard areas have been identified in sections 10 and 15 at the western
end of the Project Study Area. Moderate and major soil hazards have also been noted in these
same areas. A relatively small area of moderate slope hazard has been identified in sections 13
and 24, two and one-half miles southeast of Glenwood Springs. These soil and slope hazard areas
are shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9, respectively.
Adm•rec.567IDeeember 8. 1997
3-16
ity of Glenwood
4
0
Mile
2 Miles
5 MiIes
I.
r 9,y
rEF
Figure 3-8
12GNn
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LAVE
a SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
maw MAJOR
MODERATE
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5aarce: Garftidd CIS
1154 .5, Quaciazile Map5
fi) Public Service'
A.b`C !3e`ncs COnl w y cl Onion da
ROW siting end Pcmmle
Engineetrop Support and Fight-cf-Wat
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
SOIL HAZARDS
Tmene,b. 111540.13.
Rwya: raelk tang
Sacti E YRWV5
Prirepd MMi 6N '
cam),
DATE: 9.1996
Gran, B)r .P6 / MI
AGENT: AL..9Yi
REVISED: 5e54ee11r 9, 199/
n
4
1 Mile
2 M11e
3 Mi1e5
j 1 •4J
I y' �•
J 1' _l__
TLiI
Figure 3-9
L6NI7
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115(V TRANSMISSION LINE
23OKV TRANSMISSION UNE
p SUBSTATION
MAO
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
MAJOR
MODERATE
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5airce: Garfield Garan
U.5,6,5. Quadrangle Map5
•
0 Public Service'
PuhLc 9errce, Compan of CokvA do
i#OW, 51tnp and Per, -lis
Ergneerry amort Md P.urrt-c4-WAy
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
SLOPE HAZARDS
Ta.nehb:
1,05 to VS.
Roo. Y,@9YN.bIt9101.
S.ctons limas
Rimcpd I
on- bili
Caanty criffsp_
BATE: Jre 5.199'0
Brawn By
.Ki / MI
AGENT: ?ALM
REYSEB: % Amer 15, 1991
Affected Environment
3.2.6.4 Surface Water
Defined by the topography of Lookout Mountain, drainage patterns within the Project Study Area
and Area of Influence run east -west, north -south, and south -north resulting in approximately
sixteen primary drainages. Of these drainages, only two are perennial: Bear Creek, which flows
north for approximately one mile through the north eastern corner of the Project Study Area; and
Landis Creek, which runs in a southwesterly direction through the southeastern corner of the
Project Study Area. While all of Bear Creek is perennial, Landis Creek's flow becomes
intermittent below 7650' . All of the proposed corridors would cross Landis Creek, however, none
would cross Bear Creek.
The remaining surface water drainages within the Project Study Area and Area of Influence are
ephemeral. Beginning on Lookout Mountain they typically flow either to the south or to the west.
The major drainages which these ephemeral sources feed are outside the Project Study Area: the
southern drainages generally feed the Red Canyon/Spring Valley drainage; and the western
drainages, such as Cemetery Gulch, typically terminate at the Glenwood Ditch.
Other than two small (< 0.5 acres) seasonal ponds, no standing water features are located within
the Project Study Area.
3.2.6.5 Ground Water
While ground water sources are present within the Project Study Area in the form of deep bedrock
aquifers, shallow ground water systems are not well documented. The public water supply for the
area is primarily surface water. Most Spring Valley residents have private wells.
3.2.6.6 Floodplains
Floodplains are defined as those areas subject to a 100 -year flood. Federal Emergency
Management Act (FEMA) maps were used to identify any potential floodplains within the Project
Study Area (FEMA panels 080205-1043B; 1431B, 1432B, 1434B, 1445B, 1453B, 1465B, 1470B -
January 3, 1986). Except for the location of the transmission line crossing of the Colorado River,
no floodplains occur within the Project Study Area. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan
indicates the presence of Roaring Fork River floodplains in southeast Glenwood Springs which
might enter into the Project Study Area, but which would not be crossed by any of the corridor
alternatives.
Adm•rec.S671De ember 8, 1997
3-21
Affected Environment
3:2.7 Biological Resources
3.2.7.1 Vegetation
The resource area lies within two physiogeographic regions: the Southern Rocky Mountains and
the Colorado Plateau. Within these regions the vegetation community types are determined by
precipitation, elevation, topography, exposure, soil type, and land use. Several vegetation
community types occur in the Project Study Area including meadow, desert shrub, mountain
shrub, willow/alder, deciduous tree woodland, and pinon/juniper woodland (Figure 3-10). These
community types also occur in the Area of Influence, but, given that vegetation impacts occur
primarily only through direct impacts, only the vegetation in the Project Study Area was
evaluated.
Meadow
Pockets of grassland meadows are scattered across the Project Study Area. In Colorado, meadows
occur wherever fine-grained soils, low precipitation, and cold temperatures discourage tree growth
(Mutel and Emerick 1984). Thurber fescue (Festuca thurben) and mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia
montana) used to be the dominant species, but have since been discouraged through heavy grazing
by livestock. Mutel and Emerick (1984) state that these remnants are present but have been
dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and foxtail
barley (Hordeum jubatum).
Desert Shrub
A large portion of the Project Study Area which would be traversed by the transmission corridors
is occupied by desert shrub. The dominant plants of this community include greasewood
(Sarcobatus vermiculatus), four -winged saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and shadscale (Atriplex
confertifolia) (Mutel and Emerick 1984). This community generally occurs on dry, steep slopes
with shale outcrops. Desert shrub dominates south -facing slopes.
Mountain Shrub
Shrublands occur throughout the lower mountains of Colorado and are interspersed between
pinyon/juniper woodlands and montane coniferous forests (Mutel and Emerick 1984). Mountain
shrub is one of the most common community types in the Project Study Area. It is dominated by
Gambel oak (Quercus gambellt) and mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus).
Adm•rec.5677Decembcr 8, 1997
3-22
I Mile
2 Milo
Figure 3-10
69KV TRANSMISSION UNE
115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
I:1 SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
MEADOW
IVS1 DESERT SHRUB
fawn MOUNTAIN SHRUB
DECIDUOUS TREE
PINON/JUNIPER
PENSTEMON HARRINGTON!
M WETLANDS
FIOUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
!N EIWIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5ctirce5:
5e Reconnaissance aid heriA rhotoctraphq
U.5, NO. of' Interior 13ivi5ion of fish & WiIJife National Wedaid5 Iritor Map5
Harrinqtzn 13eardtonope PenAemari Harrincitonii) 5urveti prepared IN 6retorie
115.6.5. 7uaddrnIe Mw
0 Public Service*
Pubic Service Cor* AY Of Colorado
ROW. Sr and Rarrnta
Ervineerhg Support and Rctl-ca-Way
SHOSHONE — GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
VEGETATION and WETLANDS
lowish :t5to1i$i
Rove MN, iis ON
Sections' Ynaa15-
Pk,d'Meriden' 6114
Conty,
DA : lese 5, i996
ormm kt Al / VAC
AGM: 141M
Septoskt IC 1991
xstsar.
Affected Environment
Wetlands and Riparian Communities
Potential wetlands and riparian communities were identified from National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) maps produced by the USFWS. These communities have been identified from aerial
photographs and, in most cases, have not been field verified. Eleven separate areas were
identified and characterized on the NWI maps within the Project Study Area. These communities
are discussed below (with their NWI designations) and are shown on Figure 3-10. Eight palustrine
(standing water) communities were identified within the Project Study Area. One excavated,
seasonal emergent community (PEMCA) was identified in Section 15. Four diked ponds or
impoundments were identified within Sections 12, 14, 18, and 20. These impoundments are
characterized by semi-permanent hydrologically supported aquatic beds (PABFh). Sections 14 and
21 have impoundments with unconsolidated shores which hold water temporarily (PUSAh). A
temporarily wet area supporting emergent vegetation was identified within Section 21 (PEMA).
Three riverine communities were identified within the Project Study Area. Two are upper
perennial systems with unconsolidated bottoms. One of these is semi -permanently supported by
flow and one ,is permanently supported by flow. These two riverine communities are found in
Sections 8 (Bear Creek) and 10 (Deadmans Creek), T 6 S, R 88 W, and are tributary to the
Colorado River. An intermittent system is found in Section 20 (Landis Creek). It is supported
by seasonal precipitation events and a streambed has formed.
Deciduous Tree Woodland
This community is dominated by Gambel oak. In many cases, Gambel oak forms a pure
monoculture. According to Mutel and Emerick (1984), stands of Gambel oak at lower elevations
in Colorado are probably climax communities where soil conditions are optimal. The understory
of these communities is usually sparse and litter build-up is high.
Pinyon/Juniper Woodland
Pinyon/juniper woodlands are found throughout western Colorado and occur within the Project
Study Area. At higher elevations, pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), Utah juniper (Juniperus
osteosperma), and one -seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) intersperse with ponderosa pine
(Pinus ponderosa), Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesit), and GambeI oak.
Threatened and Endangered Species
One sensitive species of plant, the Harrington beardtongue (Penstemon harringtonii) was identified
for potentially occurring within the Project Study Area. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program
(CNHP) provided information on multiple known occurrences of Harrington beardtongue near the
project area. Surveys were conducted from July 16 to July 21, 1996 (Greystone 1996). While
Adm-rec.567/Dccember 8, 1997
3-25
Affected Environment
potential Harrington beardtongue plants were identified within the Project Study Area, neither
potential community is located on public land and neither occur within those corridor segments
currently considered as viable transmission line corridors.
3.2.7.2 Wildlife
For most of the animal species, individuals and communities were identified only within the
Project Study Area. Such species tend to be year-round residents of the area and do not migrate.
For those species that do migrate, including big game and birds, individuals and communities were
identified within both the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence. Wildlife information for
this EA report was gathered from two sources. First, interviews were conducted with the CDOW,
BLM, and the USFWS concerning the wildlife resources within the Project Study Area. Second,
both published and unpublished information regarding the wildlife resources was gathered from
the resource management agencies.
The wildlife resources within the Project Study Area are typically upland in nature. However,
while aquatic ,and semi -aquatic species occur within the area, their habitats are restricted. The
major wildlife groups within the Area of Influence include big game, predators/furbearers,
raptors, songbirds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and threatened and endangered species.
Big Game
Big game species occurring in the Project Study and Area of Influence Area include mule deer
(Odocoileus himionus), elk (Cereus canadensis), and bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). Mule deer
within the Area of Influence are contained within the Basalt herd. The CDOW has mapped
numerous mule deer ranges for this herd including summer range, winter range, severe winter
range, and winter concentration areas (Figure 3-11).
Summer range is defined as that part of the range in which 90 percent of the individuals are
located between the spring green -up and the first heavy snowfall. Typically, summer range is
comprised of alpine meadows, spruce -fir, aspen, and mountain shrub areas.
Winter range is that part of the range where 90 percent of the individuals are located during five
winters out of ten (as an average) from the first heavy snowfall until spring green -up (CDOW
1996). During the winter, deer move into steep south facing slopes below 8,000' and into the
lower elevation valley bottoms. Habitats occupied during the winter include sagebrush, oak brush,
mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and pinon-juniper. Within the Project Study Area and Area of
Influence, winter ranges are generally occupied from December 15 through April 15 (CDOW
1996).
Adm-rec.567/December 8. 1997
3-26
•I SAillik
4010MOALIMA i 111i5044altNatiON07/,'444Vila
hypirmompo ill ,,__ .......___,-.A0Red, \ ......7.•,.........- ,- 4
''''TN'ilb1141,441001011PV
i'
WINgAsletZar
" ' • - -iiikii,-R "?..- IL
...W!Illi1111111111111
1 ra,.41
• o•
man 1 vi r 1
1—'4'.*11_11_is11t1Pg.1iki4. t1..../tib41.t11i
1
Ag.1m.1a0rinr,_ 77itp1aW4Iagi.mia totatlitlimikgNo
•tIIhIq 18
P;.IS r
ill
ilinitdim mmang%mhak allanacalamaak aimpalm, _AI
I in: if MU": "" '1 ''''4: 12,1;a: ' pall: IMO I 14-ai - ' .' '
vi, -III Wr 41"11111044tellillailltillipillepragaim
ff All MINIM MINIMIV,i+iop.-%,, ,m" - r,qm : - ii.: -.01 . _ . , Nu411.111.11111K,
4TV.Wrjjpiwtrorumypmmrmnt4,tmmimnuwez,.
on inniesmati.
ill:!!!!511!!!!!!!!!:EllEiti.44kilinmlaili-
, •,.. • RI 0 ,71- ,,
,•
0 .
. yzil.:,,,g., Ili mmimpumilvammumilag..:.41mbiarnmsmumm.
•11/4 ,,7...d. 'al
•
hilt.
\V41.741.*, 11 a lail P.Millgr1111116i0=111
aim In•
,_ -‘0,-4,4, IR ins n miltow4964.11 M 1311!Ra,
"N•Alk',1P-104.. la neriannimnarap. eh: mallor .....:7.04
6_
. mill ginr-iira •
,......v....!,. In r.,..
....:, -
N.x..1) , Fe. gm id- En owl
k,.. i rr
,,N,,,,.....„, 411411 iim moil;
,,,„ ekIr:.*:.!., T. 1 ! .
.
III ii"
If We. Pre imennour ra,.....rinnall
ire....0 •.. a
/IP: 11=1111r
; ,... 4.11:,......0 I • pffill -MI NM
MN
.10 igeNri IMMItall 1H US : Mr
.06 MT.. NIP= IMO
_ IMIMi M- mil
j tii.'*29.*W 01111111111ip NNW
! .:t•.•: , 0
E9.-11 AMINIIIM NOW NW" ill MN III
i vw.:tey /111211111 mognun anumineum immaio~. am
1 ...nwor.4. smainveinimmennurami lwiii -wjaalmaial_.
i-1;‘, a almusTanneam tial
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
II5KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION UNE
SUBSTATION
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
mil** r. MMIMINhav- _qat10111010!!!!!ggilmmealliWrAmmommimaPPEE.... t
VIKPAS WM IN KM MIIMMIN MININNNI Is
;...tV 5,10111.111.11111.1.11 no am= Burai pi•
t
211144MIPMEM HMI 1
,r4 1.
1U
-:!;AVSto 2'.. '41111MFAI_ II liNI 111111111111M NIMONNIM
•.. * 'V 'W-,1 , • - .IIII I III
'4.61ZW.7N g
..liiiiiii Mill. MOMMrO
iMMOMIN IIIMML
T. \swilk'w*, %NM NEMIIIMEU
.M01101111111.1
- '"47i d N II
k! , .tiou llAAR.tWem•..A2t5.,.1Aie„
I VM ins -ow 1 IMI41MN1
04:11111 GMINMP. -Nnsz.414114noobAkA*14, nne...`ImI
0 lonn w 15. '1iNI. TATtlitinNiti* Mk; INI, 'MIX
1 Li Jimaaaanat,..kk,:-.4.;•:;..4acoaipAmpv..w.4; - 4
-...„;•• re -i..:.# 1
ifizemiuma . - —
5ource: Co aradol2iv15ion of'Wildkre
U5.6.5. Quadrat* Map5
0 Public Service'
••
*'• t7ii.(21415. ;,:tef.1.171111111111.1.......111.111PVIS k 111";""11151411111111,40 log
• "IP gr' 6)4 it4"PG -111.1111r NMIur' -.144.1" 019"::::.: i;4
4
iiI
7.4.•Nrdir.tai b2b;it.AtipNLsvr an." -74,„ 0,8,01t:
walla , , dink
_ 701.41,„&doc.o..4........
Orm
Raw senior company or Cakrodo
ROW. Slthg and Ferree
Engineerhg &wort trod VA -or -Way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
WILDLIFE - MULE DEER
wassumiaammem
E=MMEULMI
DME: 1.10 0.1996
RIVISEO:
}
r
r
f
t
r
{
f
l
Affected Environment
In addition to winter range, both severe winter range and winter concentration areas occur within
the western portion of the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence. Severe winter range is
that part of the range where 90 percent of the individuals are located when the annual snowpack
is at its maximum, and/or temperatures are at a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten.
Winter concentration areas are that part of the range where species densities are at least 200
percent greater than the surrounding winter range density from December 15 through April 15 in
the average of five winters out of ten.
Mule deer within the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence are contained within Game
Management Unit 444 and Data Analysis Unit (DAU) D-53 as defined by the CDOW. This DAU
is approximately 372 square miles. Of this area approximately 26 percent (97 square miles) is
winter range. The 1994 population estimate for this unit was 4,340 with a buck:doe ratio of
26:100 (CDOW 1996).
Elk within the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence are part of the Frying Pan herd. The
CDOW has mapped production areas, severe winter range, winter concentration areas, and winter
range (Figure,3-12). EIk within the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence are contained
within Game Management Unit I'H which is part of DAU E-16 which includes Game
Management Units 44, 45, 47, and 444 (CDOW 1996).
Winter range, severe winter range, and winter concentration areas are defined the same as for
mule deer. However, the dates vary, with winter range occupied from December 15 through April
1. Winter range is typically comprised of aspen, mountain shrub, sagebrush and pinon juniper.
Production areas are that part of the range occupied by female elk from May 15 through June 15
and are used for calving. Approximately 82 square miles of production areas are mapped within
this DAU. The extreme southwestern and southeastern portions of the Project Study Area contain
critical habitats and severe winter range area for elk. Elk Production areas are located along the
eastern edge of the Project Study Area. Eastern portions of the Area of Influence contain elk
production areas and the extreme southwest and southeast corners of the Area of Influence contain
critical and sever winter range for elk.
Bighorn sheep occur along the northern border of the Area of Influence along Glenwood Canyon.
Sheep inhabit the northern portion of the area north of Lookout Mountain. In addition, sheep
winter range has been identified along the northern border of the Area of Influence (Figure 3-13) .
Bighorn sheep winter range is defined as that part of the range where 90 percent of the individuals
are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snow to the spring
green -up (CDOW 1996).
Adm-reo.567IDecember 8, 1997
3-29
Affected Environment
Furbearers/Predators
Species within this group include coyotes (Canis latrans), black bear (Ursus americanus),
mountain lion (Fells concolor), skunks (Mephitis spp.), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
Population estimates for these species are not available from the CDOW. However, they are
expected to occur throughout the Project Study Area.
Raptors
Numerous raptor species are expected to occur within the Project Study Area and Area of
Influence. Expected species include golden eagles (Aquila chryaetos), red-tailed hawks (Buteo
jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), Cooper's hawks (Accipiter cooperu), northern
harrier (Circus cyaneus), Swainson's hawks (Buteo swainsont), northern saw -whet owl (Aegolius
acadicus), and great -horned owls (Bubo virginianus). Both Golden eagle nest sites and Bald eagle
winter range have been identified within the Area of Influence. While no additional nest sites have
been identified, nesting and wintering birds are expected to occur within areas of suitable habitat
within the Area of Influence. Information on all avian species is shown in Figure 3-14.
Songbirds
Numerous songbirds occur within the Project Study Area. The number of individuals and
diversity of species varies by season. Species expected to occur within the Project Study Area
include broad -tailed hummingbirds (Selasphorus platycercus), downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), common raven
(Corvus bicolor), mountain bluebird (Sialis currucoides), and orange -crowned warbler (Vermivora
celata). These species and numerous others are expected to occur within all habitat types in the
Area of Influence.
Small Mammals
Small mammals expected to occur through the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence
include Nuttall's cottontail rabbit (Sylvilafus floridanus), white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendt),
golden -mantled ground squirrel (Citellus franklini), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), voles
(Microtus spp.) and shrews (Sorex spp.).
Reptiles and Amphibians
Species expected to occur throughout the Project Study Area within suitable habitat include boreal
chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata maculata), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), northern
sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus graciosus), and Great Basin gopher snake (Pituophis
melanoleucus deserticola).
Adm-rec.567/Deccmber 8, 1997
3-30
--
1ME
Alinela
NIL
am IL
1.
�� a►V'1 sti' MII.'111�i�4! . IIIMM.. ►f /. 4 \' 's91.5,�1 SIR! '11 'aw�1.
tZ� �a .....- -...1 1'?tl i3O• 0101tie,' /i. � %‘��' * 1 1 MOIL
MI 611 bl � �IM\1 1 R1R1 r his
1:010113PLV t/ iv -41/trIv AIM
tile, AININNRIIIII
.1111111111111111111111
MI IIIIMINIIIMIII
35
0
•
r
21
I rt. tiCr.� r ' ) Nil
- 00XM gri. Al l` � ! +�
rLL.�:4•1i� " aak ,k '�`1444:
`r.--`-'.�,tki �R. , .. mum lin:
Crw IMIPOK 'ItM'a l \ILIem �► l�r►+14\ �� � _ '��� it +'�%I .r .t.R
r.�wrt::�:+lr° or . * 4*:.N i�, �r �rII mow . �� —i. f��i►.r
►'1�1►rM LNI IA0 L4Fi v..� I !1► r IL NIIC:,`` '�+� .. 'moi �/.mera r . , }a
Q�Ir w Ww w Imo,► . - :r. k OIL INI Iw .IIIA r MI - r ��w.�� 4.P .rw.:• r
'46.11 hmai, , , •r tzll\wN, r !i 'i nwr _.�w.0 .:.r...4,:mhz: ' *s''�`- '+*!�►y�'T ,, fI i, r
-4:- ..:,:r:::::1:7
IMA
hammizvel4..1..itzlitiillwkihaipa.--...411.-z..,,w_.„,.,‘L...,te
ins[mia
-,-
1!`r w1.1.. �Ti.� QUI►.. i�, ` " Via
a:* VIII wr :0•. 4
"1r`F. LILNIMIL'ILI MILLI MIew � 1� .111► LIKILMEILWIL IL ‘L.:10LIIL k. �lJ, i� !/ M.i`w'►.'.!1 /Kmite 2a
w w IIMAl
�I,,LJ�w"1�•'w� `!. , 11► . . � i T1 r it
wwrlRw�rrw� L -Ii. AILWis1► � Y Ca IV � f J
ww,KWAMww l - c +rMW- - -.- �+�r ✓ aIMPI■rr ra ‘k - .. wN1►�r .
�.. �`1► -w' LILmh• . UIL ��11mN $+ �-■� •o, ear 41 tall11111111111111 .M., -Aril1.11tWALNIMIrtinra IL. - 1
wr.��.r► _ 'M. r�, s �_ . .ter d,'` i � ,ter �
C - w. i►'ii4 . --►'►lIOILV w1. ` k . VIIIIIIINI llIIIRNWIVNiltlii6V41.- .1,...0111A.111114 1.1111%.74/ "F w Nw.ai� �► ,� r lr
Ill L': i1 IIIIMFAIrAr. 00
k II'0
PILLF %11. NI 4 11 M� � -rA lFI IL
it
.4.
r'I'M.� I1.\ LIIIIL '!iL`!1��f 1.1Tk ILS 11 117 "IL 4,4N WI
w �ILIIL w'�1�.` _ 1 a��a,1�N unlnr►♦ 111I1111MIWIL0Milk110. 11/0111111/111101WWWINXIIIIIMI ^�� e`
laIIMILWI;t1►;`1rN1►1.i\►I01L_1 I►�� +11111111M �"�1-- .' \�' ,,1'M"'�'M: i\ir :46,
��\1\►1_�1t�M»\1 I#■INw firmer �NIl.Fv+�a.�� w Vim.
r.. IIIIII
:'� `sem KILN �\�� '/"I`1� _w �. ��:N14:114
�.,■'. • �� ice' ��
wl►
1.40 Ms`1r11.�ILII �` NLICI1, 1 111111IN•N.wM� 71 tlirt.*:;:?.;'
"�1.
I ILIOLILkm I1 1 k ..'1lt`ti+\r rl.�ii: VIM 11► i wkw, ilt►`M.'�jia
4:
} 35 \w 'MM►''r►MMwLI� - IL \►'\ .a ‘74�i���.r ! �'r' ..
\w�M'w `'www w t. �,T3 : Y` R►
NIL NTIOILWINIMIL +1e res► c 11141 1..
�7� ,?I � �►�t iN . 'G v111r111 _r Y _ learigoim . �+' .hklii► ,l1 a�0
\ w �\Cw `!i`'r.\
cm; aM,vli►�6 A It'1
�'ti►'7 Gamow ''I4. R '
llb NLettikalLlatliek:010::
at,, 41011.1�-: 7414,7"11,
�1 w'� `�► ! i
LSP'' ��, r.r`!:9.'---.-.,..4•467101011 \ 'r
r W. Y#. M. "`,�� �OIOTO>j . lul•��J;a1►ww1F� %�w\w�\�'.
r Y;�� _ i7'! -rT� 1►`. 1116. ! lw 1`11 ai 1 LI is
4
-rvoir
\. /
Mile
2 Miley
5 MIle5
Lffil r''
�+- L
Figure 3-12
I.tcrNt
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
SUBSTATION
57UDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
PRODUCTION AREAS
WINTER RANGE
CRMCAL HABITATS and
SEVERE WINTER RANGE
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Source: Cdorado Piv1510i of Wildlife
U5.6.5. Quad
e
Vial Public Service'
Public Service Company of Colorado
ROW. Sitio and Rem&
%Losing acpc+t and F -o -Way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
WILDLIFE - ELK
PhntiPN Maldo :
dm Ry
--- Range: Satire: _fib
611
PG 1 KIH
61(410
MUT lilt. NI
OM! JRs 5,1996
REN5FD: X 15, NM
L
L
L
4
I Mile
2 Miles
Mile
Figure 3-13
',raw
rrAl
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
1I5KV TRANSMSSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
SG HORN SHEEP OVERALL. RANGE
BIG HORN SHEEP SEVERE WINTER RANGE
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5ource: ColcraoloPmmcn of Wildlife
L1,5.6.5. Quack
0 Public Service°
pi.“. epervfaa, Comm, of Cdorado
ROW. &Grog and Pents
Engarooriv Support and Atifv-of-way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION UNE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
WILDLIFE - BIG HORN SI-IEEP
fa,naap- 1.5510115
Range RININ.tetat
Sect MOO
Prixipal kleofor 611{
county AliMP
DM ..iar 4.1996
Dn., Sy Yal ail
AGENT . NE.MiN
RCM: Septeaa-15,1991
1 Mlle
2 MIle5
3 Milo
Figure 3-14
11111
11111
ED
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
BALD EAGLE ROOST SITE
BALD EAGLE WINTER RANGE
CANADA GOOSE FEEDING
and PRODUCTION AREAS
CANADA GOOSE WINTERING AREAS
GOLDEN EAGLE NESTING SRES
SAGE GROUSE OVERALL RANGE
SAGE GROUSE WINTER RANGE
TURKEY OVERALL RANGE
and WINTER RANGE
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5c rce. Cdoraclo 12Ivl5on of Wildlife
1�,5,Gr5, Quadr. •le .,
0 Public Service'
Pubk Service Company of CNwado
ROW, mixt and P8f7141.11
Erprearig 9upporf and fitpfrf-ol-Way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
WILDLIFE - AVIAN SPECIES
Tipin„p: 05 to /5. -
Ronge ka7w,t,k93W.
saella+x 31,56716
Priwipul Wridon; bH _
County, CAM
DATE are 9,1996
Drum By .1e6/ KAH
AGENT; ML.Dii1
5sphmfirE9.1.741
RENSED:
f
Affected Environment
Fish
The Colorado River is the only significant area of aquatic resources occurring within the either
the Project Study Area or the Area of Influence. Species in the river include rainbow trout, brown
trout, white sucker, and long -nosed sucker. Other aquatic habitat occurs in Landis Creek in the
Project Study Area and Hopkins Reservoir in the Area of Influence. Species that may occur in
these habitats include brook trout, rainbow trout, creek chubs, and fathead minnows.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Information provided by the USFWS indicates that the following threatened or endangered species
may occur within the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence: peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), black -footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), eskimo
curlew (Numenius borealis), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailli extimus), bonytail
chub (Gila elegans), and boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas).
Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons occupy a wide variety of habitats. They are typically associated with open
country near rivers, marshes, and coasts. Cliffs are the preferred nesting substrate, however, tall
man-made structures (i.e., high rise buildings and towers) may be used (Spahr, et. al. 1991).
Peregrines typically prey on birds such a waterfowl, shorebirds, grouse, and pigeons. Prey is
taken by striking from above after a high speed dive. Foraging occurs within 10 miles of the nest,
however, 80 percent occurs within a one -mile radius of the nest (Spahr, et. al. 1991). Peregrine
falcons usually migrate to Mexico or Central America in the fall. However, some birds may stay
on their breeding grounds year-round if food supplies are available (Spahr, et. al. 1991).
No peregrines are documented to occur within the Project Study Area or the Area of Influence
(Craig 1996). One historic nest site occurs within Glenwood Canyon. However, the status of this
nest is not known (Craig 1996).
Bald Eagle
Bald eagles occur throughout the United States and Canada. Within their overall range, specific
features influence their distribution and occurrence. These features include populations of prey,
sites for nests, perches, and roosts (MBEWG 1986).
Eagles feed on a variety of items. Primary prey consists of waterfowl, salmonids, suckers, and
whitefish. However, they will feed on carrion and small mammals including jackrabbits under
certain conditions (MBEWG 1986).
Adm-rec.567/December 8, 1497
3-37
Affected Environment
Nests are an important aspect of bald eagle distribution. Nests are generally located in forest
stands larger than 3 acres with a moderately open canopy. Nest trees are usually the tallest ones
within the stand and are predominantly live ponderosa pine, Douglas -fir, or cottonwood.
However, snags of these species also maybe used (Magaddino 1989). Nests are generally located
in line of sight and within one mile of bodies of water that are at least 80 acres in size. Territories
and nests are usually used repeatedly and some reportedly have been used for over eighty years
(Magaddino 1989).
Winter habitat, while not as critical as nesting, is a concern. Wintering habitat consists of
perching and roosting sites. These sites are generally located near open water or in areas where
carrion is available (e.g., big game winter range). These areas are not as sensitive to human
disturbance as nest sites. However, any habitat removal or continuous disturbance in these areas
may result in abandonment.
No bald eagle nest sites are known to occur within the Project Study Area or the Area of
Influence. One pair of eagles has been observed near Carbondale, but has not been observed
nesting in the. area. No traditional roosting sites have been observed within the area, however,
one roost site does occur slightly outside the Area of Influence. Bald eagle winter range has been
delineated within the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence (Figure 3-14).
Black -footed Ferret
The black -footed ferret historically occurred throughout Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona,
Utah, Kansas, North and South Dakota, Montana, and Colorado. The black footed -ferret is
considered to be the most critically endangered species in North America (Hillman and Clark
1980). The decline in ferret populations has been attributed to the reduction in the extensive
prairie dog colonies that historically existed in the western United States.
The black -footed ferret is closely associated with prairie dogs. It depends upon the prairie dog
almost entirely for its survival (Clark, et. al. 1988). Prairie dogs and their burrows are the ferrets
principal source of food and shelter. However, they may feed on deer mice, thirteen -lined ground
squirrels, and cottontail rabbits (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets are generally nocturnal,
however, they may occur at irregular times during daylight hours. No prairie dog colonies were
observed within the Project Study Area during the site reconnaissance. Based on the absence of
prairie dog colonies from observations in the Project Study Area, black -footed ferrets are not
anticipated to occur within the Project Study Area.
Eskimo Curlew
Within Colorado, the last documented sighting of the Eskimo curlew was in 1882, at Smith Lake
near Denver (GoIlop, et. al. 1986). Typical habitats for the curlew includes bare pastures and
Adm•rec.567/December 8, 1997
3-38
Affected Environment
ploughed fields (Gollop, et. al. 1986). Birds observed in Colorado are accidental spring migrants.
Historical curlew spring migration routes are typically Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska..
Suitable curlew habitat may occur within the Project Study Area. However, based on the lack of
recent sightings and the migration route occurring east of Colorado, the potential for Eskimo
curlews to occur within the Area of Influence is limited.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Flycatchers typically nest in cottonwood -willow associations. These areas are generally along
streams, rivers, or other wetland areas where dense stands of willow, seepwillow, arrowweed
buttonbrush, or other shrubs and medium-sized trees occur. These areas also may contain an
overstory of cottonwoods. Surface water or saturated soils are almost always present in, or
adjacent to, nesting areas during the breeding season. Nests are generally located in thickets of
shrubs or trees that are approximately 13 to 23 feet tall with a high percentage of canopy cover
and a large volume of foliage from the ground level to 13 feet above ground. Nest building and
egg laying typically begin in late May and early June with the young fledging in late June early
July (Tibbets,, et. al. 1994).
The USFWS has determined that suitable habitat for the flycatcher in Colorado must contain the
following components: a riparian shrub habitat at least 30 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 5 feet high
along streams with a gradient of 4 percent or Iess; these areas must occur below 8,500 feet in
elevation. In addition, these areas must occur within the established range as provided by the
USFWS. If a proposed project may potentially impact flycatcher habitat, the USFWS requires that
appropriate surveys be conducted to assess the presence of flycatchers. However, the Project
Study Area occurs outside of the geographic area identified by the USFWS. Based on the lack of
suitable wetland habitats and the Project Study Area being outside of the designated geographic
region, southwestern willow flycatchers are not anticipated to occur within the Project Study Area.
Bonvtail Chub
The bonytail chub is generally associated with open water areas of large river channels. Water
depths of 3 to 4 feet with uniform depth and velocity are preferred. In addition, shifting, sandy
substrates are chosen. Adults most often feed on terrestrial insects that it takes from surface
feeding (Behnke and Benson 1983). Adults typically do not spawn until they are 5 to 7 years old.
Spawning occurs in water temperatures near 65°F during June and July (Behnke and Benson
1983).
The reach of the Colorado River closest to the Project Study Area that has been proposed for
designation as critical habitat for the chub is in the Black Rocks area west of Grand Junction
(USFWS 1993) where the chub has been documented to occur (Woodling 1985). Given the
distance between the location of the project area and the Black Rocks area and given that the
Adm•rec.567/December 8, 1497
3-39
Affected Environment
construction of the proposed transmission line will span the Colorado River thereby creating no
disturbance within the river itself, the bonytail chub will not be affected by the Project.
Boreal Toad
Boreal toads typically occur within spruce -fir forests and alpine meadows. Within these areas,
breeding is restricted to lakes, marshes, and bogs with sunny exposures and shallow water. In
addition, adults may move several miles from breeding areas to wet marshes, wet meadows, and
forested areas. Based on the lack of suitable wetland or aquatic habitats within the Project Study
Area, the boreal toad is not expected to occur.
Wetlandsllmportant Habitats
Wetland and riparian communities were described in Section 3.4.2.1. Eight areas with standing
water were identified in the Project Study Area. Most are man-made for stock watering purposes
and most have semi-permanent water storage. One has a seasonal emergent community, and five
have seasonal aquatic beds. Three riverine communities were identified, but only Landis Creek
is in the Project Study Area (refer to Figure 3-10).
3.2.8 Resources Identified as Not Requiring Detailed Study
The environmental resource areas that were considered, but which are not described in detail in
this analysis, include the following:
3.2.8.1 Air Quality
The Project would have very minor, local, short-term effects on air quality, limited primarily to
short-term emissions from construction vehicles and fugitive dust generated by construction
activities. The construction of the 115kV line would have no measurable effects on ozone levels.
3.2.8.2 Climate
The Project would have no effect on climate nor will the climate have an effect on the Project
except that construction is limited to the spring, summer and fall months.
3.2.8.3 Paleontology
The project would have minimal effect on paleontological resources. Of the five different
formations that are found in the Project Study Area, the Maroon Formation and the Weber
Sandstone have the greatest likelihood of containing fossils. The Maroon and Weber Sandstone
date back to the Pennsylvanian Period, 3.5 to 26 million years ago, in the Paleozoic Era. The
Adm•rec.567/December 8, 1997
3-40
Affected Environment
Pennsylvanian Period was a time of varied and abundant land and sea life. In Colorado most of
the rocks and fossils are of marine origin. Pennsylvanian rocks contain fossils of invertebrates
like fusulinids, brachiopods, bryozoans, corals, pelecypods, crinoids, and gastropods. While the
proposed transmission line will be traversing these potentially fossil -bearing formations, it is not
anticipated that the construction and maintenance activities will have an adverse effect on
paleontological resources for two reasons. First, while the fossils contained in the Maroon
Formation and Weber Sandstone may possess some form of academic value, it is relatively small
compared to the value associated with the Morrison Formation (dinosaurs) or the Burgess Shale.
The fossils found in the Maroon and Weber formations are abundant and by no means rare.
Second, the nature of the proposed project is such that there is little invasive activity. Because
construction activities will be done by helicopter and no access roads will be constructed, ground
disturbance will be limited to only pole and guy wire locations. As will be discussed later in this
document, the total amount of temporary disturbance for any of the alterative corridors will be no
greater than 1.2 acres and permanent ground disturbance for any of the alternatives corridors will
be no greater than 0.04 of an acre.
Adm-rec.5671December 8. 190
3-41
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
?:t.""J.n:'f:a?i�?.ifi:.'c6a:{�:;�:G;:�fih'�5:.`tcv;:�:24�RYkL'9:.o fP?:G::�:c6:.:s�':55i:.�:YAk�Rtff!oY::d�..;`!iL'.;£RJ.o::x<SRd22�:�R�NL"72Y2:<'�Rh`.'.'•:�^,:<£i2:`k:::£v.R�Sw.k:`!'AYS:`�R`::.�R:w:'L��f�3''.5�Y.R�:2>,'i£a'.�'.t::,iC: r',.'.sS.:o::^"c^}?
This chapter presents an assessment of the environmental consequences associated with the project
alternatives, including the Proposed Action, with respect to the conditions associated with each
of the environmental resources.
4.1 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES SELECTED
Six potential alternative routes were identified. These routes are described in Section 4.1 of the
EA and illustrated in Figure 4-1 (Alternative Routes) in the EA.
4.2 EVALUATION OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
A comparative evaluation of the environmental factors related to the route alternatives is contained
in Section 4.2 of the EA. Table 4-1 (Route Alternative Evaluation Summary of Resource Impacts)
is also found in this section of the EA.
4.3 IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
4.3.1 Impacts on Visual Resources
Because visual resources were identified as an important issue by the BLM, Forest Service, and
the public, an evaluation of these impacts is contained in Section 4.3.1 of the EA. Figures 4-2
(Photo Simulation) and 4-3 (Cross Section of the Photo Simulation) as well as Table 4-2 (VRM
Classes on BLM Lands Crossed by Action Alternatives) are also included.
4.3.2 Impacts on Land Use
Having been identified as a significant issue during scoping by the BLM and the public, land use
impacts are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.2 of the EA. Tables 4-3 (Land Ownership Along
Each Action Alternative), 4-4 (Area of Disturbance for Each Action Alternative), and 4-5
(Recreation Trails Crossed by Each Alternative) are also found in this section of the EA.
4.3.3 Impacts on Cultural Environmental
As noted in Section 4.3.3 of the EA, there appear to be few projected cultural resources impacts
of significance associated with the project.
Adm•rec.5677Dccembcr B, 1997
4-1
Environmental Consequences
4.3.4 Impacts on Electrical Characteristics
This section discusses the environmental effects of all project alternatives including the Proposed
Action compared to the existing conditions relative to public health and safety. Analysis of the
electrical characteristics of the existing environmental setting was conducted for the configuration
shown in Figure 2-4 and in Table 2-3. The minimal conductor ground clearance used for
analyzing characteristics was 26 feet.
4.3,4.1 Corona
The additional corona resulting from upgrading the existing 69kV transmission line to 115kV
would not be discernable.
4.3.4.2 Audible Noise (AN)
The calculated average (L50) noise value for wet weather at the edge of the ROW is 24.4 dBA for
the Proposed Action. The calculated average fair weather noise level at the edge of the ROW is
0.6 dBA for the Proposed Action.
4.3.4.3 Radio Interference/Television Interference (RI/TI)
The existing transmission lines have been in service for over 90 years. The interference to radio
(RI) and television (TVI) is not anticipated to increase with the proposed Project, and would be
similar for all route alternatives. The primary source of any interference is anticipated to be spark
gaps. This is a condition generally found in older transmission lines and the upgrade would
improve or eliminate any existing problems. It is PSCo's policy to investigate RI and TVI
problems and to correct those caused by PSCo facilities. PSCo routinely investigates RI and TVI
complaints and is prepared to resolve any interference problems resulting from the operation of
the proposed Project.
4.3.4.4 Visible Light
It is not anticipated that the visibility of corona would be discernable. This is because the visibility
is not cumulative, or additive, but is dependent on weather conditions, and because of the
construction materials and maintenance of the line hardware; e.g., the use of corona rings and
corona -free hardware.
4.3.4.5 Photochemical Oxidants
Because the resolution of ozone instrumentation is approximately 1.0 part per billion (ppb), it is
very unlikely that corona -generated ozone from the proposed Project could even be measured.
Adm-rec.567/Dccembcr 8, 1997
4-2
4.3.4.6 Electric Fields
Environmental Consequences
The NESC requires that the conductor clearance for lines with voltage exceeding 98kV be such
as to keep the induced short-circuit current to the largest anticipated vehicle under the line less
than 5 mA.
4.3.4.7 Induced Currents
In general, the electric fields around 115kV transmission lines are not great enough to produce
perceivable shocks to persons contacting grounded objects. It is the policy of PSCo that special
cases such as long fences parallel to the transmission line, be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
4.3.4.8 Steady State Currents
The maximum induced current criterion for motor vehicles is 5 milliamperes (mA). Potential
steady-state current shocks from vehicles under the proposed transmission line upgrade would be
less than 5 mA for the largest vehicle anticipated and would not be perceptible for most vehicles.
This standard would be maintained for all of the alternatives.
Several factors tend to reduce the opportunity for secondary shocks to occur, where secondary
shocks are defined as those that could cause an involuntary and potentially harmful muscle
movement but cause no direct physiological harm. If activities are distributed over the whole
ROW, then only a small percentage of time would be spent in areas where the field is at or close
to the maximum value. The vehicular traffic in high -field -strength areas is limited since clearances
are generally higher over road crossings, and farm machinery on soil or vegetation tends to reduce
shock currents substantially. Because of these factors, most steady-state current shocks are below
the 1.1 mA perception Ievel for 50 percent of men and, in fact, less than the 0.5 mA standard for
maximum leakage current from portable appliances. Thus, steady-state current shocks would
rarely be perceptible and if perceptible would represent a nuisance rather than a hazard.
4.3.4.9 Spark Discharge Shocks
Spark discharge shocks theoretically could occur under the proposed transmission line upgrade just
as they could under the existing transmission lines. However, the magnitude of the electric field
is low enough for all of the alternatives that this type of shock rarely, if ever, would occur, and
then only in a small area under the transmission lines near mid -spans. As with the existing
transmission lines, handling conducting objects under the lines can also result in spark discharges
that are a nuisance. Irrigation pipe, and other similar objects, should be carried as low to the
ground as possible and preferably unloaded at a distance from the transmission lines to eliminate
spark discharge nuisance shocks. The primary hazard with irrigation pipe, and other similar
objects, is direct contact with the conductors.
Adm-rec.567IDecember 8. 1997
4-3
Environmental Consequences
4.3.4.10 Field Perception
It is unlikely that the electric field under the proposed transmission line upgrade would be
perceivable directly when standing on the ground. This would be true for all of the alternatives.
When working on top of equipment, there would probably be enough extraneous skin stimulation
(from clothing and wind) during normal activities to preclude perception of the field at all.
4.3.4.11 Electric Field Mitigation
The grounding policies of PSCo eliminate the possibility of nuisance shocks due to induced
currents from stationary objects such as fences and buildings. Since the electric field extends
beyond the ROW, grounding requirements extend beyond the ROW for very large objects or
extremely long fences. Electric fences require a special grounding technique because they can
only operate if they are insulated. Mobile objects such as vehicles and farm machinery cannot be
grounded permanently like a fence or building. Limits to coupled currents to persons from such
objects are accomplished in three ways:
1. The NESC requires that the conductor clearance for lines with voltage exceeding 98kV be such
as to keep the induced short-circuit current to the largest anticipated vehicle under the line less
than 5 mA.
2. A second method of reducing potential currents to persons is through the intentional use of
grounds. For example, a chain or other conductor can be dragged by a vehicle; a ground strap
can be attached to the vehicle with it is stopped.
3. The very nature of large vehicles and their use tend to provide some grounding and reduce the
electrical resistance of the vehicle to ground. Tires tend to be conductive, farm machinery is
usually in direct contact with the soil, and conducting vegetation is in contact with equipment.
Because of these factors, the realization of a well insulated (worst-case) vehicle is a remote
possibility.
Electric field reduction and the accompanying reduction in induced characteristics such as shocks
is also accomplished by conductive shielding. Persons inside a conducting vehicle cab or canopy
are shielded from the electric field. Similarly, a row of trees or a lower voltage distribution line
will reduce the field on or near the ground. Metal pipes, wiring, and other conductors in a
residence or building serve to shield the interior from the electric field due to the transmission
lines. Thus, impacts of electric field coupling can be mitigated through grounding policies and
adherence to the NESC. Worst-case levels are used for safety analysis, but, in practice, currents
and voltages are reduced considerably by inadvertent grounding. Shielding by conducting objects,
such as vehicles and vegetation, also reduces the potential for electric field effects.
Adm-rec.5671December 8, 1997
4-4
4.3.4.12 Magnetic Fields
Environmental Consequences
Public Service Co. of Colorado ran computer models of 1996 and 1999 magnetic field profiles for
various sections of electric transmission lines involved in the Shoshone to Glenwood 68kV
transmission line rebuild and upgrade. Please refer to Figure E-1 for geographical information.
1996 average load provides were computer for*:
A. The existing Shoshone -Hopkins 115kV transmission line on Miliken towers, horizontal
conductor configuration.
B. The existing Shoshone -Glenwood Springs 69kV transmission Iine on single poles, delta
conductor configuration.
D. The existing Glenwood Springs -Roaring Fork 68kV transmission line on H -Frame
structures, horizontal conductor configuration.
1999 average load profiles were computed for:
A. No Action.
A. Proposed Action: Shoshone -Hopkins, Hopkins -roaring Fork 115kV transmission Iine
on single poles, double circuit vertical conductor configuration.
C. The proposed Hopkins -Roaring Fork 115kV transmission line on H -Frame structures,
horizontal conductor configuration.
D. No Action.
D. Proposed Action, proposed design: Glenwood Springs -Roaring Fork 115kV
transmission line on single poles, delta conductor configuration.
D. Glenwood Springs -Roaring Fork 115kV transmission line, alternate design: H -Frame
structures, horizontal conductor configuration.
PIease refer to the data in Appendix E for specific magnetic field levels. The graphs visually
depict the data for each profile. The proposed edge right-of-way is shown on graphs (R/W).
* Single Circuit configurations exist except where stated otherwise.
Adm•rec.567lDecember 8. 1997
4-5
Environmental Consequences
Conclusion: The magnetic fields at the edge of the right-of-way for "A. 1999 Proposed Action"
are approximately 2.0 milligauss, compared to approximately 2.0 milligauss for "A. 1996" and
3.0 milligauss for "A. 1999 No Action." The magnetic fields are at the edge of the right-of-way
for "B" associated with the 69kV transmission line will go away when the line is removed. The
magnetic fields at the edge of the right-of-way for "C. 1999" are approximately 5 milligauss (2
milligauss 25 feet from the edge of the right-of-way). The magnetic fields at the edge of the right-
of-way for "D. 1999, Proposed Action" are approximately 2.5 milligauss, compared to 3.7
milligauss for "D. 1996" and 5.5 milligauss for "D. 1999, alternative design."
Following is a brief discussion of prudent avoidance measures being evaluated and implemented
for the proposed transmission line. Much of the planned Hopkins -Roaring Fork -Glenwood
Springs 115kV line will bypass areas of concentrated population or group facilities (churches,
schools, hospitals, etc.). In those areas where existing populations will be impacted by the
planned line, various means will be used to reduce magnetic field Ievels. These means include the
choosing of structure types, structure heights, and conductor configurations which produce lower
magnetic fields. One section of the line will be combined with an existing line allowing the use
of reverse phasing to reduce magnetic field levels. The planned line will be built in existing
easements, if it is practical to do so, to reduce overall project impacts. Realignment to reduce
exposure of magnetic fields to existing populations were considered and implemented. Computer
modeling of anticipated magnetic fields were used as an aid in determining the specific prudent
avoidance measures to be applied to this project. Please refer to Appendix E for modeled
magnetic field profiles and conclusion.
4.3.5 Impacts on Socioeconomics
4.3.5.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives
Potential impacts on socioeconomics would be the same for any of the action alternatives. These
impacts are discussed below, as is the effect from the No Action alternative.
Population
The proposed project could result in a small short-term increase in population in Garfield County
due to the employment of contract construction workers from outside the county, although it is
expected that the required contract workers would come from the Iabor pool within the county.
The approximate period of time required for the construction of any of the action alternatives is
three months. Garfield County experiences a seasonal increase in population in the summer, as
many people visit the area or have summer homes in the area. A maximum of 20 workers would
be required for any construction activity, therefore, the construction work -force would represent
a very small increase relative to the yearly seasonal influx of population. None of the construction
workers would be expected to become permanent residents of the area if they are not already
residents.
Adm-rcc.567/December B, 1997
4-6
Environrnentai Consequences
Economy and Employment
Short-term impacts to socioeconomic resources would be relatively minor. It is unlikely that the
project would have a perceptible impact on the economy of Garfield County. The primary
economic sectors are services and agriculture. The services sector consists largely of recreation
and tourism -related establishments. Project activities would not affect tourist visitation to the
region. The relatively short-term nature of project construction and the limited number of workers
who might be hired from outside of Garfield County would result in limited positive economic
impacts to the Project Study Area in the form of increased spending on lodging, meals, and other
consumer goods and services. The peak construction workforce requirement would be determined
when the route is selected.
Long-term impacts would be beneficial for the Iife of the proposed line. There would be beneficial
impacts to the county tax base as a result of the construction and operation of the transmission line.
Garfield County would receive revenues from property taxes, fees and permits.
Wages and salaries paid to contractors and workers in Garfield County would contribute to the
total personal income of the region. Additional personal income would be generated for residents
in Garfield County and the state of Colorado by circulation and recirculation of dollars paid out
as business expenditures, and as state and local taxes. PSC° currently pays in excess of $850,000
to Garfield County in taxes each year. The nature of utility facilities warrant few County services.
The added tax revenue that will be realized by Garfield County from the proposed project will be
approximately $45,000 with a minimal, if any, burden on County services.
Expenditures made for equipment, energy, fuel, operating supplies, and other products and
services would benefit businesses in the county and the state. Indirect beneficial impacts may occur
through the increased capability of Public Service Company to supply energy to commercial and
industrial users, which would contribute to the economic growth of the county.
Housing
Minor employment and population changes are anticipated as a direct result of implementation of
any of the action alternatives. Workers from local communities would return to their residences
daily, and workers from non -local communities would utilize local accommodations during their
temporary stay in the area. The demand for additional temporary or permanent (rental) housing
in Garfield County is not expected to be significant from immigrant workers, and would be met
with the existing housing supply, depending on the vacancy rates during the period of operations.
The rental vacancy rate for 1990 in the county was 6.9 percent, or approximately 776 housing
units. Housing unit vacancies for seasonal recreational, or occasional use should be more than
adequate for the temporary population increase associated with construction. No adverse impacts
Adm-rec.567lDeccmbcr 8, 1997
4-7
Environmental Consequences
to housing availability and services are expected. There should be sufficient rental units to house
the project workforce.
Community Services
Construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project should not increase or decrease
the need for police, fire, medical, or other community resources in the project area. Although
construction of the project could temporarily increase the local population, any increased demand
for community services by the project -related population increase would be insubstantial, as the
local population increases significantly on an annual basis during tourist seasons, and the
community is accustomed to meeting the needs of the seasonal population increases.
Environmental Justice
On February 11, 1994, Executive Order 12898, "Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice
in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations" (Order) was published in the Federal
Register (59 FR 7629). The Order requires federal agencies to identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. Currently, no formal
guidelines have been adopted to implement the Order. However, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has published relevant studies and information on environmental justice and is
leading an interagency task force to address these issues. In July 1994, the Department of Energy
(DOE) distributed a memorandum stating the department's commitment to environmental justice,
providing information to better understand environmental justice issues, and requesting input as
to how DOE should consider environmental justice in its NEPA documents (DOE Memorandum
of July 22, 1994, from the Office of NEPA Oversight).
The proposed project is not located within any urban community, and would not affect any area
comprised of low-income housing or affect low-income populations. The proposed project would
not disproportionately impact minority populations.
4.3.5.2 No Action Alternative- Impacts on Socioeconomics
Electrical loads in the Glenwood Springs area are currently at approximately 22 MVA. The
design level for reliability required by PSCo is 15 MVA. If the No Action Alternative were
implemented, electrical loads are projected to increase around 4 to 5 percent each year, to
approximately 25 MVA in 2003. These increased demands would continue to result in power
outages and unacceptable voltage drops (brownouts). Under No Action, there would not be any
construction in the Spring Valley area, there would not be any new construction jobs for a three
month construction period, and there would be no new property taxes accruing to Garfield County,
GIenwood Springs, and the State of Colorado.
Adm-rcc.567/December 6, 1997
4-8
Environmental Consequences
4.3.6 impacts on Earth Resources
4.3.6.1 Soils
Impacts common to all alternatives include the possibility of aggravating soil hazards, or creating
erosion problems. These are soils subject to a high probability of water and wind erosion when
disturbed. These impacts are not expected to occur because of PSCo's standard construction
practices and mitigation measures as identified in Chapter 2. None of the corridor alternatives
would affect farmland soils.
Impacts specific to the various corridors and segments include the following:
Corridor Alternatives 1, 3, and 5
Both of these corridors traverse approximately 1 mile of major soil hazards. The entire length of
Segment F and a portion of Segment G contain major soil hazards.
Corridor Alternatives 2, 4, and 6
Both of these corridors cross approximately 1.5 miles of areas containing major and moderate soil
hazards. These areas are found in corridor Segments F and G as discussed above. Also, about
0.5 of mile of Segment I crosses moderate and major soil hazards (Lincoln DeVore, 1976).
Potential impacts to soil hazards will be mitigated by various standard construction practices listed
in Table 2-4. These practices include the implementation of appropriate measures for the
prevention of soil erosion, properly educating the entire construction force of all activities
necessary for the preservation of our natural resources, use of helicopter construction in lieu of
building temporary access roads, and, except in those areas where vegetative clearing is necessary,
the protection of vegetation from construction damage.
4.3.6.2 Geology
The potential for earthquake damage to the proposed project is relatively minor given the relatively
low seismic risk potential for the Glenwood Springs area (as identified in Chapter 3). There is
little difference in seismic risk potential between any of the six route alternatives. However, risks
from earthquake -triggered mass wasting of scopes would differ by alternative.
Impacts specific to the various corridors and segments include the following:
Adm-rec.S671December 8, 1997
4-9
Environmental Consequences
Corridor Alternatives 1 and 3
Approximately 23 3 miles of Corridors 1 and 3 cross areas containing both moderate and major
slope hazards. These areas are found in the entire lengths of Segments E, F, and G and a very
small portion of Segment D. Unstable slopes are found at the western end of Segment E for a
dis-ance of approximately 400 feet (Colorado Geologic Survey, undated). This portion of Segment
E crosses an active debris fan which would be subject to failure if triggered by a seismic event,
a heavy precipitation event, or possibly a thick cover of heavy, wet snow.
Corridor Alternatives 2 and 4
Corridors 2 and 4, do not cross an active debris fan as do Corridors 1, 3, and 5, but do cross an
old debris flow at the western egad of Segment I for a distance of approximately 200 feet. As a
result, approximately 2.2 miles of Corridors 2 and 4 traverse areas containing both moderate and
major slope hazards. These areas are found in the entire lengths of Segments I, F, and G and in
a very small portion of Segment D.
Corridor Alternatives 5 and 6
Corridors 5 and 6 cross the greatest amount of areas containing slope hazards. This is because
both of these corridors contain Segments L and M. Together these segments impact an additional
0.5 of a mile of moderate slope hazards. Added to the slope hazards found in Segments E, F, and
G, Corridor Alternative 5 crosses a total of 2.8 miles of hazardous slope conditions. Alternative
5, which includes Segments I, F, and G crosses a total of 2.7 miles of hazardous slope conditions.
No other active or inactive mass wasting features are crossed by any of the six route alternatives.
The geologic, soil, and slope hazards noted would be mitigated by minimizing placement of
structures outside the hazard areas which are relatively limited in their geographic extent. Since
construction access to Segments E and I would be by helicopter, access road location in hazard
areas would not be an issue.
4.3.6.3 Water Resources
There would be virtually no impact from any project alternative on the occurrence or flow of any
surface waters in the Project Study Area or the Area of Influence. There would be no diversion,
detention, retention or consumption of waters by the Project. Construction water would be drawn
from commercial sources or wells.
Because all six corridor alternatives contain Segments A-1 and G, all proposed corridors cross
Landis Creek and the Colorado River. Landis Creek is a perennial stream found in Segment A-1
and Segment G crosses the Colorado River just before entering into the Glenwood Springs
Adm-rec.567IDccember 8, 1997
4-10
Environmental Consequences
Substation. Impacts created by the river crossing should be minimal given that this is an existing
utility crossing presently occupied by a 69kV transmission line and the proposed line will span the
floodplain.
Nevertheless, there is potential for all alternatives of the project to result in minor, localized
impact to water quality. These impacts would result from transmission line construction activities.
Sedimentation could be caused by erosion from disturbed upland areas, direct introduction of soil
into suspension from drilling foundation holes, construction of access roads above standing water,
or construction dewatering activities. Contaminants could be introduced from spills.
PSCo's Best Management Construction practices are described in Chapter 2. These practices
minimize the potential for impact to surface and ground water quality. No placement of structures
in stream beds or drainage channels is anticipated, and construction traffic would use existing
bridges to cross rivers, as well as culverts in most dry intermittent streams. Construction activity
would be kept away from wells, and excavations such as pole holes that intercept the ground water
table would be backfilled with clean materials. Construction would be suspended in the event of
flooding, thus there is little potential for introduction of suspended solids from activities within
floodplains. Migration of suspended solids into standing water would be limited by berms or
diversions, and introduction of suspended solids from dewatering activities would be prevented
by silt barriers erected about the construction site. Disturbed areas would be protected with silt
barriers to intercept sediment, and reclaimed promptly. Thus, there is little potential for the direct
introduction of suspended solids into surface or ground water features.
Equipment would be fueled and serviced in areas set back from surface waters and away from
ground water sources, as would storage of construction materials and supplies (cement, etc.), and
wastes (refuse, garbage, sanitary or industrial). Wastes would not be allowed to accumulate, but
would be given timely and routine disposal.
Corridor Alternative 1
In addition to crossing Landis Creek and the Colorado River, this alternative would cross a total
of twelve streams, all ephemeral. Segment A-1 crosses ten, Segment H crosses one and Segment
E crosses one.
Corridor Alternative 2
Impacts under this Corridor would be essentially the same as for Corridor 1. The only difference
is that by using Segment I, instead of Segment E, the corridor crosses one less ephemeral stream.
Adm•rec.567/Dccember e, 1997
4-11
Environmental Consequences
Corridor Alternative 3
In addition to crossing Landis Creek and the Colorado River, this Corridor crosses a total of 17
streams, all ephemeral. Segment A-1 crosses 10, Segment B crosses 3, Segment C crosses 3 and
Segment E crosses 1.
Corridor Alternative 4
Impacts under this alternative would be essentially the same as for Corridor 3. Corridor 3 would
cross an unnamed ephemeral drainage in Segment E, while in Corridor 4, Segment I would be in
Cemetery Gulch.
Corridor Alternative 5
In addition to crossing Landis Creek and the Colorado River, this Corridor crosses a total of 20
stream drainages, all of them ephemeral. Segment A-1 crosses ten, Segment B crosses three,
Segment L crosses five, Segment M crosses one, and Segment E crosses one.
Corridor Alternative 6
Impacts under this alternative would be essentially the same as under Corridor 5. The primary
difference with respect to surface water impacts is that this Alternative crosses one less stream by
using Segment I instead of Segment E.
4.3.6.4 Floodplains
All routes would cross a small floodplain region at the Colorado River crossing. However,
transmission line towers already span this location. No construction is proposed within the
Colorado River floodplain. Other than the Colorado River, no floodplain exists within the Project
Study Area.
4.3.6.5 No Action Alternative - Impacts on Earth Resources
If the No Action alternative were implemented, there would not be any further impacts to earth
resources beyond those that occur during maintenance of the existing 69kV and 115kV
transmission lines.
Adm-rec.367/December 8, 1997
4-12
Environmental Consequences
4.3.7 Impacts on Biological Resources
4.3.7.1 Impacts on Vegetation
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Impacts to vegetation caused by the proposed action alternatives would be confined to the
immediate area of the structures. The only permanent vegetative loss at each structure location
will be from the actual hole for the pole structure. These areas have a small extent ranging from
25 to 40 square feet, depending on the need for a single pole or multiple poles. Impacts include
the loss of native vegetation, compaction of soils, and new opportunities for the invasion of weedy
species. All other disturbance would be short-term. It is anticipated that no ROW clearing will
be required given that the height of the vegetation does not jeopardize conductor clearance.
Loss of Native Vegetation
Direct impacts to vegetation occur with the loss of cover and biomass as the vegetative layer is
removed at each structure site. These impacts would be short-term, as vegetation (either in the
form of natural reintroduction or reclamation seeding) would grow back. Generally, natural
succession will quickly revegetate the vast majority of disturbed sites. A suitable native seed
mixture also would be used to reclaim these disturbed sites.
The loss of an immediate seed source with the removal of the topsoil could constitute a short-term
impact. Some areas may not readily revegetate. If the topsoil (the first 12 -inches or so of soil
with organic matter in it) is removed or compacted, the substrate may not adequately be able to
support a seed bed. Therefore, perennial, high-seral stage native species would have difficulty
becoming established, and barren or weedy spots would remain.
Compaction of Soils
Soils would be disturbed at some structure locations with suitable access by vehicle movement and
structure assembly and erection, and this compaction would impede seed to soil contact. Plants
would not become established and bare areas would remain. These barren areas are susceptible
to wind and water erosion.
9pportunities for Weedy Species Invasion
With soil disturbance and exposure come the potential opportunities for weedy plant invasion.
Weed seed is carried from site to site by animals, on the tires of equipment and vehicles, in soils,
and on clothing. Many weedy species are annuals and need minimal requirements for
establishment and propagation. As weedy species increase, native plants are often displaced. This
Adm.rec.5671December 8, 1997
4-13
Environmental Consequences
displacement leads to a decrease in palatable and suitable forage for wildlife, in nesting and resting
habitat for birds, and natural diversity indicative of natural ecosystems. If best management
practices are followed, establishment of weedy species would be minimal.
Wetland and Riparian Communities
Impacts to wetland and riparian communities are not expected because these communities will be
avoided or spanned.
Plant S; cies of Concern
Impacts to plant species -of -concern are not expected because known individuals or populations are
not located within the corridor segments currently considered as viable transmission line corridors.
Impacts Specific to Route Alternatives
Table 4-6 presents the short-term disturbance to vegetation associated with each alternative based
on the measurements provided in Table 2-1. Areas of disturbance is calculated in the following
manner: 1) Single steel -pole structures create 400 square feet of impact, 2) H -frame structures
create 500 square feet of impact, and 3) Three -pole angle structures create 2000 square feet of
impact.
Table 4-6
Short-term Disturbance to Vegetation Communities by Alternative
Route Alternative
Disturbance in Square Feet Disturbance in Acres
1 52,000
2 50,500
3 49,000
4 47,500
5 52,500
6 51 000
1.17
Adm-rec.5671Uecembcr 8, 1997
4-14
4.3.7.2 Impacts on Wildlife
Environmental Consequences
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
Impacts to the existing wildlife resources are expected to be minimal. This consideration is based
on both the nature of the Project and the nature of the resources. Since there are only minor
amounts of new disturbance planned for the proposed action wildlife habitus would not be
permanently impacted. Some species, such as elk and deer, may be temporarily displaced during
construction. Specifically, because all corridor alternatives contain Segments A-1, all corridors,
therefore, have the potential to impact the mule deer migration path, mule deer winter range, and
elk winter range, severe winter range, and critical habitat, all of which are found along Segment
A-1. However, this displacement would be temporary and all habitats would be available
immediately after construction. In addition, PSCo does not plan to construct the Project within
big game ranges during any of critical time periods identified by the CDOW. However, if
construction was to occur within these critical time periods, PSCo would consult with the
appropriate management agencies before starting any ground disturbing activities in order to
minimize impacts to these species.
Raptors would have the highest potential for impacts from the proposed action. Because all
corridor alternatives contain Segment G, all corridors have the potential of affecting Bald Eagle
Winter Range found within Segment G along the Colorado River. As in the case with the mule
deer and elk, PSCo will refrain from constructing during the critical time periods when this area
would be in use. Also, there is the potential for raptors and migratory birds to collide with the
new line or be electrocuted. However, the potential for electrocution impacts would be mitigated
by constructing the line using the Raptor Protection Guidelines (APLIC 1994, 1981) to minimize
the potential for electrocution, and PSCo would monitor the line for collisions, and, if collisions
occur with regularity in certain areas, the line may require marking in an attempt to limit
collisions.
Impacts Specific to Corridor Alternatives
Corridor Alternative 1. The Proposed Action
Short-term impacts to the wildlife resources under this alternative would be one of the largest of
the six alternatives., Under this alternative 52,000 square feet of wildlife resource would be
affected over the short-term (Table 4-7). This amounts to a little over one acre of disturbance
along the 10.7 route. In addition to the bald eagle, elk, and mule deer winter ranges, mule deer
sever range and migratory paths, and elk severe winter range and critical habitats that may be
affected, this Alternative may affect mule deer severe winter range and critical habitat, and elk
production areas. Long-term impacts would account for less than one acre of disturbance along
the route (Table 4-7).
Adm-rec.567lDeccmber 8, 1997
4-15
Environmental Consequences
Table 4-7
Route Alternative Evaluation Summary of Wildlife Habitats Affected
Route Route Route Route Route Route
Evaluation Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative No
Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 Action
Total Route Length 56,718 55,885 55,051 54,218 55,885 55,052 37,793
(ft.)
Elk Winter Range x x x x x x x
Elk Severe Winter x x x x x x x
Range/Critical Habitat
Elk Production Area x x
Mule Deer Summer x x x x x x x
Range
Mule Deer Severe x x x x x x
Winter Range
Mule Deer Migration x x x x x x
Bald Eagle Winter x x x x x x x
Range
Total Short-term.Area 52,0001 50,500 49,000 47,500/ 52,500/ 51,000 29,600/
Affected (sq. ft./ac.) 1.19 1.16 1.12 1.09 1.21 1.21 0.68
Total Long-term Area 1705/ 1690/ 1675/ 1660/ 1730/ 1715/ 935/
Affected (sq. ft./ac.) .039 .039 .038 .038 .04 .039 .02
Corridor Alternative 2
Habitats affected under this alternative are the same kinds of habitat as Alternative 1. Like
Alternative 1, the short-term disturbances amount to a little more than an acre while the long-term
disturbances would be less than one acre within the proposed route (Table 4-7).
Corridor Alternative 3
In addition to the bald eagle, elk, and mule deer winter ranges, mule deer summer range migratory
paths, and elk severe winter range and critical habitats that may be affected, this Alternative may
affect mule deer severe winter range and critical habitats (Table 4-7). This alternative would have
short-term disturbance amounting to a little over one acre and permanently disturb 1675 square
feet.
Corridor Alternative 4
Habitats affected under this alternative are the same kinds of habitat as Alternative 1. Like
Alternative 2, the short-term disturbances amount to a little more than an acre while the long-term
disturbances would be less than one acre within the proposed route (Table 4-7).
Adm-rec.5671December 8, 1997
4-16
Environmental Consequences
Corridor AIternative 5
In addition to the bald eagle, elk, and mule deer winter ranges, mule deer summer range,
migratory paths, and elk severe winter range and critical habitats that may be affected, this
Alternative may affect mule deer severe winter range and critical habitats (Table 4-7). The short-
term disturbance amount to a little more than an acre while the long-term permanent disturbance
totals to 1730 square feet.
Corridor Alternative 6
Habitats affected under this alternative are the same as those affected under Corridor Alternative
5. However, the long and short-term disturbances are less than Alternative 5's by 1000 square
feet and 15 square feet respectively (Table 4-7).
Threatened and Endangered Species
Potential effects to threatened and endangered species are not anticipated. This conclusion is based
on the following considerations. First, due to the lack of prairie dog colonies (the black -footed
ferret's main source of food) observed in the Project Study Area, it is not anticipated that the
black -footed ferret is located within the Project Study Area. Second, because Eskimo Curlews are
only accidental migrants in Colorado, and their historical spring migration route is typically Texas,
Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will impact the
species. Third, the proposed project does not contain and suitable habitat for the Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher and thus it is not likely that they would be adversely impacted by the proposed
project. Fourth, because the only known location of the bonytail chub is several miles west of the
Project Study Area and because no construction will take place within the Colorado River and soil
erosion will be mitigated by the Standard Construction Practices and Selected Mitigation listed in
Table 2-4, it is anticipated that the proposed project will have no adverse effects on the bonytail
chub. Fifth, due to the lack of suitable habitat, it is not anticipated that the boreal toad is located
within the Project Study Area.
Peregrine falcons and bald eagles may be affected due to the potential for collisions with the new
line. However, no peregrines are known to occur within the Project Study Area and therefore,
the potential for collisions is limitedak1though bald eagle winter range would be crossed by the
proposed routes, the potential for collisions is considered limited based on the fact that most
raptors that collide with powerlines are juveniles''Juveniles typically do not fly as well as adults.
Since no bald eagle nests are known to occur within the area, the potential for collisions by
juveniles is limited. However, if collisions do occur, PSCo would consult with the USFWS to
prevent further collisions.
Adm-rec.567/December $, 1997
4-17
Environmental Consequences
Wetlands/Important Habitats
All Corridor Alternatives would cross Landis Creek, and Corridors 3 and 4 would cross near a
seasonal pond. There would be no impact to these wetland habitats because the habitats would be
spanned by the lines and no structures would be located in the habitats themselves. Construction
impacts to winter ranges and severe winter ranges would occur during the summer when the
wildlife should not be present, and impacts to the wildlife habitat would be minimal (less than one
acre).
4.3.7.3 No Action Alternative - Impact on Biological Resources
If the No Action Alternative was implemented, there would be no effect on biological resources
in the Project Study Area. If the City of Glenwood Springs and PSCo pursued other solutions to
upgraded electrical service to Glenwood Springs, biological resources might be affected.
Adm•rec.567/December 8, 1997
4-18
5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
S:?S'.r,<e.�:.i�':;°:r.%?.�:-k:{!w.�;9.oCL+.+.>:fifSc�,�:Sfin`�5:�`.�R�:AY.:o::'+xo}:RC:uco-:..:t+iSf:GS:YbSL�ftrkff:�'btic-.:;:`�'rn'.',k`,::d: �:•`.,,s:Y M�n.N:%:v7.df}%.ec,;'Ui?.'x�`�:R'N»:�1J,n'}n'Lr'+�rFO+G•M"Sir:B��O:G:�J.00Rx..'Rf%lw'o-':Gn[OOY>'.�Fi.Q%i$?
A Iist of agencies contacted, workshops/meetings and hearings, and a list of agencies,
organizations, and persons that received copies of the EA is included in Chapter 5.0 of the EA.
Adm-rx.567JDrcember 8, 1997
5-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
�%';;Y.'#:k:.'v.F:.'Ro:%R�z7:NSl:<:;:52dff.:�:iir�6..'d:� tiCdR`:4::�Rc:, �c.4t:it�2Ak::4RLeaSNSYGk'dsk�,�>.�Rt:'f�C?::s�.`..::`�?:.".�'.'•.^.�:k:.�R<��#w.:;S:;o7.'tr:::�:SsYa;:;:>::',nY��n'+:s�:�:eta^.e:<bclfo'::�::;'v".'::�fob?'tS.'•r�.f:4:,Y:i6:.>,:�,:
PSCo and Greystone employees involved in the preparation of the EA are listed in Chapter 6.0
of the EA.
Adm-rec.567/December 8, 1997
6-1
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix A - Bibliography
Algermissen, S.T. 1969. Seismic Risk Studies in the United States. US Coast & Geodetic
Survey, Rockville, MD.
Alstatt, D.K. and D. Moreland. 1992. Soil Survey of Aspen -Gypsum Area, Colorado. US Soil
Conserv. Service, Washington, DC.
Behnke, R.J. and D.E. Benson. 1980. Endangered and Threatened Fishes of the Upper Colorado
River Basin. Extension Service Bull. 503A, Colo. State Univ., Fort Collins, Colo. 24
pp.
Carlson, L.W. 1995. Colorado Field. Supervisor. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Identified
Habitat. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, Golden, Colo.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1996a. Elk WRIS mapping and definitions. Colo. Div. of Wildl.,
Denver, Colo.
Colorado Division of Wildlife. 1996b. Mule Deer WRIS mapping and definitions. Colo. Div. of
Wildl., Denver, Colo.
Colorado Geological Survey. No date. Geologic Hazards. Proposed Horse Mountain
Cogeneration Facility, Glenwood Springs Vicinity Map.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 1996. Plant characterization abstract for Colorado,
Penstemon harringtonii, Harrington beardtongue.
Craig, G. 1996. Personal Communication. Raptor Biologist. Colo. Div. Wildl., Fort Collins,
Colo.
Fox, F.M. and Assoc. 1974. Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys: An Environmental and
Engineering Geology Study. Colo. Geol. Surv. Env. Geol. No. 8., Denver, CO.
Garfield County. 1995. Garfield County Comprehensive Plan - Study Area 1, September, 1995.
Garfield County PIanning Department, Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association. 1995. Glenwood Springs Annual Economic and
Community Profile. Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association. 1996. Trends - A Semi -Annual Review of
Economic Indicators, January 1996. Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
A-1
Appendix A - Bibliography
Glenwood Springs 1995 Official Vacation Guide.
Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association. undated. Hiking and Biking Trails in Glenwood
Springs, CO and the White River National Forest.
Gallop et al. 1986. Eskimo Curlew; A Vanishing Species? Special Pub. No. 17. Saskatchewan
Nat. Hist. Soc., Regina, Saskat., Can.
Greystone. 1996. Shoshone -Glenwood 69kV Transmission Line Rebuild and Upgrade Report for
Harrington Beardtongue (Penstemon harringtonii) Survey. Englewood, Colorado.
August, 1996.
Hammerson, G.A. 1986. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife,
Denver, Colorado.
Harman, J.B. and Murray, D.J. 1985. Soil Survey of Rifle Area, Colorado. US Soil Conserv.
Service, Washington, DC.
Hillman, L.N., and T.W. Clark. 1980. Mustela Nigripes. Mammalian Species. The Amer. Soc.
of Mamm. No. 126. pp 1-3.
Kight, Bill. 1990. Communications Site for the White River National Forest. Survey ID#
GF.LM.NR319. On file at Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Denver.
Lincoln DeVore Testing Labs. 1976. Slope Hazards (Glenwood Springs area). Garfield Co.
Planning Dept. Arc/Info GIS MetaData Sheet.
Lincoln DeVore Testing Labs. 1976. Soil Hazards (Glenwood Springs area). Garfield Co.
Planning Dept. Arc/Info GIS MetaData Sheet.
Magaddino, R. 1989. Living with Bald Eagles. Montana Outdoors. Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks.
Montana Bald Eagle Working Group. 1986. Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. Bureau of
Land Management. Montana State Office, Billing MT.
Mutel, F.M. and J.C. Emerick. 1984. From Grassland to Glacier: The Natural History of
Colorado. Johnson Books, Boulder.
A-2
Appendix A . Bibliography
Rose, K.L. 1996. Personal Communication. Assistant Colorado State Supervisor. U.S. Dept.
Inter. Fish and WiIdI. Serv. Grand Junction, Colo.
Spahr. R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Species of the Intermountain Region. USDA For. Serv., Ogden, Utah.
Stover, C.W., B.G. Reagor, and S.T. Algermissen. 1988. Seismicity Map of the State of
Colorado. US Geol. Surv. Map MF -2036, Washington, DC.
Tibbets, T.J, M.K. Sogge, and S.J. Sferra. 1994. A Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus). USDI, Nat. Park Serv. and Colo Plateau Research.
Sta., Denver, Colo. Technical Report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-94/04.
Tweto, 0., R.H. Moench, J.C. Reed, Jr. 1978. Geologic Map of the Leadville 1° X 2°
Quadrangle, Northwestern Colorado. US Geol. Surv. Map I-999, Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1980. Highway Noise
Fundamentals: Noise Fundamentals Training Document.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1984. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Resources
Management Plan; White River National Forest. Rocky Mountain Region, USDA Forest
Service.
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management. 1983, Final Environmental Statement on the Glenwood
Springs Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction
District, Grand Junction, Colorado.
USFWS. 1989. Black -Footed Ferret Survey Guidelines for Compliance with the Endangered
Species Act. U.S. Dept. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Serv., Denver, Colo. 14 pp.
Woodling, J. 1985. Colorado's Little Fish, A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known
Fishes in the State of Colorado. Colo. Div. of Wildl., Denver, Co. 77 pp.
A-3
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
y;..t.:•.y: �r •�'n•.+:nx. •;.,:<.•+:aawn>�,..: v o -v :::.�,..:.. .Mn
::.:},;;j:5xr::.�Y.:;i."..,..:......e.a.........L..................:,.�.a?.rv,�i:-:'."fR„R.:;:�::,�'f::�';:�.'•:; h;'.n�`.',;:,^,;;:•..#.:,:.�..,,.�+..`�i.%,:t7:R...:�:R�.':`�'.s:.`�:R:>kv:..v.:S:%;G.:ci:o:4�•?.:x4S:Cr:5`o.'oY5d5?k::tw�::35 ��tiY� ...
Glossary
aggregates - a material composed of a mixture of minerals separable by mechanical means.
alluvial fans - fan shaped accumulation of sediment deposited at the mouth of a ravine or stream.
angle points - the point at which the transmission turns and changes direction. Such areas require
3 -pole angle structures.
avoidance area - those areas where a transmission line could be routed but only with the
application of specific mitigation measures or licensing/permitting procedures.
basalt - dark, fine-grained, igneous rock composed of feldspar and ferromagnesian minerals.
circuit - a conductor through which an electric current is intended to flow.
conductor - any material capable of carrying an electric current.
corona - the luminous discharge due to the ionization of the air surrounding a conductor caused
by the voltage gradient exceeding a critical value.
corridor - a pathway that may range in width from a couple hundred feet to a couple of miles that
contains a variety of possible routes a proposed distribution/transmission line may follow.
creep - an imperceptibly slow, relatively continuous downslope movement of rock and soil.
cycle - an event defined by an alternating current starting at zero, reaching a maximum positive
(negative) value, passing back through zero to a maximum negative (positive) value, and returning
to zero in a sinusoidal manner.
dielectric - a medium which does not conduct electricity.
dig -in - occurs when mechanical equipment cuts an underground Iine.
distribution line - a circuit of a distribution system operating at a relatively low voltage compared
to transmission lines that directly provides service to the consumer.
B-1
Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations
double circuit - a distribution/transmission line consisting of two systems of conductors (or wires)
through which electric current flows.
easements - a right, such as a right of way, afforded a person to make limited use of another's real
property.
electromagnetic - exhibiting magnetism arising from electric charge in motion.
electrostatic - of or pertaining to stationary electric charges.
EMF (electric and magnetic fields) - invisible lines of force, produced by voltage and current,
that surround any electrical device or electrical power line.
eminent domain - the right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually
with compensation to the owner.
Environmental Assessment (EA) - A concise public document which includes a brief discussion
of the need for a proposed construction project, the alternatives considered, environmental impacts
and a listing of agencies and persons consulted. The document must provide sufficient evidence
for determining whether the federal agency should prepare and Environmental Impact Statement
or a Finding of No Significant Impact.
ephemeral streams - a stream that flows briefly, only in direct response to precipitation in the
immediate locality.
epidemiology - the study of patterns and possible causes of diseases in human populations.
epoch - unit of geologic time shorter than a period.
exclusion area - those areas where a transmission line would be virtually prohibited.
feathering - a method of clearing right-of-way by selective cutting and thinning so as to achieve
a more natural appearance.
flash over - an unintended electrical arc between electrical wires or devices.
flocculating - forming lumps or masses.
floodplain - the part of a valley floor periodically covered by flood waters, which leave a blanket
of sediment on either side of the stream channel.
13-2
Glossarv, Acronyms and Abbreviations
Gauss (G) - electromagnetic unit of magnetic flux density.
ground profile - the mapping of the topography of the ground. Ground profiles are used in the
stringing of conductors. The conductors must be sagged a minimum distance from the ground and
thus the conductors are sagged in relation to the ground profile.
ground - (n.) the portion of a circuit that is at zero potential with respect to the earth; (v.) to
connect an electrical circuit to ground.
guy(ed) lines - a cable used for steadying, guiding, or bolding a utility pole.
hematology - the branch of science dealing with the study of all aspects of blood.
hertz (Hz) - a unit of frequency equal to one cycle per second.
in -vitro - in an artificial environment outside the living organism.
in -vivo - within the living organism.
induced current - current in conductor due to the application of a time varying electro -magnetic
field.
induce voltage - a voltage produced around a circuit by change in magnetic flux linking that
circuit.
insulator - a low conductive support for a conductor, typically of glass porcelain or paltrier fiber
glass that prevents the normal flow of current from the conductor to earth or another conductor.
loading - the rate at which energy is delivered to or by a system or a piece of equipment expressed
in kilowatts.
maximum loading - the greatest of all demands for energy which occurs withing a specified
period of time.
mitigation - actions taken to avoid or minimize adverse impacts of a proposed construction project
which include: 1) not carrying out the project; 2) limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation; 3) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affected environment; 4) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations; and 5) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute
resources or environments.
B-3
Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations
Modified mercalli scale - a measure of destruction caused by an earthquake.
montane - an ecosystem that occupies mountain areas below the subalpine ecosystem and above
the foothills ecosystem.
normal loading - the average load of energy that flows through a conductor in a stated period of
time.
opportunity area - those portions of a corridor that are characterized by the potential for corridor
sharing with other liner facilities or physical features.
outcrops - a portion of bedrock or other stratum protruding through the soil level.
paleontology - science that deals with the history and evolution of life on earth by studying fossils.
peak loading - see maximum loading.
perennial streams - streams that maintain a constant flow throughout the year given normal
climatic conditions.
phase - 1) consists of a bundle of two or more conductors; 2) one wire of a 3 -wire alternating
current circuit.
photochemical oxidants - Any chemical which enters into oxidation reactions in the presence of
light or other radiant energy.
physiography - otherwise known as physical geography. The study of the structure and
phenomena of the earth's surface.
pulling sites - the area where the puller reel winder and anchors used in stringing conductors are
located. This site may also serve as the tension site for the next sag section.
quaternary - A term used to designate geologic time and the system of rocks that formed during
that time. The time is the second period of the Cenozoic that began at the end of the Tertiary and
continues on to the present and is characterized by the appearance of man.
reclamation - restoring to conditions prior to disturbance.
right of way - the path on property owned by one party on which another party has the right to
pass.
B-4
Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations
riparian - the unique ecosystem that exists immediately adjacent to waterways.
sag - the predetermined tension of a conductor.
scalloping - to clear right -of ways of trees in a manner of semicircular projections so as to mimic
natural vegetation patterns.
scoping - the act of determining the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered
in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. Usually involves public
meetings and requesting public comment.
severe winter range - the part of the range of an animal species where 90 percent of the
individuals are located when the annual snowpack is at its maximum and/or temperatures are at
a minimum in the two worst winters out of ten.
shelterbelts - a linear band of trees planted at a right angle to the prevailing wind to protect crops
from soil blowing and reduce evaporation.
shieldwire - two wires installed along a transmission line at the top of the structures to protect the
conductors from lightning strikes by transferring the energy from the lightning through the
groundwires and structures into the ground below.
short circuit current - occurs when an object is completely grounded and the induced current
flows to the earth leaving the voltage of the object at zero.
single circuit - a distribution/transmission line consisting of one system of conductors (or wires)
through which electric current flows.
skylining - the outline of an object such as a transmission structure as seen against the sky without
other background.
slump - downslope movement of a mass of soil and/or rock as a unit.
spanning - Placing utility poles on either side of a given (usually environmentally sensitive) area
so as to avoid permanent physical impact to the terrain.
spark gap - any short air space between two conductors electrically insulated from or remotely
electrically connected to each other.
spoilers - devices added to overhead conductors to disrupt the flow of wind and prevent
conductors from galloping or swaying and flapping in the wind.
B-5
Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations
substation - an assemblage of equipment for the purpose of switching and/or changing or
regulating the voltage of electricity. For example a step-down substation changes the high voltage
of a transmission line into a lower voltage for a distribution line.
summer range - that part of the range in which 90 percent of the individuals are located between
the spring green -up and the first heavy snowfall.
talus - a sloping mass of debris usually at the base of cliff.
three -pole angle structures - support structures used at angle points in the transmission line.
transferred potential - refers to the capacity of the voltage to earth grounding system to transfer
energy from the structures to the ground when the source system grounding electrode is above
earth potential.
transformer - An electromagnetic device for changing the voltage of alternating -current
electricity.
transmission line - those lines whose primary function is to transport energy in bulk from a source
of supply to other principle parts of the utility systems. Such lines are characterized by high
voltage and normally do not directly serve consumers as distribution lines do.
tuff - rock composed of compacted volcanic ash varying in size from sand to coarse gravel.
turbidity - the stirring up or suspending of foreign particles or sediment.
volcanic conglomerate - a type of sedimentary rock that consists of lava as its matrix and
sediments ranging in size from pebbles to cobbles and sometimes larger making up the clasts.
water bar - a human -made culvert used in a drainage for the purposed of controlling soil run-off
and preventing soil loss.
wetland - a landscape characterized by shallow or standing water for at least part of the year with
vegetation rising above the water level.
winter range - that part of the range where 90 percent of the individuals in a species (normally
big game) are located during the average five winters out of ten from the first heavy snowfall until
spring green -up.
B-6
Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations
wire code methodology/configuration - a method to estimate electric and magnetic field
exposures in the house using wire codes or configurations as a surrogate for magnetic fields. Wire
codes describe the distance -type and physical arrangement of powerlines within 150 feet of homes.
B-7
Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronyms and Abbreviations
A.C. Alternating Current
A -weighted Scale for recording noise levels
ACSR Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced
A/R/RD Agriculture/Residential/Rural Density
AIBS American Institute of Biological Sciences
AMPs Allotment Management Plans
AN Audible Noise
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BPA Bonneville Power Administration
CB Citizens Band radio
CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife
CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program
County Garfield County
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
D.C. Direct Current
dBA Decibels, A -weighted scale
DAU Data Analysis Unit
DOE Department of Energy
e.g. Exempli gratia, [L.], for example
EA Environmental Assessment
ELF Extremely Low Frequency
EMF Electric and Magnetic Fields
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMFSAC Florida Electric and Magnetic Fields Science Advisory
Commission
FM Frequency Modulated
G Gauss
HPFF High Pressure Fluid -Filled
Hz Hertz
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
INIRC International Non -Ionizing Radiation Committee
IRPA International Radiation Protection Association
KOPs Key Observation Points
kV Kilovolts
kV/m Kilovolts Per Meter
L50 Average Occurrence 50% of the Time
LRMP Long Range Management Plan
M Meter
Glossary, Acronyms and Abbreviations
mA Milliamperes
MBEWG Montana Bald Eagle Working Group
mG Milligauss
Mg Middleground
MHZ Megahertz
NESC National Electrical Safety Code
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NRPB National Radiation Protection Board
NYSPLP New York State Power Line Project
O/S Open Space
ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities
Order Executive Order 12898; Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations
OTA Office of Technology Assessment
ppb Parts Per Billion
PSCo Public Service Company of Colorado
PUC Colorado Public Utility Commission
PUDs Planned Unit Developments
RIG/SD Residential/General/Suburban Density
R/L/SD Residential/Limited/Suburban Density
R/L/UD Residential/Limited/Urban Density
RAPID EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination Program
RI Radio Interference
RI/TVI Radio Interference/Television Interference
ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum
ROW Right -Of -Way
SCFF Self -Contained Fluid -Filled
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
TVI Television Interference
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Forest Service U.S. Forest Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
V/m Volts Per Meter
VRM Visual Resource Management
WEST West Energy Supply and Transmission Associates
B-9
APPENDIX C
CONSULTATION SUMMARIES
Consultation Summaries
3-19-96
03-27-96
PSCo met with City of Glenwood Springs Officials (Millyard,
Donaldson, Gambrel, Siano) to introduce the siting and permitting
process for the proposed Shoshone -Glenwood 69kV Electric
Transmission Line Upgrade and Rebuild.
PSCo met with Garfield County, Bureau of Land Management, and
City Officials (Bean, McCafferty, Donaldson, Hackett) to introduce
the siting and permitting process for the proposed project.
03-27-96 PSCo met with the U.S. forest Service (Sheakley) to inform them
of the proposed project.
March '96 PSCo contacted Los Amigos Ranch to inform them of the project
(Boecher).
A Project Study Area and Area of Influence for the project was
established as well as a mailing list.
06-06-96 PSCo met with the Bureau of Land Management as the Lead
Federal Agency (Sokal, Hackett).
06-12-96 PSCo met with the Bureau of Land Management and the consultant
chosen to prepare the necessary environmental assessment (Sakai,
Hackett, Mendoza, Keith, Solomon).
08-21-96
Site reconnaissance and gathering of environmental resource data.
A letter was sent to local, state„ and federal representatives and
public agencies informing them of the project and upcoming public
involvement process.
08-27-96 A newsletter and questionnaire were mailed to 300+ residents
within the Area of Influence.
08-28-96 Newspaper notices were published in the Glenwood Post, Valley
Journal, and Roaring Fork Sunday.
09-11-96 A public workshop/scoping meeting was held at the Colorado
Mountain College, Spring Valley Campus.
09-25-96 A workshop summary was sent to local, state, and federal
representatives and agencies.
C-1
Consultation Summaries
09-30-96 A letter was received from 30 concerned citizens of Spring Valley
voicing their concerns and providing further input.
October '96 Project Study Area reconnaissance with area residents'
representatives and the Bureau of Land Management.
11-08-96 A pole was erected on the side of Lookout Mountain and painted to
represent the appearance of the proposed transmission line
structures.
11-20-96
01-20-97
02-03-97
A letter was sent to the Spring Valley Residents' representatives for
distribution to the 30 concerned citizens of Spring Valley. Input on
the appearance of the pole on the side of Lookout Mountain was
solicited.
A second letter was individually sent to 30 concerned citizens of
Spring Valley requesting that they provide comments on the
appearance of the pole on the side of the mountain.
Only a few citizens responded to the request for input on the pole.
Most indicated that the pole blended in well. A couple people
indicated that the line should be put on, or near the top of Lookout
Mountain.
02-10-97 A preferred route was officially chosen after all public, and
environmental information was received and analyzed.
Week of 2-17
A follow-up newsletter was mailed to 300+ citizens of Spring
Valley. Newspaper ads were published in the three major
newspapers in the area. Notices were. mailed to local, state, and
federal representatives and agencies.
2-24-97 A preliminary draft Environmental Assessment was submitted to the
Bureau of Land Management.
C-2
11 !1 T 1i� l�ri
.. � O - --, - -NEWS
Public Service*
Pik S.rv{c. Carperry of Calorada
A Newsletter for the Shoshone -- Glenwood Transmission Line Project
Public Service Ca of Colorado (PSCo)
provides electric power to the Town of
Glenwood Springs (Town). Because of
the continually increasing electric demand
of local customers, the existing PSCo elec-
tric system soon will be incapable of pro-
viding acceptable and reliable service.
PSCo and the Town have entered into an
agreement to upgrade the existing PSCo
69,000 volt (69kV) electric transmission
system serving the Glenwood Springs area
to 115,000 volts (115kV). The first project
involved in the system upgrade, and the
subject of this newsletter, is to rebuild,
upgrade, and relocate the 69kV transmis-
sion line in Glenwood Canyon, and rebuild
and upgrade the 69kV transmission line
on the east side of Town. A future project
will involve rebuilding the 69kV electric
transmission line from Rifle to Glenwood
Springs, the only other source of power to
the Glenwood Springs area.
We expect this newsletter to provide
you with information about the proposed
project, and we hope you'll take time to
complete the enclosed questionnaire so
that we may learn what is important to
you in locating an electric transmission
line. This newsletter also serves as your
invitation to a September 11, 1996 public
workshop; by attending, you participate
1 in the decision-making process.
What Project?
PSCo proposes to construct a new
overhead 115kV transmission line that will
_I connect the PSCo Hopkins Substation,
south and east of Spring Valley, to the
Glenwood Springs Roaring Fork Substation
in Glenwood Springs. PSCo also proposes
to rebuild and upgrade to 115kV, the existing
69kV transmission line, from the Roaring
Fork Substation to the Glenwood Springs
Substation. This will replace the existing
69kV transmission line in Glenwood
Canyon. The existing 69kV transmission
line in Glenwood Canyon will be removed
once the entire 69kV electric system, serv-
ing the Glenwood Springs area, is upgraded
to 115kV. Please refer to the Vicinity Map.
The support structures for the proposed
transmission line will consist of wood or metal
poles, ranging in height from 50 ft. to 95 ft.,
within a 75 ft. easement right-of-way. The
spans between structures will range from
400 ft. to 1200 ft., depending on topography.
PSCo considered afematives, but they
did not seem prudent (see reasons noted
below).The alternatives were:
■ Rebuild and upgrade to 115kV the
existing 69kV transmission line in its
present location in Glenwood Canyon,
and rebuild and upgrade to 115kV the
existing transmission line from the
Roaring Fork Substation to the Glenwood
Springs Substation. The scenic, environ-
mentally sensitive, and steep, rocky con-
ditions that exist in Glenwood Canyon
prohibit this alternative.
■ Build a 115kV transmission line,
traveling west from the Hopkins
Substation to the Roaring Fork River,
parallel to the existing 230kV transmis-
sion line and then north along the Hwy.
82 corridor to the Roaring Fork
Substation. Rebuild and upgrade to
115kV, the existing transmission line
from the Roaring Fork Substation to
the Glenwood Springs Substation.
Remove the existing 69kV transmis-
sion line in Glenwood Canyon. This
alternative was not considered prudent
because of the visual and environmen-
tal impacts, conflict with existing and
planned land uses, and extreme cost.
• Build a 115kV transmission line due
west from the Hopkins Substation
through the southern section of Spring
Valley, then north to Lookout Mountain,
and west to the Roaring Fork Substation.
Rebuild and upgrade to 115kV, the exist-
ing 69kV transmission line from the
Roaring Fork Substation to the
Glenwood Springs Substation. Remove
the existing 69kV transmission line in
Glenwood Canyon. This alternative was
not considered prudent because of the
visual and environmental impacts, and
conflict with existing and planned land
uses.
■ No action. This option results in unrer�able
and unacceptable electric service to elec-
tric customers in the Town of Glenwood
Springs and the surrounding area.
An environmental assessment will be
prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), in accord with the
National Environmental Policy Act.The envi-
ronmental assessment will address, in detail,
the environmental concerns and resources,
alternatives analysis, preferred right-of-way
location, facility design, appropriate mitigation
measures, and "Development Plan:
Where?
A preliminary "study area" and "influ-
ence area" for the proposed electric line
have been identified, using past experi-
ence siting a line in Spring Valley, surface
and aerial reconnaissance, and environ-
mental resource data. The transmission
line is proposed within the "study area,"
and the "influence area" determines the
scope of public involvement. Please refer to
the Vicinity Map. Environmental resource
data includes existing and proposed land
uses, visual resources, existing utility cor-
ridors, topography, land ownership pat-
terns, ecologicaWiological resources, and
cultural resources.
rr M
I J - -
LJ J\ -d f I d`r
We Want To Hear
From You
The goal of the siting process is to pro-
vide an optimum level of service, with a
minimum of impact to the community and
environment. PSCo is interested in receiving
your input, and receiving feedback on alter-
native transmission line routes. Information
provided by you, through responses on the
enclosed questionnaire and input at the
workshop, will be factored into the deci-
sion-making process to identify a final trans-
mission line alignment for inclusion into the
BLM Environmental Assessment, and
Garfield County/Glenwood Springs per-
mit applications.
Other criteria used in siting the trans-
mission line are:
• Environmental: Such as the envi-
ronmental resource data mentioned
previously.
• Engineering: Electric system, facil-
ity design, and construction con-
straints.
• Economic: Cost associated with
construction, operation, and mainte-
nance which will be reflected in utility
rates.
• Right -of -Way: Availability of adequate
right-of-way.
A questionnaire is enclosed to assist
us with acquiring preliminary comments.
Please take a few moments to fill out the
questionnaire, and mail it to PSCo in the
enclosed, self-addressed stamped enve-
lope. Please respond by September 6, 1996.
When?
Preliminary Schedule:
-- May, June, July 1996:
Environmental Resource Inventory of
influence area.
— August 1996:
Newsletter No. 1.
— September 1996:
Public Work Shop.
— October 1996:
Alternative transmission line corridor
analysis.
— November 1996:
Newsletter No. 2 "Project Update."
— November/December 1996:
Draft Environmental Assessment and
permit applications.
— January/February 1997:
County and Town public hearings.
-- March - August 1997:
Surveying & Right-of-way acquisition.
— June - November 1998:
Transmission line construction.
(maybe sooner, pending permits)
or More ntormatior , or
neetxons to theWorksho
n
ichaelJ`Diehl
Prm/ect `Land (Fttghts Agent
PSCoAight-of-Way,: Siting & Permits
Phone: °1 =800-621 9427
Fax: 303-571:-7871
A public workshop ksho is scheduled for �, ember 11,1996 at the
Colorado Mountain
"�
College, Spring Valley Campus, classroom #7.
additional project infor-
Thepurpose is to provide a
ublic 'tnp�• Tl1e WOrcshop
oration and to receive P en house, which
will be conducted as an o p
mea byanytime
ns we hope you can drop
m
between 1 p.m. and 7 p.m.
o
RIFLE
RIFLE
7G
32 •st1 33
4,ssjoN
•
09KV ' t�,?
I/
SHOSHO
HYDRO PLA
DENcv
34 .: s7' 245
l
1
:. ;
RE$ OF INFLUEN \_
0 PUbUc Service.
VICINITY MAP
HOPKINS SUB TO ROARING FORK SUB
1 1 S kV TRANSMISSION UNE
SITING STUDY
LEGEND
STUDY AREA
AREA OF iNFLUENCC
!r,
es(voir
.P
HOPKINS ',
SUB7 '! .,
5
�L
9 v r
v
4
23o0 re
COLORADO
MOUNTAIN COLLEGE ---.
�W`1SPRING VALLEY
CAMPUS)
Count 4iwy 113
0
x
•
f;ARRnNn r
NO
SCALE
BASALT
PUbliC
Pi l9 SltU10f�1:DlHljlgy OYrifl�011d0 #.
An important step in locating the best route
for an electric transmission line is to identify the
factors that should be considered in the siting
study, and how these factors influence the loca-
tion of the transmission line. A Study Area has
been identified for the location of a new ll5kV
transmission line. We need your help. Please take
a few moments to answer the following questions,
and return your response to us.
Name
Address
City/State
Phone
Do you plan to attend the public workshop?
Are you a resident of the "influence area?"
Do you own property within the "influence area?"
Do you lease property within the "influence area?"
O Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
❑ Yes
O No
❑ No
O No
❑ No
Please indicate the existing use of your property:
❑ residential ❑ commercial ❑ industrial ❑ ranchinglagricultural ❑ vacant
Subdivision and/or legal description (if known):
Please indicate key issues that should be addressed in the planning process for this project:
What specific resources require attention in our studies? Please no e location, if known.
Natural/Biological:
Land Use:
Visual
Cultural/Historic:
Other.-
What
ther.
What are the most important factors to consider in the identification of alternatives?
How will your comments be used?
After all comments are received and after
the public workshop, the next step in this siting
study is to select criteria to be used to determine the
most appropriate transmission line route, and apply
them. In selecting the criteria, we will evaluate
comments received on the questionnaires and at the
public workshop.
A project update will be mailed and pub-
lished after the siting process, communicating the
results. Permit applications will be made to the
City of Glenwood Springs and Garfield County.
Public hearings will be involved in approval of these
applications and will provide another forum for
public input.
Thank you for your continents. For further information on this project, please contact:
Mr. Mike Diehl
Project Manager
1(800)621-9427 or (303)571-7260
Public Service Co. of Colorado
550 15th Street, Denver, CO 80202
Thank You!
We want to
hear from you!
Public Service®
Because of the continually increasing electric demand of
local customers, the existing Public Service Co. of Colorado(PSCo)
electric system will soon be incapable of providing acceptable and
reliable service. PSCo and the Town of Glenwood Springs(Town)
have entered into an agreement to upgrade the existing PSCo
69,000 volt (69kV) electric transmission system serving the
Glenwood Springs area to 115,000 volts (115kV). PSCo proposes
to construct a new overhead 115kV transmission line that will
connect the PSCo Hopkins Substation, south and east of Spring
Valley, to the Glenwood Springs Roaring Fork Substation, east of
the Hospital. PSCo also proposes to rebuild and upgrade to
115kV, the existing 69kV transmission line on the east side of
Town.
PSCo is starting to assess environmental conditions in the
study area, but we want to know what you think before identifying
altemative routes for the new line. Your opinion, both good and
bad, will be considered in identifying aitematives and selecting the
route which is the best location for all concerned. A community
workshop has been scheduled so we can tell you about the plan
and make it easy for you to provide suggestions and comments.
For your convenience, representatives will be available to
meet with you over a six hour period on Wednesday, September
11. You can drop by our open house any time between 1:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m. We hope to see you there. In the meantime, if you
have any questions, you can call James (Mike) Richardson at
625-6000 or Mike Diehl at 1-800-621-9427.
Community Workshop
Wednesday, September 11, 1996
Open House; 1:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
Colorado Mountain College
Roaring Fork Campus - Spring Valley
3000 County Road #114
Classroom #7
2.�
,
VICINITY MAP
nui louiv row tui
111 YV 1LMWS1101 Ylc
VW
„ rr
MAIN COLLECT
SARIMC VALLEY_
CAMPUS)
mono
J
�,1
CARPOMMI
Workshop Format
Co Public Service
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Shoshone - Glenwood 69kV Transmission Line
Rebuild and Upgrade Siting Project
Welcome to the public workshop for the Shoshone - Glenwood 69kV
Transmission Line Rebuild and Upgrade Siting Project. An Open House format
was chosen to accommodate a wide spectrum of schedules. The open house
will be open from 1:OOp.m to 7p.m.
Today's workshop is intended to assist in finalizing a transmission line
route for application and environmental assessment inclusion. The workshop
provides the most effective way to ensure citizen input, as part of the siting and
permitting process.
In an effort to identify and discuss specific issues and concerns about the
project, this workshop has been organized into three separate topic areas, as
shown below.
Please feel free to stop by any, or all of these areas to talk with
representatives from Public Service Co. of Colorado. Refreshments are
provided for your convenience.
Purpose and Need
• Questions relating to project need, cost and financing;
Engineering and Right -of -Way
• Questions relating to the engineering design and real estate aspects of
the project.
Technical and/or physical characteristics of the
planned transmission line.
• Right -of -Way acquisition process.
Electric & magnetic fields.
Route Identification
• Review environmental resource maps of the study area;
• Provide Public Service Company with comments and suggestions
regarding siting criteria;
• Participate in identifying and evaluating possible routes for the planned
line.
Route Identification Workshop
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Shoshone - Glenwood 69kV Transmission Line
Rebuild and Upgrade Siting Project
Name:
Address:
Phone No. (Optional):
STEP 1
STEP 2
If you have not already done so, please complete the questionnaire.
This is the same questionnaire that was mailed with the
announcement for this workshop.
Please review the information available to you at this workshop. The
large colored board graphics, on display, may help aid in site
orientation. Please use the attached map, and record any general
comments you have on the map, or in the space provided below.
STEP 3 Please mark the approximate location of your property on the
attached map.
STEP 4 Please return the questionnaire and this form to the reception table
when you exit.
Thank you. Your participation is important in helping to identify the best route for
this project.
Comments:
RIFLE
RIFLE
SHOSHO E
HYDRO PLA T
DENVER
33
LENWQ D SPRINGS
69K1T
0 Pubdc Servblar
VICINITY MAP
HOPKINS SUB TO ROARING FORK SUB
11S kV TRANSMISSION LINE
SITING STUDY
LECENO
STUDY AREA
AREA OF INFLUENCE
Hopkins 'es
ii
2S0KV TR4NSyISS1oN 1
it
COLORADO
MOUNTAIN COLLEGE----
f: P (SPRING VALLEY
CAMPUS)
Count Hwy 113
9
ej
J
ia
O
z
IL
NO
SCALE
BASAL/
Public Involvement Goals:
- Inform the Public
- Identify Public Concerns and Values
- Develop a Consensus
- Public Ownership in Decision -Making
Siting Process Input
Government
Agencies
i
0
II
as
u
c
O
...cn
.s,
0
w
CI
07
C
...
14-+
sii
CO
U
W
Planning Process & Anticipated Schedule
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Shoshone - Glenwood 69kV Transmission Line
Rebuild and Upgrade Siting Project
• May, June, July, 1996
▪ Environmental Resource Inventory of the General Area.
Analyze Existing Conditions.
Establish a Study Area for Transmission Line Route Alternatives
and an Influence Area.
• August, 1996
▪ Newsletter No. 1/Newspaper Advertisement
Invitation to a Public Workshop
• September, 1996
- Public Workshop/Scoping Meeting
Public Input as Part of the Siting Study
• October, 1996
Alternative Transmission Line Route Analysis
Rank Alternatives
Identify a Preferred Route
• November, 1996
Notify Public of Preferred Route/Newsletter No. 2 "Project Update"
• November/December, 1996
Draft Environmental Assessment and Permit Applications
• January/February, 1997
County and Town Permit Application Public Hearings
• March - August, 1997
Surveying & Right -of -Way Acquisition
• June - October, 1998
Transmission Line Construction (Maybe sooner, pending permits)
APPENDIX D
STANDARD EASEMENT AGREEMENT
Division:
Easement Location:
ROW Agent: Doc. No.:
Description Author: Plat/Grid No.:
Author Address: W.O.1J.O.ICREG No.:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO EASEMENT
The undersigned Grantor, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10) and other good and valuable consideration to
Grantor in hand paid by PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO, a Colorado corporation, 1225 -17th Street,
Denver, Colorado, 80202-5533, Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants bargains,
sells, conveys, and confirms unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, a perpetual easement for the transmission,
distribution, or both, of electricity and for the transmission of communication signals on, over, under and across the
following described premises located in LOT , BLOCK , SUBDIVISION , in the of Section
, Township , Range of the Principal Meridian in the County of , State of
Colorado, to wit:
Together with full right and authority to Grantee, its successors, licensees, lessees, contractors or assigns, and its
and their agents and employees to enter al all times upon said premises by existing or future roads on or across
land currently known as Spring Valley Ranch to survey, construct, repair, remove, replace, reconstruct, patrol,
inspect, improve, enlarge and maintain electric transmission and distribution lines and communication facilities,
both overhead and underground, including towers, poles and other supports of whatever materials; together with
braces, guys, anchors, cross -arms, cables, conduits, wires, conductors, manholes, transformers and other
fixtures, devices and appurtenances used or useful in connection therewith, and full right and authority to cut,
remove, trim or otherwise control all trees, brush and other growth on or overhanging said premises.
No buildings, structures, signs or wells shall be erected, placed or permitted to remain on, under or over said
premises. No other objects shall be erected, placed or permitted to remain on, under or over said premises which
will or may be an interference with the exercise of any of the rights herein granted. Non-use or a limited use of this
easement shall not prevent Grantee from thereafter making use of this easement to the full extent herein
authorized.
Grantee shall exercise the rights herein granted to it with due care, and all damage to the premises occurring
hereunder resulting from the failure to exercise due care shall be paid for or repaired at the expense of the
Grantee.
The provisions of this easement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the heirs, executors,
administrators, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
Signed and delivered this day of 19
(Type or print name below each signature line with official title if corporation, partnership, etc.):
STATE OF COLORADO,
1ss.
COUNTY OF
The foregoing instrument was acknowledgedbefore me this day of
19 by [Grantor name(s) from above]:
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires
NOTARY PUBLIC
APPENDIX E
ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELD (EMF) CHARACTERISTICS
i;:�r::sv'.»"'r.;�?bri.`G9;9k:.<A':.`K<>�{'a::c..".:Si.a:'fG:.:tCe�[G2:5�::'.�g::2:''�ik::RvRL':'.YL,^.'R;�`.;4R�:fiS.:S:::;QL'k`.vSS9.C2:�,k`:,.:.*:;ti::vR;..{?n�::.::�.:y":�:C�ftvfi�iC.'LY,k�:R�fi�9:aR:S�a1'Aii?:.C.c;+.dG#1•::4'��SA"S:9i:'d2Sf1�wk9:hfd;�
Electric and Magnetic Field (EMF) Characteristics
Figure E-1
SHOSHONE-HOPKINS 115KV
1996 AVERAGE LOADING
t)
ix
W
a
0
1-
MILIKEN
MAGNETIC FIELD PROFILE
e
— 0
N
h
}
1113
\ LI
L.
r
— 0
g'
1U
0
0
L
0
41
O IX
3 —? s;
0
IX L
0
0
C
it
O }
_N 0
M
I 0
8
J
Li.
O 0.
O 0
1 1 11 11111 11111111 1111111 111111 1 1111111] 11111111 1 (*1 S
O 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
X
0'Q N GQ" 0 GI
N .1 .-1
0
(Ow} Pia!J a wnw!weJ -
U.
A - 1996
Main Title: SHOSHONE-HOPKINS 115KV
Subtitle: MILIKEN TOWERS 1996 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
Input File: shohop96.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm -meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft) : 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 50
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -50
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (<=25): 3
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -10.50 26.00 1 0.56 0.56 121.00 51.00 0.00
2 31 0.00 26.00 1 0.56 0.56 121.00 51.00 120.00
3 C1 10.50 26.00 1 0.56 0.56 121.00 51.00 240.00
Ground Wire Data
Number of Ground Wires (<=10): 2
Ground Ground Ground Wire GW GW GW Phase
Wire Wire Coordinates Diam. Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) (in.) (Amp) (deg)
1 G1 -5.25 46.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
2 G2 5.25 46.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
Input File: shohop96.FLD
SHOSHONE-HOPKINS 115KV
MILIKEN TOWERS 1996 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES
DISTANCE B Horz B Vert B Product B Max
(Feet) (mG) (mG) (mG) (mG)
-200.00 0.034 0.147 0.151 0.151
-195.00 0.037 0.154 0.158 0.158
- 190.00 0.040 0.162 0.167 0.167
-185.00 0.043 0.170 0.176 0.176
- 180.00 0.047 0.180 0.186 0.186
- 175.00 0.051 0.189 0.196 0.196
- 170.00 0.055 0.200 0.208 0.208
- 165.00 0.061 0.212 0.220 0.220
-160.00 0.066 0.224 0.234 0.234
- 155.00 0.073 0.238 0.249 0.249
- 150.00 0.080 0.253 0.266 0.266
- 145.00 0.088 0.270 0.284 0.284
- 140.00 0.098 0.288 0.304 0.304
- 135.00 0.109 0.308 0.327 0.327
- 130.00 0.122 0.330 0.352 0.352
-125.00 0.136 0.354 0.380 0.380
-120.00 0.153 0.381 0.411 0.411
-115.00 0.173 0.411 0.446 0.446
-110.00 0.197 0.445 0.486 0.486
- 105.00 0.225 0.482 0.532 0.532
-100.00 0.258 0.524 0.585 0.584
- 95.00 0.299 0.572 0.645 0.645
- 90.00 0.348 0.625 0.715 0.715
- 85.00 0.408 0.684 0.797 0.796
- 80.00 0.482 0.752 0.893 0.892
- 75.00 0.574 0.827 1.007 1.007
- 70.00 0.691 0.911 1.143 1.143
- 65.00 0.841 1.003 1.309 1.308
- 60.00 1.033 1.102 1.510 1.509
-55.00 1.284 1.202 1.759 1.758
- 50.00 1.614 1.295 2.070 2.067
- 45.00 2.051 1.360 2.461 2.457
- 40.00 2.627 1.357 2.957 2.951
-35.00 3.376 1.220 3.589 3.578
- 30.00 4.303 0.863 4.389 4.369
- 25.00 5.336 0.651 5.375 5.338
- 20.00 6.222 1.974 6.528 6.458
-15.00 6.484 4.235 7.744 7.619
- 10.00 5.646 6.794 8.834 8.628
-5.00 3.824 8.786 9.582 9.294
0.00 2.509 9.521 9.846 9.521
5.00 3.824 8.786 9.582 9.294
10.00 5.646 6.794 8.834 8.628
15.00 6.484 4.235 7.744 7.619
20.00 6.222 1.974 6.528 6.458
25.00 5.336 0.651 5.375 5.338
30.00 4.303 0.863 4.389 4.369
35.00 3.376 1.220 3.589 3.578
40.00 2.627 1.357 2.957 2.951
45.00 2.051 1.360 2.461 2.457
50.00 1.614 1.295 2.070 2.067
55.00 1.284 1.202 1.759 1.758
60.00 1.033 1.102 1.510 1.509
65.00 0.841 1.003 1.309 1.308
70.00 0.691 0.911 1.143 1.143
75.00 0.574 0.827 1.007 1.007
80.00 0.482 0.752 0.893 0.892
85.00 0.408 0.684 0.797 0.796
90.00 0.348 0.625 0.715 0.715
95.00 0.299 0.572 0.645 0.645
100.00 0.258 0.524 0.585 0.584
105.00 0.225 0.482 0.532 0.532
110.00 0.197 0.445 0.486 0.486
115.00 0.173 0.411 0.446 0.446
120.00 0.153 0.381 0.411 0.411
125.00 0.136 0.354 0.380 0.380
130.00 0.122 0.330 0.352 0.352
135.00 0.109 0.308 0.327 0.327
140.00 0.098 0.288 0.304 0.304
145.00 0.088 0.270 0.284 0.284
150.00 0.080 0.253 0.266 0.266
155.00 0.073 0.238 0.249 0.249
160.00 0.066 0.224 0.234 0.234
165.00 0.061 0.212 0.220 0.220
170.00 0.055 0.200 0.208 0.208
175.00 0.051 0.189 0.196 0.196
180.00 0.047 0.180 0.186 0.186
185.00 0.043 0.170 0.176 0.176
190.00 0.040 0.162 0.167 0.167
195.00 0.037 0.154 0.158 0.158
200.00 0.034 0.147 0.151 0.151
SHOSHONE-GLENIIOOD SPRINGS 69KV
SINGLE POLE FIX 1996 AVERAGE LOADING 3/30/96
MAGNETIC FIELD PROFILE
20.0
16.0
n
E
v
71 12 0
ry
lb
,re
LL
M
£ E.0
0
E
.M
X
1
E
4.0
R /N Rill
0.0 1 1 1' ' 1
-200 -120 -40 40 120
File: shoyln97.FLD Distance From Reference (Feet)
1
200
Main Title: SHOSHONE-GLENWOOD SPRINGS 69KV
Subtitle: SINGLE POLE FIX 1996 AVERAGE LOADING 8/30/96
Input File: shogln97.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm -meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft): 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -37.5
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 37.5
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (<=25): 3
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -3.10 26.00 1 0.64 0.64 72.00 43.00 0.00
2 B1 0.00 31.30 1 0.64 0.64 72.00 43.00 120.00
3 C1 3.10 26.00 1 0.64 0.64 72.00 43.00 240.00
Input File: shog1n97.FLD
SHOSHONE-GLENWOOD SPRINGS 69KV
SINGLE POLE FIX 1996 AVERAGE LOADING 8/30/96
MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES
DISTANCE B Horz B Vert B Product B Max
(Feet) (mG) (mG) (mG) (mG)
- 200.00 0.036 0.038 0.052 0.038
-195.00 0.038 0.040 0.055 0.040
- 190.00 0.040 0.042 0.058 0.042
- 185.00 0.042 0.044 0.061 0.044
-180.00 0.045 0.046 0.064 0.047
- 175.00 0.047 0.049 0.068 0.049
- 170.00 0.050 0.052 0.072 0.052
- 165.00 0.053 0.055 0.076 0.055
-160.00 0.056 0.059 0.081 0.059
-155.00 0.060 0.062 0.086 0.063
-150.00 0.064 0.067 0.092 0.067
- 145.00 0.068 0.071 0.098 0.071
- 140.00 0.073 0.076 0.105 0.076
-135.00 0.078 0.082 0.113 0.082
- 130.00 0.084 0.088 0.122 0.088
- 125.00 0.090 0.095 0.131 0.095
- 120.00 0.097 0.103 0.142 0.103
- 115.00 0.105 0.112 0.154 0.112
- 110.00 0.115 0.122 0.168 0.122
- 105.00 0.125 0.134 0.183 0.134
- 100.00 0.137 0.147 0.201 0.147
- 95.00 0.150 0.162 0.221 0.162
-90.00 0.166 0.180 0.245 0.180
- 85.00 0.184 0.200 0.272 0.200
-80.00 0.205 0.224 0.304 0.224
- 75.00 0.230 0.253 0.342 0.253
- 70.00 0.260 0.286 0.387 0.287
- 65.00 0.296 0.327 0.441 0.328
- 60.00 0.339 0.376 0.506 0.378
- 55.00 0.394 0.435 0.586 0.439
- 50.00 0.462 0.506 0.685 0.516
- 45.00 0.550 0.593 0.809 0.612
- 40.00 0.666 0.698 0.965 0.734
- 35.00 0.822 0.822 1.163 0.890
- 30.00 1.033 0.966 1.414 1.091
- 25.00 1.312 1.127 1.730 1.345
- 20.00 1.656 1.317 2.116 1.660
-15.00 2.005 1.591 2.560 2.026
-10.00 2.219 2.033 3.009 2.401
-5.00 2.179 2.559 3.361 2.698
0.00 2.079 2.813 3.497 2.813
5.00 2.179 2.559 3.361 2.698
10.00 2.219 2.033 3.009 2.401
15.00 2.005 1.591 2.560 2.026
20.00 1.656 1.317 2.116 1.660
25.00 1.312 1.127 1.730 1.345
30.00 1.033 0.966 1.414 1.091
35.00 0.822 0.822 1.163 0.890
40.00 0.666 0.698 0.965 0.734
45.00 0.550 0.593 0.809 0.612
50.00 0.462 0.506 0.685 0.516
55.00 0.394 0.435 0.586 0.439
60.00 0.339 0.376 0.506 0.378
65.00 0.296 0.327 0.441 0.328
70.00 0.260 0.286 0.387 0.287
75.00 0.230 0.253 0.342 0.253
80.00 0.205 0.224 0.304 0.224
85.00 0.184 0.200 0.272 0.200
90.00 0.166 0.180 0.245 0.180
95.00 0.150 0.162 0.221 0.162
100.00 0.137 0.147 0.201 0.147
105.00 0.125 0.134 0.183 0.134
110.00 0.115 0.122 0.168 0.122
115.00 0.105 0.112 0.154 0.112
120.00 0.097 0.103 0.142 0.103
125.00 0.090 0.095 0.131 0.095
130.00 0.084 0.088 0.122 0.088
135.00 0.078 0.082 0.113 0.082
140.00 0.073 0.076 0.105 0.076
145.00 0.068 0.071 0.098 0.071
150.00 0.064 0.067 0.092 0.067
155.00 0.060 0.062 0.086 0.063
160.00 0.056 0.059 0.081 0.059
165.00 0.053 0.055 0.076 0.055
170.00 0.050 0.052 0.072 0.052
175.00 0.047 0.049 0.068 0.049
180.00 0.045 0.046 0.064 0.047
185.00 0.042 0.044 0.061 0.044
190.00 0.040 0.042 0.058 0.042
195.00 0.038 0.040 0.055 0.040
200.00 0.036 0.038 0.052 0.038
GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 69KV
H -FRAME FIX 1996 AVERAGE LOADING 8/30/94
IIAGNETIC FIELD PROFILE
20.0-
4.0-
_
0.0
-200
File: glnrf94.FLD
R/I.1 R/N
1 1 1 1 1
-120 -410 40 120 200
D ita,nce From Reference C Feet )
Main Title: GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 69KV
Subtitle: H -FRAME FIX 1996 AVERAGE LOADING 8/30/96
Input File: glnrf96.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm -meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft) : 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -37.5
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 37.5
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (<=25): 3
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -12.50 26.00 1 0.72 0.72 71.00 48.00 0.00
2 81 0.00 26.00 1 0.72 0.72 71.00 48.00 120.00
3 Cl 12.50 26.00 1 0.72 0.72 71.00 48.00 240.00
Ground Wire Data
Number of Ground Wires (<=10): 2
Ground Ground Ground Wire GW GW GW Phase
Wire Wire Coordinates Diam. Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) (in.) (Amp) (deg)
1 G1 -6.25 40.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
2 G2 6.25 40.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
Input File: glnrf96.FLD
GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 69KV
H -FRAME FIX 1996 AVERAGE LOADING 8/30/96
MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES
DISTANCE B Horz B Vert B Product B Max
(Feet) (mG) (mG) (mG) (mG)
-200.00 0.039 0.165 0.169 0.169
- 195.00 0.042 0.173 0.178 0.178
-190.00 0.045 0.182 0.187 0.187
- 185.00 0.049 0.191 0.197 0.197
- 180.00 0.053 0.201 0.208 0.208
-175.00 0.057 0.213 0.220 0.220
- 170.00 0.062 0.225 0.233 0.233
- 165.00 0.068 0.238 0.247 0.247
-160.00 0.075 0.252 0.263 0.263
-155.00 0.082 0.267 0.280 0.280
- 150.00 0.090 0.284 0.298 0.298
- 145.00 0.100 0.303 0.319 0.319
- 140.00 0.110 0.323 0.342 0.342
-135.00 0.123 0.346 0.367 0.367
-130.00 0.137 0.371 0.395 0.395
-125.00 0.154 0.398 0.427 0.427
- 120.00 0.173 0.429 0.462 0.462
- 115.00 0.196 0.462 0.502 0.502
-110.00 0.222 0.500 0.547 0.547
- 105.00 0.254 0.542 0.599 0.599
- 100.00 0.292 0.590 0.658 0.658
- 95.00 0.338 0.643 0.726 0.726
-90.00 0.394 0.703 0.805 0.805
- 85.00 0.462 0.770 0.898 0.898
- 80.00 0.547 0.845 1.007 1.007
- 75.00 0.653 0.930 1.137 1.136
- 70.00 0.787 1.024 1.292 1.291
- 65.00 0.959 1.127 1.480 1.479
-60.00 1.181 1.236 1.709 1.708
- 55.00 1.470 1.346 1.993 1.991
-50.00 1.851 1.444 2.347 2.344
-45.00 2.355 1.503 2.794 2.788
- 40.00 3.016 1.478 3.359 3.349
-35.00 3.866 1.289 4.075 4.058
- 30.00 4.893 0.874 4.971 4.939
- 25.00 5.979 0.951 6.054 5.995
-20.00 6.796 2.598 7.275 7.167
- 15.00 6.840 5.048 8.501 8.310
- 10.00 5.797 7.567 9.532 9.225
-5.00 4.099 9.342 10.201 9.776
0.00 3.122 9.951 10.430 9.951
5.00 4.099 9.342 10.201 9.776
10.00 5.797 7.567 9.532 9.225
15.00 6.840 5.048 8.501 8.310
20.00 6.796 2.598 7.275 7.167
25.00 5.979 0.951 6.054 5.995
30.00 4.893 0.874 4.971 4.939
35.00 3.866 1.289 4.075 4.058
40.00 3.016 1.478 3.359 3.349
45.00 2.355 1.503 2.794 2.788
50.00 1.851 1.444 2.347 2.344
55.00 1.470 1.346 1.993 1.991
60.00 1.181 1.236 1.709 1.708
65.00 0.959 1.127 1.480 1.479
70.00 0.787 1.024 1.292 1.291
75.00 0.653 0.930 1.137 1.136
80.00 0.547 0.845 1.007 1.007
85.00 0.462 0.770 0.898 0.898
90.00 0.394 0.703 0.805 0.805
95.00 0.338 0.643 0.726 0.726
100.00 0.292 0.590 0.658 0.658
105.00 0.254 0.542 0.599 0.599
110.00 0.222 0.500 0.547 0.547
115.00 0.196 0.462 0.502 0.502
120.00 0.173 0.429 0.462 0.462
125.00 0.154 0.398 0.427 0.427
130.00 0.137 0.371 0.395 0.395
135.00 0.123 0.346 0.367 0.367
140.00 0.110 0.323 0.342 0.342
145.00 0.100 0.303 0.319 0.319
150.00 0.090 0.284 0.298 0.298
155.00 0.082 0.267 0.280 0.280
160.00 0.075 0.252 0.263 0.263
165.00 0.068 0.238 0.247 0.247
170.00 0.062 0.225 0.233 0.233
175.00 0.057 0.213 0.220 0.220
180.00 0.053 0.201 0.208 0.208
185.00 0.049 0.191 0.197 0.197
190.00 0.045 0.182 0.187 0.187
195.00 0.042 0.173 0.178 0.178
200.00 0.039 0.165 0.169 0.169
•M
X
0
SHOSHONE-HOPKINS 115KV
MILIKEN TONERS 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD PROFILE
20.0-
_
16.
0.0-
16. 0-
12.0-
8.0-
4.0-
_
0.
.0-
0. 0
R/W R/N
1 1 1
-200 -120 -40 40 120 200
File: shohop99.FLD Distance Frori Reference (Feet)
z
0
0
Main Title: SHOSHONE-HOPKINS 115KV
Subtitle: MILIKEN TOWERS 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/28/97
Input File: shohop99.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm --meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft) : 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 50
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -50
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (<=25): 3
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -10.50 26.00 1 0.56 0.56 121.00 75.00 0.00
2 B1 0.00 26.00 1 0.56 0.56 121.00 75.00 120.00
3 C1 10.50 26.00 1 0.56 0.56 121.00 75.00 240.00
Ground Wire Data
Number of Ground Wires (<=10): 2
Ground Ground Ground Wire GW GW GW Phase
Wire Wire Coordinates Diam. Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) (in.) (Amp) (deg)
1 G1 -5.25 46.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
2 G2 5.25 46.00 0.30 0.00 0.00
Input File: shohop99.FLD
SHOSHONE-HOPKINS 115KV
MILIKEN TOWERS 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES
DISTANCE B Horz B Vert B Product B Max
(Feet) (mG) (mG) (mG) (mG)
-200.00 0.050 0.216 0.222 0.222
- 195.00 0.054 0.226 0.233 0.233
- 190.00 0.059 0.238 0.245 0.245
- 185.00 0.064 0.251 0.258 0.258
- 180.00 0.069 0.264 0.273 0.273
-175.00 0.075 0.279 0.288 0.288
- 170.00 0.082 0.294 0.305 0.305
- 165.00 0.089 0.311 0.324 0.324
- 160.00 0.097 0.330 0.344 0.344
- 155.00 0.107 0.350 0.366 0.366
-150.00 0.118 0.373 0.391 0.391
- 145.00 0.130 0.397 0.418 0.418
- 140.00 0.144 0.424 0.447 0.447
- 135.00 0.160 0.453 0.480 0.480
- 130.00 0.179 0.485 0.517 0.517
- 125.00 0.200 0.521 0.558 0.558
- 120.00 0.225 0.561 0.604 0.604
- 115.00 0.255 0.605 0.656 0.656
- 110.00 0.289 0.654 0.715 0.715
- 105.00 0.331 0.709 0.783 0.783
- 100.00 0.380 0.771 0.860 0.860
-95.00 0.439 0.841 0.948 0.948
- 90.00 0.511 0.919 1.051 1.051
-85.00 0.599 1.006 1.171 1.171
- 80.00 0.708 1.105 1.313 1.312
-75.00 0.845 1.216 1.481 1.480
- 70.00 1.017 1.339 1.682 1.681
- 65.00 1.236 1.475 1.924 1.924
-60.00 1.519 1.620 2.221 2.220
- 55.00 1.888 1.768 2.587 2.585
-50.00 2.374 1.905 3.044 3.040
- 45.00 3.016 1.999 3.619 3.613
- 40.00 3.864 1.996 4.349 4.340
- 35.00 4.964 1.795 5.278 5.262
-30.00 6.328 1.270 6.454 6.425
- 25.00 7.847 0.958 7.905 7.850
- 20.00 9.150 2.903 9.600 9.497
-15.00 9.535 6.228 11.389 11.204
- 10.00 8.304 9.990 12.991 12.689
-5.00 5.624 12.920 14.091 13.667
0.00 3.690 14.001 14.479 14.001
5.00 5.624 12.920 14.091 13.667
10.00 8.304 9.990 12.991 12.689
15.00 9.535 6.228 11.389 11.204
20.00 9.150 2.903 9.600 9.497
25.00 7.847 0.958 7.905 7.850
30.00 6.328 1.270 6.454 6.425
35.00 4.964 1.795 5.278 5.262
40.00 3.864 1.996 4.349 4.340
45.00 3.016 1.999 3.619 3.613
50.00 2.374 1.905 3.044 3.040
55.00 1.888 1.768 2.587 2.585
60.00 1.519 1.620 2.221 2.220
65.00 1.236 1.475 1.924 1.924
70.00 1.017 1.339 1.682 1.681
75.00 0.845 1.216 1.481 1.480
80.00 0.708 1.105 1.313 1.312
85.00 0.599 1.006 1.171 1.171
90.00 0.511 0.919 1.051 1.051
95.00 0.439 0.841 0.948 0.948
100.00 0.380 0.771. 0.860 0.860
105.00 0.331 0.709 0.783 0.783
110.00 0.289 0.654 0.715 0.715
115.00 0.255 0.605 0.656 0.656
120.00 0.225 0.561 0.604 0.604
125.00 0.200 0.521 0.558 0.558
130.00 0.179 0.485 0.517 0.517
135.00 0.160 0.453 0.480 0.480
140.00 0.144 0.424 0.447 0.447
145.00 0.130 0.397 0.418 0.418
150.00 0.118 0.373 0.391 0.391
155.00 0.107 0.350 0.366 0.366
160.00 0.097 0.330 0.344 0.344
165.00 0.089 0.311 0.324 0.324
170.00 0.082 0.294 0.305 0.305
175.00 0.075 0.279 0.288 0.288
180.00 0.069 0.264 0.273 0.273
185.00 0.064 0.251 0.258 0.258
190.00 0.059 0.238 0.245 0.245
195.00 0.054 0.226 0.233 0.233
200.00 0.050 0.216 0.222 0.222
SHOSHONE-HOPKINS HOPKINS-ROARING FORK 11SKV
SINGLE POLE DOUBLE CIRCUIT 1999 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD PROFILE
20. 0-
16.0-
4. 0-
0. 0
-200 -120
-l0
11 0
File: shrfsp99. FLD Distance From Reference (Feet)
120
200 12
14
0
H
fD Pink
n O
a...
0
Main Title: SHOSHONE-HOPKINS HOPKINS-ROARING FORK 115KV
Subtitle: SINGLE POLE DOUBLE CIRCUIT 1999 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
Input File: shrfsp99.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm -meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft) : 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -37.5
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 37.5
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (<=25): 6
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -5.00 26.00 1 0.99 ' 0.99 121.00 75.00 0.00
2 31 -6.00 34.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 75.00 120.00
3 Cl -5.00 42.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 75.00 240.00
4 A2 5.00 42.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 56.00 0.00
5 B2 6.00 34.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 56.00 120.00
6 C2 5.00 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 56.00 240.00
Ground Wire Data
Number of Ground Wires (<=10): 1
Ground Ground Ground Wire GW GW GW Phase
Wire Wire Coordinates Diam. Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) (in.) (Amp) (deg)
1 G1 0.00 51.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
Input File: shrfsp99.FLD
SHOSHONE-HOPKINS HOPKINS-ROARING FORK 115KV
SINGLE POLE DOUBLE CIRCUIT 1999 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES
DISTANCE B Horz B Vert B Product B Max
(Feet) (mG) (mG) (mG) (mG)
- 200.00
- 195.00
-190.00
-185.00
- 180.00
- 175.00
- 170.00
-165.00
- 160.00
- 155.00
-150.00
-145.00
- 140.00
- 135.00
- 130.00
-125.00
-120.00
- 115.00
- 110.00
- 105.00
- 100.00
-95.00
-90.00
- 85.00
-80.00
- 75.00
- 70.00
- 65.00
-60.00
- 55.00
- 50.00
- 45.00
- 40.00
- 35.00
- 30.00
- 25.00
- 20.00
- 15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
0.053
0.056
0.059
0.063
0.066
0.070
0.074
0.079
0.084
0.090
0.096
0.102
0.109
0.117
0.126
0.136
0.146
0.158
0.171
0.185
0.201
0.218
0.237
0.257
0.279
0.302
0.324
0.346
0.366
0.383
0.401
0.437
0.539
0.782
1.239
1.959
2.925
3.936
4.495
4.027
2.632
1.711
2.011
2.121
1.852
1.467
1.118
0.844
0.641
0.022
0.023
0.025
0.027
0.030
0.032
0.035
0.039
0.043
0.047
0.052
0.058
0.064
0.072
0.080
0.091
0.102
0.116
0.133
0.152
0.176
0.204
0.238
0.280
0.330
0.393
0.471
0.568
0.689
0.840
1.026
1.253
1.519
1.810
2.081
2.234
2.110
1.659
1.802
3.205
4.311
4.225
3.241
2.137
1.347
0.874
0.591
0.408
0.283
0.057
0.061
0.064
0.068
0.073
0.077
0.082
0.088
0.094
0.101
0.109
0.117
0.127
0.138
0.150
0.163
0.179
0.196
0.217
0.240
0.267
0.299
0.336
0.380
0.433
0.496
0.572
0.665
0.780
0.923
1.102
1.327
1.612
1.972
2.422
2.971
3.606
4.271
4.842
5.147
5.051
4.558
3.814
3.011
2.290
1.707
1.264
0.938
0.701
0.056
0.060
0.063
0.067
0.071
0.076
0.081
0.086
0.092
0.099
0.106
0.115
0.124
0.134
0.146
0.159
0.174
0.191
0.210
0.232
0.258
0.289
0.324
0.366
0.416
0.476
0.548
0.636
0.744
0.878
1.046
1.257
1.523
1.859
2.280
2.795
3.394
4.023
4.562
4.842
4.727
4.225
3.489
2.718
2.045
1.518
1.127
0.845
0.642
45.00 0.492 0.197 0.530 0.495
50.00 0.383 0.137 0.407 0.387
55.00 0.302 0.097 0.317 0.308
60.00 0.242 0.070 0.252 0.249
65.00 0.197 0.053 0.204 0.204
70.00 0.164 0.043 0.169 0.169
75.00 0.138 0.037 0.143 0.143
80.00 0.119 0.034 0.123 0.122
85.00 0.104 0.031 0.108 0.106
90.00 0.092 0.030 0.097 0.093
95.00 0.083 0.028 0.087 0.083
100.00 0.075 0.027 0.080 0.076
105.00 0.069 0.025 0.074 0.069
110.00 0.064 0.024 0.069 0.064
115.00 0.060 0.022 0.064 0.060
120.00 0.056 0.021 0.060 0.057
125.00 0.053 0.020 0.057 0.054
130.00 0.050 0.018 0.054 0.051
135.00 0.048 0.017 0.051 0.048
140.00 0.045 0.016 0.048 0.046
145.00 0.043 0.015 0.046 0.044
150.00 0.041 0.014 0.044 0.042
155.00 0.040 0.013 0.042 0.040
160.00 0.038 0.012 0.040 0.039
165.00 0.036 0.012 0.038 0.037
170.00 0.035 0.011 0.036 0.036
175.00 0.033 0.010 0.035 0.034
180.00 0.032 0.010 0.033 0.033
185.00 0.031 0.009 0.032 0.032
190.00 0.030 0.009 0.031 0.030
195.00 0.029 0.008 0.030 0.029
200.00 0.027 0.008 0.028 0.028
20.0
16.0
4.0
0.0
HOPKINS-ROARING FORK 11SKV
H-FRAIIE FIX 199? AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD PROFILE
R/11 R/N
-200
File: hoprf99.FLD
- 120
f
-40
1 1
40 120
Distance Fran Reference (Feet)
Main Title: HOPKINS-ROARING FORK 115KV
Subtitle: H -FRAME FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
Input File: hoprf99.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm -meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft) : 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -37.5
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 37.5
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (<=25): 3
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. Angle
xo. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -12.50 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 56.00 0.00
2 B1 0.00 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 56.00 120.00
3 Cl 12.50 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 56.00 240.00
Ground Wire Data
Number of Ground Wires (<=10): 2
;round Ground Ground Wire GW GW GW Phase
Wire Wire Coordinates Diam. Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) (in.) (Amp) (deg)
1 G1 -6.25 43.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
2 G2 6.25 43.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
Input File: hoprf99.FLD
HOPKINS-ROARING FORK 115KV
H -FRAME FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES
-)ISTANCE B Horz B Vert B Product B Max
(Feet) (mG) (mG) (mG) (mG)
-200.00 0.045 0.192 0.197 0.197
-195.00 0.048 0.202 0.207 0.207
-190.00 0.052 0.212 0.218 0.218
- 185.00 0.057 0.223 0.230 0.230
- 180.00 0.061 0.235 0.243 0.243
- 175.00 0.067 0.248 0.257 0.257
-170.00 0.073 0.262 0.272 0.272
- 165.00 0.079 0.277 0.288 0.288
- 160.00 0.087 0.294 0.307 0.307
- 155.00 0.095 0.312 0.326 0.326
-150.00 0.105 0.332 0.348 0.348
-145.00 0.116 0.354 0.372 0.372
- 140.00 0.129 0.377 0.399 0.399
- 135.00 0.143 0.404 0.428 0.428
- 130.00 0.160 0.432 0.461 0.461
- 125.00 0.179 0.464 0.498 0.498
- 120.00 0.202 0.500 0.539 0.539
-115.00 0.228 0.539 0.586 0.586
-110.00 0.259 0.583 0.638 0.638
-105.00 0.296 0.633 0.699 0.699
-100.00 0.341 0.688 0.768 0.768
-95.00 0.394 0.750 0.847 0.847
- 90.00 0.459 0.820 0.940 0.939
- 85.00 0.539 0.898 1.048 1.047
-80.00 0.638 0.986 1.175 1.174
- 75.00 0.762 1.085 1.326 1.325
- 70.00 0.919 1.195 1.507 1.506
- 65.00 1.119 1.315 1.726 1.725
-60.00 1.377 1.442 1.994 1.993
- 55.00 1.715 1.570 2.325 2.323
- 50.00 2.160 1.684 2.739 2.735
- 45.00 2.747 1.754 3.259 3.253
- 40.00 3.519 1.724 3.919 3.907
- 35.00 4.510 1.503 4.754 4.734
- 30.00 5.709 1.019 5.799 5.762
- 25.00 6.975 1.109 7.063 6.994
- 20.00 7.928 3.031 8.488 8.362
- 15.00 7.980 5.889 9.918 9.695
- 10.00 6.764 8.828 11.121 10.763
-5.00 4.782 10.899 11.902 11.405
0.00 3.643 11.610 12.168 11.610
5.00 4.782 10.899 11.902 11.405
10.00 6.764 8.828 11.121 10.763
15.00 7.980 5.889 9.918 9.695
20.00 7.928 3.031 8.488 8.362
25.00 6.975 1.109 7.063 6.994
30.00 5.709 1.019 5.799 5.762
35.00 4.510 1.503 4.754 4.734
40.00 3.519 1.724 3.919 3.907
45.00 2.747 1.754 3.259 3.253
50.00 2.160 1.684 2.739 2.735
55.00 1.715 1.570 2.325 2.323
60.00 1.377 1.442 1.994 1.993
65.00 1.119 1.315 1.726 1.725
70.00 0.919 1.195 1.507 1.506
75.00 0.762 1.085 1.326 1.325
80.00 0.638 0.986 1.175 1.174
85.00 0.539 0.898 1.048 1.047
90.00 0.459 0.820 0.940 0.939
95.00 0.394 0.750 0.847 0.847
100.00 0.341 0.688 0.768 0.768
105.00 0.296 0.633 0.699 0.699
110.00 0.259 0.583 0.638 0.638
115.00 0.228 0.539 0.586 0.586
120.00 0.202 0.500 0.539 0.539
125.00 0.179 0.464 0.498 0.498
130.00 0.160 0.432 0.461 0.461
135.00 0.143 0.404 0.428 0.428
140.00 0.129 0.377 0.399 0.399
145.00 0.116 0.354 0.372 0.372
150.00 0.105 0.332 0.348 0.348
155.00 0.095 0.312 0.326 0.326
160.00 0.087 0.294 0.307 0.307
165.00 0.079 0.277 0.288 0.288
170.00 0.073 0.262 0.272 0.272
175.00 0.067 0.248 0.257 0.257
180.00 0.061 0.235 0.243 0.243
185.00 0.057 0.223 0.230 0.230
190.00 0.052 0.212 0.218 0.218
195.00 0.048 0.202 0.207 0.207
200.00 0.045 0.192 0.197 0.197
20.0
16.0
12.0
CO
£ 8.0
3
X
4.0
0.0
GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 69KV
H -FRAME FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/27/97
IIAGNETIG FIELD PROFILE
R/W R/W
-200
1 1 1 1 1
-120 -40 40 120 200
File• glnrf699.FLD Distance Frain Reference (Feet)
Main Title: GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 69KV
Subtitle: H -FRAME FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/27/97
Input File: glnrf699.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm -meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft): 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -37.5
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 37.5
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (c=25): 3
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -12.50 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 71.00 65.00 0.00
2 B1 0.00 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 71.00 65.00 120.00
3 C1 12.50 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 71.00 65.00 240.00
Ground Wire Data
Number of Ground Wires (<=10): 2
around Ground Ground Wire GW GW GW Phase
Wire Wire Coordinates Diam. Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert (ft) (in.) (Amp) (deg)
1 G1 -6.25 43.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
2 G2 6.25 43.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
Input File: glnrf699.FLD
GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 69KV
H -FRAME FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/27/97
MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES
DISTANCE B Horz 8 Vert B Product B Max
(Feet) (mG) (mG) (mG) (mG)
-200.00 0.052 0.223 0.229 0.229
-195.00 0.056 0.234 0.241 0.241
-190.00 0.061 0.246 0.253 0.253
- 185.00 0.066 0.259 0.267 0.267
- 180.00 0.071 0.273 0.282 0.282
- 175.00 0.077 0.288 0.298 0.298
-170.00 0.084 0.304 0.316 0.316
-165.00 0.092 0.322 0.335 0.335
- 160.00 0.101 0.341 0.356 0.356
- 155.00 0.111 0.362 0.379 0.379
-150.00 0.122 0.385 0.404 0.404
- 145.00 0.135 0.410 0.432 0.432
- 140.00 0.149 0.438 0.463 0.463
- 135.00 0.166 0.468 0.497 0.497
-130.00 0.185 0.502 0.535 0.535
- 125.00 0.208 0.539 0.578 0.578
- 120.00 0.234 0.580 0.626 0.626
- 115.00 0.265 0.626 0.680 0.680
- 110.00 0.301 0.677 0.741 0.741
- 105.00 0.344 0.734 0.811 0.811
- 100.00 0.396 0.798 0.891 0.891
- 95.00 0.458 0.870 0.983 0.983
- 90.00 0.533 0.951 1.091 1.090
- 85.00 0.626 1.042 1.216 1.216
- 80.00 0.741 1.145 1.364 1.363
-75.00 0.885 1.259 1.539 1.539
- 70.00 1.066 1.387 1.749 1.749
- 65.00 1.299 1.526 2.004 2.003
- 60.00 1.599 1.674 2.315 2.313
-55.00 1.991 1.823 2.699 2.696
- 50.00 2.507 1.955 3.179 3.174
- 45.00 3.189 2.036 3.783 3.775
-40.00 4.085 2.001 4.549 4.535
- 35.00 5.235 1.745 5.518 5.495
- 30.00 6.627 1.183 6.731 6.688
-25.00 8.096 1.288 8.198 8.118
-20.00 9.203 3.518 9.852 9.706
-15.00 9.262 6.836 11.511 11.253
-10.00 7.851 10.247 12.908 12.492
-5.00 5.550 12.650 13.814 13.238
0.00 4.228 13.476 14.123 13.476
5.00 5.550 12.650 13.814 13.238
10.00 7.851 10.247 12.908 12.492
15.00 9.262 6.836 11.511 11.253
20.00 9.203 3.518 9.852 9.706
25.00 8.096 1.288 8.198 8.118
30.00 6.627 1.183 6.731 6.688
35.00 5.235 1.745 5.518 5.495
40.00 4.085 2.001 4.549 4.535
45.00 3.189 2.036 3.783 3.775
50.00 2.507 1.955 3.179 3.174
55.00 1.991 1.823 2.699 2.696
60.00 1.599 1.674 2.315 2.313
65.00 1.299 1.526 2.004 2.003
70.00 1.066 1.387 1.749 1.749
75.00 0.885 1.259 1.539 1.539
80.00 0.741 1.145 1.364 1.363
85.00 0.626 1.042 1.216 1.216
90.00 0.533 0.951 1.091 1.090
95.00 0.458 0.870 0.983 0.983
100.00 0.396 0.798 0.891 0.891
105.00 0.344 0.734 0.811 0.811
110.00 0.301 0.677 0.741 0.741
115.00 0.265 0.626 0.680 0.680
120.00 0.234 0.580 0.626 0.626
125.00 0.208 0.539 0.578 0.578
130.00 0.185 0.502 0.535 0.535
135.00 0.166 0.468 0.497 0.497
140.00 0.149 0.438 0.463 0.463
145.00 0.135 0.410 0.432 0.432
150.00 0.122 0.385 0.404 0.404
155.00 0.111 0.362 0.379 0.379
160.00 0.101 0.341 0.356 0.356
165.00 0.092 0.322 0.335 0.335
170.00 0.084 0.304 0.316 0.316
175.00 0.077 0.288 0.298 0.298
180.00 0.071 0.273 0.282 0.282
185.00 0.066 0.259 0.267 0.267
190.00 0.061 0.246 0.253 0.253
195.00 0.056 0.234 0.241 0.241
200.00 0.052 0.223 0.229 0.229
GLENIIOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 11SKV
SINGLE POLE DELTA FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD PROFILE
20.0--•
16.0-
_
4.0-
0.0
.0-
0.0
-200
- 120
R
R/W
-40 40
File: glnrfs99.FLD Distance From Reference (Feet)
"0 111
PCS "12
hVf
CD CD mi.
Cla
vas
c.
tq o
0
120 200
Main Title: GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 115KV
Subtitle: SINGLE POLE DELTA FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
Input File: glnrfs99.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm -meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft): 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -37.5
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 37.5
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (c=25): 3
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. Angle
pfo. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -6.00 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 72.00 0.00
2 B1 5.00 30.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 72.00 120.00
C1 -5.00 34.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 72.00 240.00
Ground Wire Data
Number of Ground Wires (k=10): 1
round Ground Ground Wire GW GW GW Phase
Wire Wire Coordinates Diam. Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) (in.) (Amp) (deg)
1 G1 0.00 48.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
Input File: glnrfs99.FLD
GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 115KV
SINGLE POLE DELTA FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADING 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES
DISTANCE B Horz B Vert B Product B Max
(Feet) (mG) (mG) (mG) (mG)
200.00
195.00
-190.00
- 185.00
- 180.00
- 175.00
-170.00
165.00
-160.00
- 155.00
- 150.00
-145.00
- 140.00
- 135.00
- 130.00
-125.00
- 120.00
- 115.00
- 110.00
105.00
100.00
- 95.00
- 90.00
- 85.00
- 80.00
- 75.00
-70.00
- 65.00
- 60.00
- 55.00
- 50.00
- 45.00
- 40.00
- 35.00
- 30.00
-25.00
- 20.00
-15.00
- 10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
0.085
0.089
0.094
0.100
0.105
0.112
0.118
0.126
0.134
0.143
0.153
0.164
0.176
0.190
0.205
0.222
0.242
0.263
0.288
0.317
0.350
0.388
0.433
0.485
0.547
0.621
0.710
0.819
0.953
1.119
1.330
1.601
1.955
2.424
3.050
3.864
4.823
5.692
5.965
5.190
3.794
3.372
4.035
4.422
4.249
3.751
3.161
2.607
2.136
0.122
0.128
0.134
0.142
0.149
0.158
0.167
0.177
0.187
0.199
0.212
0.226
0.242
0.259
0.278
0.299
0.323
0.350
0.380
0.414
0.452
0.496
0.546
0.604
0.672
0.751
0.843
0.953
1.083
1.238
1.423
1.642
1.896
2.179
2.468
2.729
2.968
3.438
4.592
6.193
7.206
6.939
5.641
4.053
2.756
1.949
1.546
1.355
1.238
0.148
0.156
0.164
0.173
0.183
0.193
0.204
0.217
0.230
0.245
0.261
0.279
0.299
0.321
0.346
0.373
0.403
0.438
0.477
0.521
0.572
0.630
0.697
0.775
0.866
0.974
1.103
1.256
1.442
1.669
1.947
2.293
2.723
3.259
3.924
4.730
5.663
6.649
7.528
8.080
8.144
7.715
6.935
5.999
5.065
4.227
3.518
2.938
2.469
0.122
0.129
0.135
0.142
0.150
0.159
0.168
0.178
0.189
0.201
0.214
0.229
0.245
0.263
0.283
0.305
0.330
0.357
0.389
0.425
0.465
0.512
0.566
0.629
0.703
0.790
0.893
1.017
1.168
1.352
1.580
1.865
2.225
2.682
3.259
3.977
4.834
5.771
6.642
7.230
7.361
7.012
6.312
5.452
4.589
3.814
3.161
2.628
2.199
45.00 1.754 1.139 2.091 1.855
50.00 1.449 1.045 1.786 1.579
55.00 1.208 0.953 1.539 1.356
60.00 1.016 0.867 1.336 1.174
65.00 0.864 0.788 1.169 1.024
70.00 0.741 0.715 1.030 0.900
75.00 0.642 0.650 0.914 0.797
80.00 0.560 0.592 0.815 0.709
85.00 0.493 0.540 0.731 0.635
90.00 0.437 0.494 0.659 0.572
95.00 0.389 0.453 0.597 0.517
100.00 0.349 0.416 0.544 0.470
105.00 0.315 0.384 0.496 0.429
110.00 0.286 0.355 0.455 0.393
115.00 0.260 0.328 0.419 0.361
120.00 0.238 0.305 0.387 0.333
125.00 0.218 0.283 0.358 0.308
130.00 0.201 0.264 0.332 0.285
135.00 0.186 0.247 0.309 0.265
140.00 0.172 0.231 0.288 0.247
145.00 0.160 0.217 0.270 0.231
150.00 0.149 0.204 0.253 0.216
155.00 0.139 0.192 0.237 0.203
160.00 0.131 0.181 0.223 0.191
165.00 0.123 0.171 0.210 0.180
170.00 0.115 0.161 0.198 0.169
175.00 0.109 0.153 0.187 0.160
180.00 0.103 0.145 0.177 0.151
185.00 0.097 0.138 0.168 0.143
190.00 0.092 0.131 0.160 0.136
195.00 0.087 0.124 0.152 0.129
200.00 0.083 0.119 0.145 0.123
GLENLJOOD SPRINGS --ROARING FORK 115KV
H -FRAME FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/25/97
MAGNETIC FIELD PROFILE
20.0-
_
_
_
0„0-
-
-
-
-
-
_
16.0-
_
_
15.0-
0.0
0.0
IICO
el) O
Dov
Ai iii 11
1.1:
IC Clai 4,
ho
De 4
It 0
-200
File: glnrf99.FLD
I
- 120
I
-I0
I
40
Distanoe Froin Reference (Feet)
I
120
1
200
Main Title: GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 115KV
Subtitle: H -FRAME FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/28/97
Input File: glnrf99.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm -meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft) : 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -37.5
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 37.5
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (c=25): 3
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. . Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -12.50 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 72.00 0.00
2 B1 0.00 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 72.00 120.00
3 Cl 12.50 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 72.00 240.00
Ground Wire Data
Number of Ground Wires (<=10): 2
Ground Ground Ground Wire GW GW GW Phase
Wire Wire Coordinates Diam. Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) (in.) (Amp) (deg)
1 G1 -6.25 43.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
2 G2 6.25 43.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
Main Title: GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 115KV
Subtitle: H -FRAME FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/28/97
Input File: glnrf99.FLD
Frequency (Hertz): 60
Soil Resistivity (Ohm -meter): 100
Maximum Horizontal Distance From Reference (ft): 200
Step Size (ft) : 5
Height For Field Calculation (ft): 3
Left Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): -37.5
Right Coordinate of Right of Way (ft): 37.5
Phase Conductor Data
Number of Phases (<=25): 3
Phase Phase SubConds. Cond. Bund. Phase- Phase Phase
ID Coordinates Per Diam. Diam. Phase Curr. Angle
Vo. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) Bundle (in.) (in.) kV (Amp) (deg)
1 Al -12.50 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 72.00 0.00
2 B1 0.00 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 72.00 120.00
3 C1 12.50 26.00 1 0.99 0.99 121.00 72.00 240.00
Ground Wire Data
Number of Ground Wires (c=10): 2
around Ground Ground Wire GW GW GW Phase
Wire Wire Coordinates Diam. Curr. Angle
No. Name Horz(ft) Vert(ft) (in.) (Amp) (deg)
1 G1 -6.25 43.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
2 G2 6.25 43.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
Input File: glnr£99.FLD
GLENWOOD SPRINGS -ROARING FORK 115KV
H -FRAME FIX 1999 AVERAGE LOADINGS 1/28/97
MAGNETIC FIELD VALUES
DISTANCE B Horz B Vert B Product B Max
(Feet) (mG) (mG) (mG) (mG)
- 200.00 0.058 0.247 0.253 0.253
-195.00 0.062 0.259 0.267 0.267
- 190.00 0.067 0.272 0.281 0.281
- 185.00 0.073 0.287 0.296 0.296
- 180.00 0.079 0.302 0.312 0.312
-175.00 0.086 0.319 0.330 0.330
- 170.00 0.093 0.337 0.350 0.350
- 165.00 0.102 0.357 0.371 0.371
-160.00 0.112 0.378 0.394 0.394
- 155.00 0.123 0.401 0.420 0.420
-150.00 0.135 0.427 0.448 0.448
- 145.00 0.149 0.455 0.478 0.478
- 140.00 0.165 0.485 0.513 0.513
-135.00 0.184 0.519 0.550 0.550
- 130.00 0.205 0.556 0.593 0.593
- 125.00 0.230 0.597 0.640 0.640
- 120.00 0.259 0.643 0.693 0.693
- 115.00 0.293 0.694 0.753 0.753
- 110.00 0.333 0.750 0.821 0.821
- 105.00 0.381 0.813 0.898 0.898
- 100.00 0.438 0.884 0.987 0.987
- 95.00 0.507 0.964 1.089 1.089
-90.00 0.591 1.054 1.208 1.208
- 85.00 0.693 1.155 1.347 1.347
-80.00 0.821 1.268 1.510 1.510
- 75.00 0.980 1.395 1.705 1.704
- 70.00 1.181 1.536 1.938 1.937
- 65.00 1.438 1.690 2.220 2.218
-60.00 1.771 1.854 2.564 2.562
-55.00 2.205 2.019 2.990 2.987
- 50.00 2.777 2.165 3.521 3.516
- 45.00 3.532 2.255 4.190 4.182
- 40.00 4.525 2.216 5.038 5.024
- 35.00 5.799 1.933 6.112 6.086
- 30.00 7.340 1.310 7.456 7.409
-25.00 8.968 1.426 9.081 8.992
-20.00 10.194 3.897 10.913 10.751
- 15.00 10.259 7.572 12.751 12.465
- 10.00 8.696 11.350 14.299 13.838
-5.00 6.148 14.013 15.302 14.664
0.00 4.684 14.927 15.644 14.927
5.00 6.148 14.013 15.302 14.664
10.00 8.696 11.350 14.299 13.838
15.00 10.259 7.572 12.751 12.465
20.00 10.194 3.897 10.913 10.751
25.00 8.968 1.426 9.081 8.992
30.00 7.340 1.310 7.456 7.409
35.00 5.799 1.933 6.112 6.086
40.00 4.525 2.216 5.038 5.024
45.00 3.532 2.255 4.190 4.182
50.00 2.777 2.165 3.521 3.516
55.00 2.205 2.019 2.990 2.987
60.00 1.771 1.854 2.564 2.562
65.00 1.438 1.690 2.220 2.218
70.00 1.181 1.536 1.938 1.937
75.00 0.980 1.395 1.705 1.704
80.00 0.821 1.268 1.510 1.510
85.00 0.693 1.155 1.347 1.347
90.00 0.591 1.054 1.208 1.208
95.00 0.507 0.964 1.089 1.089
100.00 0.438 0.884 0.987 0.987
105.00 0.381 0.813 0.898 0.898
110.00 0.333 0.750 0.821 0.821
115.00 0.293 0.694 0.753 0.753
120.00 0.259 0.643 0.693 0.693
125.00 0.230 0.597 0.640 0.640
130.00 0.205 0.556 0.593 0.593
135.00 0.184 0.519 0.550 0.550
140.00 0.165 0.485 0.513 0.513
145.00 0.149 0.455 0.478 0.478
150.00 0.135 0.427 0.448 0.448
155.00 0.123 0.401 0.420 0.420
160.00 0.112 0.378 0.394 0.394
165.00 0.102 0.357 0.371 0.371
170.00 0.093 0.337 0.350 0.350
175.00 0.086 0.319 0.330 0.330
180.00 0.079 0.302 0.312 0.312
185.00 0.073 0.287 0.296 0.296
190.00 0.067 0.272 0.281 0.281
195.00 0.062 0.259 0.267 0.267
200.00 0.058 0.247 0.253 0.253
0
1 Mile
2 MIle5
3 Mlles
_ Appendix E
1491Figure E-1
rel
1
IMINMENNW 69KV TRANSMISSION UNE
•� 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
0 SUBSTATION
EZ Lcea2.--
O
FEEM
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
LOCATIONS OF EMF READINCIS
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
ROUTES/CORRIDORS EXCLUDED FROM
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A-1 ROUTE SEGMENT
NOTE: Route A-1, H, 0, E, F, G Is considered the
PREFERRED ROUTE based on environmental
aeaeasment, economic analysis, and
public/landowner input.
Source: 51te Recnial5ance
U,56,5 Quadraic le Map5
0 Public Service'
Rb'c Bartnce Company of Cdoredo
F OW,, 811lrg and Parona
Fnp»M*g Btppori and F44rt-d-Way
SHOSHONE -- GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
EMF REFERENCE MAP
Townow T Siod15.
Rmge: RiackoN.97101
scum= YMa015 _
Principal Meridian CH
Cont)rCAW
DAM Jar P, 1995
Groan By: .'/ / DM
AGENT: LIE. PeN
RTNSED: Srotnbr 10 ,I997
APPENDIX F
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS
Fire Protection Districts
Figure F-1
F-1
INFLU NCE AREA
1 Mile
2 Mile
le5
Appendix F
69KV 'TRANSMISSION LINE
II5KV TRANSMISSION LINE
=KV 'TRANSMISSION LINE
SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
GLENWOOD SPRINGS RURAL FRE
PROTECTION DISTR/CT
CARBONDALE + RURAL FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5arce: G
1154.5,
Quacraie Map
0 Public Service'
Pibic Sento Company a Colorado
flOW. etting and Perms
Engloveriv Supporl end Fittit-ol-Way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS
'ricansvp: C4ta135.
Find meridim: 6111
Rocs: .tof.92W.
County gen()
sectwr VmsfA5
DAIL Jra 5,1696
‘trawn Fly ..PG
.16ENT: a.901
FENISEO: 5optakel*,19n
r
APPENDIX G
FLOODPLAIN/WETLANDS ASSESSMENT
�5�➢^.."3':aY{iL?L:#�:i4Cs.Y��4,�tR;s�'.�>, m.;ac�2�sAXo; c4R.:�zt�:des::✓7�n::Ws:oS'as)'A4zi�aa,{q:,:A6..s`��c'.L'alb'isxz�,o'6a`w:RkN.'�Lk'k:.Rhi.>SR:Ydf�i�roA.�?�4YR`,�:tR�Y�.�L3o.�t{dS:GRv'.k4�d4'�'s.C,r�,AYdd'�'.'.�ntbrLF:
Appendix G - Floodplain/Wetlands Assessment
This floodplains/wetlands assessment only addressed the Proposed Action which consists of
construction of a new 115kV transmission line from the Hopkins Substation to the Roaring Fork
Substation; upgrading the existing 69kV line between the Roaring Fork and Glenwood Springs
substations; and installing 115kV equipment in the Hopkins, Roaring Fork, and Glenwood springs
substations. The total length of the Proposed Action is approximately 11 miles.
In accordance with Executive Orders 11988 and 11990, floodplains and wetland were identified,
mapped, and integrated into the planning and alternatives selection process.
All route alternatives, including the Proposed Action, would cross a small floodplain region at the
Colorado River Crossing (Segment G). An existing transmission line that spans the river at this
location would be replaced. No construction is proposed within the Colorado River floodplains.
All route alternatives would also cross Landis Creek. There would be no impact to the wetland
habitats because the habitats would be spanned by the lines, no structures would be located in the
habitats, and no new roads would be constructed.
The following sources of information were used for identification of floodplains and wetlands:
•
USFWS National Wetland Inventory Maps
Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Garfield County,
Colorado; Maps 1432 and 1434.
G-1
APPENDIX H
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
+.... �!::S$MI�S:0:6'ih o;;;�::W�•v'ni'v$;'$�i:L.�%'+nom iii✓'�fv:�vvi.�i�+i$v'inivii.�i$2�>.�$ikY.�iii.Sk:i�:i}�fYii>.��{rl.{:]Y:i�i:Q{n�':i:.'�i+�r:.."w':d:'.:YLt{:L%:,':�:o"+i',"r:�.kL:'.3L'R:7.64ri;'x:G.�Xe".�i»�:J.di:e�iii'r`.'d.^.�f:i'.r#dF.: 'tc,�Xw".ul'!Jk`7•!nv'!,,^v`-
Report
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR
THE SHOSHONE TO GLENWOOD SPRINGS
TRANSMISSION LINE UPGRADE PROJECT
Prepared for:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
764 Horizon Drive South, Annex A
Grand Junction, Colorado
December 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
....4:x:x<e:cxaa� t.; �t::: cc•..ac••:•:a++. ao:•ao;;. ;c:. t;c•.a t: �• � ..y ��; a.:a:,..:;:.y, 't::::::::..., :.. a•a::.•a>xtao-::c•a::a>.,: ; ;;:.... ..:e::a:•vt!:....:,:;:.
................:..>.::..........•.:.:.,..::•:..:•::.:::•:,::::::•:•,:::: :•r :•i.r7, t::A:•r::,•:�..•t.•.r'.'.2;&:5:.8i �:9:::'t:c.......
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 1
INTRODUCTION 1
Project Background 1
Segment A-1 1
Segment H 3
Segment D 3
Segment E 3
Segment F 4
Segment G 4
Background of the Biological Assessment 4
HABITAT TYPES 5
Meadow 5
Desert Shrub 7
Mountain Shrub 7
Wetlands and Riparian Communities 7
Deciduous Tree Woodland 7
Pinyon/Juniper Woodland 8
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES 8
Peregrine Falcon 8
Bald Eagle 8
Black -footed Ferret 11
Eskimo Curlew 11
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher 11
Bonytail Chub 12
SUMMARY 13
REFERENCES 14
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 2
Figure 2 Vegetation Map 6
Figure 3 Bald Eagle Ranges 10
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
:.>::::::ac.a:.:;•.:c:::a:n..,.,,,,....o....,....................,..e....4.......t......,.......,...,o........ ,.....:...t.................... _........................., ::naa ::.}..,,.::aama:n,..,:,,.uno..:oaoat.:o.a:.,..::: o -x ....
INTRODUCTION
Project Background
Public Service Company Of Colorado (PSCo) provides bulk electric service to the Town of
Glenwood Springs. Because of the continually increasing electric demand of local customers, the
existing PSCo electric system soon will be incapable of providing acceptable and reliable service.
PSCo and Glenwood Springs have entered into an agreement to upgrade the existing electric
transmission system serving the Glenwood Springs area. The project involved in the system
upgrade is to replace the 69,000 volt (69kV) transmission line in Glenwood Canyon. A future
project will involve rebuilding the 69kV transmission line from the Glenwood Springs Substation
to the Rifle Substation, the only other source of power to the Glenwood Springs area (Figure 1).
The Proposed Action consists of constructing a new 115kV electric transmission line from the
Hopkins Substation to the Roaring Fork Substation; and upgrading the existing 69kV line between
the Roaring Fork and Glenwood Springs Substations to 115kV. The equipment required to operate
the electric system at 115kV would also be installed at the Hopkins, Roaring Fork, and Glenwood
Springs Substations. The location of the Proposed Action is shown on Figure 1 and consists of
segments A-1, H, D, E, F, and G. The following sections describe each segment of the Proposed
Action.
Segment A-1
The entire length of this segment is approximately 3.9 miles. Segment A-1 exits north out of
Hopkins Substation in the SW 1/4 of Section 35 T6S, R88W and extends for approximately one
mile, crossing two unnamed intermittent drainages. Segment A-1 then turns northwest and travels
for 2.0 miles, crossing six unnamed intermittent drainages, Landis Creek, and two unimproved
roads. After crossing Landis Creek, Segment A-1 turns west for 0.5 miles, crossing two unnamed
intermittent drainages and terminating at the existing Hopkins -Shoshone 115kV transmission line
in the NW 1/4 of Section 21 T6S, R88W. Self -weathering single steel -pole structures are proposed
for this segment. The existing Hopkins -Shoshone 115kV transmission line that roughly parallels
this proposed corridor to the west would be dismantled and rebuilt with the proposed line using
double circuit structures. The entire segment traverses private land. A 75 -foot wide ROW would
be required. No new access roads would need to be constructed for this segment.
ba.5671December 9, 1997
1
2 Mlles
3 Miles
I i
Figure 1
V�VIV
I\12
�Irrrrrrrrlriri
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
ISMENt
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
D SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
NATIONAL FOREST
BLM
3 PROPOSED ACTION
PRIVATE PROPERTY
0 Public Service.
Pib&. Sere Cowpony o} Calorado
ROW. &k17 erld Pernite
Erpi000riv&VPS'and -0-Wey
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
EXISTING ELECTRIC FACILITIES (69kV and T)
VICINITY MAP
Townchp: i5ker
RRange:iP 01.1e R.92W '
s.cuonr: VP66
Pr'ncpd um6m: 6.01
coy GIMP
FATE. ar 5.19915
Drawn 6y .P& / RAM
AGENT: At NH
RENSED: 5+v P .r 15,1901
•
z
r
Biological Assessment
The southernmost portion that extends for a mile north out of the Hopkins Substation is zoned for
agriculture and the remaining portion of the Iine is zoned for planned unit development.
Approximately 0.2 miles of the segment crosses pinyon/juniper vegetation. The remaining portion
of the segment crosses primarily desert shrub and a small amount of mountain shrub.
Segment H
The entire length of Segment H is 4.0 miles. From the western termination point of Segment A-1
in the NW '/a of Section 21 T6S, R88W, Segment H extends northwest through BLM property and
two private lots. Segment H then extends northwest for 1.57 miles into the Forest Service's White
River National Forest, crossing one intermittent drainage and three jeep trails. It then turns west
for 1.85 miles extending into BLM property and crossing one jeep trail and one unimproved road.
Segment H then turns southwest for 0.57 miles crossing County Road 120 and terminating at its
intersection with Segment D in the NE 1/ of Section 14 T6S, R89W. H -frame structures with
three -pole angles are proposed for this segment . The ROW for this segment would be 75 -feet
wide except where the segment crosses Section 17, T6S, R88W, where the ROW requirement is
100 -feet due to the long span lengths. No new access road construction would be required for this
segment.
About 0.3 miles of the route crosses land zoned for development, approximately 1.0 mile is zoned
agricultural, and the remaining portion of the segment is zoned as open space. Most of the
corridor crosses desert and mountain shrub vegetation. Approximately 0.6 miles of the corridor
crosses deciduous forests and 0.4 miles of the corridor crosses pinyon juniper vegetation.
Segment D
The entire length of Segment D is approximately 0.75 miles. Segment D begins at Segment H's
western termination point in the NE 1/ of Section 14 T6S, R89W, and extends west for 0.75 miles
along property lines between the BLM and private properties, crossing an unnamed intermittent
stream. This segment terminates in NE 'A of Section 15, T6S, R89W. H -frame structures are
proposed for this segment with three -pole angle structures at angle points. A 75 -foot wide ROW
would be required. No new access road construction would be required for this segment.
The land crossed by Segment D is zoned as either open space or agriculture. The majority of the
corridor crosses mountain shrub vegetation. Only 0.15 miles of the corridor crosses
pinyon/juniper vegetation.
Segment E
The total length of Segment E is a little under 1.0 mile. Segment E begins at the intersection of
Segments D, G, and 11 in the NE '/ of Section 15 T6S, R89W and extends for about a mile
southwest, northwest, and then southwest again, crossing two private lots and one intermittent
drainage. Segment E terminates at the Roaring Fork Substation near the middle of Section 15
T6S, R89W. H -frame structures and three -pole angle structures at the angle points are proposed
ba.5671Dccember 9, 1997
3
Biological Assessment
for this segment. A 100 -foot wide ROW would be required. No new access road construction
would be required for this segment. Segment E is south of the Doc Holliday Trail and travels
through land zoned as residential use. The entire length of Segment E crosses pinyon/juniper
vegetation.
Segment F
Segment F is located on the east side of Glenwood Springs and, in conjunction with Segment G,
connects the Roaring Fork and GIenwood Springs Substations along the existing 69kV
transmission line ROW. Segment F is about 0.4 miles long. The entire segment is located on
private land. The 69kV transmission line presently located on the ROW would be replaced by the
proposed single -circuit 115kV transmission line within the existing 50 -foot ROW. No new access
road construction would be required for this segment.
Segment F is zoned for city/town use. The entire length of Segment F is traverses pinyon/juniper
vegetation.
Segment G
Segment G is located on the east side of Glenwood Springs and, in conjunction with Segment F,
connects the Roaring Fork and Glenwood Springs Substations along the existing 69kV
transmission line ROW. Segment G is approximately 1.0 mile long and crosses the Colorado
River. The entire segment is located on private land. Single -steel pole structures and single -
circuit are proposed for this segment. The 69kV line presently located on the ROW would be
dismantled and replaced by the proposed 115kV transmission line within the existing 50 -foot
ROW. No new access road construction would be required for this segment.
About two-thirds of Segment G is located in land zoned for city/town purposes and the remaining
third is located in land zoned for agriculture and residential purposes. About 85 percent of
Segment G traverse pinyon/juniper vegetation. No construction is proposed within the Colorado
River floodplains.
Background of the Biological Assessment
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be consulted o:i possible effects of the
proposed Project on threatened or endangered species. Threatened and endangered species
occurring on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands are managed under the authority of the
Federal Endangered Species Act (PL 93-205, as amended) and the National Forest Management
Act (PL 94-588). The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure their actions
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species.
Conducting a biological assessment is an integral part of the consultation process. Acting upon
BLM's request, the USFWS provided a list of species to be considered in the biological
assessment. The original letter issued on November 13, 1996 is being updated by the USFWS.
ba.5671December 9, 1997 4
Biological Assessment
The list included one species of fish, four species of bird, and one mammal species. These species
include the endangered bonytail chub (Gila elegans), the threatened bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), the threatened peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), eskimo curlew (Numenius
borealis), Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and black -footed ferret
(Mustela nigripes).
The specific goal of this assessment was to determine if the six species "are likely to be adversely
affected" by the Project. Information presented to support the determinations includes a
description of the proposal, a synopsis for each species, and an assessment of the potential affects
of the Project on each species. The species synopses characterize the ecology, natural history,
abundance, distribution, and behavior of the species as they relate to the Project. The impact
assessment looks at the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project.
Information on the species covered by this assessment was acquired from three primary sources.
First, resource management agencies were contacted for information. This information involved
the species' status and use of habitat in the Project area. Second, published literature was used
to corroborate and supplement information provided by the agencies. Finally, unpublished
literature was used to provide site-specific information. After all information was assembled, the
ecology, habitats, and distribution of each species were compared to Project features (corridors)
to determine potential effects. This evaluation was prepared by Mr. Mike Bonar, Wildlife
Ecologist with Greystone. He was assisted by Mr. David Cameron, Senior Environmental
Specialist.
HABITAT TYPES
Six vegetation community types occur in the Project Study Area including meadow, desert shrub,
mountain shrub, willow/alder, deciduous tree woodland, and pinon/juniper woodland (Figure 2).
The following discussion describes each type.
Meadow
Pockets of grassland meadows are scattered across the Project Study Area. In Colorado, meadows
occur wherever fine-grained soils, low precipitation, and cold temperatures discourage tree growth
(Mutel and Emerick 1984). Thurber fescue (Festuca thurberi) and mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia
montana) used to be the dominant species, but have since been discouraged through heavy grazing
by livestock. Mutel and Emerick (1984) state that these remnants are present but have been
dominated by blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and foxtail
barley (Hordeum jubatum).
ba.567lDecember 9, 1997 5
Figure 2
ORM
5%l a[CLOUD°
1.6N\113
69KV TRANSMISSION UNE
1I5KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION UNE
SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
MEADOW
DESERT SHRUB
MOUNTAIN SHRUB
DECIDUOUS TREE
PINON/JUNIPER
PENSTEMON HARRINGTONII
IMMO WETLANDS
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
11 IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A-1 ROUTE SEGMENT
NOTE; Route A-1, H, 0, E, F, G is considered the
PREFERRED ROUTE based on environmental
assessment, economic analysis, and
public/landowner input.
5aarce5
Site kecorria155ance and Aerial Photooraphil
U,5, sept, of Interior nlvl5171 of l'Ish & Iidllfe National Wetland5 Inventoal Maps
Harrington I3eardtarrque C Pen5ternon Aarrinottanu) Surveil prepared IN aregAcne
U5.65, Quaddranclle Messioni
aps
I Mile
2MIle5
5 Mde5
0 Public Service'
Public SerNoe company of Coforedo
RDW. SW end Perim%
Engboerig Suport end Right -of -Way
SHOSHONE — GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
VEGETATION and WETLANDS
Towne : T55tot.1
Ronga MEW, •I[9214•
Sectime• Yeah
Princkd Ileridoe. 61H
County G9if .D
MIE, Lr 9, 1996
Dram Ry .MG/ KMI
AGEHI: Mi.Dvlf
REMGE6 15.1797
r
r
Biological Assessment
Figure 2 Vegetation Map
ba.5671December 9, 1997
6
Biological Assessment
Desert Shrub
A large portion of the Project Study Area which would be traversed by the transmission corridors
is occupied by desert shrub. The dominant plants of this community include greasewood
(Sarcobatus vermiculatus), four -winged saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and shadscale (Atriplex
confertifolia) (Mutel and Emerick 1984). This community generally occurs on dry, steep slopes
with shale outcrops. Desert shrub dominates south -facing slopes.
Mountain Shrub
Shrublands occur throughout the lower mountains of Colorado and are interspersed between
pinyon/juniper woodlands and montane coniferous forests (Mutel and Emerick 1984) . Mountain
shrub is one of the most common community types in the Project Study Area. It is dominated by
Gambel oak (Quercus gambelli) and mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus).
Wetlands and Riparian Communities
Potential wetlands and riparian communities were identified from National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) maps produced by the USFWS. Eleven separate areas were identified and characterized
on the NWI maps within the Project Study Area. These communities are discussed below (with
their NWI designations) and are shown on Figure 1 Eight palustrine (standing water)
communities were identified within the Project Study Area. One excavated, seasonal emergent
community (PEMC) was identified in Section 15. Four diked ponds or impoundments were
identified within Sections 12, 14, 18, and 20. These impoundments are characterized by semi-
permanent hydrologically supported aquatic beds (PABFh). Sections 14 and 21 have
impoundments with unconsolidated shores which hold water temporarily (PUSAh). A
temporarily wet area supporting emergent vegetation was identified within Section 21 (PEMA).
Three riverine communities were identified within the Project Study Area. Two are upper
perennial systems with unconsolidated bottoms. One of these is semi -permanently supported by
flow and one is permanently supported by flow. These two riverine communities are found in
Sections 8 (Bear Creek) and 10 (Deadmans Creek), T 6 S, R 88 W, and are tributary to the
Colorado River. An intermittent system is found in Section 20 (Landis Creek). It is supported
by seasonal precipitation events and a streambed has formed.
Deciduous Tree Woodland
This community is dominated by Gambel oak. In many cases, Gambel oak forms a pure
monoculture. According to Mutel and Emerick (1984), stands of Gambel oak at lower elevations
in Colorado are probably climax communities where soil conditions are optimal. The understory
of these communities is usually sparse and litter build-up is high.
ba.5671December 9, 1997
7
Biological assessment
Pinyon/Juniper Woodland
Pinyon/juniper woodlands are found throughout western Colorado and occur within the Project
Study Area. At higher elevations, pinyon pine (Pinus edulis), Utah juniper (Juniperus
osteosperma), and one -seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) intersperse with ponderosa pine
(Pinus ponderosa), Douglas -fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and Gambel oak.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE SPECIES
Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons occupy a wide variety of habitats. They are typically associated with open
country near rivers, marshes, and coasts. Cliffs are the preferred nesting substrate, however, tall
man-made structures (i.e., high rise buildings and towers) may be used (Spahr, et. al. 1991).
Peregrines typically prey on birds such a waterfowl, shorebirds, grouse, and pigeons. Prey is
taken by striking from above after a high speed dive. Foraging occurs within 10 miles of the nest,
however, 80 percent occurs within a one -mile radius of the nest (Spahr, et. al. 1991). Peregrine
falcons usually migrate to Mexico or Central America in the fall. However, some birds may stay
on their breeding grounds year-round if food supplies are available (Spahr, et. al. 1991).
No peregrines are documented to occur within the Project Study Area or the Area of Influence
(Craig 1996). One historic nest site occurs within Glenwood Canyon. However, the status of this
nest is not known (Craig 1996).
Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the peregrine falcon are not anticipated. This lack of
impact is due to the fact that peregrines have not been documented to occur within the Project
Study Area. Therefore, the project is not likely to adversely affect peregrine falcons.
Bald Eagle
Bald eagles occur throughout the United States and Canada. Within their overall range, specific
features influence their distribution and occurrence. These features include populations of prey,
sites for nests, perches, and roosts (MBEWG 1986).
Eagles feed on a variety of items. Primary prey consists of waterfowl, salmonids, suckers, and
whitefish. However, they will feed on carrion and small mammals including jackrabbits under
certain conditions (MBEWG 1986).
Nests are an important aspect of bald eagle distribution. Nests are generally located in forest
stands larger than 3 acres with a moderately open canopy. Nest trees are usually the tallest ones
within the stand and are predominantly live ponderosa pine, Douglas -fir, or cottonwood.
ba.5571December 9, i 997
8
Biological Assessment
However, snags of these species also maybe used (Magaddino 1989). Nests are generally located
in line of sight and within one mile of bodies of water that are at least 80 acres in size. Territories
and nests are usually used repeatedly and some reportedly have been used for over eighty years
(Magaddino 1989).
Winter habitat, while not as critical as nesting, is a concern. Wintering habitat consists of
perching and roosting sites. These sites are generally located near open water or in areas where
carrion is available (e.g., big game winter range). These areas are not as sensitive to human
disturbance as nest sites. However, any habitat removal or continuous disturbance in these areas
may result in abandonment.
No bald eagle nest sites are known to occur within the Project Study Area or the Area of
Influence. One pair of eagles has been observed near Carbondale, but has not been observed
nesting in the area. No traditional roosting sites have been observed within the area, however,
one roost site does occur slightly outside the Area of Influence. Bald eagle winter range has been
delineated on the extreme western portion of the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence
(Figure 3).
Direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to nesting bald eagles are not anticipated based on the fact
that no nesting bald eagles occur within the Project Study Area. Direct impacts to wintering bald
eagles may occur as a result of the Project. However, these impacts are anticipated to be minor.
Since the line would be replaced within the existing ROW, no additional wintering habitat would
be impacted. Therefore, while the Project may adversely affect individuals, it will not likely affect
populations. Also, no indirect or cumulative impacts are anticipated.
The following considerations reduce the potential for direct impacts from the Proposed Action to
both the peregrine falcon and bald eagle. First, the existing lines do not cross habitats that would
provide migration or feeding corridors for either species. Since the new line would be placed in
the same corridor as the existing transmission line, the potential for collisions is not expected to
increase. Second, the line would be constructed using guidelines described in Suggested Practices
for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: State of the Art in 1994, thereby reducing the potential for
both electrocutions and collisions. Third, the new transmission line would be slightly higher
above the ground and would have a larger diameter conductor than the existing line. Mr. Jerry
Craig, the CDOW raptor biologist, emphasized that by placing within the existing corridor the
potential for bird collisions would be greatly reduced (Craig, personal communication, 1995).
ba.5671December 9, 1997 9
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
NOTE Route A-1, H, D, E, F, O is considered the
PREFERRED ROUTE based on environmental
assessment, economic analysis, and
pubic/landowner input
5orce: Colorado I2Iv151on of Wildlife
LI.5.6.5, Quadr ie Maps
0 Public Service'
P.Ric Service Cobra,/ of Cotarado
RON Mx? i,,d Permits
Ex1r.ecw txj A pport and nsil-of-Way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
WILDLIFE - AVIAN SPECIES
„.n.v 1-5500.15. -
Row.: [.8904b 920.
sections: YAM
Prncipd Ibis= 6111
tarty. &NW
DAIL Jit 5.1996
Dm.. 8K .PG / PM
AGENI: MC,1 iM
REVISED:. SgFmiar 15.1991
n - )
Biological Assessment
Black -footed Ferret
The black -footed ferret historically occurred throughout Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona,
Utah, Kansas, North and South Dakota, Montana, and Colorado. The black footed -ferret is
considered to be the most critically endangered species in North America (Hillman and Clark
1980). The decline in ferret populations has been attributed to the reduction in the extensive
prairie dog colonies that historically existed in the western United States.
The black -footed ferret is closely associated with prairie dogs. It depends upon the prairie dog
almost entirely for its survival (Clark, et. al. 1988). Prairie dogs and their burrows are the ferrets
principal source of food and shelter. However, they may feed on deer mice, thirteen -lined ground
squirrels, and cottontail rabbits (Hillman and Clark 1980). Ferrets are generally nocturnal,
however, they may occur at irregular times during daylight hours. No prairie dog colonies were
observed within the Project Study Area during the site reconnaissance. Based on the absence of
prairie dog colonies from observations in the Project Study Area, black -footed ferrets are not
anticipated to occur within the Project Study Area.
Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the black -footed ferret are not anticipated based on the
following consideration. No prairie dog colonies are known to occur within the Project Study
Area. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect black -footed ferrets.
Eskimo Curlew
Within Colorado, the last documented sighting of the Eskimo curlew was in 1882, at Smith Lake
near Denver (Gollop, et. al. 1986). Typical habitats for the curlew includes bare pastures and
ploughed fields (Gollop, et. al. 1986). Birds observed in Colorado are accidental spring migrants.
Historical curlew spring migration routes are typically Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska.
Suitable curlew habitat may occur within the Project Study Area. However, based on the lack of
recent sightings and the migration route occurring east of Colorado, the potential for Eskimo
curlews to occur within the Area of Influence is limited.
Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the Eskimo curlew are not anticipated based on the
following consideration. Curlews have not been sighted within the Project Study Area recently,
the last sighting in Colorado was in 1882. Also the Project Study Area is well west of the
curlew's historic migration corridor. Therefore, the proposed project is not likely to adversely
affect the Eskimo curlew.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Flycatchers typically nest in cottonwood -willow associations. These areas are generally along
streams, rivers, or other wetland areas where dense stands of willow, seepwillow, arrowweed
buttonbrush, or other shrubs and medium-sized trees occur. These areas also may contain an
overstory of cottonwoods. Surface water or saturated soils are almost always present in, or
ba.5671December 9, 1997
11
Biological Assessment
adjacent to, nesting areas during the breeding season. Nests are generally located in thickets of
shrubs or trees that are approximately 13 to 23 feet tall with a high percentage of canopy cover
and a large volume of foliage from the ground level to 13 feet above ground. Nest building and
egg laying typically begin in late May and early June with the young fledging in Iate June early
July (Tibbets, et. al. 1994).
The USFWS has determined that suitable habitat for the flycatcher in Colorado must contain the
following components: a riparian shrub habitat at least 30 feet wide, 30 feet long, and 5 feet high
along streams with a gradient of 4 percent or less; these areas must occur below 8,500 feet in
elevation. In addition, these areas must occur within the established range as provided by the
USFWS. If a proposed project may potentially impact flycatcher habitat, the USFWS requires that
appropriate surveys be conducted to assess the presence of flycatchers. However, the Project
Study Area occurs outside of the geographic area identified by the USFWS. Based on the lack of
suitable wetland habitats and the Project Study Area being outside of the designated geographic
region, southwestern willow flycatchers are not anticipated to occur within the Project Study Area.
Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the southwestern willow flycatcher are not anticipated.
This conclusion is based on the following considerations. First, the Project Study Area is outside
the geographic area identified as flycatcher habitat by the USFWS. Second, due to the limited
amount of potentially -suitable wetland habitat within the Project Study Area, southwestern willow
flycatchers are not anticipated to occur. Also, if wetlands are encountered along the route they
would be spanned by the line thereby eliminating any potential loss of habitat. Therefore, the
proposed project is unlikely to adversely affect the southwestern willow flycatcher.
Bonytail Chub
The bonytail chub is generally associated with open water areas of large river channels. Water
depths of 3 to 4 feet with uniform depth and velocity are preferred. In addition, shifting, sandy
substrates are chosen. Adults most often feed on terrestrial insects that it takes from surface
feeding (Behnke and Benson 1983). Adults typically do not spawn until they are 5 to 7 years old.
Spawning occurs in water temperatures near 65 °F during June and July (Behnke and Benson
1983).
The reach of the Colorado River closest to the Project Study Area that has been proposed for
designation as critical habitat for the chub is in the Black Rocks area west of Grand Junction
(USFWS 1993) where the chub has been documented to occur (Woodling 1985). Given the
distance between the location of the project area and the Black Rocks area and given that the
construction of the proposed transmission line will span the Colorado River, thereby creating no
disturbance within the river itself, the bonytail chub will not be affected by the Project.
The bonytail chub is not anticipated to be impacted. This conclusion is based on the following
considerations. Although the bonytail chub historically occurred within the Colorado River,
critical habitat for this species has been identified well west of the Project Study Area. Therefore
the chub is not expected to occur within the area. Also, the proposed project will span the river
ba.5b71December 9, 1997
12
Biological Assessment
and not impact any potential chub habitat. Based on these considerations the bonytail chub is
unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed project.
SUMMARY
Construction impacts to the peregrine falcon, the threatened bald eagle are expected to be minimal.
This is based on the fact that no nests for either species are known to occur within the project area.
Although the new line would present a potential collision hazard for these species, the collision
hazard would be the same as existing conditions since the new 115kV transmission line would
replace or parallel an existing 69kV transmission line. The existing corridor does not have a
history of bird collisions and is not along a migration or hunting corridor.
Based on both the lack of potentially -suitable habitat and documented occurrences within the
Project Study Area, impacts to the bonytail chub, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Eskimo curlew,
and black -footed ferret are not Iikely.
ba.5671December 9, 1997
13
Biological Assessment
REFERENCES
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power
Lines: The State of the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C.
Craig, J. 1995. Personal Communication. Raptor Biologist. Colo. Div. of Wildl., Ft. Collins,
CO.
Craig, J. 1996. Personal Communication. Raptor Biologist. Colo. Div. of Wildl., Ft. Collins,
CO.
Hammerson, G.A. and D. Langlois. 1981. Colorado Reptile and Amphibian Distribution Latilong
Study. 2nd ed., Colo. Div. of Wildl., Denver, CO.
Hammerson, G.A. 1986. Amphibians and Reptiles in Colorado. Colo. Div. of Wildl., Denver,
CO.
Olendorff, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.M. Lehman. 1981. Suggested Practices for Raptor
Protection on Power Lines: State of the Art in 1981. Raptor Research Foundation, Inc. St.
Paul, Minn. Raptor Research Report No. 4.
Gollop et al. 1986. Eskimo Curlew; A Vanishing Species? Special Pub. No. 17. Saskatchewan
Nat. Hist. Soc., Regina, Saskat., Can.
Magaddino, R. 1989. Living with Bald Eagles. Montana Outdoors. Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks.
Montana Bald Eagle Working Group. 1986. Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan. Bureau of
Land Management. Montana State Office, Billing MT.
Mutel, F.M. and J.C. Emerick. 1984. From Grassland to Glacier: The Natural History of
Colorado. Johnson Books, Boulder.
Rose. 1995. Personal Communication. Colorado Field Supervisor. USDI, Fish and Wild. Serv.,
Grand Junction, CO.
Spahr. R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Species of the Intermountain Region. USDA For. Serv., Ogden, Utah.
Tibbets, T.J, M.K. Sogge, and S.J. Sferra. 1994. A Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow
Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus). USDI, Nat. Park Serv, and Colo Plateau Research.
Sta., Denver, Colo. Technical Report NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-94/04.
ba.5b7\December 9, 1997
14
Biological Assessment
U. S. F. W . S . 1993. Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper
Colorado River Basin. USDI, Fish and Wild. Svs. Region 6, Denver, CO.
Woodling. 1985. Little Fishes of Colorado, A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known
Fishes in the State of Colorado. Colo. Div. Of Wildl. Denver, Colorado.
ba.5671December 9, 1997
15
APPENDIX 1
EVALUATION CRITERIA EXPLANATION
::�?R.:??i,Y.?',:isltk'd:;o::5h6:::cCdcca'..:.3�;5?.�Y:�:9:.YR:�::.�RY::Y;ft:SQ�i9R>;f,'[;'{R:,+.:Lk:v.':.`.5::?;:. R::C'.yc'.:vt�.'w^n`un`.Yx`.Rk3:?`.'isk:::4'.2::xx.^.::;�i�:�:,�hECei,�'f::'ter:::v::hY:v.'..w.'nv,::.:`:'!'.:iv'.s`,•XR�..�Sul9jw•YcS.kY.'S?�:.�.i
Fifteen evaluation criteria were developed for the quantitative analysis of routing alternatives.
These criteria were developed to address specific issues of concern identified in the public
workshops as well as more general environmental concerns relevant to NEPA and other pertinent
federal regulations.
The detail at which the criteria quantify the affected environment varies depending upon two
factors. The available quantitative data was the primary constraint in the detail to which criteria
could be developed. For instance, habitat of threatened and endangered species varied in detail
from limited documentation of actual sitings/locations, to more general quantifications of
"potential" habitat based upon vegetation and topography. The second factor determining the
level of detail corresponded to the degree of interest voiced in the public and agency meetings and
comment letters.
Criteria were developed from several sources including field inventories, published data, USGS
7.5 minute quadrangle maps, aerial photographs, aerial slides, and information provided through
public and agency comments. Definitions of the 14 criteria are outlined below.
(1) Total Length is the linear distance covered by the by the corridor.
(2) Approximate Total Number of Structures is the estimation of the total number of structures
required for each corridor alternative. These numbers were calculated in the following manner
using the information provided in Table 2-1:
Single steel -pole Length of segment divided by average span of 700 feet
H -frame Length of segment divided by average span of 800 feet
3 -pole One for every angle in the corridor
It should be noted that these numbers are only estimations. The actual number of structures
required for construction will not be known until the route has been surveyed and staked.
(3) Use of Background Screening as Viewed from Spring Valley is the linear distance of a
corridor which follows natural features, providing a backdrop for screening. This determination
was made from Key Observation Point number 1 in Spring Valley (Figure 3-1) . These areas
were identified using a USGS quad maps, vegetative maps, and aerial photos.
(4) Number of SkyIined Structures is the number of structures that would not be screened by
natural features but have only the sky as a backdrop thereby making the structures highly visible.
The number of skylined structures was identified from Key Observation Point Number 1 in Spring
1-1
Appendix f
Valley (Figure 3-1). These areas were identified using a USGS quad maps, vegetative maps and
aerial photos.
(5) Number of Residences within 500 feet of the Corridor are manual counts of the homes or
structures located within a segment's 1000 -foot wide corridor. Houses and structures were
identified using aerial photos and 7.5 USGS quads.
(6) Number of Planned Lots within 500 feet of Corridor are manual counts of planned
subdivision lots that are located within the 1000 -foot wide corridor. Plat information was acquired
from Garfield County development/planning maps.
(7) Length Sharing Other Utility line ROW's (ft./%) is the length of existing utility ROW
utilized by the corridor. Segments F and G will occupy existing ROW's. Because a portion of
the existing 115kV line from the Hopkins Substation to the Shoshone Hydroelectric plant will be
dismantle and relocated onto Segment A -1's ROW, there would be no addition of a new line, only
the replacement of one. As a result, Segment A-1 was included in these calculations even though
it is not located on existing ROW.
(8) Amount of New Disturbance (acres) is the total area of new additional ROW required by the
segment. New ROW will be required in two situations: 1) where segment lengths have no existing
ROW, as identified in New ROW (feet); and where the width of existing ROW acquired through
existing road or transmission line) does not meet the necessary ROW width requirements of the
proposed line. Acreage amounts were calculated as follows:"
1) For Segment A-1, ROW acreage was calculated by multiplying the length with
the width required for single steel -pole structures, 50 feet (Table 2-1), and then
divided by the number of square footage in an acre, 43560 square feet.
2) For all other segments, excepts Segments F and G, ROW acreage was calculated
by multiplying the length with the width required for H -frame structures, 75 feet
(Table 2-1). The product was then divided by the amount of square footage in an
acre, 43560.
3) Segments F and G were not included in the calculations given that the proposed
ROW for these segments will utilize the existing 69kV ROW.
(9) Length Adjacent to Section or Property Lines (ft.) is defined as- those corridor portions
which run adjacent to legal section or property lines. These distances were identified using
property plats and were summed and are reported in linear feet.
1-2
Appendix 1
(10) Length not Adjacent to Section or Property Lines (ft.) is defined as the length of the
proposed corridor that does not follow legally defined section or property lines, but instead, cuts
across property lots.
(11) Length Crossing Public Lands (ft./mi.) is the linear distance of public lands that a corridor
crosses. Public lands associated with the corridor are those either within the corridor or
immediately adjacent to its boundaries.
(12) Length Crossing Private Lands (ft./mi.) is the linear distance of private lands that a corridor
crosses. Private lands associated with the corridor are those either within the corridor or
immediately adjacent to its boundaries.
(13) Length Crossing Soil or Slope Hazards (ft./mi.) is the linear distance of the corridor that
crosses lands designated as containing soil or slope hazards. These areas were identified using
USGS maps and soils maps.
(14) Amount of Permanent Vegetation Disturbance (sq. ft.) is the total possible area of
vegetation that would be impacted by the proposed corridor. Total area impacted was based solely
on pole placement impact and the construction of access roads. ROW clearing is not considered
as a factor given that the height of the vegetation provides sufficient clearance for the conductors.
Thus, ROW clearing is not necessary. The area impacted was calculated in the following manner
using the information provided in Table 2-1:
1) For those portions of the corridor that would use single steel -pole structures;
(# of poles) X (area of ground disturbance per pole (15 sq ft))
2) For those portions of the corridor that would use H -frame structures;
(# of poles) X (area of ground disturbance per H -frame (25 sq ft))
3) For three -pole angle structures;
(# of angles found in corridor route) X (area of ground disturbance per three -pole
structure (40 sq. ft))
(15) Possible amount of T&E and Sensitive Habitat Disturbance (sq. ft) is the total possible
amount of T&E or sensitive habitat that would be impacted by the proposed corridor. The
numbers are calculated in the same as they are done for vegetation, criterion (13) .
1-3
APPENDIX J
MITIGATION
Appendix J - Mitigation
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (from the mitigation measures portion )
Construction plans, methods and practices will be designed to minimize damage to lands involved.
All work will be performed in a manner which will minimize marring and scarring of the
landscape and the degradation of waterways.
Structure sites and other disturbed areas will be located at least 300 feet, where practical, from
rivers, streams (including ephemeral streams) ponds, lakes, and reservoirs, wetlands and riparian
areas and the line will be rerouted to the extent possible to avoid sensitive features. Where these
facilities must be located within 300 feet of surface waters, temporary erosion control measures
will be applied to protect these areas from increased sedimentation. Protection in these areas will
include the installation of silt fencing or hay bales to contain any eroded material. Following
rehabilitation\ efforts, these devices will be removed.
At crossings of perennial streams by access ways, culverts of adequate size to accommodate the
estimated peak flow of the stream will be temporarily installed. Culverts will also be installed at
crossings of ephemeral streams where stream banks are high and steep enough that crossing would
cause excessive disturbance. During installation of culverts, care will be taken to minimize
disturbance of the stream banks and beds. All culverts will be installed with the culvert inlet and
outlet at natural stream grade to minimize disturbance, unless exceptions are approved. Sediment
traps or other approved methods will be installed whenever culverts are to be placed in live stream
crossings. Approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be obtained prior to culvert
installation.
Construction activities will be performed by methods that will prevent entrance, or accidental
spillage, of solids matter, contaminants, debris, and other objectionable pollutants and wastes into
ephemeral or perennial streams, ponds, lakes reservoirs, or underground water bodies. Such
pollutants and wastes include, but are not restricted to: sediment, refuse, garbage, cement,
concrete, sanitary waste, oil and other petroleum products.
Waste waters from any construction operation will not enter streams, watercourses, or other
surface waters without the use of such turbidity control methods as settling ponds, gravel filter
entrapment dikes, approved flocculating processes that are not harmful to fish, recirculation
systems for washing of aggregates, or other approved methods. Any such water discharged into
surface waters will be monitored in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations to
ensure that it is essentially free of settleable material. Settleable material is defined here as that
material which well settle from the water by gravity during a one-hour quiescent detention period.
Dewatering work for structure foundations or earthwork operations adjacent to, or encroaching
on, streams or watercourses will be conducted in a manner to prevent silted water and eroded
materials from entering the streams or watercourses by construction of intercepting ditches, bypass
J-1
Appendix J - Mitigation
channels, barriers, settling ponds, or by other approved means. Applicable dewatering permits will
be applied for prior to construction.
Excavation material or other construction materials will not be stockpiles or deposited near or on
stream banks, lake shorelines, or other watercourse perimeters where they can be washed away
by high water or storm runoff or can in any way encroach upon the actual watercourse itself.
J-2
APPLICATION
Special Use Permit 1 ''
r;rT!, F .,ii,?. j l.r'
DEC 1 7 1991
GARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
109 Eighth Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone: 970.945.8212 Facsimile: 970.945.7785
Submittal Date: December 17, 1997
Base Fee: $400
t + er~ ISL f) Cx tN-ry
Applicant: Public Service Co. of Colorado c/o Michael E. Diehl, Project Agent
Address of Applicant: 550 15th St., Suite 700, Denver, CO Telephone: (303) 571-7260
80702-4256
Special Use Being Requested:
Major Facility of a Public Utility(Electric Transmission Line)
Zone District: A/R/RD, PUD, Open Space Size of Property:
Application Requirements: These items must be submitted with the application
11 Plans and specifications for the proposed use including the hours of operation, the amount of vehicles
accessing the site on a daily, weekly and/or monthly basis, and the size of any existing or proposed
structures that will be utilized in conjunction with the proposed use. Please submit this information
in narrative form and be specific.
2] If you will be using water or will be treating wastewater in conjunction with the proposed use, please
detail the amount of water that would be used and the type of wastewater treatment. If you will be
utilizing well water, please attach a copy of the appropriate well permit and any other legal water
supply information, including a water allotment contract or an approved water augmentation plan.
3] A map drawn to scale portraying your property, all structures on the property, and the County or State
roadways within one (1) mile of your property. If you are proposing a new or expanded access onto
a County or State roadway, submit a driveway or highway access permit.
4] A vicinity map, showing slope of your property, for which a U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map
will suffice.
51 A copy of the appropriate portion of a Garfield County Assessor's Map showing all public and private
landowners adjacent to your property. Include a list of all property owners and their addresses.
6] Attach a copy of the deed and a legal description of the property. If you are acting as an agent for the
property owner, you must attach an acknowledgment from the property owner that you may act in
his/her behalf.
71 For all applications pertaining to airports, the oil and gas industry, power generation and/or
transmission industry, or any other classified industrial operation, you must submit an impact
statement consistent with the requirements of Sections 5.03, paragraphs 1 thru 3; 5.03.07, inclusive:
and 5.03.08, inclusive.
The consideration of this proposed Special Use will require at least one (1) public hearing, for which public
notice must be provided. The Planning Department will mail you information concerning this hearing(s),
approximately 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing. You will then be required to notify, by certified return
receipt mail, all adjacent landowners and publish the notice provided by the Planning Department, in a
newspaper of general circulation. Both these notices must be mailed/published at least 15 days prior to the
public hearing. The applicant shall bear the cost of mailing and publication and proof of mailing and
publication must be submitted at the time of the public hearing.
The information contained within this application is complete and correct, to the best of my knowledge:
�A�y/!t
3el epi
Applicant: J(
Mic
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Date: December 17, 1997
Shoshone -Glenwood Springs 69/11516/
Electric -Transmission Line Upgrade Project
Garfield County, Colorado
Land Use Permit Application
Prepared for
Garfield County
City of Glenwood Springs
and
Public Service Co. of Colorado
December 1997
as
7-:71
0,1,F
•
DEt3 7 199i
Ago * Wki erWri
24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
o:avrv.�i.�dfi,x:•:��.:Sfi��s:;�:s•.#m`�xnL,::,�.:R'.'.9':rR.:�:•::�n'.•�r•.:;;:^,�'r.'."':::.::::�`vt-0�.2's..'?'.oe.R>itis:!.:G6:YSF:2:iKC9faY."4ti5.".%#?"v1.WY•�9.,R�}?:a.�.;,`;N#:�.; r}is.:�akA :Ck?�R.:k"..a�i:R�:R�t,'9.;R;�di6fitt?�t'ftfT.�:axA:o?io,.vA.2�
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1-1
1.2.1 Purpose and Need of the Project 1-1
1.2.2 Proposed Action 1-5
1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING 1-5
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
2.1 PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 2-1
2.2.1 Structure Design Alternatives 2-1
2.2.2 Corridor Alternatives Considered 2-1
Segment A-1 2-11
Segment B 2-11
Segment C 2-12
Segment D 2-12
Segment E 2-13
Segment F 2-13
Segment G 2-13
Segment H 2-14
Segment I 2-14
Segment L 2-15
Segment M 2-15
2.3 ALTERNATIVES NOT CARRIED FORWARD FOR
DETAILED ANALYSIS 2-16
2.3.1 Structure Alternatives Considered But Rejected 2-16
2.3.2 Corridor Segments Not Analyzed 2-17
Segment A 2-17
Segments J and K 2-17
Segment N 2-18
2.3.3 Electric System Alternatives 2-18
2.3.3.1 Energy Conservation/Demand Side Management . 2-18
2.3.3.2 Alternative Generation Sources 2-18
2.3.3.3 Utilizing Alternative Transmission Systems 2-19
Glenwood Canyon Route .. 2-19
Hopkins -Rifle 230kV Route 2-19
2.3.3.4 Voltage 2-19
2.3.3.5 Direct Current 2-20
2.3.3.6 High Phase Order Transmission .. 2-20
2.3.4 Construction Alternatives .. 2-21
2.3.4.1 Underground Construction .. 2-21
2.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL .. 2-22
2.4.1 Corridor Alternatives .. 2-22
2.4.2 Detailed Construction and Operation Information .. 2-23
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
x...v ... ::vvevn; v Y'O'i{ {{{n:rnti{hv..:>.v. v};: .nr: :r?O'iU •'iM;r :Oy •m :, y. n,;r.;.;.;4
caxfr,.v.,...,.R: L.;.?:�:G?h•`.�?R: R. R.iii:Girko+i..c>1i::;c'�"..-r:;�:::L'�.:':�r:.:i�::tie^a:::t;�;hx::'tL'd7�t:�S;',",�c�.;H"'�`:�:YF';��;;:;r^..c. h.t..:.......:.. r..:kb...er...of:?c.4k`�4.�.:...es.....,'1.... R�:::R�!n:•:iR:�?F�'SS::t.'!r,:'.:.:ni r.Hrv......
2.4.3 Mitigation 2-23
2.5 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 2-23
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION 3-1
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONDITIONS 3-1
3.2.1 Visual Resources 3-2
3.2.1.1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Visual
Resource Management 3-2
3.2.1.2 Garfield County Visual Resource Management Plan 3-3
3.2.2 Land Use 3-4
3.2.2.1 Land Ownership 3-4
3.2.2.2 Historical Land Use 3-11
3.2.2.3 Existing Land Use 3-11
Agriculture 3-11
Transportation .. 3-11
Utilities 3-12
Recreation 3-12
BLM Recreation Management 3-16
White River National Forest Recreation Management 3-17
Garfield County Recreation Management 3-1.7
3.2.2.4 Planned Land Use 3-17
Garfield County 3-17
Glenwood Springs 3-18
Bureau of Land Management 3-18
Forest Service 3-18
3.2.3 Cultural Resources 3-25
3.2.3.1 Prehistoric Context 3-25
3.2.3.2 Historic Context 3-25
3.2.3.3 Project Study Area Environment 3-26
3.2.3.4 Previous Investigations 3-27
3.2.3.5 Known Resources 3-27
3.2.4 Electrical Characteristics 3-28
3.2.5 Socioeconomics 3-28
3.2.7 Biological Resources 3-28
3.2.8 Resources Identified as Not Requiring Detailed Study 3-29
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES SELECTED 4-1
4.2 EVALUATION OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.3 IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 4-5
4.3.1 Impacts on Visual Resources 4-5
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
4.3.1.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives 4-5
Key Observation Points 4-6
4.3.1.2 Impacts Specific To Alternatives 4-7
Corridor Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) -
(Corridor Segments A-1, H, D, E, F and G) 4-7
Corridor Alternative 2 - (Corridor Segments A-1, H,
D, I, F, and G) 4-8
Corridor Alternative 3 - (Corridor Segments A-1,
B, C, D, E, F and G) 4-9
Corridor Alternative 4 - (Corridor Segments A-1, B,
C D, I, F and G) 4-9
Corridor Alternative 5 - (Corridor Segments A-1, B,
L, M, E, F and G) 4-9
Corridor Alternative 6 - (Corridor Segments A-1,
L, M, I, F and G) 4-10
Summary of Visual Impacts 4-10
4.3.1.3 No Action Alternative - Impacts on Visual Resources 4-15
4.3.2 Impacts on Land Use 4-15
4.3.2.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives 4-15
Land Ownership 4-16
Land Management Plans 4-17
Transportation 4-17
4.3.2.2 Impacts Specific to Alternative Routes 4-17
Land Use 4-17
Grazing 4-18
Residential 4-18
Recreation 4-18
BLM Recreation Management 4-20
White River National Forest Recreation Management 4-20
Mitigation 4-20
4.3.2.3 No Action Alternative Impact to Land Use 4-21
4.3.3 Impacts on Cultural Environment 4-21
4.3.4 Impacts on Electrical Characteristics 4-21
4.3.5 Impacts on Socioeconomics 4-21
4.3.6 Impacts on Earth Resources 4-22
4.3.7 Impacts on Biological Resources 4-22
5.0 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 5-1
5.1 LIST OF AGENCIES CONTACTED 5-1
5.2 WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS AND HEARINGS 5-1
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
r^.u:rfa:doL:6;:kEiR4kli#:R:SU"<ui."K:1ih:UkUi: )SS"kD:.:rk:.'k:'n.^SR:k..CRYR::::y,:R:1:R:ii':'::GS<,xY::S`e'.ti65:ak":S:;ec'..A(:•."•.•.•cn:(cRMRiS'w.........�UR:R:R::R:•i:::ig::*?
5.3 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ARE SENT 5-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1
Figures
Figure 1-1 Existing Electrical Transmission and Substation Facilities 1-3
Figure 1-2 Proposed Action 1-7
Figure 2-1 Structure Design 2-3
Figure 2-2 Opportunity/Constraint Map 2-7
Figure 2-3 Corridor Segments 2-9
Figure 3-1 Visual Resources 3-5
Figure 3-2 Land Ownership 3-7
Figure 3-3 Existing Land Use 3-9
Figure 3-4 Recreational Resources 3-13
Figure 3-5 Planned Land Use 3-19
Figure 3-6 Garfield County Zoning Map 3-21
Figure 3-7 Glenwood Springs Zoning 3-23
Figure 4-1 Alternative Routes 4-3
Figure 4-2 Photo Simulation 4-11
Figure 4-3 Cross Section 4-13
Tables
Table 1-1 Glenwood Springs - Silt Load Area 1-2
Table 2-1 Typical Transmission Line Characteristics 2-2
Table 2-2 Transmission Line Routing Opportunity, Avoidance, and Constraint Criteria 2-6
Table 3-1 Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Use, Based on 1995-1996
Information 3-16
Table 4-1 Route Alternative Evaluation Summary of Resource Impacts 4-2
Table 4-2 VRM Classes on BLM Lands Crossed by Action Alternatives 4-7
Table 4-3 Land Ownership Along Each Action Alternative (miles) 4-16
Table 4-4 Area of Disturbance for Each Action Alternative 4-17
Table 4-5 Recreation Trails Crossed By Each Alternative 4-19
Table 6-1 List Of Preparers 6-1
iv
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
.'�.�Q4}'.G:i�i�)iG1d7"isdNi'v:�:wi%:v:<�Q�+e�0�:kiU}."•:i�'$.viti:4:C� �•OS.%a:0$.`40..'it��rG:�.^inn`n:�n'�i�'v:5'�P}i:GY:!0,1:iJY�i4GC0: fi:CfGG$;i.:ki�'rill}in9ii.'4.]'%'wMi�A:ji;t:;1Y:.,¢):: �:Q},v.;�':,jSii�'ri�:.C.}:,L�i.�i:{; �':�r}: r:L'4Stin':,U,.OYrvti \ii%n�
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) provides bulk electric service to the City of
Glenwood Springs. Because of the continually increasing electric demand of local customers, the
existing PSCo electric system soon will be incapable of providing acceptable and reliable service.
PSCo and Glenwood Springs have entered into an agreement to upgrade the existing electric
transmission system serving the Glenwood Springs area. Existing electrical facilities in the area
are shown in Figure 1-1. The first project (Project) involved in the system upgrade is to replace
the 69,000 volt (69kV) transmission line in Glenwood Canyon. A future project will involve
rebuilding the 69kV transmission line from the Glenwood Springs Substation to the Rifle
Substation, the only other source of power to the Glenwood Springs area.
Because the first project impacts land managed by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest
Service), an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Greystone is the third -party consultant responsible for
performing the environmental assessment and documenting the results in the EA under the
direction and approval of the BLM which is the lead federal agency. The purpose of this EA is
to provide a description of the nature and need for the project, describe the environmental
resources that could be affected by the project, identify and analyze potential impacts associated
with alternatives to the project, address concerns that government agencies, organizations, or
members of the public have identified, identify a preferred location and facility design for the
proposed project, and present appropriate mitigation measures to minimize potential environmental
impacts.
Required local land use approvals and permits are discussed in Section 1.1 of the Administrative
Record. Table 1-1 (Garfield Regulatory Requirements Cross -Reference) and Table 1-2
(Glenwood Springs Regulatory Requirements Cross -Reference) are also found in this section of
the Administrative Record.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.2.1 Purpose and Need of the Project
The existing electric transmission system that serves the Colorado River Valley from the City of
Glenwood Springs to the Town of Rifle is a 69kV line that begins at the Shoshone Hydro Plant
in Glenwood Canyon and extends to the Rifle Substation near the Rifle Airport. This 1947 vintage
33.4 mile long transmission line serves three substations in Glenwood Springs, a PSCo substation
near the Town of New Castle, and the Bureau of Reclamation pumping plant near the Town of
ea.5671December 8, 1997
1-1
1.0 Purpose and Need
Silt. The proposed transmission line project is the result of coordinated planning between the City
of Glenwood Springs and PSCo. The long term goal is to increase the electric system capability
to serve local area needs by replacing the existing 33.4 mile long transmission line. Independent
of the above project, the City of Glenwood Springs will upgrade its three substations (Roaring
Fork, Glenwood Springs, and Mitchell Creek) between 1997 and 2001, as local demand for
electricity increases.
The project is required to reliably meet the increasing electrical needs of the local area. As shown
in Table 1-1, the peak total load on the transmission line has been approximately 22 mega -volt
amperes (MVA) which is above the 15 MVA reliable limit of the existing local electric system.
Table 1-1
Glenwood Springs - Silt Load Area
Peak Load (MVA)
30 0
Projection
xisting Reliability Limi
00
M d I•-• O 0) O
00) 0) 0) 0) 00) 0) 00) O
Year
O
N
O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
N N N N
ea.5671December 8, 1997
1-2
;14Rtzaar-44,1494-1.'41.
1 Ira f
0
1 Mile
2 M11e5 5 Mile
1.0 Purpose and Need
The basic design of the existing electric system provides for electric sources from both the
Shoshone and Rifle ends of the line. The number of outages of the existing line has averaged eight
per year. Most of the outages have been weather caused and the biggest outage times have been
due to rock slides in the Glenwood Canyon section of the line. The average duration of the
outages has been 3.5 hours. Historically, when either the Shoshone or Rifle source was not
available, all of the load could be provided from the other source. However, the amount of
electric load that can be handled from the Shoshone source alone is Limited to 15 MVA.
Therefore, when the load is above 15 MVA, the loss of the Rifle source produces overloads at
Shoshone and low voltages all along the 69kV line from Glenwood Springs to Silt. Likewise,
above the 25 MVA load level, the Rifle source alone cannot provide adequate service and
unacceptable voltage drops in the Glenwood Springs area occur.
The basic design of the system for the proposed project is also a two source design. The proposed
project addresses three immediate problems:
1. The 15 MVA equipment limitation at the Shoshone source.
2. The unreliable 69kV line section in the Glenwood Canyon.
3. Long-term electric capacity needs of the local area.
1.2.2 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action consists of constructing a new 115kV electric transmission line from the
Hopkins Substation in Spring Valley to the Roaring Fork Substation in east Glenwood Springs;
upgrading the existing 69kV line between the Roaring Fork Substation and the Glenwood Springs
Substation to 115kV; and installing 115kV equipment at the Hopkins, Roaring Fork, and
Glenwood Springs Substations. The Proposed Action is illustrated on Figure 1-2.
The Proposed Action is the most environmentally sensitive and cost effective means to address the
electric capacity and reliability needs of the Glenwood Springs area. The near term plan is to
continue to operate the system at the 69kV and operate at the 115kV level as soon as the next
project (Glenwood Springs to Rifle line) is constructed. If necessary, operation at 115kV could
accomplished sooner and independent of the next/related Glenwood Springs to Rifle
transmission line 69kV/115kV upgrade.
1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING
The goals of the public involvement program implemented by PSCo for this project were to inform
the public, identify public concerns and values, and develop a consensus. PSCo met with local
planning and federal agencies early on in the project orientation phase. Based on input received
from these agencies and past experience in siting a transmission line in the area, a Project Study
Area (an area where construction activity would be most likely), and an Area of Influence (an area
surrounding the Project Study Area where indirect effects might occur) were established for the
project.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
1-5
1.0 Pupose and Need
A newsletter and questionnaire were mailed to over 300 citizens within the Project Study Area and
Area of Influence, and notices were published in the three major newspapers in the area. The
goals of the newsletter and newspaper ads were to inform the public of the proposed project and
invite all interested parties to a public workshop/scoping meeting. The newsletters and notices
were published at least two weeks prior to the workshop/scoping meeting. All local, state, and
federal representatives and agencies were sent newsletter and meeting notices. Copies of the
newsletter, questionnaire, and newspaper ads are included in Appendix C of the Administrative
Record.
A public workshop/scoping meeting was held between 1:00 pm and 7:00 pm at the Colorado
Mountain College, Springs Valley Campus, near Glenwood Springs on September 11, 1996. The
workshop/scoping meeting was attended by approximately sixty (60) citizens. The goals of the
public workshop/scoping meeting and questionnaire that accompanied the newsletter were to
further inform the public of project details, and identify public concerns and values. The primary
issues identified by the agencies and public included the following:
•
•
•
•
All electric system alternatives, including placing the Iine in Glenwood Canyon and
following an existing 230kV line, need to be addressed;
Structure alternatives, including different types, colors, and double circuiting need to be
addressed;
Socioeconomics associated with the project, especially taxes, need to be addressed;
Placing the line underground should be given consideration;
Impacts created by noise need to be discussed and addressed;
Electric and magnetic fields need to be addressed and minimized;
The line should be placed as far up Lookout Mountain as possible without skylining;
The existing telephone line north of County Road 115 is too close to existing residences;
and
• Visual impacts are critical.
Preliminary route alternative selections were made and further public comments were solicited
from landowners and the Spring Valley Caucus, a group of concerned citizens in Spring Valley.
Routing alternatives were identified and refined by site reconnaissance and meetings with area
residents, developers, and federal agency representatives. Project Study Area issues were
identified, siting criteria were established, and environmental resources were inventoried.
Opportunities and constraints were identified and alternative routes were identified and assessed.
A preferred route was identified which minimizes and balances the various impacts. A second
newsletter was mailed and newspaper ads published to inform the public of decisions made, and
how public input was used in making those decisions. An updated project schedule was included
with opportunities for further input provided. The newsletter was preceded by notification of
public officials and agencies. Please refer to Appendix C of the Administrative Record for a list
of various meetings, dates, activities, and copies of newsletters/ads/notices.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
1-6
I Mile
2 Mde5 5 Miles
—7-I
L / Lll
90gOte0.01190
Figure 1-2
1,aNI3
J
A-1
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
I15KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
NATIONAL FOREST
BLM
PRIVATE PROPERTY
PROPOSED 115kV TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENT
ROUTE SEGMENT
5orce5: 6afield Cal*
U.5,6.5. Quadrangle Map5
5tie Pectaice
U.5. Forest Service19901Mote Iver National rcre5t, Map and
131-M Surface Maiaciemett Maps
10 Public Service'
Pubic Service Company o/ Colorado
FM+. &Mg and Pen,*
Engineering appal and Ftighl-o?-Way
SHOSHONE — GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
PROPOSED ACTION
Townthip: 161 id VIS,
RancA UM Ea t92W.
sectioar Vid626
Frhcpct Veridical: 6111
County CAW
DATE: 41•,, 19*
D re., BF ..I'6 / WI
AGENT: MER*
REVISED: *Whir 15, 119/
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING
THE PROPOSED ACTION
::�: i�:::�Ji}:4:J:Gi.'•':i:::ti •'.••cv"' .i:::S �':{:jQ4fCi$Rt� :. .�.. :5.:.{4M�}:.. •.Yf•.+5: :::x v m• -'f :.,:..uvx::: � r •\,Y': ynvv::.w...w. :{..v.u.{:.u:Y..v,{.:: .r,•O:: n.:}v :.:v••.y�: p•{.
d.. ,:kic' o .�k:�..4`�i:;�R�nk'o- of d.;�kSITY.n.::.:f.:..'.t•:&;.'.'•�:b:�?�::.....Y..w:.vw.ad6..:h?:ao:Ye:::i�ir<c....t::....:...vkX:..�f.x.,•:.,:.v...... h:S.o:...�.,....w:.<u..,,.x.
Several actions were considered as alternatives to the proposed action, including the "no action"
alternative, alternative structure designs, alternative corridors, alternative electric systems, and
alternative methods of construction. These alternatives are discussed below.
2.1 PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action alternative consists of constructing a new 115kV electric transmission line
from the Hopkins Substation to the Roaring Fork Substation; and upgrading the existing 69kV line
between the Roaring Fork and Glenwood Springs Substations to 115kV. The equipment required
to operate the electric system at 115kV would also be installed at the Hopkins, Roaring Fork, and
Glenwood Springs Substations. The location of the Proposed Action alternative is shown on
Figure 1-2 and consists of segments A-1, H, D, E, F, and G.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Several other alternatives were considered for this Project and some were dropped from detailed
study for various reasons. The alternatives considered are listed below. The alternatives that were
excluded from further consideration and the reasons for why they were eliminated, are described
in Section 2.3.
2.2.1 Structure Design Alternatives
Self -weathering steel or wood H -Frame structures, self -weathering steel or wood three -pole
structures, and self -weathering single steel poles are the design alternatives that most effectively
minimize the visual impact of the proposed electric line. These structure design alternatives are
also the most technically and economically feasible for this project. Self -weathering single steel
poles wilI be used for those portions of the proposed route where the new line will be combined
with an existing line and for the portion between the Roaring Fork and Glenwood Springs
Substations. All of these structures are illustrated on Figure 2-1. The typical physical design
characteristics for the proposed structure types are described in Table 2-1.
2.2.2 Corridor Alternatives Considered
After public input was received and analyzed, the electric system configuration was determined,
and a corridor identification process was used to locate and evaluate potential corridors 1,000 feet
wide for the required transmission line. This process involved several steps including:
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-1
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
Table 2-1
Typical Transmission Line Characteristics
(Approximate Figures)
Single Circuit
Double Circuit
Description of Design
Component
Steel/Wood II -
Frame
Structures Angle Structure Structure Structure
3 -pole Guyed Single Steel Pole Single Steel Pole
Voltage
ROW Width
Average Span Between
Structures'
Maximum Span Between
Structures'
Number of Structures per Mile'
Average Height of
Structures/Range
Temporary Land' Disturbed at
Structure Base (sq. ft.) 2 w/ air
access
Temporary Land Disturbed at
Structure Base (sq. ft.) 2 w/
limited access
Temporary Land Disturbed at
Structure Base (sq. ft.) 2 w/ full
access
Permanent Land Disturbed at
Structure Base (sq. ft.) 2
Minimum Ground Clearance
Beneath Conductor (maximum
sag at 2I2°F)
Circuit Configuration
Conductor Type'
Conductor Size (circular mils)
Conductor Size (inches)
115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000
754 75 50 75
800 800 700 700
1600 1200 1000 1000
6-7 NA 7-8 7-8
50-90 50-90 60-110 60-110
300 1000 200 200
500 2000 400 400
1000 8000 700 700
25 40 15 15
26' 26' 26' 26'
Horizontal Horizontal Delta Vertical
ACSR ACSR ACSR ACSR
63600 63600 63600 63600
.990 .990 .990 .990
1 Estimated - depends on centerline and structure locations
2 Will vary depending on slope, vegetation, soil conditions and equipment
3 ACSR - Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced
4 That portion access Section 17, T6S, R88W, requires 100 feet of ROW due to long span length.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-2
35
c
ISTING
25
30
4
1
I Mile
2 Miles
Colorado Mountain
Col ege
5 Mile
SINGLE CIRCUIT
STEEL POLE
SPAN BETWEEN POLES
AVERAGE — 700'
RANGE — 400-1000
SINGLE CIRCUIT
WOODEN OR STEEL H—FRAME
AIM
TS3
0
cs)
0
TS4
TYPICAL 757100R.O.W.
SPAN BETWEEN POLES
AVERAGE — 800'
RANGE — 400.-1600'
LECCV
890/ TRAPEMEEPON LIE
=CV TRANSMISSION LPE
4F 2301(V TRAMMISSON LPE
• SLESTATICIV
STUDY AREA
PFUENCE MEA
PROPOSED SOW TRANBACSON
Lie AL:new
Figure 2-1
DOUBLE CIRCUIT
STEEL POLE
SPAN BETWEEN POLES
AVERAGE — 700'
RANGE — 400-1000
SINGLE CIRCUIT
WOODEN 3—POLE GUYED ANGLE
0
0
(AVERAGE 60')
11
TYPICAL 75' R.O.W.
SPAN BETWEEN POLES
AVERAGE — 800'
RANGE — 400'-1200'
0 Public Service'
Pubic Saralee Company a Colorado
ROW 9tre and Dern*,
Bi 12 fiv.PpCrt indR1661-61-Wry
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION
LINE
Tc,..thip. (5$111.1*
.81102111RM
R fulambors-ar
Sodom VRIVO
Mow ikeertrc et
Coot), AWTIA
bet Jae*. KW
Nom By "6 / MI
AGM 101.041
nram 5.14.1.1*, Wrl
'
r ,
r
'
f '
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
• Collection of environmental, human, and cultural resource data;
• Mapping of environmental and human resources;
•
Identification of opportunity, avoidance, and constraint areas for transmission line corridor
siting based on resource sensitivity;
• Identification and evaluation of corridor/route segments; and
• Selection of routes to be carried forward for full analysis in the EA.
Information on environmental resources within the Project Study Area and Area of Influence was
collected from existing published and unpublished documents and files, governmental agencies,
aerial photography, public input, and field reconnaissance. These environmental resources are
described in Chapter 3. The resources were categorized as opportunity, avoidance, or constraint
areas for transmission line siting (Table 2-2) and an opportunity/constraint map was prepared
(Figure 2-2).
The identification of alternatives was strongly influenced by the electric system requirements,
specifically the locations of the power sources and substations. Agency and public input also
played a significant role in the identification of alternatives. The objectives of the Corridor
alternative selection process included. balancing the following considerations:
• Maximizing the use of existing utility and road rights-of-way;
• Maximizing the use of section lines and land ownership Iines;
• Maximizing the engineering feasibility;
• Maximizing the use of natural features that provide a backdrop or obstruction for
screening;
• Minimizing impacts to the existing and future residents of Spring Valley to the south of the
Project Study Area;
• Minimizing impacts to the public lands and public land users;
• Minimizing impacts to the future land uses and lots platted on Lookout Mountain and
Spring Valley Ranch;
• Minimizing impacts to environmental resources;
• Minimizing visual impacts; and
• Minimizing the project cost and financial impact to rate payers.
Aerial and ground reconnaissance of the Project Study Area and Area of Influence were conducted
in September, October, and November 1996 to select corridor alternative segments to meet these
objectives. The preliminary corridor segments that were identified are shown on Figure 2-3 as
segments A, A-1, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, 1, J, K, L, M, and N. Segments A, 5, K, and N have been
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-5
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
Table 2-2
Transmission Line Routing
Opportunity, Avoidance, and Constraint Criteria
Opportunity Areas
Avoidance Areas
Constraint Areas
• Existing utility corridors/rights-of-way.
• Along street and road rights-of-way.
• Along section or property lines.
Following natural features that provide a backdrop for screening.
Slopes <15%.
• General commercial/light industrial/open space land uses.
Existing access for construction, operation, and maintenance.
Vegetation other than mature trees.
• Existing or planned urban land uses, including residential, commercial,
and industrial areas.
Landscaping and home improvements.
Incompatible land uses including landfills, road or street expansions,
mines, and gravel pits.
Major/moderate soil hazards.
Undeveloped subdivisions/Planned Residential Development.
Critical wildlife habitat, severe winter range and production areas.
Bald eagle winter range.
Canadian goose feeding, production and wintering areas.
Areas where new roads would have to be built for construction,
operation, and maintenance.
Public institutions.
Mature tree vegetation.
County parks and recreational areas; municipal parks; and parks owned
or administered by other governmental subdivisions.
Open space, shelterbelts, riparian areas, and other areas of
conservation, recreational or ecological importance.
Areas which are geologically unstable or highly erosive.
Placement of a new transmission line over near existing residences or
other occupied buildings.
Major slope hazards: slopes >40%.
Surface water/wetlands.
Golden eagle nesting sites.
Bald eagle roost sites.
Wildlife winter concentration areas.
Areas critical to the life stages of threatened or endangered animal and
plant species.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-6
Colorado
Co
Figure 2-2
LUNI3
r
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION IJNE
SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
OPPORTUNITY AREA
AVOIDANCE AREA
CONSTRAINT AREA
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A-1 ROUE SEGMENT
NOTE Route A-1, H, D, E, F, G le considered the
PREFERRED ROUTE based on environmental
assessment, economic analysis, and
public/landowner input.
5arce: Comolatkr of Re5arce Map
0 Public Service'
Pubtic Service Company Of COlOttrk
ROW Ming arid Permian
Engheariv &wort 4fmci hIgh1-00-Wely
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
OPPORTUNITY/CONSTRAINT MAP
To....: CS'S fit r15.
Pcnspx raWill-qa
sw,,,, imam
PrincEpol utedian: effli
cmunty CAMP
DATE: Ana 5, P295
'Dram By A / KW
ENT MLPit
REM . 51006.15, 1001
,l n ,l n
a
I Mile
2 Miley
Mies
r
I —r 1
t,—i
.-
9oMeauiAw
Figure 2-3
..I�� 69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION UNE
SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
NATIONAL FOREST
BLM
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
ROUTES/CORRIDORS EXCLUDED FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A-1 ROUTE SEGMENT
NOTE: Route A-1, H, 0, E, F, G is considered the
PREFERRED ROUTE based on environmental
assessment, economic analysis, and
public,/landowner input
5o rces; Garfield Cam
U5,65, Quadrangle Maps
5tte Kecanna lsa1ce
U5. rcrest 5ervice 1990 Witte River National Forest Map and
C .M rface Mataqement, Maps
0 Public Service'
Rbk Sefdee Cor p.ny of Colorado
ROH; 8100 and Perm%
Eigneerr f Support and ROI -of -Way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
ROUTE CORRIDOR SEGMENTS
Town,hip: f5.54TZ.
Rmge: RD3N,loR92W.
S.cti u: V/62.6
Per OA Merid6an: 61H
Mniy V. -
DATE: am 5, I.._
oras Bs JY,!rIM
AGENT: ill. VA
S.ptair15,1497
REVISED:
n
f
1
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
removed from further consideration as viable corridor segments for reasons provided in Section
2.3.2. The remaining segments have been retained for further analysis and are described
immediately below.
Segment A-1
The entire length of this segment is approximately 3.9 miles. Segment A-1 exits north out of
Hopkins Substation in the SW '/a of Section 35 T6S, R88W, and extends for approximately one
mile, crossing two unnamed intermittent drainages. Segment A-1 then turns northwest and travels
for 2.0 miles, crossing six unnamed intermittent drainages, Landis Creek, and two unimproved
roads. After crossing Landis Creek, Segment A-1 turns west for 0.5 miles, crossing two unnamed
intermittent drainages and terminating at the existing Hopkins -Shoshone 115kV transmission line
in the NW 1/4 of Section 21 T6S, R88W. Self -weathering single steel -pole structures are proposed
for this segment. The existing Hopkins -Shoshone 115kV transmission line that roughly parallels
this proposed corridor to the west would be dismantled and rebuilt, with the proposed line using
double circuit structures. The entire segment traverses private land. A 75 -foot wide ROW would
be required. No new access roads would need to be constructed for this segment. This segment
would be used with all alternatives.
Segment A-1 crosses an area classified as a Class III visual resource. The southernmost portion
that extends for a mile north out of Hopkins Substation is zoned for agriculture and the remaining
portion of the line is zoned for planned unit development. Approximately 0.2 miles of the segment
crosses pinyon/juniper vegetation. The remaining portion of the segment crosses primarily desert
shrub and a small amount of mountain shrub. Only the southernmost 0.6 miles is located in mule
deer winter range, however, the corridor does cross the mule deer migration path. The southern
1.3 miles crosses critical habitats and severe winter range for elk while the remaining 2.6 miles
is located within elk winter range.
Segment B
Segment B is approximately 2.0 miles long. Segment B begins in the SW 1/ of Section 16 T6S,
R88W at the point of intersection between Segment A-1 and the existing Hopkins -Shoshone 115kV
transmission line. The segment then extends due west, bordering BLM property for 1.0 mile,
crossing BLM property for approximately 0.5 miles, and then follows private property lines for
the remaining portion of the segment. It ends in the SE '/a of Section 13 of T6S, R89W. This
segment crosses three unnamed intermittent drainages and County Road 120. H -frame structures
are proposed for this segment with three -pole angle structures at angle points. A 75 -foot wide
ROW would be required. No new access roads would be required for this segment.
The entire segment is located in an area classified as a Class III visual resource. Segment B
crosses areas zoned for planned unit development, open space, and agriculture. The westernmost
1,111 feet of the segment crosses pinyon/juniper vegetation, while the remaining portion of the
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-11
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
segment crosses desert shrub vegetation. About 1.26 miles of the segment impacts mule deer
winter range and their migration route. The entire length of this segment crosses elk winter range
area with the westernmost 277 feet crossing elk critical habitats and severe winter range.
Segment C
The entire length of Segment C is 1.57 miles. Segment C extends northwest from Segment B's
western termination point in the SE 1/4 of Section 13 T6S, R89W for approximately 0.75 miles,
crossing four private property lots and one intermittent drainage, and then enters BLM property.
Segment C then turns due west for a little over 0.8 miles crossing two intermittent drainages, all
the while remaining on BLM property. Segment C terminates in the NE 1/a of Section 14 T6S,
R98W. H -frame structures are proposed for this segment with three -pole angle structures at angle
points. A 75 -foot wide ROW would be required. No new access road construction would be
required for this segment.
Segment C crosses approximately 0.75 miles of private land while the remaining 0.82 miles
crosses or borders land owned by the BLM. Approximately 1.1 miles of the segment is located
in a Class III visual resource area. The remaining portion is located in a Class IV visual resource
area. Segment C crosses land zoned as open space and agriculture. Less than a 0.1 miles of the
corridor would impact pinyon/juniper vegetation while the remaining portion of the corridor would
traverse desert and mountain shrub vegetation. The entire length of the segment is located within
mule deer winter range and also crosses the mule deer migration route. Approximately 0.2 miles
traverses elk critical habitat and severe winter range.
Segment D
The entire length of Segment D is approximately 0.75 miles. Segment D begins at Segment C's
western termination point in the NE I4 of Section 14 T6S, R89W, and extends west for 0.75 miles
along property lines between the BLM and private properties, crossing an unnamed intermittent
stream. This segment terminates in NE 1/4 of Section 15, T6S, R89W. H -frame structures are
proposed for this segment with three -pole angle structures at angle points. A 75 -foot wide ROW
would be required. No new access road construction would be required for this segment.
Except for the westernmost 550 feet which is located in a Class II visual resource area, the entire
length of the segment is located in an area classified as a CIass IV visual resource. The land
crossed by Segment D is zoned as either open space or agriculture. The majority of the corridor
crosses mountain shrub vegetation. Only 0.15 miles of the corridor crosses pinyon/juniper
vegetation. The entire length of Segment D is located within mule deer winter range and elk
winter range and severe winter range. The westernmost 420 feet of the segment is located in an
area designated as containing moderate slope hazards.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-12
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
Segment E
The total length of Segment E is a little under 1.0 mile. Segment E begins at the intersection of
Segments D, G, and H in the NE 14 of Section 15 T6S, R89W and extends for about a mile
southwest, northwest, and then southwest again, crossing two private lots and one intermittent
drainage. Segment E terminates at the Roaring Fork Substation near the middle of Section 15
T6S, R89W. H -frame structures and three -pole angle structures at the angle points are proposed
for this segment. A 100 -foot wide ROW would be required. No new access road construction
would be required for this segment.
With the exception of the termination points, the entire length of the segment is located in an area
classified as a Class II visual resource. The termination points are located in a Class IV visual
resource area. Segment E is south of the Doc Holliday Trail and travels through Iand zoned as
residential use. All of Segment E extends through land identified as containing moderate to severe
slope hazards. The entire length of Segment E crosses pinyon/juniper vegetation. About 0.8
miles of the segment is situated in winter range, severe winter range and critical habitat for mule
deer and elk.
Segment F
Segment F is located on the east side of Glenwood Springs and, in conjunction with Segment G,
connects the Roaring Fork and Glenwood Springs Substations along the existing 69kV
transmission line ROW. Segment F is about 0.4 miles long. This segment would be used with
all alternatives, with single steel -pole structures proposed. The entire segment is located on
private land crossing 7 lots. If Segment I were used, then Segment F would be a double -circuit
line requiring a 75 -foot wide ROW. If Segment E were to be used, then Segment F would be a
single -circuit line. The 69kV transmission line presently located on the ROW would be replaced
by the proposed 115kV transmission line within the existing 50 -foot ROW. No new access road
construction would be required for this segment.
Segment F is located on land classified as a Class IV visual resource management area and zoned
for city/town use. The entire length of Segment F is located in areas designated as having major
soil and slope hazards and the entire segment traverses pinyon/juniper vegetation. All of Segment
F is located in elk winter range.
Segment G
Segment G is located on the east side of Glenwood Springs and, in conjunction with Segment F,
connects the Roaring Fork and Glenwood Springs Substations along the existing 69kV
transmission Iine ROW. Segment G is approximately 1.0 mile long and crosses the Colorado
River. This segment would be used with all alternatives. The entire segment is located on private
land crossing four lots and bordering three. Single -steel pole structures and single -circuit are
ea.567\December 8, 1997
2-13
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
proposed for this segment. The 69kV line presently located on the ROW would be dismantled and
replaced by the proposed 115kV transmission line within the existing 50 -foot ROW. No new
access road construction would be required for this segment.
About two-thirds of Segment G is located in land zoned for city/town purposes and the remaining
third is located in land zoned for agriculture and residential purposes. Approximately two-thirds
of the length of Segment G is Located in areas designated as having major soil and slope hazards.
About 85 percent of Segment G traverse pinyon/juniper vegetation and 61 percent of Segment G
is located in elk winter range. No construction is proposed within the Colorado River floodplains.
Segment H
The entire length of Segment H is 4.0 miles. From the western termination point of Segment A-1
in the NW 1/4 of Section 21 T6S, R88W, Segment H extends northwest through BLM property and
two private lots. Segment H then extends northwest for 1.57 miles into the Forest Service's White
River National Forest, crossing one intermittent drainage and three jeep trails. It then turns west
for 1.85 miles,extending into BLM property and crossing one jeep trail and one unimproved road.
Segment H then turns southwest for 0.57 miles crossing county road 120 and terminating at the
intersection of Segments C and D in the NE '/a of Section 14 T6S, R89W. H -frame structures
with three -pole angles are proposed for this segment . The ROW for this segment would be 75 -
feet wide except where the segment crosses Section 17, T6S, R88W, where the ROW requirement
is 100 -feet due to the long span lengths. No new access road construction would be required for
this segment.
Except for the westernmost 0.9 miles, Segment H is located in a Class III visual resource area.
The westernmost 0.9 miles is located in Class II and Class IV visual resource areas. Segment H
passes within 0.3 miles of the South Lookout Mountain Trail. About 0.3 miles of the route
crosses land zoned for development, approximately 1.0 mile is zoned agricultural, and the
remaining portion of the segment is zoned as open space. Most of the corridor crosses desert and
mountain shrub vegetation. Approximately 0.6 miles of the corridor crosses deciduous forests and
0.4 miles of the corridor crosses pinyon and juniper communities. Only the westernmost 0.3 miles
of the corridor crosses mule deer and elk winter range. The portion of Segment H that extends
northwest into Forest Service property crosses a mule deer migration path.
Segment I
Segment I is 0.76 miles long. It begins at the intersections of Segments D, E, and M in the NE
'/a of Section 15, T6S, R89W and extends 0.50 miles northwest through three private lots.
Segment I then turns southwest and extends 0.26 miles through two private lots. It terminates at
the intersection with Segments F and G in the NW 1/4 of Section 15, T6S, R89W. H -frame
structures with three -pole angles are proposed for this segment. A 100 -foot wide ROW would be
required. No new access road construction would be required for this segment.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-14
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
Segment I is located in a Class II visual resource area. The entire segment is located within
subdivided private property which has been zoned for agricultural and residential use.
Approximately half of the segment crosses mountain shrub vegetation while the other half is
located within a pinyon/juniper forest. The entire segment is located within mule deer and elk
winter range while approximately half of the segment is mule deer summer range. The segment
is located at the edge of mule deer severe winter range and critical habitat. About 35 percent is
located within elk critical habitats and severe winter range.
Segment L
Segment L is 1.78 miles long. This segment begins at the intersection of Segments B and C in the
SE '/a of Section 13 T6S, R89W and extends 0.38 miles in a southwesterly direction through BLM
property, crossing an intermittent drainage and an unimproved road. Segment L then turns west
and, following property lines, extends west for 0.61 of a mile crossing two intermittent streams.
The segment then turns northwest for 0.7 miles, crossing 8 private lots, two unnamed intermittent
drainages and two unimproved roads, and terminates at the intersection of Segments M and N in
the SW 1/4 of Section 14 T6S, R89W. H -frame structures with three -pole angles are proposed for
this segment . A 75 -foot wide ROW would be required. No new access road construction would
be required for this segment.
Approximately 1.15 miles of Segment L is located in a Class IV visual resource area. The
easternmost 0.53 miles is located within a Class III visual resource area. Except for that portion
of the segment that borders or crosses BLM property, Segment L extends through subdivided
property zoned for agricultural and residential purposes. The segment follows property lines as
much as possible, but crosses five privately owned lots. Approximately 0.3 miles of the corridor
crosses land designated as having moderate slope hazards. About 27 percent of the segment
crosses pinyon/juniper vegetation while the remaining 73 percent crosses mountain shrub. The
entire length of Segment L passes through mule deer and elk winter range as well as elk severe
winter range and critical habitat.
Segment M
Segment M is approximately 0.75 miles in length. It begins at the intersection of Segments L and
N in the SW '/a of Section 14 T6S, R89W and extends northwest, crossing four privately owned
Iots, an unimproved road and . an intermittent drainage, and terminates at the intersection of
Segments D, E, and I in the NE '/ of Section 15 T6S, R89W. FI -frame structures are proposed
for this segment with three -pole angle structures at the angle points. A 75 -foot wide ROW would
be required. No new access road construction would be required for this segment.
Almost the entire length of Segment M is located within a Class IV visual resource management
area. The northwestern terminating point of the segment is located within a Class II visual
resource management area. The entire length crosses land zoned as agriculture and light
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-15
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
residential. Approximately 50 percent of the line crosses pinyon/juniper vegetation while the
remaining portion crosses mountain shrub vegetation. All of Segment M is Iocated within
designated mule deer winter range and elk winter range, severe winter range, and critical habitat.
2.3 ALTERNATIVES NOT CARRILD FORWARD FOR DETAILED
ANALYSIS
2.3.1 Structure Alternatives Considered But Rejected
Lattice structures were considered as an alternative to reduce visual impacts. However, they have
not been carried forward for detailed analysis for several reasons:
•
•
•
•
There would be greater impacts to the vegetation and topography at each structure location
due to the larger area of disturbance compared to H -frame and single steel -pole structures;
New access would need to be constructed for concrete foundations;
The structures are not cost-effective for the conductor size proposed for this project;
Lattice structures cannot be erected efficiently using helicopter construction;
While lattice structures may blend into the background when viewed from a distance, this
type of structure would be much more visually obtrusive when viewed in the foreground
by public land users; and
As discussed immediately below, PSCo demonstrated the ability of the existing landscape
character and the distance from most observation points to absorb a self -weathering
structure.
A 55 foot -tall wood pole was erected on Lookout Mountain at the Lookout Mountain trail head
parking lot. This pole was erected on November 8, 1996. The top half of the pole was painted
a dark brown color on November 19, 1996 to simulate the appearance of self -weathering steel.
A visual investigation was then conducted with the BLM on November 27 and it was determined
that the dark brown pole was not visible from a number of observation points (see Figures 3-1 and
4-3).
PSCo also notified area residents of this pole being erected and requested their input on the
visibility. Input received from the public included the following comments:
•
•
Callers are still concerned over final positioning of the line, and still would like to have
it as high as possible below or behind tree line.
With the pole that was set, most individuals who responded hadn't noticed it; those who
did, thought it blended well. Many agreed Corten steel (self-weathering/oxidizing towers)
would probably blend well. No objections were made.
Property owners along Segments A and A-1 asked that PSCo work closely with them
relative to relocating the portion of the proposed double circuit line that extends from the
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-16
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
Hopkins Substation, further away from them and proposed development. Also, they are
concerned about the new lines avoiding their upper lands and leases.
2.3.2 Corridor Segments Not Analyzed
After performing field reconnaissance, consulting with the affected landowners, and carrying out
the initial analysis, Segments A, J, K, and N were no longer considered as viable corridor
segments. Described below are each of the segments and the reasons for eliminating them from
further consideration.
Segment A
Segment A would parallel the existing Hopkins -Shoshone 115kV transmission line from the
Hopkins Substation, in the NW 'A of Section 2, T6S, R88W, for approximately 3.5 miles to a
point in the NW 'A of Section 21 T6S, R88W. H -Frame and three -pole angle structures would
be used. This segment is located entirely on private land.
Initially, it had been planned to bury the proposed transmission line along this existing
transmission ROW at the request and expense of the developer of the land. However, this plan is
no longer viable given that the contract to purchase the land has fallen through. PSCo, in
consultation with the landowner and other landowners in the vicinity of the existing 115kV line,
realigned the proposed transmission line to the east of the existing 115kV transmission line ROW
(Segment A-1). The proposed transmission line would be constructed to double -circuit
specifications so that the existing Hopkins -Shoshone 115kV transmission line may be dismantled
through this segment.
Diverging from the existing Shoshone -Hopkins 115kV transmission line further south and further
north was also considered. Diverging from the existing line further south was eliminated from
consideration in order to minimize the impacts to the proposed Spring Valley Ranch subdivision.
Diverging from the existing line further north was eliminated from further consideration due to
limited access and the possible significant impacts to forest and riparian habitats.
Segments J and K
Segments J and K would utilize the southernmost gulch from Lookout Mountain to Glenwood
Springs where an existing underground telephone line is located. Segment J is approximately 1.25
miles in length in the SE and SW quarters of Section 15, T6S, R89W. Segment J is approximately
half on private land, crossing three privately owned lots, and half on BLM land. Segment K is
3,000 feet long and entirely on private land, crossing two lots. H -frame structures with three -pole
angle structures would be used for these segments.
ea.5671December 8. 1997
2-17
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
Preliminary analysis and a field reconnaissance of these segments revealed that it would be
extremely difficult to construct Segments J and K due to the steepness and instability of the slopes
in the gulch (Figures 3-8 and 3-9 in the Administrative Record). The construction involved with
these segments would have significant impacts to soil and surface geology as well as vegetation.
In addition, as there is no existing transmission line in this location on the east side of Glenwood
Springs, there would be greater land use and visual impacts.
Segment N
Segment N extends from Segment L in a westerly direction for approximately one mile,
terminating in the SW 14 of Section 15 T6S, R89W. Approximately one-third of this segment
crosses BLM land and the remaining two-thirds crosses a private lot along the Iot line. H -frame
structures with three -pole angle structures would be used for this segment.
Segment N functions as a connection between Segment L and Segments J and K. By eliminating
Segments J and K, Segment N was also eliminated.
2.3.3 Electric System Alternatives
Electric system alternatives refer to various electrical solutions to electrical problems in a given
area. For example, the addition of transformers to existing substations, or the construction of new
substations are changes considered in electric system alternatives. Other electric system
alternatives include energy conservation, alternative generation sources, and alternative
transmission systems.
2.3.3.1 Energy Conservation/Demand Side Management
PSCo is committed to and involved with energy conservation programs throughout its system. It
does not appear that conservation alone will be able to reduce the load growth which is occurring
in the Glenwood Springs area, primarily because of new residents moving to the area and the
resulting additional electricity demands. Energy conservation programs that curtail the net load
growth would not improve the reliability of service to the area which is a major goal of this
project.
2.3.3.2 Alternative Generation Sources
Permanent generating facilities could be installed in the Glenwood Springs area to serve as peaking
units when the system demand reaches a pre-set level. These facilities would have to be sized at
least as large as the load growth for the foreseeable future and preferably large enough to serve
the entire existing and future load. An outage of the existing electric transmission source would
usually cause an outage of the hypothetically installed generating facilities, and thus cause an area
blackout, unless the generating facilities were operated at a level similar to the area load at the
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-18
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
time of an outage. This alternative does not address the reliability of service to the area, and
because generation units are not as reliable as transmission lines, the net impact on reliability
would be worse than what now exists. Aside from the technical deficiencies of not meeting area
needs, installation, operation, and fixed cost would be significant. A generating facility of this
magnitude would not be economically feasible, and other factors such as noise, air and water
quality, fuel costs, interconnections, fuel spills, and siting must be considered.
2.3.3.3 Utilizing Alternative Transmission Systems
Glenwood Canyon Route
Routing the line in Glenwood Canyon was considered to be incompatible with the management
plans that have been adopted by the BLM, Forest Service, and Garfield County. In addition, there
is a high incidence of outages on existing electric lines in Glenwood Canyon due to the weather
conditions and rock slides. The rock slides and steep topography also make it difficult to work
in this area when problems do arise. Since the completion of Interstate 70 through the canyon,
the limited access doesn't provide locations to park equipment and trucks necessary for
maintenance and repairs. As a result, construction and any major repairs would require the use
of helicopters and closure of 1-70 for extended periods of times.
Hopkins -Rifle 23OkV Route
Routing the line adjacent to the existing Hopkins -Rifle 230kV Iine would encounter land use
constraints at the Colorado Mountain College and along the Highway 82 corridor into Glenwood
Springs. This route would also be more visible in views toward Mt. Sopris and along Highway
82.
2.3.3.4 Voltage
The project is proposed to be constructed at 115kV. Alternative voltages include 69kV which is
the existing transmission voltage that serves the Project Study Area, 230kV, and 345kV, the
highest voltage in PSCo's system. None of these voltages make practical sense as an alternative
to the proposed 115kV proposed for the reasons discussed below.
The existing voltage of 69kV is insufficient to serve projected loads in the Glenwood Springs area.
Although 230kV could be used, load growth forecasts do not justify the expensive use of higher
voltage. The nearest interconnection at 345kV would be Rifle. This was eliminated as an
alternative due to the economical, technical, and environmental impracticalities of constructing a
345kV line to Glenwood Springs.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-19
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
2.3.3.5 Direct Current
A direct current (DC) transmission line is an alternative to the alternating current (AC) line
proposed. Direct current transmission systems have only two conductors per circuit compared to
three for AC systems. Therefore, structures are smaller and generally less expensive than
structures carrying AC conductors of equivalent capacity. Similarly, less conductor cable and a
narrower ROW would be required. In addition, power losses are less for DC technology
compared to equivalent AC, which could result in economic savings and energy conservation over
the life of the installation.
DC technology is used in areas where large amounts of power need to be moved over long
distances, generally greater than 400 miles. The most common voltages used for DC transmission
are 400kV or 500kV. If a direct current transmission line were to be constructed, invertors, which
change DC to AC, and converters, which change AC to DC, would be required at each end of the
transmission Iine. These stations occupy very large sites and cost tens of millions of dollars each
to construct. The projected need for the Glenwood Springs area does not warrant this expenditure.
In conclusion, DC is economically feasible only with voltages considerably higher and distances
far greater than proposed for this project. The environmental impacts associated with large
invertor and converter stations would be far greater than the AC substations that exist. Direct
current transmission is therefore not a viable alternative to the 115kV AC line proposed.
2.3.3.6 High Phase Order Transmission
Normal transmission Iines consist of three phases that are 120 degrees apart in the 360 degree
electrical cycle. High phase order transmission consists of more than three phases. The only
commercial high phase order application involves six phases.
Advantages of high phase order transmission include more compact line design, resulting in
reduced magnetic fields at ground level. Disadvantages include higher electric fields at ground
levels, higher line impedance, greater operating complexities, and greatly increased cost at
substations.
High phase order has been found to be potentially economical at voltages of 230kV and above, and
where long distances between two substations are required. Where substations are tapped off a
high phase order transmission line, phase shifting transformers must be installed similar to the
transformers required at each end of the high phase order line.
This alternative was eliminated due to cost and the risk of implementing a technology which has
not been highly commercialized.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-20
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
2.3.4 Construction Alternatives
2.3.4.1 Underground Construction
While underground construction is frequently used for lower voltage distribution lines, such
construction for high voltage transmission lines has been used only occasionally in densely
populated urban areas where adequate ROW is not available for overhead construction. In such
situations, the costs associated with underground construction are generally offset by the costs
associated with acquiring the necessary land rights for conventional overhead construction.
The placement of lower voltage (less than 25kV) electric distribution lines underground is more
feasible and less costly because the problems associated with insulating each phase conductor from
the others and from the surrounding environment, and of dissipating the heat the conductors
generate, are not severe. These same considerations become much more severe with high voltage
transmission lines.
One reason for the public interest in underground construction, other than for visual and aesthetic
reasons, is the perception that the electric and magnetic field (EMF) levels will be reduced or
eliminated and therefore, no longer be of concern. In reality, while electric fields are eliminated,
the magnetic fields can not be screened and the levels that result from different types of
underground construction can vary from a few milligauss (mG) to levels higher than those
associated with overhead construction. This is due to two factors: (1) the type of underground
construction; and (2) a person standing in the center of the ROW is closer to an underground line
than an overhead line. Other reasons for considering underground construction include the
elimination of potential impacts on bird populations from collisions with overhead ground wires,
and narrower ROWs are required, thus reducing certain land use impacts.
The primary disadvantages of underground transmission line construction include cost, the time
and expense required to locate and repair problems if outages occur, and the recurring
environmental impacts associated with searching for and repairing problems. The cost to place
a 115kV transmission line underground is approximately three to ten times more per mile than the
cost for conventional overhead construction. These estimates vary greatly depending on the type
of underground construction used, and the soil and rock characteristics. If only sections of the
transmission line were to be placed underground, large transition structures would still be needed
at any point where a transition is made between overhead and underground construction. Rather
than limiting construction disturbances to relatively small areas around each structure location for
an overhead line, a continuous linear clear cut disturbance would be necessary. This, along with
the steep slopes, may result in increased impacts to the soil, surface geology, water quality, and
biological resources (including sensitive habitats that support threatened and endangered species)
that could be avoided by spanning with overhead construction. The impacts to vegetation would
likely be major due to the creation of a visual scar, the sensitive nature of the area as a result of
the altitude, short growing season, and reclamation difficulties associated with south -facing slopes.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-21
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
Access roads would also be required along the entire length of the route for construction and
maintenance.
Underground transmission lines typically have a shorter service life than overhead transmission
lines; 25-30 years versus 40-50 years. The reliability of underground and overhead transmission
lines is comparable. Overhead transmission lines that are subject to weather (particularly heavy,
wet snow and icing conditions) may experience relatively frequent failures. However, these
failures can generally be repaired within a relatively short period of time. Failures of underground
transmission lines from dig -ins or mechanical failure (usually associated with splices) may be less
frequent but repairs can require several weeks to locate and repair.
It is the policy of PSCo that all electric transmission lines constructed at 115kV or higher will be
designed for overhead construction. Exceptions to this policy will be considered if the capital cost
differential between overhead and underground construction is funded or committed in advance
by an outside party. As no such funds or commitment was made, specific underground route
alternatives were not considered.
2.4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL
Of the alternatives considered for this Project, those that were considered viable are described
below and are evaluated in detail.
2.4.1 Corridor Alternatives
Six potential corridor alternatives were identified. Basically, three corridor alternatives were
identified across Lookout Mountain with each of these utilizing one of the two corridors located
in either Cemetery Gulch or the gulch immediately east of the Roaring Fork Substation. The
segments which comprise these alternatives are listed below and are illustrated on Figure 2-3.
Each corridor alternative is discussed and evaluated in detail in Chapter 4.
Corridor Alternative 1 - Proposed Action - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, H, D, E,
F, and G.
Corridor Alternative 2 -This corridor consists of Segments A-1, H, D, I, F, and G.
Corridor Alternative 3 - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, B, C, D, E, F, and G.
Corridor Alternative 4 - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, B, C, D, 1, F and G.
Corridor Alternative 5 - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, B, L, M, E, F, and G.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-22
2.0 Description of Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
Corridor Alternative 6 - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, B, L, M, I, F, and G.
2.4.2 Detailed Construction and Operation Information
This information, including right-of-way needs, construction procedures, selective mitigation, and
operation and maintenance, is found in Section 2.4.2 of the Administrative Record. Table 2-3
(Typical Personnel and Equipment for Transmission Line Construction) and Table 2-4 (Standard
Construction Practices and Selective Mitigation) are also found in this section.
2.4.3 Mitigation
Selective mitigation is discussed in Section 2.4.2.3, Chapter 4, and Appendix J of the
Administrative Record.
2.5 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Action Alternative, PSCo would not carry out the Proposed Action to upgrade the
existing 69kV electric system to 115kV. PSCo is required to consider the No Action Alternative
in accordance with the requirements of NEPA. If the existing 69kV service to the Glenwood
Springs area was not upgraded, the public health, safety, welfare, and economic viability of the
people of the Glenwood Springs area would be compromised.
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would preclude most of the environmental impacts
that would be associated with the other alternatives discussed below. Minor impacts would be
associated with the increasingly frequent repair and maintenance activities. However, if this
alternative was adopted, other construction activities that create environmental impacts would be
required to improve the electric system that serves the City of Glenwood Springs so as to provide
adequate reliability. So, even if PSCo were to implement the No Action Alternative, eventually
other construction activities would have to take place in order for PSCo and Glenwood Springs
to meet the increasing demands for power. Thus, pursuing the no action alternative would only,
at best, delay environmental impacts to a future date.
Given the reasons discussed above, the No Action Alternative is not a viable alternative for the
proposed Project.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
2-23
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
+b5 `;Y/+fi::�:,`•n�nL`.A�iylt?�:.`.2.�;t'.4-0ktn fi::?:.R2:}X.`v:,`•'.h,,::kt.0?abw>J:ht,:?o,}Spk:�r+L)>?!L?Ral^.i�:^.R:i:.YS.{v.;:isYD:Sr:?:�.�S;t:A'tC�ab:d::�44inti'i.�\".nt�Y:�+X:�ki'a4X+BL\�44Ckb'R'a.4Rti4ti 5}:,l'l:i��{n'}:k:��}*Q�':Ci+��.Qi4�i).1��4'F
This chapter presents a description of the Project Study Area's environmental conditions that could
be affected by transmission line construction, operation, and maintenance. The development of
project alternatives considered the information provided in this chapter.
3.1 PROJECT STUDY AREA DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION
The Project Study Area includes an area where construction activity would be most likely. The
Area of Influence surrounding the Project Study Area indicates the area in which indirect effects
might occur. The Project Study Area is comprised of approximately nine square miles
(approximately 6,000 acres) of land including 3,900 acres of private land, and 2,100 acres of land
managed by the BLM and Forest Service. The Area of Influence comprises approximately 29
square miles. These areas are shown on Figure 1-2.
The Project Study Area and the Area of Influence are treated as two distinct areas of land. Thus,
if a resource is impacted in the Project Study Area, this does not mean that the same resource is
impacted in the Area of Influence or visa versa unless it is explicitly stated as such. The Area of
Influence is a tool used to help identify indirect effects of the proposed transmission line. Indirect
effects may be defined as those impacts that are other than physical (or direct) impacts. Examples
of indirect effects particular to this project that might occur include, but are not limited to, visual
impacts, socioeconomic effects the proposed project might have on the surrounding communities,
planned land use activities, and the effect that construction activities might have on migration
patterns of big game and nesting behavior of threatened and endangered species like Peregrine
falcons and Bald eagles. Some environmental resources can experience effects only if such effects
are due to a direct, physical impact by the proposed project. Such resources include, but are not
limited to, vegetation, soils, land use, the habitats of many animal species, and archaeological
resources. For those resources that can only experience direct impacts, the Area of Influence was
not addressed.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES AND CONDITIONS
The description of the affected environment is organized to discuss the environmental issues that
were raised during the public workshop (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3). The issues most frequently
raised during the public workshop, and after preliminary analysis and further discussions with the
agencies and public, of most concern, are discussed in this EA. These are visual resources, land
use, and cultural resources. Other environmental issues are discussed in the Administrative
Record and include socioeconomics, electrical characteristics, water resources, threatened and
endangered species, wetlands/important habitats, floodplains, soils, geology, vegetation, wildlife,
and physiography. Field reconnaissance was conducted to verify biological resources and land
use conditions as part of the analysis process. Assessment of the cultural environment included
ea.5671December 8. 1997
3-1
3.0 Affected Environment
a Class I literature search of cultural resources. The resources that exist in the Project Study Area
but were identified as not requiring detailed study are also included in the Administrative Record.
The agencies that were consulted during the collection of data are listed in Chapter 5.0,
Consultation and Coordination. Publications and other sources of information used in preparation
of this EA are presented in Appendix A of the Administrative Record.
Environmental information was derived and mapped from the USGS 1:24,000 scale (1 inch equals
2,000 feet) Glenwood Springs and Shoshone topographic quadrangle maps.
3.2.1 Visual Resources
The Project Study Area and Area of Influence lie within the Southern Rocky Mountain
physiographic region, which is characterized by a rugged, mountainous terrain of high peaks,
ridges, mesas, and valleys. Higher elevations within the area are forested with spruce, fir,
ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and aspen. Lower elevations are vegetated with pinyon, juniper,
oak brush, sagebrush, and grasses. The diversity of topography, vegetation, and geologic
formations characteristic of the region provide a variety of scenic experiences to visitors.
There is existing visual modification to the natural setting of the Area of Influence. The Town of
Glenwood Springs is located at the junction of the Colorado and Roaring Fork river valleys.
Outside of the town, the valleys are characterized by irrigated pasture and cropland in a rural
setting interspersed with residential and recreational developments. US Interstate 70 and State
Highway 82 are dominant man-made features of the Colorado and Roaring Fork River valleys.
The primary views of the Project Study Area and Area of Influence are from travel routes and
recreation trails. Travel routes include State Highway 82 (along the Roaring Fork River) to the
west, and county roads which access the Project Study Area. State Highway 82 is a primary
transportation route through the region, and is utilized by the general public. Other roads are
utilized primarily by residents and recreationists. Recreation trails access the Project Study Area
from the City of Glenwood Springs, which is located adjacent to the west side of the Project Study
Area.
3.2.1.1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Visual Resource Management
The Project Study Area and Area of Influence consist of public and private lands. The majority
of the public lands impacted are administered by the BLM Glenwood Springs Resource Area.
BLM objectives for visual resource management are to maintain existing visual quality throughout
the resource area and protect unique and fragile resource values.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-2
3.0 Affected Environment
The BLM has inventoried visual resources in the resource area according to the Visual Resource
Management (VRM) system. The VRM system is the basic tool used by the BLM to inventory
and manage visual resources according to a classification system. VRM classes are objectives that
outline the amount of disturbance an area can tolerate before it no longer meets the objectives of
that class. There are five VRM classes (1 through V), each of which combines an evaluation of
visual quality, visual sensitivity of the area, and view distances.
Three VRM classes, Class II, Class III, and Class IV, have been designated in the Project Study
Area and Area of Influence (refer to Figure 3-1). Class 11 areas are managed to retain the existing
landscape. Any alteration to the landscape should be minimal so as not to attract the attention of
the casual observer. In general, development on private lands adjacent to Class II BLM lands in
the Project Study Area d .yes not conform to Class 11 objectives. Class II areas are located within
approximately one mile of Glenwood Springs. These lands are within foreground and middle
ground viewing distance zones along the highway and principal access roads, and are sensitive to
public view.
Most of the BLM lands, in the central and eastern portions of the Project Study Area and Area of
Influence, are managed with Class III objectives. These areas are managed to partially retain the
existing character of the landscape, thereby allowing a moderate level of modification. Class III
areas are visible primarily from recreation trails in the area, and from county roads which access
the area from the west and south.
BLM lands adjacent to the VRM Class II lands in the western quarter of the Project Study Area
and Area of Influence are managed under Class N objectives. Class IV provides for management
activities which require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. Class IV
areas include background and seldom seen areas not sensitive to public view, where land use
modification can be visually evident. There are no recreation trails located in this portion of the
area, however, four-wheel drive roads cross through the area and link trails and roads located
throughout the Project Study Area and Area of Influence.
3.2.1.2 Garfield County Visual Resource Management Plan
The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, last updated in 1995, has identified visual corridors
within the Project Study Area and Area of Influence. The Comprehensive Plan defines visual
corridors as open spaces, particularly located along frequently traveled vehicular or pedestrian
paths, that contain natural features of sufficient aesthetic quality to warrant their preservation or
protection. These corridors include the Town of Glenwood Springs, and lands adjacent to the
town and the highways. These corridors also include the western portion of the Project Study
Area and Area of Influence adjacent to the Town. This portion of the Project Study Area and
Area of Influence would be visible from the Town and from State Highway 82 south of the Town.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-3
3.0 Affected Environment
Areas within the County that are within visual corridors include the hillsides that comprise
important visual resources to both residents and visitors to the area.
3.2.2 Land Use
The analysis area for the purposes of a general description of the various land use planning and
management policies is Garfield County. Current land ownership and existing land use in the
Project Study Area and Area of Influence are shown on Figures 3-2 and 3-3 respectively. In
addition, current and proposed land management plans for the area were identified. These include
the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and the Bureau of Land Management Land and Resource
Management Plan for the Glenwood Springs Resource Area. Land use and zoning designations
for the area were identified from land use and zoning maps provided by Garfield County and
Glenwood Springs. The following section addresses all of the above issues as well as specific land
uses which include livestock grazing, transportation, utilities, and recreation.
3.2.2.1 Land Ownership
Land ownership is a primary factor influencing existing land use in Garfield County. Land
ownership in the Project Study Area and Area of Influence consists of private and federal lands.
Approximately 63.9 percent of total land acreage in Garfield County is federal land: the BLM
Glenwood Springs Resource area of the Grand Junction District administers about 37 percent, the
Forest Service administers approximately 26.8 percent, and the Bureau of Land Reclamation
administers less than 0.1 percent of land in the County. The remaining 36.1 percent is privately
owned. Most of the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence is located on privately -owned
lands. Interspersed among the private lots are blocks of BLM-managed public lands. Both the
BLM and the Forest Service have planning documents that govern the use of the lands these
agencies manage. Private land use is guided in part by State, County and City planning
documents. Land ownership is shown on Figure 3-2.
The City of Glenwood Springs is located adjacent tr the west boundary of the Project Study Area.
Glenwood Springs is located on both sides of Stat..iighway 82, and along U.S. Interstate 70 at
the junction of the two highways. Numerous residences and businesses are located along both
highways outside the City limits. Neither of these highways are located within the Project Study
Area; however, Glenwood Springs and Highways 70 and 82 are located within the Area of
Influence.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-4
Figure 3-1
■rl.er¢sw MfMOOt€■
INFLUENCE AREA
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
SUBSTATION
9E3 in
STUDY AREA
Pub:
OP
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
CLASS 11
CLASS U!
CLASS IV
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
KEY OBSERVATION POPO
A-1 ROUTE SEGMENT
NOTE: Route A-1, H, D, E, F, Q is considered the
PREFERRED ROUTE based on environmental
assessment, economic analysis, and
public/landowner input.
5arce5: Bureau of Land Management rnvlrmiental impact Statement,
Glernvcnd Sprhng5 Re5arce Area Map Addendum
Garfield Caartt{ Pse5e55ori 5 Office
Mountai
ege
1 Mlle 2 Mi1e5 Miles
0 Public Service'
PWk Service Company d Co redo
ROW Siftand PorrNis
En ,e ng&;rporland Nip -d-Way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
KEY OBSERVATION POINTS
,o.„,: rssmr,-n
RangyriMo C.
Seunanc Wa015
Prine'pal Yridian 6111
Caamy NM
DATE: ..ire 8,19%
Drum By ,PG / FAN
AUNT iii, DW
REHRU *Arbor I. F991
1
If
0
1 Mile
2 MIIes
Mlles
r 1
ma
Figure 3-2
LX I P
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115KV'TRANSMISSION UNE
230KV TRANSMISSION UNE
0 SUBSTATION
Oar
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
NATIONAL FOREST
BLM
PRIVATE PROPERTY
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
ROUTES/CORRIDORS EXCLUDED FROM
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A-1 ROUTE SEGMENT
NOTE: Route A-1, H, D, E, F, G ie considered the
PREFERRED ROUTE based on environmental
assessment, economic analysis, and
public/landowner input.
5orces: 6afle161 Cam
US,G.S, Quadrangle Maps
Site Reca,nalsance
U,5, Forest Service 1990 Witte tZiver National Forest Map and
PLM R3urface Management Maps
0 Public Service'
Pubic Service company of Cdarado
AVOW, 9&r, end Peflr .
Enpnecr>y &wort and RIghl-of-Wry
SHOSHONE — ,GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
LAND OWNERSHIP/TOPOGRAPHY
lo.nshro, f.SSaef. S.
Range ENAV.449
Sections: WiEUS
vmciDd Wridan: bM
cwncy &VW
DATE: .IN 3.!9916
D.m.e 5y P / ¥MI
AGENT; W. pod
KNSEEt *14.15. KM
s
i
AfeAZ? 15/
riArfiljr,141A
tVd; 4' 440 deem zeast
RY J p +`'!fir/ eeforeir �a STUDY AREA
Ay 4
re sem r/4,
Orriiii....VAr A-4
Inv ArAsireivAr-orAibm
„f3
Homeste
Runch
O
1 Mile
2 Miles
Miles
r „\ r
F7
Hi_ r ;�-%_1
ted CP °WM
Figure 3-3
1 GNL7
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
115KV TRANSMISSION UNE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
® SUBSTATION
lailManaaala
ESEI
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
NATIONAL FOREST
BLM
FEDERAL (BLM) GAZING ALLOTMENT 8310
FEDERAL (BLM) GRAZING ALLOTMENT 8313
MUM AGRICULTURE / GRAZING
PUBLIC INSTITUTION
RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION
VACANT
I
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
ROUTES/CORRIDORS EXCLUDED FROM
BUT ELIMINATED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5c rcee: 6a -field Cam
Site cc maba ce
U545Quadrar e
U,5. greet 'service 1990 Mite lover National Fore9t Map and
131.M Surface Maladiernertb
0 Public Service°
Pubic Sr*.aCompany of Colorado
flow. 81019 and Perm*,
EncEleerho &ppo,1 and flea -war
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
EXISTING LAND USE
formsNp, f.55b('ii.
Rona -VW toON
ssctiau Y/0715
princpd Yerid'im: 61N
camtiy GNEU
Om. Jr 5. PM
O°cwn By .PG / WI
AGE NI: M. WI
REMSEB: *0IS.IOD1
3.0 Affected Environment
3.2.2.2 Historical Land Use
Historical land use is also a factor influencing the existing land use in the Project Study Area and
Area of Influence. Historical uses in the County include ranching, mining, recreation, urban
communities and associated business centers, residences, and infrastructure. Federal lands have
been and continue to be managed for multiple use by the BLM and Forest Service. These lands
provide a variety of uses including mining, wildlife habitat, grazing, and recreation. Agriculture
has been the primary land use on private lands in Garfield County.
3.2.2.3 Existing Land Use
In recent years private land ownership has been shifting from large agricultural land holdings to
small residential lots reflecting the increasing population in the region. The present land use in
the Project Study Area and Area of Influence consists of residential subdivisions, vacant land,
residential lands, transportation and utility corridors, and recreation. The existing subdivision that
is developed in the Project Study Area is Lookout Mountain Ranch. The Spring Valley Ranch
Planned Unit Development is also within the Project Study Area. Land uses in Garfield County
have been identified and mapped in the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. Existing land use
is shown on Figure 3-3 and is discussed below.
Agriculture
Rangeland accounts for most of the agricultural use in the region. Agriculture is the primary use
of private lands in the Project Study Area and Area of Influence. These agricultural lands are
located in the east part of the Project Study Area and are used primarily for grazing. The federal
lands administered by BLM provide forage for livestock production. There are portions of two
BLM grazing allotments within the Project Study Area and Area of Influence. Grazing Allotment
No. 8313 comprises most of the BLM lands in both areas. Grazing Allotment No. 8310 consists
of a block of BLM land on the east side of the Project Study Area (Figure 3-3). Neither grazing
allotment is currently managed under a BLM Grazing Allotment Management Plan (AMP). This
is because, while these areas are slated as grazing allotments, the actual use of these areas for
grazing is very small.
Transportation
The primary transportation routes through Garfield County are U.S. Interstate 70 and State
Highway 82. U.S. Interstate 70 is an east -west route that links Glenwood Springs with Grand
Junction to the west and Denver to the east. State Highway 82 links Glenwood Springs with
Aspen, located 41 miles southeast of Glenwood Springs. Primary access into the Project Study
Area and Area of Influence is from State Highway 82, which is located to the west. The Project
Study Area and Area of Influence can be accessed from the highway by several county roads,
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-11
3.0 Affected Environment
including County Road 115 (Red Canyon Road), County Road 119, and County Road 114 (Spring
Valley Road).
Utilities
Utility corridors in the Project Study Area and Area of Influence consist of the existing 115kV
transmission line between the Hopkins Substation and the Shoshone Hydro Plant Substation, which
is located north of the Project Study Area and Area of Influence along Interstate 70. An existing
69kV transmission line located along Interstate 70 connects the Shoshone Hydro Plant with the
Glenwood Springs Substation. A 69kV line connects the Glenwood Springs Substation with the
Roaring Fork Substation. Additional 115kV and 230kV transmission lines are located south of
the Area of Influence and connect the Hopkins Substation to generation sources in northwestern
and eastern Colorado. A single telephone line with both above and below ground sections crosses
the Project Study Area from west to east. The line provides service from Glenwood Springs to
the Spring Valley area. There are numerous electric distribution lines in the Spring Valley area
providing service to the residences and ranches. Most of these lines are constructed in road
ROWs.
Recreation
Recreation and tourism are major industries in Garfield County, in part because of the
opportunities offered by public lands. Garfield County offers scenic mountain terrain which
provides a setting for nearly every form of outdoor recreation. Recreational opportunities in the
County include hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, whitewater rafting, and horseback riding.
Winter recreation activities include downhill and cross-country skiing, snowmobiling, and
snowshoeing. Major attractions include the Glenwood Canyon, the Glenwood Hot Springs, the
Flat Tops Wilderness, Rifle Falls State Park, Rifle Gap State Recreation Area, Harvey Gap State
Recreation Area, and the Sunlight Ski Area (Glenwood Springs Chamber Resort Association,
1995). In addition, ski areas and other recreational attractions in neighboring counties are
accessed through Garfield County from Interstate 70.
The Project Study Area and Area of Influence (Figure 3-4) include federal land administered by
the BLM which is available for public recreational use. Public access is via the Lookout Mountain
County Road from Spring Valley (Road 120), and the 'Boy Scout' Trail and Doc Holliday's Trail
from Glenwood Springs. These travel routes access approximately 3,200 acres of BLM land and
9,000 acres of national forest land on the south rim of Glenwood Canyon, most of which lies
outside the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence.
ea.5671December 8. 1997
3-12
ISTING `69KV
Colorado
Col
0
1 Mlle
2 Mlles
5 Miles
Mountain
ege
a 020100
Figure 3-4
L NL7
�.� 69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
1I5KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
p SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
NATIONAL FOREST
BLM
isms PARKS
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
A-1 ROUTE SEGMENT
HIKING & C3IKIN6 TRAILS
North Lookout Mountain Trail
(2) South Lookout Mountaka Trail
Hubbard Cave Trail
Glenwood Canyon Bike Path
Donegan Road Path
+�} Doc Holiday Trail
5aarces: Quac6-angle Maps
U.5, r crest 5ervice 1990 White giver National Fore sk Map and
[�l.M 5urfae Maragemerrtt Maps
0 Public Service'
iPtf7&C See Comfy of Cofondo
ROW &Iry and Pam
En giaeori- Support and ROY -of -My
SHOSHONE — GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
Tennl : f35bf95,
pwfe: -itallklat TW.
seaViegU5 .
Prtdpd avid= ¢IH.
county .
DAIE: JAr4,1996
Aaan 4 .1161 KAH
AGENT: A¢.GMi
SortabrI3.1991
REwSEo:
)
r
r
r
3.0 Affected Environment
Because of climatic and recreational demand factors, most of the visitor use in the Project Study
Area and Area of Influence occurs during late spring, summer, and fall. Use continues through
the winter but is of light volume. Recreation demand is greatest during the traditional summer and
fall seasons mainly because of the large number of tourists attracted to the Glenwood Springs area,
and big game hunting.
The most important natural attractions in the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence are the
outstanding scenery and variety of panoramic vistas along the roads and trails, the varied terrain
and vegetation, conifer forest and aspen woodland, wildlife, and high elevation. The River Trail
System is a regional recreation project currently being implemented under the Ieadership of the
Town of GIenwood Springs, The trail system will be developed along the Roaring Fork River and
State Highway 82, west of the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence. Portions of the
Project Study Area and Area of Influence are within the viewshed of proposed facilities in the trail
system.
The Project Study Area and the Area of Influence provide excellent sightseeing opportunities for
motorized and non -motorized visitors on roads and single track trails. The Lookout Mountain
road is accessible to passenger vehicles but not frequently maintained, and becomes impassable
with heavy snowfall. This road ends at the top of Lookout Mountain at a scenic overlook with
great views of the Roaring Fork and Colorado Rivers and surrounding area. Panoramic views
along the county road to the mountain top are outstanding, oriented south and overlooking Spring
Valley and surrounding mesas and hills towards Mount Sopris and surrounding Elm Mountain
range. Maintenance on BLM/Forest Road 535 is unscheduled, and done on an as -need basis to
keep them passable by 4WD vehicles. This road is therefore an excellent 4WD, all terrain vehicle
and motorcycle, bicycle, and foot and horse travel route into the South Rim area. The single track
trails are also maintained on an as -need basis and are excellent hiking and mountain bicycling
routes of varying degrees of difficulty. Other outdoor recreation opportunities provided by public
lands in the area include dispersed camping, picnicking, deer, elk and small game hunting, wildlife
watching, photography, and hang gliding.
Recreation facilities in the Project Study Area and Area of Influence are minimal, and mainly
consist of the access roads, trails (Boy Scout Trail, Doc Holliday Trail and other related trails),
the Lookout Mountain Trailhead, Forest Road 535 (into Forest land and Hubbard Cave), the
Lookout Mountain overlook/picnic area, and several dispersed campsites. Facilities are rustic
with minimal improvements, typical of dispersed recreation areas. The Lookout Mountain picnic
area was developed in the 1930s by the federal government and includes several tables, fireplaces,
and a privy; it is seldom maintained and the improvements are in deteriorated condition but it
continues to receive public use.
Recreational use of public lands in the Project Study Area and Area of Influence, shown in Table
3-1, is based on the Colorado Division of Wildlife 1995 Big Game Harvest information and
periodic visitor sampling. The sightseeing use includes passenger car and 4WD driving, ATV
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-15
3.0 Affected Environment
riding, motorcycle riding, hiking and horseback riding on the Lookout Mountain Road and Road
535, and mountain biking on the Boy Scout -Bear Creek Trail and Doc Holliday Trail.
Table 3-1
Estimated Annual Recreational Visitor Use, Based on 1995-1996 Information
Activity Number of Visitor Days
Sightseeing 4,500
Camping/Picnicking 400
Hunting 360
Hang Gliding 50
Social Gatherings 200
Total Visitor Use 5,510
Source: Colorado Division of Wildlife
BLM Recreation Management
The objective of BLM recreation resource management is to provide recreational opportunities
while reducing the impacts of recreational use on fragile and unique resource values, and to
provide for visitor safety (BLM 1983). BLM lands are inventoried and mapped by Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class to identify the type of recreation opportunities available on
public lands. The ROS system categorizes public lands in six classes, each of which is defined
by its setting and by the possible recreation experiences and activities it affords. The BLM lands
in the Project Study Area consist of two ROS classes: Semi Urban and Roaded Natural.
The Lookout Mountain area is classified under a Roaded Natural Recreation Opportunity Class.
This area is part of dispersed recreation management units on BLM and Forest Service where the
current management objectives are aimed primarily at protecting resources, ensuring continued
availability of access and recreation opportunities, and protecting public health and safety. The
character of areas under this class is characterized by a generally natural environment where
manmade features may be evident. Recreation management goals include designing resource
modifications and land use practices so they harmonize with the natural environment.
The Semi Urban (or Rural) Class characterizes a substantially modified natural environment.
Sights and sounds of people are evident, and the interaction between users is often moderate to
high. The BLM lands in the west part of the Project Study Area and Area of Influence, close to
Glenwood Springs, are managed under the Semi Urban ROS class. This area is characterized by
the sights and sounds of the residential land uses.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-16
3.0 Affected Environment
White River National Forest Recreation Management
There are no recreation sites on Forest Service lands in the Project Study Area. A trail to
Hubbard Cave crosses through Forest Service lands from the BLM lands to the south. The trail
is outside of the Project Study Area, but within the Area of Influence. Dispersed recreation is
managed to not conflict with habitat needs of selected indicator species. The area is unroaded and
provides dispersed non -motorized opportunities.
Garfield County Recreation Management
The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan has identified open space as an important element of
the rural character of Garfield County. The plan addresses the need to encourage recreational
areas within subdivisions and to protect important open space in unincorporated areas of the
County. The Project Study Area and Area of Influence contain designated open spaces on BLM
lands.
Open space and recreation management objectives are based on one goal: to ensure that County
residents and, visitors have ample recreational opportunities provided by the development and
maintenance of parks, recreational facilities, and passive open space. Current uses permitted on
open space lands, either through the Special or Conditional Use process, include utility facilities.
3.2.2.4 Planned Land Use
Planned land uses in the Project Study Area and the Area of Influence vary depending on land
ownership. Land use would remain the same on Federal lands. The Lookout Mountain Ranch
subdivision would be developed as low density residential, defined as one dwelling unit built on
ten or more acres. The Spring Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development is proposed for mixed
density residential, non-residential, and recreational uses. Areas currently used for agriculture
would be developed as medium density residential, defined as one dwelling unit built on six to nine
acres of land. Planned land use is shown on Figure 3-5.
Garfield County
County land use controls include the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and the County Zoning
Resolution. Garfield County has divided the county into four "study areas." The proposed Project
Area and the Area of Influence, including the City of Glenwood Springs, are located in Study Area
I. The County Comprehensive Plan for Study Area I includes maps that identify existing land use,
zoning, planned land use, and subdivisions.
The Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978 includes amendments current through October
of 1991. The Zoning Resolution has established zoning districts to implement land use controls
that limit the uses to which Iand in an area may be put. There are three zoning districts in the
Project Study Area: A/R/RD (Agricultural/ResidentiallRural Density), OIS (Open Space), and
PUD (Planned Unit Development) (Figure 3-6).
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-17
3.0 Affected Environment
The majority of Garfield County, and all of the private land in the Project Study Area and Area
of Influence, is zoned A/R/RD (agricultural, residential, rural density) or PUD. These zoning
designations are the most flexible zoning districts, and allow a wide variety of uses including
agricultural crops and animals, low and medium density single family residences, and
transportation uses. Uses by Right include agricultural and single family units. There are also
several Conditional Uses and Special Uses allowed under the AIR/RD zoning designation. Utility
facilities are included as allowable uses under the A/R/RD district.
All public lands, including BLM and Forest Service lands, are included in the O/S district. Uses
in this district are regulated as Conditional or Special Uses by the county. Utility facilities are
governed by a special use permit under the O/S district, and conditional use on federal land.
Glenwood Springs
The City of Glenwood Springs is located adjacent to the west boundary of the Project Study Area
within the Area of Influence. Portions of the City located within and adjacent to the Project Study
Area are zoned for residential use, and include the zoning districts of R/1/40 (Single Family
Residential) and 81116 (Single Family Residential). Glenwood Springs Planning Department
Glenwood Springs Zoning is shown in Figure 3-7.
Bureau of Land Management
The Grand Junction District administers the BLM lands in the Project Study Area and Area of
Influence. The project is located in the Glenwood Springs Resource Area of the Grand Junction
District. Management prescriptions for recreation, wildlife and fisheries, range, timber, water
and soil, land exchanges and rights-of-way, facilities, fire protection, and minerals are provided
in the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), with specific guidance for the designated
GIenwood Springs Debris Flow Hazard Zone. The debris flow hazard zone consists of the upper
watershed areas, the steep mountain gulches, and the debris fans that ring the City of Glenwood
Springs and the unincorporated area west of Glenwood Springs.
Forest Service
A small portion of the Project Study Area is in Management Area Grouping 4F of the Eagle
District of the White River National Forest. Primary management emphasis for this area is on
habitat needs of one or more management indicator species. The goal is to optimize habitat
capability, and thus the numbers of species.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-18
1
/l
l
I -5
35
7
Figure 3-5
1
9(1rearawao
iNFLLJ NCE AREA
1-6N17
4.0.001•) 69KV TRANSMISSION UNE
1I5KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
p SUBSTATION
WHITE RIVER
Creek
Hopkins 17'e
Grade
Subdivision
e2
27
26
Pubic Service"
OPKJNS SUB
0
I Mile
2 Miles 3 Miles
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
CITY/TOWN
GENERAL COMMERCIAL
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
OPEN SPACE
PUBLIC PROPERTY
RECREATION
RES H (UNDER 2 AC/DU)
RES L (10+ AC/DU)
RES M (6-9 AC/DU)
RES MH (3-5 AC/DU)
RESOURCE EXTRACTION
SUBDIVISION
WATER
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5air-ce, Garfield Carrigq
LIr54G�5, Quads
0 Public Service'
PHhoa SerNce Company « Colorado
ROW Biro DM PeMMh
Frokt eri^3 Support and ROI-o1-We9
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
PLANNED LAND USE
Tame* 1651075.
Rana, UM to t92W.
sections. YR3016
Pic+pal Weridm: 6111
County C �
DATE: ,Yr f. Ws
Dr By l6/XM1
AGN- ME,F71Ii
REVISED, 5ep6mir15,I901
SHOSHON
x, HYDRO FLA
', 34
gokw;,z..avK .xg v:rtrsau
1NFLUNCE AREA
s
I Mlle
2 Mlles
5 Miles
Figure 3-6
L C I3
.•�•••69KV TRANSMISSION UNE
1I5KV TRANSMISSION UNE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
D SUBSTATION
Fn
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
AGRICULTURAL/INDUSTRIAL
AGRICULTURAL/RESIDENTIAL/RURAL DENSITY
COMMERCIAL/GENERAL
COMMERCIAL/LIMITED
CITY/TOWN
OPEN SPACE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
RESIDENTIAL/GENERAL/SUBURBAN DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL/GENERAL/URBAN DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL/LIMITED/SUBURBAN DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL/LIMITED/URBAN DENSITY
ROUTES/CORRIDORS CONSIDERED
IN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5curce: Garfield Can
U,5,6.5. Quadrangle Map5
0 Public Service'
Pubic Sank* Yal Colorado
ROW Sieg mid Ferrivie
Engneeri Supper! u,d Right -W -Way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
COUNTY ZONING
t....., ,: 4.554 t15,
flay, R N7.4S921f
Scct',,,: vie/G15
Pri,00ei Hawn: 61/9
Copty COM2
DATE: Int & IQ%
Drown By !a / FM1
ACEXT: ML 'dl
RE' SED 5atalrlaw 15.1997
fl
D
I/4Mde
1/ 2 Mile
I Mile
L6IVt7
f i
HP = HILLSIDE PRESERVATION
P.U.D = PLANNED UNIT DEVEOPMENT
R/1/40 = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R/1/20 = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R/1/7.5 - SING' F FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R/1/6 = SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R/2 = LIMITED MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R/3 - MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
R/4 - RESIDENTIAL TRANS7IONAL
NUMMI C/1 - LIMITED COMMERCIAL
C/2 - CORE COMMERCIAL
,...grl,t .,A C/3 - GENERAL COMMERCIAL
C/4 - RESORT DISTRICT
I/1 - GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
I/2 = RIVER INDUSTRIAL
I/L = LIGHT INDUSTRIAL -I- OFFICE
SUBSTATION
�...�� 69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
1M ■ 1 INFLUENCE AREA
STUDY AREA
0 Public Service`
PubNc Service Company of Colorado
ROW, Siting and Permits
Engineering 9.pport and RiryhE-of-way
SHOSHONE - GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION
REBUILD and UPGRADE
CII FNWOOD SPRINGS
LINE
MAP
ZONE DISTRICT
r,.....p. r,55ie1,75,
Range: 12B6tW.bor.92W.
Sections: siNdal5
Principal Meridian' 601
County. COMP
DATE. Noenbur,1991
Drawn 13 y. Gaptae
ACENT: Mi. DeN
REIASED: 17aawiwr C19, 1997
—n
cry
CD
L.
3.0 Affected Environment
3.2.3 Cultural Resources
3.2.3.1 Prehistoric Context
The project area is within the Colorado Mountains Historic and Prehistoric contexts (Mehls 1984;
Guthrie et al. 1984). At the time of Euroamerican intrusion into the region, the territory was
occupied by the Ute, and it remained Ute territory until 1880. .The reader is referred to Guthrie
et al. (1984) and to Black (1986) for a more detailed discussion of the prehistory of the region.
A growing number of investigations have been conducted in the high country valleys in the Middle
Rocky Mountains. Often prehistoric sites have been found on ridge fingers and higher terrace
edges overlooking river valleys. Although often elusive, high country sites have increasingly
provided evidence of prehistoric adaptive strategies specifically structured toward upland
environments (cf. Black 1991). Many small prehistoric sites recorded in the Colorado high
country have not contained diagnostic materials to assign them to a cultural period. However,
among the dateable sites, Archaic, Late Prehistoric, and Protohistoric/historic sites are well
represented. Regionally, information on Early Archaic occupation of the mountains and
intermountain.valleys has increased dramatically since the Mountains Prehistoric RP -3 document
(Guthrie et al. 1984). Important contributions to our understanding of Early Archaic mountain
occupations were derived from investigations at the Yarmony site, 5EA799 (Metcalf and Black
1991). Archaic and Late Prehistoric sites are relatively well -represented near the river valleys and
broader tributary drainages, and two Archaic camps have been excavated near this project
corridor.
Historically this region was occupied by the Ute Indians. The hot springs at the mouth of
Glenwood Canyon, in what is now Glenwood Springs, were important ritual and medicinal sites
for the Ute Indians. The Ute were firmly entrenched in western Colorado in 1776 when the
Dominguez-Escalante expedition crossed through the region, and no other tribe is mentioned
(Chavez and Warner 1976). Of the other historic tribes known to have been in Colorado -
Apache, Kiowa, Shoshone, Comanche, Cheyenne, and Arapaho - the Arapaho are most frequently
mentioned as using the mountains. Their presence along the Front Range and in the parks
bordering the Front Range is well documented in the mid -1800s. Observations of early historic
Ute activity in the mountains is largely restricted to trappers who wintered in the parks and
protected valleys with access to a range of resources. In this period the flexibility of this adaptive
pattern was restricted by the needs of the horses that had become an important element of Ute
culture. Clearly in this period reliable access to water and forage limited larger upland winter
encampments to mountain parks and broader river valleys.
3.2.3.2 Historic Context
Prospectors had filtered into western Colorado in the 1860s and gold was soon discovered to the
southwest in the San Juans, but early development of mining in western Colorado was hindered
by the Ute presence and difficult terrain for bulk transportation. The 1880s were marked by the
ea.5671Aecember 8, 1997
3-25
3.0 Affected Environment
expulsion of the Ute from western Colorado, westward expansion of the railroads, significant
innovations in ore milling and smelting, the emergence of precious metal mining as an industry,
corporate coal mining and coking, and a high demand for quarried stone (Mehls 1984). The early
placer mining frontier had been ephemeral at best west of the divide, with much of the potential
wealth contained in carbonate and other refractory ores. The turning point in mining was the
opening of the Harrison Reduction Works in California Gulch in the fall of 1877 (Abbott et. al.
1982:102). Leadville grew up around the Harrison Reduction Works, and the newly emerging
mining industry turned its attention to silver and base metals. The smelting and mining industries
grew rapidly and railroads raced to the emerging mining centers. The Aspen mining boom began
in the spring of 1880, but the coal and ore mines of the Roaring Fork and Crystal rivers, like the
San Juan mining districts, depended on jack trains and wagons until the arrival of the railroads in
the late 1880s.
In the general area of the project, historical developments were spurred by the early booms in the
nearby mining districts. The first major boom in the Aspen Mining District, as noted above,
began in 1880 on the heels of the Ute expulsion. The Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad
and Colorado, Midland Railway soon began a race westward from Leadville to reach the Aspen
Mining District. Early historic developments centered around the precious metal and coal mines,
transportation corridors to serve the mines and mining towns, and farming and ranching to supply
the mining communities. However, even before the gold and silver strikes, the Grand Springs had
been an attraction for Euroamericans and tourism played an early and continuing role in the
development of Glenwood Springs. Glenwood Springs grew up around the hot springs and the
confluence of the Colorado and Roaring Fork rivers, spurred in its development by the arrival of
the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad in 1887. The broader areas of the river valleys and
the high meadows on the surrounding mountains and benches provided rich areas for high country
farming and ranching.
3.2.3.3 Project Study Area Environment
The proposed Route Alternatives for new transmission lines between the Hopkins Substation and
Glenwood Springs cross Lookout Mountain. Portions of these proposed corridors are on mountain
crests or high benches, but most portions are on moderate to very steep slopes. These areas have
little in-situ Holocene deposition and little potential for significant cultural resources. The area
of Glenwood Springs itself, west of the proposed corridors, is rich with historic buildings and
structures, and may retain significant prehistoric deposits beneath the historic town The area of
existing transmission lines on the east side of the Project Study Area, from Landis Creek
southeasterly to the Hopkins Substation, crosses high benches and Quaternary landslide
topography east of Spring Valley.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-26
3.0 Affected Environment
3.2.3.4 Previous investigations
A search of the files of the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation on August
18, 1997 for the Iegal sections containing this project area, excluding Glenwood Springs itself,
listed two previous investigations. The two investigations were a small block survey and a linear
corridor for communications sites on Lookout Mountain (Kight 1990; Harrison 1992). Few
investigations have been done in the project vicinity, but the combination of these few negative
surveys, the absence of ore bearing bedrock, and the high slopes of the Project Study Area suggest
a low probability for significant historic or prehistoric sites in the Lookout Mountain area between
Landis Creek and Glenwood Springs. In contrast, the portion east of Spring Valley, from Landis
Creek to the Hopkins substation (T6S, R88W Sections 21, 22, 26, 27, and 35) crosses numerous
high meadow areas attractive for small scale prehistoric and historic settlement.
3.2.3.5 Known Resources
There are no documented cultural resources on Lookout Mountain. Very little previous work has
been done there, but the setting is largely unfavorable for significant sites. Four historic resources
are documented in the legal sections at the west end of Lookout Mountain at the edge of Glenwood
Springs. These include Doc Holliday's grave (5GF1260), and the Linwood Cemetery (5GF1261),
both on the eastern fringes of Glenwood Springs, the Glenwood Canyon Historic District
(5GF1270), and the Glenwood Ditch (5GF1457) which flows along the east side of the Roaring
Fork Valley from about two miles northwest of Carbondale. The ditch is officially unevaluated,
but is a major ditch in the valley that played a significant role in local history.
No formal cultural resource investigations are on record for the legal sections from the Hopkins
Substation to Landis Creek (T6S, R88W, sections 21, 22, 26, 27, and 35). However, one
archaeological site has been recorded at the edge of Spring Valley, west of the project corridor
(5GF27). Several other archaeological sites are documented in this area well outside the proposed
project corridor. The available information on these sites is scanty, but it does verify that
prehistoric materials are Iikely to be found in the area. The high benches and slide topography
are dotted with rural residences and farming/ranching features, and historic materials are likely
along this portion of the Project Study Area.
PSCo has commissioned Powers Elevation Company, Inc. to perform a Class III 100 % Pedestrian
Survey of the proposed action right-of-way, 100 feet either side of the centerline, and develop a
Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) for the project. The CRMP will be completed soon
and will become an addendum to this EA. Mitigation measures will be recommended in the
CRMP if mitigation is necessary. To mitigate land use impacts on the proposed Spring Valley
Ranch Development, a consolidation of existing and proposed facilities, and relocation is proposed
across the Spring Valley Ranch Development. As a result of the consolidation and reroute,
approximately 20 original Shoshone -Hopkins 115kV support structures will be removed. As part
of the permitting for the Hopkins -Basalt Electric Transmission Improvement Project, the removal
ea.567\December 8, 1997
3-27
3.0 Affected Environment
of original structures along this line was considered historically significant, requiring mitigation.
PSCo has also commissioned Powers Elevation Company, Inc. to perform Historic American
Engineering Report (HAER) documentation, in accord with State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO) specifications, of the original structures. The HAER documentation will be submitted to
the SHPO for review and approval.
3.2.4 Electrical Characteristics
This section discusses the electrical characteristics of transmission lines and the possible effects
on public health and safety. It contains subsections dealing with corona, electrical fields, shock
hazards, electrically induced currents, magnetic fields, and magnetically induced currents and
voltage. This information is found in Section 3.2.4 of the Administrative Record. Table 3-2
(Audible Noise Decibel Ratings of Some Common Noises) and Table 3-3 (Magnetic Field
Environment) are also found in this section of the Administrative Record.
3.2.5 Socioeconomics
This section describes the existing socioeconomic structure of Garfield County and the Town of
Glenwood Springs, including population, economy and employment, housing, and community
services. It is found in Section 3.3.5 of the Administrative Record. Table 3-4 (Population
Growth in Garfield County and the Town of Glenwood Springs), Table 3-5 (1993 Employment
by Economic Sector in Garfield County), Table 3-6 (Labor Force Characteristics, Garfield
County), and Table 3-7 (Housing Characteristics in Garfield County) are also found in this section
of the Administrative Record.
3.2.6 Earth Resources
This section describes the physical environment of the Project Study Area as well as the Area of
Influence where applicable. Subsections deal with soils, geology, soils and geologic hazards,
surface water, groundwater, and floodplains. This information is found under Section 3.2.6 of
the Administrative Record. Figure 3-8 (Soil Hazards) and Figure 3-9 (Slope Hazards) are also
found in this section of the Administrative Record.
3.2.7 Biological Resources
This section deals with the vegetation and wildlife of the Project Study Area. Detailed information
is contained in Section 3.2.7 of the Administrative Record. Figure 3-10 (Vegetation), Figure 3-11
(Mule Deer), Figure 3-12 (Elk), Figure 3-13 (Bighorn Sheep), and Figure 3-14 (Avian) are also
contained in this section of the Administrative Record.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-28
3.0 Affected Environment
3.2.8 Resources identified as Not Requiring Detailed Study
These resources are air quality, climate, and paleontology. More information is contained in
Section 3.2.8 of the Administrative Record.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
3-29
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
�fR..:,.....,..e.t � ...vt..:.,wo-..a..+?�::.ao:;ec.. a..aR::: we+..... hU, t;3 �::�:::,..,:•:.„r•.L.tnc.:excia.'sSi::+.q:R�::.'•::�:;:cR;Y:aG}H..'d.22%�M.}.':`.�9:f::.,.::7:5:...:.tw...s.2: SR}vRa:�:{•.6.,. a. / y..?.•fi��`;Y^'t9:+'9n�O:ci:2:.kt}�':.�.'�c
This chapter presents an assessment of the environmental consequences associated with the Project
alternatives, including the Proposed Action, with respect to the conditions associated with each
of the environmental resources.
4.1 CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES SELECTED
Six potential alternative routes were identified based on the review of aerial photography and field
reconnaissance. Basically, three corridor alternatives were identified across Lookout Mountain
with each of these utilizing one of two gulches to connect to the Roaring Fork Substation. These
alternative routes, illustrated on Figure 4-1, are described below.
Corridor Alternative 1 - Proposed Action - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, H, D, E,
F, and G.
Corridor Alternative 2 -This corridor consists of Segments A-1, H, D, I, F, and G.
Corridor Alternative 3 - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, B, C, D, E, F and G.
Corridor Alternative 4 - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, B, C, D, I, F, and G.
Corridor Alternative 5 - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, B, L, M, E, F, and G.
Corridor Alternative 6 - This corridor consists of Segments A-1, B, L, M, 1, F, and G.
4.2 EVALUATION OF CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
Evaluation criteria were developed to quantify the analysis of route alternatives by identifying the
number of occurrences of various environmental factors along each segment of each alternative.
These line segments are identified by letter on Figure 4-1. The evaluation criteria used in the
impact evaluation are listed in Table 4-1. The methods used to calculate the impacts found in
Table 4-1 are described in Appendix 1 of the Administrative Record.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-1
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-1
Route Alternative Evaluation Summary of Resource Impacts
Evaluation
Criteria
Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor Corridor
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative No
1 2 3 4 5 6 Action
Total Length (ft.)/miles 56,718/10.7 55,885/10.6 55,051/10.4 54,218/10.3 55,885/10.6 55,052/10.4 37,793/7.2
35 steel pole 35 steel pole 35 steel pole 35 steel pole 35 steel pole ' 35 steel pole 49 steel
Total Number of 28 H -frame 29 H -frame 30 H -frame 31 H -frame 29 H -frame 30 H -frame pole
Structures 12 3 -pole 11 3 -poles 10 3 -poles 9 3 -pole 12 3 -pole 11 3 -pole 5 3 -pole
Visual Resources
Use of Background 49,493 48,660 55,051 54,218 50,883 50.050 0
Screening as Viewed
from Spring Valley (ft.)
Number of Skylined 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Structures
Number of Residences 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
w/in 500 Feet of Route
Number of Planned Lots 33 36 38 41 48 45 0
w/in 500 Feet of Route
Land Use
Length Sharing ROW 28,373/50% 28,373/51% 28,373/52% 28,373/52% 28,373/51% 28,373/52% 0/
0%
with other lines (ft./% )
Amount of New 73 71 70 69 71 70
Disturbance (acres)
Length Adjacent to Sec- 1,223 1,223 13,173 13,173 13,895 13,895 0
tion or Property Line
(ft.)
Length Not Adjacent to 55,495 54,662 41.878 41,045 41,990 41,157 0
Section or Property Line
(ft.)
Length Crossing Public 16,274/3.2 16,274/3.2 15,840/3.0 15,840/3.0 9,726/1.8 9,726/1.8 7,920/
Lands (ft./mi.) 1.50
Length Crossing Private 40,444/7.7 39,611/7.5 39,211/7.4 38,378/7.3 46,159/8.7 45,326 27,280/
Lands (ft./mi.) 5.17
Soils and Geology
Length Crossing Soil or 12,227/2.3 11,394/2.2 12.227/2.3 11,394/2.2 15,006/2.8 14,173/2.7 0
Slope Hazard (ft./mi.)
Vegetation Resources
Amount of Permanent 1705 1690 1675 1660 1730 1715 935
Vegetation Disturbance
(sq. ft.)
Wildlife Resources
Amount of permanent 1705 1690 1675 1660 1730 1715 935
T&E and/or Sensitive
Habitat Disturbance (sq.
ft.)
ea.5671December 8, 1991
4-2
}
1 Mile
2 Miles
3 Miles
Figure 4-1
V II t2
...tta 69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
�.�.� 115KV TRANSMISSION LINE
230KV TRANSMISSION LINE
p SUBSTATION
STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
NATIONAL FOREST
BLM
PRIVATE PROPERTY
PROPOSED 115kV TRANSMISSION LINE ALIGNMENT
A-1 ROUTE SEGMENT
NOTE- Route A-1, H, D, E, F, 0 ie considered the
PREFERRED ROUTE based on environmental
assessment, economic analysis, and
public/landowner input.
5vurces, Garf'feld Gam
1.1.5165. Quadrangle Maps
Site IZeca aisance
115. Forest 5ervfce 1990 VMe t2fver National Fores,t Map and
131-M Surface Management Maps
•
0 Public Service'
Put& 8er-rice Company oE Colorado
ROVE 3iig and Permka
ErgneeNg &pporf and ROI -of -Way
SHOSHONE – GLENWOOD
69KV TRANSMISSION LINE
REBUILD and UPGRADE
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
ta.nalls: 155ta11
Rauqc R89NV,b 9Rff,
sacrum.: wtal5
Pthclpd Neaps,: 61N
Ga,.ty COMA
DATE: Jr 9.1996
Dna. Bs JIG/ ttMtt
AGENT: 1t. G1A1
50#6.10. ton
RE1ADS>
f
4.0 Environmental Consequences
The analysis is based on a reference centerline within a 1,000 -foot wide corridor; the actual ROW
would be 50, 75, or 100 feet wide, depending on the structures used (Table 2-1). PSCo has
proposed a 1,000 foot corridor width to allow for minor adjustments to be made after surveying
and detailed engineering are completed to minimize disturbances and accommodate land owner
requests where possible. Other assumptions made as part of the evaluation include: access by
ground or air (access by helicopter would disturb less area), total segment length, the number and
type of structures, construction disturbance, long-term disturbance. Based on the analyses
conducted, Corridor Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, was determined to best meet the
objectives presented in Chapter 2 to balance and minimize impacts to the natural, human, and
cultural environments.
4.3 IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
4.3.1 Impacts on Visual Resources
4.3.1.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives
Visual resources were identified as an important issue by the BLM, Forest Service and the public
during scoping and at the public meeting. The primary visual concerns identified focused on
physical disturbances and new lines and structures. Portions of the proposed Project would be
visible from within the adjacent residential subdivisions, county roads, and trails.
Impacts to visual resources from the construction and operation of a transmission line in the
Project Study Area would occur by altering the physical setting and visual quality of the existing
landscape, and by effects on the landscape as experienced from sensitive viewpoints, including
residential areas, travel routes and popular recreation use areas. The proposed electric facilities
would introduce new or different elements into the landscape, and would alter the existing form,
line, color, and texture which characterize the existing landscape.
Several effects to visual resources can result from the introduction of electric facilities into the
landscape. The transmission poles introduce straight, vertical lines and color contrasts. There
may also be a glare when sunlight is reflected from the conductors. The impacts from the
introduction of these elements into the landscape can be significant when viewed from sensitive
viewpoints. Impacts are also significant when structures are visible in scenic landscapes, and
when structures are skylined.
Long-term impacts to the visual quality of the landscape would result primarily from the addition
of pole structures into the characteristic landscape. The addition of the structures into the Project
Study Area would constitute a visual intrusion into a landscape that users of the area would expect
to be natural in character. Short-term impacts would result from the construction of any action
alternative and would be obvious to viewers for the construction period of three months. For the
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-5
4.0 Environmental Consequences
duration of construction, the underlying soil colors of red and reddish browns would be exposed
during the installation of the pole structures.
Removal of woodland and mountain shrub cover would result in long-term impacts due to the
color contrasts between existing vegetation and the vegetation expected from standard reclamation
seeding. Additional impact would result from sharp clearing edges contrasting with existing
vegetation cover. However, vegetation would be removed from the ROWs proposed for any
action alternative only where necessary. This will help to minimize visual impacts. It should also
be noted, that due to the nature of the vegetation, vegetation removal will be necessary only for
pole placement. For the most part, ROW clearing of vegetation will not be necessary for
conductor clearance given that the vegetation height is far below the required clearance for the
conductors.
Key Observation Points
Sensitive viewing areas include the City of Glenwood Springs, State Highway 82, Red Canyon
Road, recreation trails and parks, recreationuse areas on BLM lands, and residential developments
in Spring Valley. These visual resources were analyzed using photographs, 7.5 -minute USGS
topographic maps, field analyses, and computer generated photographic simulations. The
locations selected as observation points from which to conduct the visual assessment are shown
on Figure 3-1.
Key Observation Points (KOPs) were identified to represent sensitive viewing areas from which
the transmission line route would be visible, and are shown on Figure 3-1. KOP 1 is in a
residential subdivision south of County Highway 119. KOPs 2 and 3 are located on County Road
120, which accesses recreation trails and recreation use areas on public and private lands in the
vicinity of Lookout Mountain. KOP 4 is on the Red Mountain Trail west of Glenwood Springs,
and overlooks the City and the western portion of the Project Study Area.
Segments in each alternative cross through BLM lands. Visual resources on BLM lands in the
Project Study Area and Area of Influence are managed in accordance with VRM CIasses II, III,
and W. The length of each alternative which crosses through VRM-managed BLM lands is shown
in Table 4-2. With the exception of that portion of Segment H in Corridor Alternatives 1 and 2
which passes through a VRM Class II area, all action alternatives are compatible with BLM
objectives for visual resources. The adverse impact that the transmission line would have on the
VRM Class II area is mitigated by the fact that 1) these routes are the least visible to the residents
of Spring Valley, 2) the location of Segment H avoids visually impacting the most scenic southern
views of Mt. Sopris from the residential lots and public land users on Lookout Mountain, and 3)
the construction of the proposed transmission line will ultimately lead to the removal of the 69kV
transmission line presently located adjacent to US Interstate Highway 70 in the scenic Glenwood
Canyon.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-6
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-2
VRM Classes on BLM Lands Crossed by Action Alternatives (corridor miles)
Corridor
VRM Class II
VRM Class In
VRM Class IV
Total
1
0.21
1.03
0.66
1.9
2
0.21
1.03
0.66
1.9
3
0
2.0
1.08
3.00
4
0
2.0
1.08
2.50
5
0
1.85
.11
1.96
6
0
1.85
.11
1.96
4.3.1.2 Impacts Specific To Alternatives
Impacts to visual resources will be minimized by implementing resource protection measures
proposed by .PSCo_that will protect the natural Landscape. These mitigation measures are
presented in Table 2-4 of the Administrative Record.
CorridorAltemative 1 (Preferred Alternative) - (Corridor Segments A-1, H, D, E, F
and G)
Segment A-1 would consist of constructing the proposed line using self -weathering double -circuit
single steel pole structures. The existing 115kV transmission line located to the west of the new
line would be dismantled and relocated to the new ROW. Based on negotiations with landowners,
this new alignment for both the proposed line and the existing line was preferred to placing the
proposed line in the existing 115kV ROW because 1) it routes the line away from the existing
buildings near the Hopkins Substation and proposed development within Spring Valley Ranch, and
2) by placing both transmission lines further east, the structures and conductors will be
backscreened. As a result, the transmission Iine will be less visible than it is now in its present
location.
The transmission line in Segment H would traverse the top and west facing slopes of Lookout
Mountain on Forest Service and BLM lands, and intersect the South Lookout Mountain Trail near
KOP 2. Where the transmission line crosses federally -managed land, it traverses 0.2 miles of land
designated as VRM Class II, 1.42 miles of land designated as VRM Class III, and 0.7 miles of
Iand designated as VRM Class IV. The segment would be prominent in views from KOP 3 and
from Lookout Mountain Park, which is accessed by a trail. The line would be screened from
views from Red Canyon Road and residential developments in Spring Valley by the intervening
topography and vegetation. By occupying a small portion of VRM Class II area, Segment H
would be an intrusion into the landscape as seen from KOP 2 and recreation trails. This intrusion
to the landscape is not expected to be significant since the location of the line permits it to avoid
impacting the most scenic of viewsheds from Lookout Mountain which are looking towards the
ea,5671December 8, 1997
4-7
4.0 Environmental Consequences
south at Mt. Sopris. At the same time, this corridor would result in the least amount of visual
impacts to the residents of Spring Valley who are represented by KOP 1.
Practically the entire length of Segment D is located on BLM lands classified as a VRM Class IV
resource area, which allows major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The
transmission line would be visible from trails and four-wheel drive roads.
Segment E would be located on the north and west facing slopes of a gulch that is visible from a
narrow portion of Glenwood Springs. The transmission line in Segment E would traverse steep
slopes covered with a mixture of low -growing mountain shrub and pinyon juniper vegetation
types. The bluffs at the mouth of the gulch and the steep topography further up the gulch provide
a background that would screen most of the transmission line `rom views within the city. The line
would not be visible from any viewpoint to the north or the south of the gulch.
The existing 69kV line along Segment F would be replaced by a single -circuit line using single
steel -poles within the existing ROW. The transmission line in Segment F would be located
adjacent to Glenwood Springs city limits, and would be visible from the nearby residential area.
Segment G also consists of an existing transmission Iine that connects the Roaring Fork Substation
with the Glenwood Springs Substation. The existing line would be replaced by a single -circuit line
on single steel -poles within the existing ROW.
Corridor Alternative 2 - (Corridor Segments A-1, H, D, 1, F, and G)
Alternative 2 is identical to Alternative 1 with the exception of a segment at the west end of the
transmission line route. In Alternative 2, Segment I replaces Segment E. Segment I is located in
Cemetery Gulch, and crosses lands adjacent to a historic cemetery to tie into the existing
transmission line in Segments F and G. The cemetery is a historic site that is reached by the Doc
Holliday Trail from the City. Cemetery Gulch has a relatively gentle slope, and forms a wide
bowl that is readily visible from Glenwood Springs, the Interstate 70 corridor, and from KOP 4
on Red Mountain Trail. There are no natural features of topography or vegetation that would
screen the transmission line from viewers. The line would also be within the foreground views
from the Doc Holliday Trail. Segment I's location in Cemetery Gulch would result in a greater
impact from Alternative 2 to visual resources in the Project Study Area and Area of Influence than
Alternative 1.
Approximately 37,500 feet (70 percent) of the route would take advantage of the topography to
form a backdrop screen to the transmission line structures from KOP 1. The screened portion of
the corridor includes Segments A-1, H, and D. As noted for Alternative 1, because this corridor
contains Segment H it would have the greatest amount of visual impact to recreational resources
in the vicinity of Lookout Mountain. This intrusion to the landscape is not expected to be
significant since the location of the line permits it to avoid impacting the most scenic of viewsheds
from Lookout Mountain which are Iooking towards the south at Mt. Sopris.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-8
4.0 ,Environmental Consequences
Corridor Alternative 3 - (Corridor Segments A-1, B, C, D, E, F and G)
Alternative 3 is identical to Alternative 1 with the exception of an east -west segment in the middle
portion of the Project Study Area near Lookout Mountain. In Alternative 3, Segments B and C
replace Segment H proposed in Alternative 1.
The transmission line in Segment B would cross through BLM and private lands in the east part
of the Project Study Area. It would be visible from trails and four-wheel drive roads which
traverse the area. The BLM lands are classified as VRM Class III which means that activities
should permit the area to partially retain the existing character of the Iandscape. While
introduction of a transmission line into the landscape would be a moderate change, the existing
rural Iandscape would be retained. As a result, management objectives for VRM Class III would
be met.
Segment C crosses private lands along several private lot lines and BLM Iands that are classified
as VRM Class IV. Visual impacts would be the same as for Segment B and management
objectives for VRM CIass IV would be met.
This corridor is better than Alternatives 1 and 2 in that none of it is located within VRM Class II
areas. It is also located about 0.5 miles south of Lookout Mountain and, therefore, would not
impact those individuals using the BLM and Forest Service lands for recreation. This route, while
closer to residents in Spring Valley, is afforded a great deal of natural backdrop for screening and
thus creates minor visual impacts to the residents. A photo simulation, Figure 4-2, was created
for a corridor following the approximate route of Alternative 3 to demonstrate the minimal visual
impact the conductors and support structures would have on its surroundings. A cross section of
the photo simulation is presented on Figure 4-3.
Corridor Alternative 4 - (Corridor Segments A-1, B, C D, 1, F and G)
Alternative 4 is identical to Alternative 3 with the exception of a segment at the west end of the
transmission line route. In Alternative 4, Segment I replaces Segment E. Segment I is located in
Cemetery Gulch, and crosses lands adjacent to a historic cemetery to tie into the existing
transmission line in Segments F and G. The siting of Segment I in Cemetery Gulch would result
in a greater impact than Alternative 3 to visual resources in the Project Study Area and Area of
Influence.
Corridor Alternative 5 - (Corridor Segments A-1, B, L, M, E, F and G)
Under this alternative, the east -west portions of the transmission line route would consist of
Segments L and M, which are alternative segments to Segments C and D of Alternative 3. The
remainder of the alternative, consisting of Segments A-1, E, F and G is identical to the routes
described in Alternatives 1 and 3.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-9
4,0 Environmental Consequences
Most of Segment L is located along property lines of privately -owned parcels of land in the
Lookout Mountain Ranch Venture in the south half of the Project Study Area. The transmission
line in Segment L would be at least one mile south of the recreation trails and areas located on
public lands near Lookout Mountain. While this segment creates almost no visual impacts to
recreation users of BLM public lands, the segment is most visible from KOP 1, and is the most
visible to the Spring Valley residents.
Segment L would be within the middleground views of KOP 1, located south of the Project Study
Area. The line would also be visible in the foreground and middleground views of existing and
future residences in subdivisions in Spring Valley and north of Red Canyon Road. Red Canyon
Road is also a popular biking route.
Alternative 5, while having the least amount of impact to scenic areas and recreational activities
in the Lookout Mountain area, along with Alternative 6, have the greatest visual impact to
residents of Spring Valley given its close proximity to existing and future subdivisions.
Corridor Alternative 6 - (Corridor Segments A-1, L, M, 1, F and G)
Alternative 6 is identical to Alternative 5 with the exception of a segment at the west end of the
transmission line route. In Alternative 6, Segment I replaces Segment E as discussed in
Alternative 2 and 4. Segment I is located in Cemetery Gulch, and crosses lands adjacent to a
historic cemetery to tie into the existing transmission line in Segments F and G. The middle and
eastern most segments in Alternative 6 result in the same advantages and disadvantages as those
of Alternative 5.
Summary of Visual Impacts
The preferred corridor alternative has the greatest visual impact to the scenic quality experienced
by users of BLM's recreational facilities around Lookout Mountain depending on one's
perspective. A portion of this corridor is located in BLM VRM Class II resource area which
recommends management practices that incur little to no change in the scenic quality of the area.
As a result, construction of the transmission line in these areas would create an adverse impact to
visual resources in the Lookout Mountain area. It should be noted that even though the preferred
alternative is in a visually sensitive area it routes around the most visually sensitive viewsheds of
Mt. Sopris which are to the south of the Lookout Mountain area. This results in the least amount
of visual impact from the users' perspective in views to the south which other alternatives don't
afford.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-10
r
r
r
830
620
810
800
790
780
760
750
740
730
720
710
700
690
680
UNSEEN AREA FROM OBSERVATION POINT
(PHOTO SIMULATION) AND SPRING VALLEY FLOOR
UNSEEN AREA FROM
SPRING VALLEY FLOOR
ALTERNATIVE OITFING
r4fiia4AmpLE CIF
Figure 4-3
SHRUB LAND
(SCRUB OAK, PINTON-][]NIPER, SAGE)
TELEPHONE LINE
LINE OF Slew
COUNTY
ROAD 119
OBSERVATION
POINT FOR
PHOTOGRAPHIC
SIMULATION
COUNTY
ROAD 119
—7200
7100
7000
900
800
A'
CROSS SECTION LOOKING EAST
���r'�r'�r��rr�'Z���r�� � x �•�� V� a' � wv � .. ���rzr'�i�
A
O
.5 Mie
LEGEND
- STUDY AREA
INFLUENCE AREA
ammo flSKV TRANSMISSION LINE
- 230RV TRANSMISSION LINE
-
--- TELEPHONE LINE
II SUBSTATION
PHOTO PHic vewPoovr
I Mk
I >✓
0 Public Service'
Mu b Calarado
EnpM«ha &sn ,t and n?J,r-Wry
SHOSHONE - < LEA WOOD
69KV TRAM LIIVE
nEatb and UPGRADE
VISUAL RESOURCES
VIEWSHED CROSS-SECTION
Drew* ETC 9 R.p.rea 9F u 1 D. 9.1796
n
f
f
1
4.0 Environmental Consequences
However, the preferred alternative has the least amount of visual impact to the residents located
in Spring Valley. The visual impacts to the Lookout Mountain area would be mitigated by various
standard construction practices listed in Table 2-4 of the Administrative Record. These practices
include the use of materials and colors that harmonize with the natural surroundings and minimal
clear -cutting vegetation on the ROW.
One final benefit is that construction of the proposed action would ultimately result in beneficial
impacts to the Glenwood Canyon area. As was discussed in Chapter 1, the construction of this
project along with the rebuilding of the transmission line between Rifle and Glenwood Springs
(another project) will result in the removal of the 69kV transmission line that is adjacent to US
Interstate Highway 70 in scenic Glenwood Canyon.
4.3.1.3 No Action Alternative - Impacts on Visual Resources
Under the No Action alternative, no transmission line would be constructed or upgraded in the
Project Study Area. Because the line would not be constructed, no project -related disturbances
would occur along the rights-of-way for any of the alternatives. Without disturbance, visual
resources would not experience any direct, indirect, short-term or long-term impacts. The visual
impact of the 69kV line in Glenwood Canyon would remain.
4.3.2 Impacts on Land Use
4.3.2.1 Impacts Common to All Action Alternatives
Each action alternative would consist of a transmission line upgrade in Segments A-1, F, and G,
and the construction of a new transmission line in new ROW for the remaining segments. The
proposed action in the existing ROW would consist of replacing the existing line with a line of
greater capacity. There would be no significant change, and therefore no long-term impact to
existing land uses within or adjacent to the existing ROW. Route A-1 would reduce current
impacts of an existing transmission line by more sensitively locating a new line relative to existing
and proposed land uses and removing the existing line. Where the new line would replace an
existing line, structures that would blend into the backdrop better would be used and a line
configuration resulting in less EMF at the ROW edge would be used, all reducing impacts on
existing and planned land uses.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-15
4.0 Environmental Consequences
The land required for new ROW for each alternative would be on BLM, possibly Forest Service
(Corridor Alternatives 1, and 2) and privately -owned lands. Private lands are currently used for
residential uses, transportation, recreation, and grazing. Public lands are used for recreation and
grazing.
During the construction phase of the project, existing land uses would be disrupted as properties
may have to be entered by construction crews in order to assemble the new structures and string
the conductors. Construction activities may temporarily disrupt recreation and grazing over a
three-month period. Construction at any particular location along the corridor would be
accomplished in an even shorter time frame. Short-term disruption during construction would
consist of the physical intrusion of the crew and equipment, the generation of some dust and noise,
and possibly the temporary obstruction of traffic.
In addition, maintenance activities would consist of the physical intrusion of crews and equipment
onto public and private lands. On occasion maintenance would occur over the life of the proposed
project. Periodic maintenance activities would consist of crews traveling along the line, resulting
in some noise, dust, and traffic.
Land Ownership
It is not anticipated that land ownership would change as a result of the implementation of the
proposed alternative. ROW easements through private lands would have to be negotiated with the
land owners, and secured through the Garfield County's permitting process. PSCo would attempt
to locate the transmission line along property lines, but this is not always possible. Land
ownership for each alternative is summarized in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3
Land Ownership Along Each Action Alternative (miles)
BLM and Forest
Alternative Private Service
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7.7
7.4
7.4
7.3
8.8
8.6
3.2
3.2
3.0
3.0
1.8
1.8
10.7
10.6
10.4
10.3
10.6
10.4
1.
ea.567\December 8, 1997
4-16
Land Management Plans
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Land management plans provide a framework for development within various governmental
jurisdictions. A land management plan and a zoning ordinance have been implemented by Garfield
County. Each alternative is compatible with Garfield County planning and zoning.
Transportation
In general, impacts on transportation resources would be construction -related and short-term.
Traffic on roads crossed by the proposed transmission line would experience relatively minor
delays during certain construction activities. Some activities would require lane closures, but the
remaining lane would be capable of handling the expected traffic levels. Stringing the conductors
might require total road closures for short periods. Impacts to transportation would be similar for
each action alternative because the points of access to the area are limited.
Access to the transmission line ROW would be provided by existing roads. In the event that a new
access road would prove necessary, the road would be reclaimed following construction in
accordance with County permits, and state or landowner stipulations. Restoration of the ROWs
would be accomplished by regrading and reestablishing native or other desirable vegetation.
4.3.2.2 Impacts Specific to Alternative Routes
Land Use
Land use would be permanently changed from existing uses at each structure location. Table 4-4
summarizes disturbances from temporary, construction -related activities and permanent
disturbances from the installation of structures. No general land use impacts would result from
new lines and positive impacts would result where existing lines would be moved and/or rebuilt.
Table 4-4
Area of Disturbance for Each Action Alternative
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6
Temporary 52,000/1.19 50,500/1.16 49,000/1.12 475100/1.09 52,500/1.21 51,000/1.17
Disturbance
(sq ft./acre)
Permanent 1155 1155 960 960 675 675
Grazing Area
Disturbance
(sq. ft.)
Total 1705 1690 1675 1660 1730 1715
Permanent
Disturbance
(sq. ft.)
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-17
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Grazing
Grazing has historically been a primary use of land within the Project Study Area, however, in
recent years grazing use has decreased. The land permanently removed from existing or potential
grazing use would be the same as shown in Table 4-4.
Residential
Impacts to residential uses by transmission lines can occur during construction (temporary
increases in noise, dust, and traffic) and when the sights and sounds from the operation of the
transmission line intrude on residential uses. The impacts to residences in the Project Study Area
would vary in relation to the proximity of route segments. Corridor Alternatives 5 and 6 would
be closest to more residences than the other alternatives. Corridor Alternatives 3 and 4 would be
intermediate in distance from residences, and Corridor Alternatives 1 and 2 would be farthest from
most residences in the Project Study Area. The corridor segments on the slopes overlooking
Glenwood Springs (Segments E and I) would be visible to residences in the city, as described in
the section on impacts to visual resources.
Recreation
Impacts to recreation in the Project Study Area from the construction and operation of each action
corridor alternative would occur by altering the physical setting and visual quality of the recreation
experience, by changing access opportunities, and by directly disrupting existing recreation
activities.
Direct impacts to recreation result from the change in land use from existing uses by the proposed
project, and the permanent disturbance of Iands utilized for associated facilities such as access
roads and staging areas. Indirect impacts to recreation would occur if recreation activities
displaced by the proposed project resulted in an increase of recreation use of other areas in the
region. Long-term and cumulative impacts would occur from either the development of, or the
removal of other recreational opportunities in the Project Study Area in combination with the
impacts from the proposed project.
Impacts to recreation resources are considered significant if they substantially change or degrade
the existing recreation opportunities, or if the objectives of various land management plans such
as county plans or the BLM's Land and Resource Management Plan for the Glenwood Springs
Resource Area cannot be met
Any reductions in the quality of the recreation experience in the Project Study Area would be
localized, and mostly limited to short-term, construction -related effects. Impacts to each action
alternative would be similar, differing primarily in the number of recreation trail crossings by each
alternative.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-18
4.0 Environmental Consequences
Each action alternative would cross hiking and biking trails and roads in the Project Study Area.
Impacts to the trails would occur primarily as potential degradation of the visual setting, and as
short-term construction related impacts. The impacts to the visual quality of the Project Study
Area, including the impacts at trail and road crossings, are analyzed in Section 4.3.1 of this
document. The effects on recreation activities along trails would be primarily short-term
construction related impacts, and Iong-term visual impacts. The trails crossed by each alternative
are described in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5
Recreation Trails Crossed By Each Alternative
Alternative Trail
Comments
1 Doc Holliday Trail
South Lookout Mountain
Trail
2 Doc Holliday Trail
South Lookout Mountain
Trail
3 Doc Holliday Trail,
4 Doc Holliday Trail,
5 Doc Holliday Trail
6 Doc Holliday Trail
Existing Segment G Crosses Trail; Segment H Crosses S.
Lookout Mtn. Trail, and is Visible From Most of the Trail;
Existing Segment G Crosses Trail; Segment 1 is Located in
Cemetery Gulch Along Most of the Trail; Segment H Crosses
S. Lookout Mtn. Trail, and is Visible From Most of the Trail
Existing Segment G Grosses Trail;
Existing Segment G Crosses Trail; Segment I is Located in
Cemetery Gulch Along Most of the Trail
Existing Segment G Crosses Trail
Existing Segment G Crosses Trail; Segment I is Located in
Cemetery Gulch Along Most of the Trail
Construction activities occurring at road crossings would inconvenience recreationists who utilize
the roads to gain access to recreational activities in the area. Construction activities at trail
crossings may impede use of the trail, as well as degrade the visual quality of the recreation
experience. However, any road and trail closures would be temporary. Road access and trail use
would be restored to existing uses after construction activities are completed. Dispersed recreation
activities could be pursued on alternate land areas for the duration of construction. Hunting,
hiking, and other activities are available throughout the public lands and some private lands in the
region. There are no access roads proposed for the project, and access onto public and private
lands located adjacent to rights-of-way in the Project Study Area would be affected only during
the construction phase of the project.
Project construction would result in increased noise levels from blasting, if necessary, and heavy
equipment in surrounding areas. Construction -related noise could reduce the quality of the
recreational experience in general. However construction -related impacts would be short-term
and, with the exception of blasting, generally restricted to the immediate vicinity of the work.
Noise from any blasting would be sporadic and of short duration. There are potential long-term
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-19
4,0 Environmental Consequences
increases in noise levels from the transmission line, consisting of conductor hum and random
discharge noises. Audible noise from operation of the transmission line is discussed in the noise
impact section.
BLM Recreation Management
Each alternative crosses public lands administered by the BLM, as shown in Table 4-3. The BLM
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) was utilized to assess the significance of impacts to
recreation resources on public lands. The public lands crossed by the ROW in the Project Study
Area for each action alternative are managed within two ROS classes, Roaded Natural and Semi -
Urban. Impacts to recreation opportunities on public lands from the construction and operation of
the proposed project facilities would be allowable within ROS management objectives for the two
classes.
The BLM determined that Alternatives 5 and 6 would have the least effect on recreation activities,
primarily by having increased topographic screening (decreased visibility) from areas on Lookout
Mountain used by the recreation public. Corridor Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 are considered
similar in their effects on recreation. However, Corridor Alternatives 2, 4, and 6, which would
use Segment 1 (Cemetery Gulch) were considered less desirable because of the visibility concerns
in Cemetery Gulch.
White River National Forest Recreation Management
Corridor Alternatives 1 (Preferred Alternative) and 2 cross Forest Service lands along Segment
H. Less than one mile of Segment H is located on the boundary between Forest service and BLM
lands. Recreation resources on Forest Service lands would not be adversely affected. No other
alternatives utilize Segment 11 or cross Forest Service lands.
Mitigation
There were few significant direct or indirect impacts to recreation resources identified from the
proposed transmission line located in segments of existing ROW. A variety of measures can be
utilized to protect the area's resources. The Standard Construction Practices presented in Table
2-4 of the Administrative Record also mitigate impacts to the recreation experience.
Mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts on recreation activities in the project area are
primarily related to access on county and BLM roads. Public traffic would be regulated only to
facilitate construction, maintenance and operations of the transmission Iine and to protect the
public from hazards associated with the project.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-20
9.0 Environmental Consequences
4.3.2.3 No Action Alternative - Impact to Land Use
If the No Action alternative were implemented, there would not be any further impacts to land use
beyond those currently in place. The existing 69kV line crosses 1.5 miles of public lands and 5.2
miles of private lands in the Project Study Area. Existing land uses have accommodated the
presence of the existing transmission line. The presence of the line represents a minor visual
intrusion when viewed in the foreground. Maintenance traffic for the line may create minor
effects and inconveniences on grazing livestock or recreationists, but these are temporary.
4.3.3 Impacts on Cultural Environment
None of the identified historic resources on the east side of Glenwood Springs would be affected
by the project. The probability of encountering significant resources along the proposed
transmission line corridors appears low (Metcalf Archaeology 1996). Corridor Alternatives 1 and
2, along the crest of Lookout Mountain, have the highest probability of encountering cultural
resources. These resources might include isolated historic features such as survey monuments,
small debris scatters, or recreational shelters, or isolated prehistoric artifacts or vision quest sites
(Metcalf Archaeology 1996). After a final route is selected, an intensive survey of the route
would be commissioned by PSCo prior to any construction activities.
As stated earlier, PSCo commissioned Power Elevation Company, Inc. to prepare a Cultural
Resource Management Plan for the project. PSCo will abide by this Cultural Resource
Management Plan, which will include recommended mitigation if necessary. HAER documentation
of the original Shoshone -Hopkins structures to be removed will be submitted to the SHPO for
review, approval and filing.
4.3.4 Impacts on Electrical Characteristics
Construction and operation standards to be employed by PSCo will eliminate or minimize potential
impacts on electrical characteristics and public safety. Details are explained in Section 4.3.4 of
the Administrative Record.
4.3.5 Impacts on Socioeconomics
Implementation of any of the action alternatives is not expected to have any significant short-term
impacts on the Glenwood Springs community or surrounding area. Long-term impacts of any of
the action alternatives are expected to be positive while the long-term impact of the no action
alternative is projected to be negative. Details of these impacts are explained in Section 4.3.5 of
the Administrative Record.
ea.5671December 8. 1997
4-21
4,0 Environmental Consequences
4.3.6 Impacts on Earth Resources
None of the action alternatives would result in significant impacts to earth resources as explained
in Section 4.3.6 of the Administrative Record.
4.3.7 Impacts on Biological Resources
Impacts of the action alternatives on vegetation would be confined to the immediate area of the
structures and selective stands of trees immediately under the conductors. Impacts to existing
wildlife resources are expected to be minimal. Details of biological resource impacts are found
in Section 4.3.7 of the Administrative Record. Table 4-6 (Short-term Disturbance to Vegetation
Communities by Alternative) and Table 4-7 (Route Alternative Evaluation Summary of Wildlife
Habitats Affected) are also included in this section of the Administrative Record.
ea.5671December 8, 1997
4-22
5.0 - CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
S;.tS.?c.[o;.[t•:ra^.ri�•`.%;�'fR:i ,•:� �3.h`:k�R�R,•:.d::;'.;;:v �t;� `�v Rk:�S,sfiV::.?.�:r:�.'^."k:: R?:.',C+��oik;6�.✓,N.'a:�f�:.ti.;�i;�k7R;.:Cos:k�.4tk�'ft;C:�kk:.K:�R�:N:K�,§:v:3o-.;Ab'::.'..'�:ah,Cc.'!:;:h�`.�R:�?rev'.t:R:<;}:.fucW.:4�:.:Yo`.%4o:�c;.,:},w;�}a
5.1 LIST OF AGENCIES CONTACTED
City of Glenwood Springs
Garfield County
Colorado Division of Wildlife
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Forest Service, White River National Forest
5.2 WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
September 11, 1996
October 11, 1996
October 11, 1996 - Present
Public Workshop in Glenwood Springs
Project Study Area Field Investigation with BLM
Countless meetings and field trips with area residents,
landowners, BLM/USFS representatives and City/County
officials.
October 14, 1996 Spring Valley Caucus Meeting
5.3 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO
WHOM COPIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ARE
SENT
U.S. Forest Service
Garfield County Planning Department
City of Glenwood Springs Planning Department
The Spring Valley Caucus
ea.5671December 8, 1997
5-1
6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Y>°5:�'�r.5rb:5:L'.;;.8:;8>,`.2Lv.',�;?'k�r.;�.a,`�'r.YA:C:`.s;.w,r:C9:;JbwbY::w�qa+ce>.X2Y�tY:;X`?.�fakt4YR:�:�Ao.:�ifi3�?�fi..sir}h{.rgtivbt,rok\tit.5•."�"•r::�:,t,tib`iixY�S'?):�*.k}f�R:4{�{,,�!th,y}a`b'�'bXa'�'+b3t':hi'•�4i:ti<AY:ai4'a':a �Y+�S.C�:fi;;f.•
Table 6-1
List Of Preparers
Name
Responsibility
Public Service Company of Colorado
Michael Diehl
Betsy Coppack
Danny Pearson
Rebecca Bertolini
Kim Houston
Project Management and
Coordination; Right -of -Way
Electric System Planning; Project
Purpose and Need
Detailed Design of Electric
Transmission Lines; EMF
Measurements, Calculations, and
Communications
Corporate Communications
Project Graphics
Greystone
Education/Experience
Larry Keith
Randy Schroeder
Dave Cameron
Mike Bonar
Lisa Welch
Ryan Henning
Catherine Begej
ea.5671December 8, 1997
B.L.A. Landscape Architecture
21 Years Professional Experience
M.S. Environmental Science
B.S. Natural Resource Management
19 Years Professional Experience
M.S. Animal Ecology
B.S. Biology
17 Years Professional Experience
B.S. Environmental Biology
6 Years Professional Experience
B.S. Earth Sciences
5 Years Professional Experience
B.S. Biology
6 Years Professional Experience
B.S. Environmental Geology
17 Years Professional Experience
6-1
Greystone Project Management;
Environmental Assessment
Documentation; Coordination;
Land Use; Visual Resources;
EMF Coordination
Review; Environmental
Compliance; Environmental
Assessment Documentation
Wildlife; Threatened &
Endangered Species; Biological
Assessment
Wildlife; Threatened &
Endangered Species; Biological
Assessment
Land Use; Recreation; Visual
Resources; Socioeconomics;
Environmental Justice
Wildlife and Vegetation
Water Resources
6.0 - List of Preparers
Table 6-1
List Of Preparers
Name
Responsibility
Susan Hoffmeister
Don Douglas
Will Mahoney
Mike Metcalf
Carl Spath, Ph.D.
Mark Laverty
Eric Cowan
M.S. Applied Ecology
B.S. Environmental Science
6 Years Professional Experience
M.S. Meteorology
26 Years Professional Experience
M.A. Geography
B.A. Geology
14 Years Professional Experience
M.A. Anthropology
24 Years Professional Experience
Ph.D. Anthropology
M.A. Anthropology
B.A. Anthropology
26 Years Professional Experience
Associate of Occupational Studies
9 Years Professional Experience
Drafting, Computer, and Business
Studies
4 Ye^rs Professional Experience
Vegetation; Threatened &
Endangered Species; Water
Resources; Floodplains
Air Resources
Soils; Geology
Archaeology; Cultural Resources
Archaeology; Cultural Resources
GIS; Photographic Simulations;
Graphics and Exhibit Preparation
Photographic Simulations;
Graphics and Exhibit Preparation
ea,567\December 8, 1997
6-2