Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1.1 Submittal Info
Environmental Analysis for Rifle -San Juan 345 -kV Transmission Line Co lorado -Ute Electric Association , Inc. Co lorado 46 Ute Montrose, Colorado 1980 78-069-4-001 : Burns & MC"Donnczll Eng inee r s-Architect s -Con sultants Kans as City, Mi ss ouri TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................. . 1. Scope and Purpose of Project ....................................... . a. Scope of Project ................................................. . b. Purpose and Need for Project ................................... . 1. Colorado-Ute Transmission Needs ........................... . a. local Southwestern Colorado Needs ....................... . b. Bulk Transmission Needs ................................. . 2. Western Area Power Administration (Western) Bulk Transmission Needs ......................................... . 3. Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCC) Bulk Transmission Needs ......................................... . 4. Transmission Needs Common to Colorado-Ute, Western and PSCC ......................................... . 2. Required Permits and Approvals ..................................... . a. Federal Agencies ............................................... . b. State Agencies ................................................. . c. local Agencies ................................................. . 3. Description of Existing Electrical Service Provided by Colorado-Ute ..... . a. location and Size of Area Served ................................. . b. Distribution Cooperatives and Nu mber of Consumers ............. . c. Pool Memberships ............................................. . d. Transmission System and Interconnections ....................... . 4. Description of Area in Vicinity of the Proposed Transmission Facility a. location and Physiography ..................................... . 1. Uinta Basin Section ........................................... . 2. Canyon lands Section ......................................... . 3. Navajo Section ............................................... . 4. Elk Mountains ............................................... . 5. San Juan Mountains ......................................... . b. Geology ....................................................... . c. Seismicity ..................................................... . d. Climate ....................................................... . e. Water Resources ............................................... . 1. Gunnison River Basin ......................................... . 2. Dolores -San Miguel River Basin ............................. . 3. San Juan River Basin ......................................... . 4. Upper Colorado River Basin ................................... . f. Visual Resources ............................................... . 1. BLM lands ................................................. . 2. Forest lands ................................................. . g. Soils h. Flora 1. Vegetative Communities ..................................... . 2. Threatened and Endangered Plant Species ..................... . 1. Fauna 1. Mammals ................................................... . a. large Mammals ......................................... . b. Small Mammals ......................................... . 2. Birds ....................................................... . a. Gallinaceous Birds ....................................... . Page No. b. Ducks and Geese ......................................... . c. Pigeons, Doves and Songbirds ............................. . d. Hawks, Eagles and Falcons ............................... . 3. Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................... . 4. Fish ......................................................... . 5. Threatened and Endangered Animal Species ................... . j. Special land Classifications ..................................... . 1. Prime Farmland ....................... '. ..................... . 2. Wetlands ................................................... . 3. Floodplains ................................................. . k. Social and Economic Profile ..................................... . 1. Agriculture ................................................. . 2. Industry, Trade, and Services ................................. . 3. Transportation Facilities ..................................... . 4. Mineral Resources ........................................... . 5. Employment and Income ..................................... . 6. Population and Trends ....................................... . I. Formally Classified Areas and Features ........................... . 1. National ................................................... . 2. State ....................................................... . m. Cultural Resources ............................................. . 1. Archaeological Resources ................................... . 2. Historical Resources ......................................... . 5. Description of land and Features Along the Transmission Corridor ......................................................... . 6. Metho d of Corridor Selection ....................................... . a. Projected load Areas and Future Plans ........................... . b. Selection of a Study Area and Constraint Mapping ................. . c. Use of Existing Corridors ......................................... . d. Criteria for Transmission line Routing ........................... . 7. Description of Transmission line Equipment, Methods and Right-of-Way Considerations ....................................... . a. Conductors and Structures ....................................... . b. Electrical Characteristics ......................................... . c. Construction Methods ........................................... . d. Right-of-Way Considerations ..................................... . e. Inspection, Clean-Up, and Maintenance Methods ................. . f. Access and Road Construction ................................... . 8. Substation Details ................................................. . 9. Transmission System Planning ....................................... . B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ................... . 1. Impact on Soils ..................................................... . a. Erosion ......................................................... . b. Prime Farmland ................................................. . 2. Impact on Flora ................................................... . a. Construction-Related Impacts ................................... . b. Operation-and Maintenance-Related Impacts ..................... . c. Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species ................... . 3. Impact on Fauna ................................................... . a. Construction-Related Impacts ................................... . b. Timing of Construction ......................................... . Page No. c. Access Roads and River Crossings ............................... . d. Operation-and Maintenance-Related Impacts ..................... . e. Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species ................... . 4. Aesthetic Impact ................................................... . 5. Impact on Water Resources ......................................... . 6. Impact on Formally Classified Areas ................................. . 7. Impact of Maintenance Operations ................................. . 8. Impact on Aviation ................................................. . 9. Impact on Human Activities ......................................... . 10. Economic Impact ................................................... . 11. Electrical Effects ................................................... . a. Corona ......................................................... . 1. Radio Interference ........................................... . 2. Television Interference ....................................... . 3. Audible Noise ............................................... . 4. Oxidant Production ......................................... . b. Electrostatic Field Effects ......................................... . 1. Description ................................................. . 2. General Effects ............................................. . 3. Biological Effects ........................................... . c. Electromagnetic Field Effects ..................................... . 1. Description ................................................. . 2. General Effects ............................................. . 3. Biological Effects ........................................... . d. Safety Considerations ........................................... . 1. Lightning ................................................... . 2. Induced Sparking ........................................... . 3. Irrigation Equipment ......................................... . 12. Impact on Cultural Resources ....................................... . a. Archaeological Resources ....................................... . b. Historical Resources ........................................... . 13. Secondary Impacts ................................................. . 14. Cumulative Effects ................................................. . C. FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ................................... . 1. Improvement in the Standard of Living ............................... . 2. Economic Benefits ................................................. . D. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED ....... . 1. Noise and Dust ..................................................... . 2. Effect on Vegetation and Soils ....................................... . 3. Effect on Agricultural Activities ..................................... . 4. Effect on Aesthetic Values ........................................... . 5. Electrical Effects During Operation of the Line ......................... . E. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................... . 1. Project Alternatives Rejected after Initial Consideration ............... . a. No Action ..................................................... . b. Purchase of Power by Member Cooperatives ....................... . c. Conservation of Electrical Energy ................................. . d. Development of New Generation within the Various Load Areas ..... . e. Use of Existing Transmission Line ................................. . f. Installing Series Compensation ................................... . Pa ge N o . 2. Design and Construction Alternatives ............................... . a. Alternate Line Voltages ......................................... . b. Alternate Transmission Line Equipment ........................... . c. Alternate Number of Circuits ..................................... . d. Alternate Methods of Line and Substation Construction and Right-of-Way Clearance ................................... . 3. Alternate Corridors ................................................. . a. Rifle to the North Fork Valley ..................................... . b. North Fork Valley to Lost Canyon ................................. . c. Lost Canyon to Hesperus ......................................... . d. Hesperus to San Juan ........................................... . F. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ........................................... . 1. Land Use ......................................................... . a. Area of Land Involved and Prior Use ............................. . b. Long-Range Land Use and Productivity ........................... . 2. Material Use ....................................................... . 3. Short-Term Effects ................................................. . 4. Long-Term Effects ................................................... . G. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES ....... . 1. Material ........................................................... . 2. Labor ........................................................... . APPENDIX A: VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ..................... . APPENDIX B: FLORA AND FAUNA WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ................. . APPENDIX C: SOCIO-ECONOMIC DATA ..................................... . APPENDIX D : STATE HISTORIC REGISTER SITES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA ..... . APPENDIX E: BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. . APPENDIX F: AGENCY CONTACTS AND CORRESPONDENCE ................. . Page N o. Table No. A.1.b.-1 A.1.b.-2 A.3.b.-1 A.4.c.-1 A.4.f.-1 A.4.g.-1 A.4.i.-1 A.4.j.-1 A.4.j.-2 A.4.1.-2 A.4.m.-1 A.5. B.4.-1 B.11.a.-1 E.2.b.-1 E.3.-1 APP.A.-1 APP.A.-2 APP.A.-3 APP.B.-1 APP.B.-2 APP.B.-3 APP.B.-4 APP.B.-5 APP.B.-6 APP.C.-1 APP.C.-2 LIST OF TABLES Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc. Total Requirements and Power Resources Colorado River Storage Project Power Resources ................... . Classification of Colorado-Ute Retail Customers ................... . Modified Mercalli (MM) Intensity Scale of 1931 ..................... . Visual Resource Management Classes ............................. . Soils in the Study Area ........................................... . Threatened and Endangered Animal Species in the Study Area ............................................... . Peak Flows of 100-and 500-Year Floods ........................... . Water Surface Elevations of 100-Year Flood ....................... . State Wildlife, Fishing and Recreation Areas ....................... . National Register of Historic Places -Listings Within Study Area ..................................................... . Description of Land and Features in the Vicinity of the Transmission Line Corridor ................................. . Communities Within Three Miles of the Preferred Corridor ......... . Relationship of Quality of Radio Reception and Signal-to-Noise Ratio ........................................... . Summary of Data for Support Structure Types ..................... . Analysis of Preferred and Alternate Segments ..................... . Scenic Quality Inventory and Evaluation Chart ..................... . Matrix for Determining Visual Sensitivity Levels ................... . Matrix for Determining Visual Resource Management Classes ........................................... . Mammals Within the Study Area ................................. . Birds Within the Study Area ..................................... . Reptiles a .nd Amphibians Within the Study Area ................... . Fish Species Within the Study Area ............................... . Plant Species Within the Study Area ............................... . Fauna I Distribution and Relative Abundance ..................... . Selected Farm Statistics for the Study Area, 1974 ................... . Number of Livestock in the Study Area in 1974 APP.C.-3 Acres of Various Crops in Production in 1974 ..................... . APP.C.-4 Value of Agricultural Products Sold, 1974 ......................... . APP.C.-5 Manufacturing Establishments for the Study Area, 1974 ............. . APP.C.-6 Retail, Wholesale & Selected Services, 1972 ....................... . APP .C.-7 Total Employment for the Study Area, 1970 & 1974 ................. . APP .C.-8 Income Breakdown for the Study Area, 1975 ....................... . APP.C.-9 Population Trends for the Study Area ............................. . Page No. Tabl e No. Page No. APP.C.-10 Statistical Information for the Study Area, 1975 ..................... . APP.D.-1 State Historical Register Sites -Listings Within Study Area ..................................................... . APP.F.-1 Agencies and Individuals Contacted ............................. . Fig ure N o. A.1.b.-1 A.1.b.-2 A.3.c.-1 A.4.a.-1 A.4.a.-2 A.4.b.-1 A.4.c.-1 A.4.f.-1 A.4.f.-2 A.4.g.-1 A.4.h.-1 A.4.i.-1 A.4.i.-2 A.4.m.-1 A.5.-1 A.5.-2 A.5.-3 A.6.a.-1a,b,c A.6.a.-2a,b,c A.6.b.-1 A.7.a.-1 A.7.a.-2 A.7.a.-3 A.8.-1 B.11.a.-1 B.11.a.-2 B.11.b.-1 B.11.b.-2 B.11.b.-3 B.11.b.-4 B.11.c.-1 E.3.-1 LIST OF FIGURES Sou rce of Inform ati on for F ig ures Listed in App endix E Colorado-Ute Electric Association Member Systems Certificated Service Areas ................................... . Loads for Colorado River Storage Project ....................... . Colorado-Ute Electric Association System Map ................. . Location of Study Area ....................................... . Physiographic and Topographic Relief ......................... . Tectonic Units of the Study Area ............................... . Seismic History and Faulted Areas ............................. . Visual Resource Classification -BLM and Adjacent Private Lands ............................................... . Visual Absorption Capacity on Forest Service Lands ............. . Soils in the Study Area ....................................... . Vegetative Communities and Natural Areas ................... . Large Mammals ............................................. . Threatened and Endangered Fauna ........................... . State Historical Register Listings ............................... . General Land Use ........................................... . Land Ownership ............................................. . Corridor Segments ........................................... . Special Land Classifications Natural Resources and Points of Interest ....................... . Projected and Potential Load Areas ........................... . Typical 345-kV Steel Lattice Double-Circuit Vertical Tangent Structure ........................................... . Typical 345-kV Steel Lattice H-Frame Tangent Structure ......... . Typical 115-kV Steel Lattice Double-Circuit Vertical Tangent Structure ........................................... . Typical 345-kV Substation ..................................... . Predicted Radio Interference 1000 kHz from a 345-kV Transmission Line Predicted Audible Noise for a 345-kV Transmission Line ......... . Electrostatic Field Beneath a 345-kV Transmission Line ......... . Electrical Diagram of Insulated Object in Electrostatic Field ..... . Predicted Short-Circuit Current Induced on Objects Beneath a 345-kV Transmission Line ................................. . Predicted Short Circuit Current -Single Circuit Line ........... . Profile of Calculated Magnetic Flux Density (60 Hz ) at 1.5m Above Ground for Transmission Lines Compared with Localized Fields ............................. . Corridor Segments ........................................... . Page No. A. Project Description: • A.l . Scope and Purpose of Project : A. 1 . a . Scope of Project : Col orado -Ute El ectric Association , Inc., p r opo ses t o c on stru ct a p proximately 288 miles (465 km) of 345-kV transmission lin e b etween Rifle, Colorado and the San Juan Generating Station near Farmington, New Mexico . Th e proposed 345-kV tranmission line will be an extension of the existing Colorado-Ute line from Craig to Rifle, Colorado and will be owned and operated by Colorado-Ute . It will consist of a 100-mile (162 km) single-circuit segment between Rifle and Delta, a 112 -mile (180 km) doub le-circuit segment b etween De l ta and Lo st Ca nyon , and a 7 6-mi l e (122 km) sin g l e-circu it segme nt b etween Lost Canyon and t h e San Juan Generat i ng St a tion (see F i gure A.5.a.-1). Initially , 345 -115-kV sub s tations will be constructed n e a r Paonia , at • Lost Canyon near Dolores , Colorado, and near Hesperus. Terminat i on of the 3 45 -kV line at t h e exis itng Ri fl e Sub stat i on wi ll i n c lud e a 34 5-2 30 -kV transformation. Associated wit h construction of t h e Hes p erus Sub station , t h e existing 115-kV line from Empire to Durango will be extended approximately 8 miles (13 km) to and from the Hesperus Substation. This will be constructed as a double-circuit 115 -kV line adjacent to the proposed 345-kV right-of-way. The southern terminus of the line will be at the existing 345-kV switchyard at the Public Service Company of New Mexico's San Juan Generating Station near Farmington , New Mexico . The propose d transmission plan is a part of a long -range phased d eve lopment by t h e area power s upp liers i n t h e western Co l o ra do -no rth west New • Me xi co r e gion . Colorado -Ute , Publi c Se rvice Company of Colorado (PSCC), and the Uni t ed States Western Area Power Administration (Western) have planne d jointly COLA .EA A-1 to develop associated facilities that serve each party's long-range needs. As a result of this planning effort, th e proposed project will include a • double -c i rcuit portion between De lta and t he Lost .Canyon Substation . The additional capacity provided by the second circuit will be owned by Colorado- Ute and will form a necessary link in the power supply plans of Western and PSCC. Additional future circuits required to ensure continuity for Western and PSCC from Hayden to Shiprock will be constructed by Western and PSCC. These additional circuits are not part of the Colorado-Ute Rifle-San Juan 345-kV transmission line project, but are discussed in Section A.9 of this document. Th is docum e n t a n alyzes t h e i mp acts of t h e p r op osed Rifle-San Jua n single-and doubl e-cir c uit 345 -kV t ransmi s s i on l ine, t he ex t e nsion of t h e Empi re t o Du r ang o 115-kV l i n e, and a s s oc i at e d substation fa cilities. s e lection proces s is described in Section A.6 . A.l .b . Pu rp ose and Need fo r Proj e ct : The corr ido r Th e p ro po se d lin es will b e u se d b y Colorad o-Ute t o s upply nee d e d • additional power to its me mber cooperatives in western and southwestern Colorado to provide additional bulk transmission capcaity between its existing and planned generating facilities and to provide additional capacity for the regional transfer of power and energy between Colorado-Ute and other power suppliers. A.l.b.l. Colorado-Ute Transmission Needs : Colorado-Ute's peak power requirements, including transmission system losses and generating capacity reserves, are identified in Table A.l.b.-1. Th e re serve re quireme nt is th e min i mum con s id ere d a d e qua t e f o r pla nning by Colorado-Ute , ~nd i s consistent with c r ite ria prescribed by the We s t e rn • Systems Coordinating Council (WSCC). COLO.EA A.2 Table A.1.b.·1 COLORADO-UTE ELECTRIC ASSN. INC. TOTAL REQUIREMENTS AND POWER RESOURCES (M W) -DECEMBER 1979 a 1980b 1983c 1985c Loads (MW) Colo-Ute Requirement 390.0 437.4 739 .2 877 .0 Reserve Requirement 63.6 65.6 110.9 132.0 --- Total Requirement 453.6 503.0 850.1 1,009 .0 Resources (MW) Capacity in Service*** Hayden Unit 1 184.0 184 .0 184.0 184 .0 Hayden Unit 2 52.4 52.4 131.0 131.0 Nucla 1, 2, & 3 36.0 36.0 36 .0 36.0 Bullock 1 & 2 12 .0 12 .0 12.0 12.0 Tacoma -Ames 11.0 3 .0 11.0 11.0 Craig Unit 2 116.0 116.0 116.0 116.0 --- Subtotal 411.4 403.4 490.0 490.0 Capacity Purchased Collbran Units 13.5 13 .5 13 .5 13 .5 PSCC Capacity 20.0 40.0 40.0 0.0 Subtotal 33.5 53.5 53.5 13.5 Capacity Under Construction Craig Unit 1 0.0 116.0 116.0 116.0 Craig Unit 3* 0 .0 0.0 240 .0 320.0 --- Subtotal 0.0 116.0 356.0 436 .0 Total Resources 444 .9 572.9 899.5 939.5 Surplus 0 .0 69.9 49.4 0.0 Deficit Firm 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 0 .0 Reserves 9.0 0.0 0.0 69.5 Total Deficit 9.0 0.0 0.0 69 .5** a Actual data. b Generation forecast . c 1979 Colorado-Ute Power Requirements St udy. 199oc 1 ,188.0 178.0 1,366.0 184 .0 131.0 36.0 12 .0 11.0 116.0 490.0 13.5 0.0 13 .5 116 .0 400.0 --- 516.0 1 ,019 .5 0 .0 168.5 178.0 386.5* * •This will be a 400 MW unit. Colorado -Ute p l ans to provide 160 lvIW to PSCCo and recapture 80 MW each in 1985 and 1986. ••Deficits will be made up from purchases and exchanges with other power suppliers in 1985 and l ater by a new ge nerating project planned for 1988 . ... Location shown on Figure A.3.c. -1. As desc r ibed in the Sc o pe of the Project, Col orado -Ute has three rela t e d nee d s wh ich mu st be satisfied : (1) a need for bu lk t rans mission s u ppor t to growing load c enters in t h e local sou thw estern Colorad o area, (2 ) a need for additional bulk transmission capacity between Colorado-Ute's present and future generating facilities and all Me mber serv ice territories, and (3) a need for regional reinforcement. The specifics of these needs are described below. A.1 .b.1.a. Local Southwestern Colorado Needs: Colorad o-Ute member loads in southwestern Colorado are presently serv ed from a 11 5-kV transmission l ine ex t end ing b etween the Co l orado-Ut e Rifl e Substation and the Weste r n Shiprock Sub s tat i on (Figur e A.3.c .-1 ). The r e a re s ubstati ons at Ho tchkis s , Montrose, Nucla , Empire, Du rango, Ba yfie ld a nd Pagosa Springs . Approximately 50 to 60 MW of total electrical power can be reliably transmitted over the existing 115 -kV line . The line is now fully loaded and will be un a ble to carr y th e add i t iona l powe r r e qui rements f orecas ted f or thi s area by 19 83 (see Ta b le A.1 .b.-i). The primary purpose of the proposed transmission line is to supply power to four of Colorado -Ute's certificated member service areas: Delta- Montrose Electric Association, San Miguel Power Association, Empire Electric Association, and La Plata Electric Association (see Figure A.1.b.-1). The total peak annual power requirements for these four areas is expected to triple between 1979 and 1992 . The proposed line therefore needs to be routed in a manner that best serves these areas. Since much of the projected load demand is concentrated aro un d t h e North Fork Val l ey and Cortez -Durango areas, t h e fol l owi n g poin ts were designate d as essential tie-in points for the transmission system : a new substation in the Paonia area, the Lo s t Canyon Substation and the proposed Hesperus Substation. COLA.EA A-3 Several potential projects in the study area could develop into a d di t ional power requirements on the Colorado-Ute system. Potential projects includ e th e Mt. Gunnison Mine in Gunnison County, the Shell Oil Company C0 2 project in so uthwe stern Colorado, the Dallas Creek Project, the Dolores Project, the Animas-La Plata Project, the Paradox Valley Salinity Project, the Fruitland-Mesa Project, the Domihguez Reservoir Project, and the Mt . Emmons Project (see Figure A.6.b.-1 ). All of these potential projects are located in Colo rad o-Ute member's certificated service areas. In addition to these major projects, substantial load growth is expected in some areas due to development of residential areas, coal mining, uranium recovery, increased irrigation, and development of recreation facilities. In order to ensure continuation of an adequate and reliable supply of electric power in this area, additional bulk transmission capacity is required in the Empire, La Plata , San Miguel and Delta-Montrose service territo ries by 1983. A.1.b.1.b. Bulk Transmission Needs: At present, Colorado-Ute operates 115-kV, 138-kV, and 230-kV transmission lines. These transmission lines transfer bulk power from the generation facilities (Nucla, Craig, Hayden) to various substation facilities, where it is then further distributed to serve the loads of Colorado-Ute's customers (Figure A.1.b.-1 ). Additionally, power is wheeled over this system for use by Western, PSCC, and the cities of Gunnison, Delta and Oak Creek . The majority of Colorado-Ute's present generation is located in northwest Colorado (Table A.1 .b .-1 ), thus cu rrently requiring bulk transmission to southwest Colorado. Future generation resources are planned for southwest ~ Colorado, which will require associated bulk transmission facilities to connect COLA.EA A-4 KEY TO NA M ES DMEA De l ta-Montrose El ectric Associati on EEA Emp ire El ectri c Association GCEA Gunnison County Electric Association GVRPL Grand Valley Rura l Power Lines HCEA Ho l y Cross El ectri c Association LPEA La Plata El ectri c Associati on SCPA So u theast Co lorado Po wer Asso ciati on SDCEA Sa ngre De Cristo El ec t ric Associ ati on SI ES San Isab el Electric Services SLVR EC San Luis Valley Rural El ectric Cooperati ve SMPA Sa n M igue l Power Association WREA White Ri ver El ectri c Associati on YVEA Yampa Valley Electri c Associati on e Member System Hea dquar t ers UTA H ~ ~ • DAGGET T _______ ..__.--- GRAND + WYOM I NG MOFFAT COLORADO -~ GA RF IELD --+-----1. ------ r--"""'-'M::.::O::::NTROS t AR I Z ON_A _____ _ COLORADO-UTE ELECTRIC ASSOC/A TION M EMB ER SYSTEM S CE R TIFI CA TED SE RVICE AREAS I ROUTT I ~EBRASKA --~\CO L ORA D O YVEA aACA SIES • COLORADO 0 OKL A HOMA N E W M E X I C O j ? \ I " ;J 't 'i I -SCALE 1N t.!ILE:S Figure A.1.b.-1 --------·---~------------------------------------ with the distribution system. The Rifle-San Juan transmission line will serve both of these needs. Table A.1.b.-1 shows the peak power requirements of the Colorado-Ute loads through 1990 . With the projected requirements in 198 3, as described in this table, Colorado-Ute has determined that the existing bulk transmission system will be inadequate. Also, when operating the existing bulk system under these fully loaded conditions, no reserve capacity is available on the transmission system to cover any unscheduled requirements. Such unscheduled re qui rements may become necessary to co mp ensate for generation outages or to accommodate power purchases. Also, based upon member load projections, the existing Colorado -Ute 115 -kV and 138-kV transmission system extending from Hayden Generating Station to Shiprock Substation (in New Mexico) must be reinforced with a higher voltage system. Th e present transmission system in Colorado is connected to systems in neighboring states by lines of very limited capacity. An additional higher capacity line is required to improve this connection so that power may be imported during times of emergency as well as for pooling purposes and the exchange of power (see Section A.1.b .4 .). A.1.b.2. Western Area Power Administration (Western) Bulk Transmission Needs : Studies by Western have identified the need for two 345 -kV transmission lines from the Hayden -Craig, Colorado area to the Shiprock-San Juan, New Mexico area . The central portion (Delta-Lost Canyon) of the Rifle-San Juan project is planned as a double circuit to accommodate one such circuit. Additional future circuits required to ensure continuity from Hayd en to Shiprock are discussed in Section A.9 . The reasons for Western's need for additional transmission capacity are as follows : COLA.EA A-5 COLA .EA a ) Increased Loads Figure A.1 . b . -2 reflec t s Western' s past and present actual loads and f utu re projection of loads. These data i ndi ca te approximately 3 percent annual increase over the past five years and 3.8 percent annual increase over the past ten years. Ta b le A.1 .b.-2 reflects Western's existing and future genera t ion capacity to meet these increasing loads. b) Si t es of generation vs sites of loads The location of Western's generation facilities and loads are separated by substantial distances which necessitate the use of transmission facilities . The power available for loads will be distributed in t h e same proportions as now exis t wit h in Western's market area. c ) Improved system reliability for Arizona, Colorado and Utah Add itional t ransmission capacity is needed to accommodate loop flows in order to improve system reliability and stability . This need became evident from disturbances such as the one that caused a cascading outage beginning at Grand Coulee in Oregon and extending through Idaho, Montana and ending in Nevada and Colorado in November 1979 . This was one of the many load disturbances documented by Western last year . d) Displacement of oil energy Th e use of oil t o generate electricity is being replaced with other sources where practical . The additional Hayden -Shiprock transmission capacity will permit greater use of nonoil generating ~ so u rces (i.e., hy droelectric ). A-6 e ) Environmental considerations The use of the second circuit of the Colorado -Ute Rifle -San Juan line will allow Western to meet its current load demands while reducing the need for an addi tional corridor through this area at this time. A.1.b.3. Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCC) Bulk Transmission Needs : Studies by PSCC have identified the need for additional electrical capacity from the Rifle, Colorado area to the Four Corners area. The central portion (Delta-Lost Canyon) of the transmission pathway to carry this capacity will be accomplished by the second circuit of the Colorado-Ute Rifle-San Juan 345-kV transmission line. Additional future circuits required to ensure continuity from Rifle to Four Corners are discussed in Section A.9. include: COLA.EA The reasons for PSCC's need of additional transmission capacity a) Need of long-term link to Four Corners area Previously, the only link to the south and southwest has been the Curecanti -Shiprock 230-kV transmission line owned by Western. PSCC has utilized surplus capacity in this circuit, but only on a limited basis and only in a south to north transfer direction . PSCC is therefore interested in participating in the Rifle -San Juan 345-kV line in order to make firm power and energy transactions between its system and the Four Corners area on a long-term basis. This participation could res ult in PSCC acquiring 250 MW of firm capability on a long-or short-term basis. A-7 COLA.EA b ) Increased load growth PSCC's loads are currently growing at the rate of 6 percent a year and are expected to level off to 3 percent a year by 1995. PSCC's peak load requirements are anticipated to increase from 2,770 MW in the summer of 1980 to 5,045 MW by the summer of 1995, thereby requiring the need of an additional 3,130 MW of resources by 1995 (includes 12 percent reserve margin). However, only 470 MW additional firm resources are presently committed. PSCC's capacity on the Rifle-San Juan 345-kV line will be used to help provide firm resources in order to meet increased load growth. c) Need to increase transfer capability PSCC is interested in the possible sale of portions of its future resources with the intent to recapture this capacity over a period of time . This will allow the sale of energy at off-peak times and the recapture of these energy resources over a period of time. The transmission pathway to the Four Corners area will permit such transfers. d) Permits joint participation in future generation projects PSCC has a need for 3,130 MW additional resources over the next 15 years. Therefore, PSCC is actively pursuing the possibility of participating with other utilities in developing additional generation resources. PSCC could participate in ownership or capacity exchanges between projects such as the proposed Colorado -Ute Southwest generating station and Western's Dominguez pump-storage project. The proposed transmission facility traverses areas where these projects are proposed, and A-8 provides opportunities for participation in other resource pr oj e ct s i n th e Colo rado and Four Corn ers a rea . A.1 .b .4 . Tra n s mi s sion Needs Co mm on to Co l orad o-Ut e, Wes t ern and PSCC : Col orado-Ute, Western and PSC C are me mb ers of t h e Western Sy stems Coordinating Council (WS CC) which coordina t es pl anning and operations am ong electric utilities in a 14 state area in t h e western United States. WSCC has develo ped criteria for assessing ade quacy an d reliab i l ity of t h e western sys t em. Mem bers of t he WSCC participate in the WSC C "Brokering" Plan wh ere by transact i on s for a v ai l a ble ene rgy with WSCC can be brokere d on an ec on omi c ba sis (i .e ., off-peak powe r and coal electrical power). Colorado -Ute and PSCC follow the Colorado Public Utilities Council (PUC) and Public Utilities Regular Policies Act (PUR PA ) mandate for resource pooling. The Rifle -San Juan 345-kV transmission line will facilitate transfers of power and energy . Colorado -Ute, Western and PSCC are also members of the Inland Powe r Po ol (IPP) a l ong wi th ei ght other memb ers: Salt River Project Agricultural Impro v ement and Power District Tri-State Generating and Transmission Association, Inc. Platte River Power Authority Basin Electric Power Cooperative City of Colorado Springs Tucson Electric Power Company Wyoming Municipal Power Agency El Paso Electric Co mpany Th rou gh th e pool a g reement, th e part ies pool t heir reserve capac'i ties and provide mutual assistance in times of emergency and scheduled outages . Assistance to a requesting party is subject to the availability of energy and COLA.EA A-9 the condition that such supply will not result in an impairment of firm power service to the supplying party's sys t em. Each party to the agreement is obligated to maintain reserv e capacity based on its loads, its largest generating unit, and the largest generating units wit hin the pool. The Rifle - San Juan 345-kV transmission line will provide additional transfer capability between IPP member systems. Th e National Electric Reliability Council (NERC), in its ninth Annual Review of Overall Reliability and Adequacy of the North American Bulk Power System (August 1979), delinea ted the Colo ra do area as being transmission defic ient. Colorado -Ute, Western and PSCC, as major suppliers of electrical energy in the Rocky Mountain Region, recognize their obligation to enhance the reliability of the Bulk Power System . The proposed Rifle -San Juan transmission facility will improve system reliability for all entities involved . As Colorado-Ute , Western and PSCC are interconnected systems, ad d itional transmission capacity is needed to accommo dat e loop flows in ord er to improve system reliability and stability for all entities involved. A.2. Required Permits and Approvals: A.2.a. Federal Agencies : Rural Electrification Administration: The Rural Electrification Administration (REA) as lead agency for the project, must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 . Since Colorado-Ute has made application for REA financing to construct this proposed transmission line, this environmental analysis has been prepared to support the preparation of the EIS by REA . Bureau of Land Management : ELM will become involved in the proposed ~ project as specified by 43CFR2800 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act COLA.EA A-10 of 197 6. A right-of -way grant must be obtained from BLM. BLM is also a cooperating agency _f or prepara t ion of the EIS for this project. Forest Service: Th e Forest Service requires the submission of a Special Use Application and Report (FS Form 2700 -3 ) and a Statement of Need desc ribing and analyzing the proposed project. This must be prepared prior to construction of the line and the app l icant must receive a Long-Term Special Use Permit. Th e Fores t Service is also a cooperating agency for preparation of the EIS . Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA): Tribal consent to conduct surveys for the right-of-way must be obtained through the BIA. Before the BIA will grant an easement, an application form must be submitted . Th e application must be approved by the tribal council, and the BIA also requires an acceptable environmental analysis and an archaeological clearance . Federal Aviation Administration: The Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460 -1 ), describing the nature and l oca tion of the line, should be submitted to the FAA to eliminate the possibility of a conflict within the controlled airspace in the vicinity of an airport. Army Corps of Engineers: Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 requires Department of the Army approval prior to the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States or adjacent wetlands. However, certain exceptions to this law are covered by nationwide general permits and do not require individual "404" permits. These exceptions, s ubject to various condit ions, include minor road crossings, utility line crossings, bank stabilization, and work above headwaters . Early consultation with the Corps can identify construction methods to conform to the COLA .EA A-11 exceptions covered by nationwide permits, possibly eliminating the need for individual "404" permits. National Park Service: Permission is requ ired for a transmission line to cross any designated Historic Trail. Since t he Dom ingu ez-Escalante Trail, which is crossed by the line, is currently under consideration for designation, a formal permit is not required. Fish and Wildlife Service: According to the provisions of Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 197 3, the lead agency on the project must consult with the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service concerning the presence of, and effect on, endangered or threatened species. The U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service also serves as a consultant in regard to any wetlands within the power line right-of-way. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service itself does not issue specific permits for power line construction. Environmental Protection Agency : EPA will review the EIS, but no EPA air quality or water quality permit is required. Burning of brush or timber waste will be don! according to state and local regulations. State Agencies: Colorado Department of Highways: A utility license is required by the Department of Highways before a state or federal highway may be crossed by a transmission line. Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners: Any land under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Land Commissioners requires a written request for permission to survey. When the surveys are completed, an application must be made to receive an indenture for a perpetual easement. Colorado Division of Wildlife: If the transmission line crosses land ~ administered by the Division of Wildlife, it will be necessary to consult with COLA.EA A-12 • Division personnel in regard to location, design characteristics and r i ght -of-way resto r at ion . Co lorad o S t a t e Divis i on of Parks an d Out d oo r Re c reation: I f t h e transmission l ine is involved wit h Park propert y, a right -of-way easement request will be required. Colorado Water Quality Control Di v ision: If it is necessary to cons t r u ct a crossing t h rough a Colorado waterway in order to transport equ ipment during t h e constru c t ion of t he transmission line, it will be necessary to file an a ppl icat ion f o r a Wa t er Qua lity Cert i f i ca t e. New Mexico Land Office : A perpetual r i ght -of-way easement must be granted by the State Land Office befo r e transmission line construct i on may proceed across state lands . New Mexico Highway Department : Highway Department Form M-202 is r equ i red as part of an application f or a Pe r mit to Install Utility Facilities Wi thin a Pu bl ic Right -of-Way wh en a fe d eral or s t a t e highway is t o be cro ssed by a transmission line. New Mexico Public Service Co mm ission: A Certificate of Convenience and Necessity must be obtained from the Public Service Commissi on before a transmission line may be constructed . Construction must sta r t within one year from the time the certificate i s issued . Electrical Construction Industries Division (New Mexico): A permit is not required for the transmission line, but the builder must have an electrical Construc t or's license (E L-1 Classification ) from t h e state and follow t h e r egulat i ons of the Nat iona l El e ct rical Sa f ety Cod e. I f any cont rol s tation s, low-voltage wiring, or substations are to be constructed, the builder must have COLA.EA A-13 EE-98 Classification from the state, and a permit and inspection would be required. A.2.c. Local Agencies : In 197 4, the Colorado General Ass em bly enacted Hous e Bill 1041, the Colorado Land-Use Law, which provides model regulati ons for county or mun icipal governing bodies to mana ge areas and activities of state interest. The Col orado Land Us e Comm ission has developed these mod el regulations, which were published in 1976 . House Bill 1041 gives county and municipal governing bodies the authority to adopt any or all of these model regulations, but does not re quire that any such regulations be adopted. Some counties within the study area have adopted portions of House Bill 1041 regulations . In addition, some counties have other regulations or requirements dealing with the location and construction of a transmission line. Delta County: The Delta County Development Department is currently preparing a Resou rce Management Plan. Prior t o recei ving authorization to install a major transmission line, this plan will require county review of the following: impact on good agricultural land, avoidance of environmentally sensitive lands, relation to built -up residential areas, rural residences adjacent to the proposed right-of-way, visual impact, proximity to wildlife areas, and avoidance of special use areas such as schools, cemeteries, hospitals, airports and shopping centers. Dolores County : Application for a permit to locate and construct must b e made to the county when the centerline is determined. The county will review environmental considerations and compare the location of the line to thei r current land -use plans. A public hearing will be held as part of this process . COLA.EA A-14 • Garfield County: There are currently no permit requirements in this county. A revised land-use plan, slated for June 1, 1980 completion, would require a special use permit for transmission line construction . Gunnison County : Gunnison County would require a Land Use Change Permit . The permit application is submitted to the Land Use Administration Office for a staff review and an impact classification. The application is then sent to the Planning Commission for review, at which time public information meetings are held. The next step _is a review by the County Commission accompanied by a formal public hearing. Mesa County: Since the alternate corridors in this county cross open country, no zoning amendments are required. However, a building permit for the support structures must be obtained from the building section of the county planning office. La Plata County : The county planning agency will review the project and recommend action to the county commissioners. In general, review by the commission is only necessary when travers ing two management areas defined by the U.S. Geological Survey 7-1/2 -minute quadrangle maps, Durango West and Basin Mountain , or when the construction is potentially controversial. Currently, La Plata County has contracted with the firm of Phillips, Brandt, Reddik to act as their planning agency. Montezuma County: The re qu irements of Montezuma County are the same as those for Dolores County. A public hearing will be required in Montezuma County as part of the review of the application to locate and construct a transmission line. Montrose County: No permits would be required in this county unless the line were placed in a highway right-of-way. In that situation, a contract COLA.EA A-1 5 may have to be set up with the highway foreman to ensure adequate restoration procedures. The county planning office does require that a map of the line location be placed on file in their office. Ouray County: A special use permit based on environmental impacts and land usage is required, and would be submitted to the County Commission and the County Planning Commission. A public hearing sponsored by the county commissioners is also necessary, and input from this meeting will be utilized to review the permit application. An encroachment permit, if applicable, would be concerned mainly with construction standards and potential hazards. San Miguel County: An aboveground 345-kV transmission line project in this county requires both a special use permit and a public hearing. The permit is submitted to the county planning office and reviewed by the planning commission, largely on environmental criteria such as property line crossings, housing developments, and visual impact. San Juan County: An Improvement Permit must be obtained through the Land Use Administrator, and involves an extensive description of potential impact to or from avalanche hazard, landslide areas, soils, floodplains, and mineral resources. The applicant will also have to go through the Review and Appeal Process involving a presentation to the County Commission, a public hearing with the Regional Planning Commission, and a referral back to the County Commission for final approval . San Juan (NM) County: The transmission line alone will not require a permit on the county level, but site installations which require excessive grading or transformer platforms would require some type of county permit. COLA.EA A-16 A.3. Description of Existing Electrical Service Provided by Colorado-Ute: A.3.a. Location and Size of Area Served: Colorado-Ute Electric Ass ociati on, Inc., is an incorporated generation and transmission cooperative association headquart ered in Mont rose, Colorado. It operates on a nonprofit basis and provides wholesale electric power to 13 "all requirements" members whose certificated service territories (Figure A.1.b.-1) include all or part of 41 of the state's 63 counties and are located principally in western and southern Colorado . Colorado -Ute and its 13 members constitute the second largest electric supply system in Colorado . A.3 .b. Distribution Cooperatives and Number of Consumers: Colorado-Ute's members are local consumer -owned electric distribution cooperative associations serving individual retail customers on a nonprofit basis. In 1979, the members served approximately 114,000 retail customers. In addition to residential requirements, the most significant electricity-consuming activities in the member service areas are farming and ranching; energy-related extraction operations, including mining and oil and gas production; industrial loads, including sawmills, uranium processing plants and a variety of small manufacturing plants; and skiing and other recreational operations. Sales by the members in 1979 totalled approximately 2.059 million megawatt-hours (MWh), with 83.1 percent of the number of customers being residential (farm and nonfarm), 12.3 percent commercial, 1 .1 percent industrial, 3.3 percent irrigation customers, and 0.2 percent other. (See Table A.3.b.-1 ). Colorado-Ute's energy sales to the members were increasing at an average annual rate of approximately 10 percent prior to 1975 when three of the members acquired approximately 21 ,000 new customers from the Western Colorado Power Company . Since the acquisition, the growth in energy sales to the 13 members COLA.EA A-17 has averaged approximately 9 percent per year. The members have experienced a bout a 6 percent per y ear gr owth i n t h e numb er of re ta i l c u s t ome rs ov er th e pa s t 10 ye ars , ex cludi ng th e 197 5 acqu isi t i on . A.3.c. Pool Memb ersh ips: Col orad o-Ut e is a memb er of th e Wes t ern Systems Coordinating Co un cil (W SCC) an d the Inl a nd Power Pool . De t ail s of these arrangements are discussed in Sec t ion A.1 .b .4 . A.3.d . Tr ansm i s si on Sy s t em and I n ter connec tions: Colora do -Ute delive rs powe r to i t s memb ers ov er its own transmi ss i on system, consisting of approximately 1,062 miles (1 ,709 km ) of high-voltage transmission lines and 41 substations, and over the high-voltage transmission facilities of the Western Area Power Administration (Western) and other power supply entities in the region pursuant to a variety of contractual interconnections , wheeling and displacement arrangements . These facilities and i nt e rconn e ct i on s are de pi ct e d in Fig u re A.3.c.-1 . Th e memb e r s s e r v e th e i r indiv id ual retail customers over an aggregate of approximately 21 ,000 miles (33 ,789 km ) of distribution and subtransmission lines . A.4 . Description of Area in Vicinity of the Proposed Transmission Faci l ity : A.4 .a . Location and Physiography : The proposed Rifle -San J u an 345 -kV transmission line will extend from near Rifle (Garfield County ) Colorado to the San J u an Generating Station (Public Serv ice Company of Ne w Mexico ) in Sa n J u an County, New Mexico. Th e pro posed 11 5-kV l i n e wi ll ex t e nd from th e exis t i ng Emp ire-Du ran go 11 5-kV l ine so uth t o the proposed Hesperus Substation . To aid in determining potential corridor routings from Rifle to the ~ San Juan Generating Station, a study area was established. This study area was COLA .EA A-18 Member Empire Electric As sociation , Inc. Gunnison County Elec . Ass oc., Inc . De lt a-Montrose Rural Power Lines Assoc. Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, Inc. Ho ly Cross Electric Assoc. Inc. La Plata Electric Assoc. Inc. Southeast Colorado Power Assoc. .e Sangre De Cristo E lec. Assoc., Inc. San Isabel Electric Services, Inc. San Luis Valley Rural Elec . Co-op., Inc. San Miguel Power Assoc., Inc . White River Electric Assoc., Inc. Yampa Valley Electric Assoc. , Inc. TOTALS F ig ures Based on 1979 Reports. Table A.3.b.-1 CLASSIFICATION OF RETAIL CUSTOMERS FOR COLORADO-UTE MEMBERS CUSTOMERS Residential Commercial Industrial Irrigation 6,602 1,301 68 43 3,015 472 27 7 13,921 1,499 72 69 5,949 599 35 78 14,567 2,093 246 27 13,078 2,290 133 53 6,569 790 40 Cl,~ 3,933 418 21 6 6,408 807 47 46 3,987 456 31 fi,9 ~ 4,208 945 252 26 1,599 379 36 48 10,994 1,971 200 109 94,830 14,020 1,208 3,719 Others Tota l 4 8,018 5 3,526 100 15,66 1 2 6 ,663 8 16,941 43 15,597 12 8,656 19 4,397 17 7,325 2 6,438 13 5,444 0 2,062 21 _!2~95 246 114,023 SWEETWATER i i i "-·----·-r ·-·-\._ ---·---~ I GARFIELD -·-·-·---·-·-·-·i GRAND + ~-------·-·-·-·------------·-: MESA I .IOHN .. ,BROWN ~,.~ I ~ -·------r---';), SAN JUAN APAC HE I \ CARBON ALBANY KIMBALL 115KV KIMBALL !> ------ ------ - ----! ~ ARAPAHO E 1 ;:: TO STEGALL CHEYENNE ---------·-·-1-·-'---·-·- 230KV TO BLUE C~EEK TO HYANNI S GRANT DUNDY ~;;.....,. ... ~115~K~v,,__J..11""~~~;..;.~f'1 0 \ 0 · ~i t!EBR~SKA _____ _ g\KANSAS 0 '1 CHEYENNE u. AKRON \ IOALIA i : ! -Ji.--.ilii~ .. S.0~~1!_-~K --------·- ---·--------·-ELBER~----·-·,i.----"LiNCoL;·-·--r-.<1-r -c ARso~~;-;-HALE \----~:~;MAN I . ~--·-·-·-·-·J i I SAGEBRUSH i i o : 230KV ~I a:. ~i U:,_ _______ _ \ WALLACE CHEYE-;.·;.·---·-·1 i \ i :---·-·- ~ J GREELEY ,~,,~--..;;~-----f-'7;;:;.c;c------· j ---------,,-.----i ~ 1 ~ RIVER I i i OtJERIOA 11J2 MIL£! A &-PARK! \ W£STCUFF£ I \ i .-.MOFFAT \ ./ \ ; \Ir ./I" "\ .. .,' ..... _\i\ ____ .-·-· '1 HU ERFANO i -·-·-.if''1a;~MOsA ·-·.7 I / ,... ,,.---·'--........ , >:v-·cosTtLLA \ :.-;;c;..uc<i-•·-{_ ______________ Lp:ori£jciS _________ -L ____ _ ! ! STOCKA0£Jt,, i " i i \ J/;,.cosTILLA i ,,,..1 ""1'J>LJ.,.__...___ <ju::::..-------*~-"!'-"!'.~~-.;~;_o_;::K_~".. ... -~.-.-.... -~.~E"!IN..---~--, -·pffQWe:"Rs ______ .._1·. ---:~:l~~ON i I ~--- / I / WALSENBURG / / ,.1 ; / ' i i. I -~-00""l'~ \ i -L _____________ i _____ ,--___ L __ -----8,;c,---~----~~~:~~~---·- ~ M-! ' : I ' t -·--~~;T~~---·- § i 00 ~I ~ ! ..J I z ( \ 0 ' <( 1 \ 1 u I ~ I ' I : ~~_RAD~----··----·---·-··-1..----··-··-··--·-·· ·-~--' '· COLORADO ' -··-··-··-r-··-··-··-··-··w-M .. EX ICOT OKLAHOMA OKLAHOMA -r,1 ----------;,~-~~~---~-------·-,;1TAOs--·\Ew· MEx1co --~--------Co~FAX··---1 1 UNION NE :I \ , CIMARRON TEXAS i I / : , I r 1 1 I KEY TO NAMES 345KV SYMBOLS [fil STEAM POWER PLANT IEJ HYOROELECTRIC POWER PLANT (ill NUCLEAR POWER PLANT @] DIESEL POWER PLANT IIJ COMBUSTION TURBINE POWER PLANT • SUBSTATION OR SWITCHING STATION A C·U. E.A. POINT OF DELIVERY TO PAXTO N FACILITIES UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE SHOWN IN BROKEN OR DASHED LINES TO HERNANDEZ CRA IG -HAYDEN AREA LEGEND COLORADO-UTE EXISTING FACILITIES .JOINTLY OWNED FACILITIES (COLO-UTE 8 OTHERS) ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE, UTAH POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 8 TUCSON GAS 8 ELECTRIC CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS MOON LAKE ELECTRI C ASSOCIATION NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO 8 (MOUN TA IN PARKS ELECTRIC, INC.) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO SOUTHEAST COLORADO POWER ASSOCIATION SOUTHERN COLORADO POWER, A DIVISION OF CENTRAL TELEPHONE 8 UTILITIES CORPORATION TRI-STATE GENERATION AND TRANSMISSION ASSOCIATION WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION SCALE MI L ES 5 JO 15 20 25 5.,..5..,__,10 ENL ARGED COLORADO-UTE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, INC MONTROSE, COLORAOO i-i gu re A.3.c.-1 SYSTE M MAP AS OF JANUARY 1979 designed to include the terminal points, Colorado-Ute's load areas , and existing ma j or t ran s mission c orrid ors i n the area. Th e s tudy area inc ludes all or part of the Co l orad o co unties of Garfie l d, Delta, Mesa, Montrose, Gunnison, Ouray, San Mig uel, Dolores, San Juan, Montezuma and La Plata, and San Juan County in New Mexico (Figure A.4.a.-1 ). Physiography is defined as the study of the genesis and evolution of land forms. Physiographic regions are areas of similar structure and climate that have had a unified geomorphic history. The s tu dy area includes portions of physiographic regions known as t h e Col orado Pla te a u and th e Southe rn Ro cky Mounta i n Sy s tem (Fe nn ema n 1931). Outstanding physiographic featu res of the Colorado Plat e au include its : 1 . Structural geology (t e ctonic units ) 2. Hi g h altitude (5,000 -1 1 ,000 fe et ; 1 ,524 -3 ,3 53 mete rs ) 3. Drainage sys t em 4. Arid nature and limited water supplies 5. Extensive areas of rock outcroppings 6. Sparse vegetation 7. Highly varied desert scenery Outstanding features of the Southern Rocky Mountain System include: 1. High peaks, several above 14,000 feet (4,267 meters) 2. Large changes in elevation 3. Ruggedness 4. Rocks of igneous, metamor phic and se d imentary origin 5 . Shallow soils; extensive areas of rock outcroppings 6 . Forests, mostly coniferous COLA.E A A-19 7. Water supplies 8 . Hot springs 9. Mineral resources 10 . Scenery Extending north and south from near Rifle, the study area covers the physiographic provinces of the Colorado Plateau known as the Uinta Basin Section, the Canyon Lands Section, the Navajo Section; and the Southern Rocky Mountain provinces of the Elk Mountains and the San Juan Mountains (See Figure A.4.a.-2) (Fenneman 193 1 and Hunt 1974). A.4.a.1. Uinta Basin Section: This section is an area surrounding Grand Junction on the north and east, and includes the area south of Rifle to within a few miles of the Gunnison River. Prominent natural features included in this area are the Grand Mesa, ~ Battlement Mesa, Elk Mountain, Chalk Mountain, and the valleys of the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers and their tributaries . A.4.a.2. Canyon Lands Section: Thia section extends south from its northern boundary with the Uinta Basin Section to a line north of the city of Cortez . This roughly parallels the Dolores River to the edge of the San Juan Mountains . Canyons are the dominant natural feature in this area . Major canyons include the canyons of the San Miguel River, Dolores River, and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison . Other prominent natural features include the Uncompahgre Plateau, Adobe Badlands, Paradox Basin, the San Miguel Mountains, the Colorado River and the Taylor and Haycamp Mesas. COLA.EA A-20 • • w z _J cri z <{ a: 1-- z <{ :i z <{ ~ w _J u. a: ..i <{ z <{ > z w ·~ m <D 0 -cil ,... w 1-- ::i _J 0 u i I I I i-- 1 i TOOELE i ----- i !--------./ L_ ___ u _A_-4 i i MILLARD I I I I\ ~ \ I -, ;;·· .. \ i L !. ----t__--~L W A Y GARflELO ·-·-·-· ( __ i i SAN JUAN RIO ARAI BA i w T: ~(;;;~~ I ( COCONINO I MOHAVE ( l ( \ \ \ YUMA ~ ....... '··-...... .. I ''" """"1""" MC KI H r£ u i < ---_.,..'\,.......__ ---> < i r --.. =uno --< Q. ~-z < V A L E N C I A I YAVAPAI r-- I i CATRON ecN.c '""'" j ~--.~-= "'" J ""' I--:-__i __ ----t__-----'1~ ~~lA'~j-~oii• '"'j -I_-·-·- LEA j g -LLUNA ~ ·-_ -·-·-· p I M A COCHISE j ~ ~~·~·=~·--·-·_--1·---r----------------------1 ··-........ I : : .................. ~ ............. """""' ··-··-··_i··-··j ··-·· & MG>onnell Burns h'tects-Consu1tants Engineers-Arc 1 Figure A.4.a.-1 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA ........ ·.,, j u -... A N • MG>onnczll Bur ns & -Conoultants Architects Engineers- • ·1 000,000 Scale: 1. ' 1 6 Mil es 1 Inch Equals Approx. LEG E ND STUDY AR E A BOUNDA R Y --CO RR IDO R PREFERRED E CO RR I D O R ALTERNAT Figure A.4.a.-2 PHIC AND PHYSIOGRA IC R E LI EF TOPOGRAPH A.4.a .3. Navajo Section: The remainde r of the study area in the Colorado Plateau is locat e d within the Navajo Section. Th is section is characterized by broad flats on the shaly formations separated by low cuestas where the more resistant sandstone ou tc rops exist. Notable physiographic features in the Nav ajo section include the La Plata, Animas, Los Pinos and San Juan Rivers, Mesa Verde and Shiprock Peak. A.4.a.4. Elk Mountains: The Elk Mounta ins and the West Elk Mountains appear to be wes twa rd continuations of the Sawatch Range . Structurally they are composed of a series of layers of paleozoic sediments thrust westward over one another (anticline ) (Fenneman 193 1 ). These rocks, often folded and high ly metamorphosed, are c u t by numerous sills, dikes, and other intrusions, many of which have caused mineral enrichment locally. Included in this area are such features as the Black Mesa, Blue Mesa Rese r voi r, portions of th e Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument, and Paonia Reservoir. A.4.a.5. San Juan Mountains: This range of the Rocky Mountains extends north and south through several southwest Colorado counties and turns to the west in an area known as "the Bend." This mountain range contains many rugged and well -forested peaks, several above 14,000 feet (4,267 meters). Highest among these are Uncompahgre Peak (14,309 ft; 4,361 meters), Mt. Wilson (14,246 ft; 4,342 meters), and Mt. Sneffels (14 ,150 ft; 4 ,3 13 meters). Prominent natural features in the San Juan Mountain section of the s tudy area include the Dolores Canyon, Lizard Head, Sneffels and Red Mountain Passes, and Bridal Veil Falls. CO LA.EA A-2 1 A.4.b. Geology: Geology is the science which treats of the earth, the rocks of which it is composed, and the changes which it has undergone or is undergoing . The western quart er of Colorado is a region of flat-lying Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary deposits which have not been uplifted into mountains except in the San Juan, Elk and West Elk Mountains (Figure A.4.b.-1 ). The general area lies more than a mile above sea level. Because of the gradient resulting from this elevation, it is deeply sculptured. The Colorado River and its tributaries have eroded into the plateau surface, separating it into many isolated tablelands called mesas. Some are capped with sedimentary rock, others with Tertiary basalt. Simple faults and grabens have given the mesas different elevations. Thus the average elevation of the White River Plateau is 11 ,000 feet (3,353 meters), that of the Roan Plateau 9,500 feet (2 ,896 meters), and that of Mesa Verde only 7,000 fee t (2,134 meters). West of Durango the plateaus dip southward, as can be seen at Mesa Verd e. The plateau topography has been altered in some areas by igneous intrusions and extrusions. The Uncompahgre Plateau, southwest of Grand Junction, is composed of almost horizontal paleozoic sedimentary rocks that fold downward (monocline) sharply along its southwest edge. The peculiar weathering characteristics of flat-lying sedimentary deposits in an arid climate are well demonstrated in Colorado National Monument, Mesa Verde National Park and elsewhere in the Plateau Province. The San Juan Mountains are the most extensive range in Colorado, and also the most heterogeneous. Covering more than 10 ,000 square miles (25,889 square kilometers) of the southwestern part of Colorado, these mountains are COLA.EA A-22 S A N J U A N ~~,;-~,,,o ... Burns & MG>onnczll Engineers-Architects-Consultants e ® e Scale: 1 :1,000,000 1 Inch Equals Approx. 1 6 Miles -- llIIlIIl ~ L EGE ND STU DY AREA BOUNDARY PR EFERRED CORRIDOR ALT ER NAT E CORRIDOR TECTONIC UNI TS 1 ST ORDER POS I T IV E TECTONIC UNITS 2 ND O RDER POSITIV E TECT ONIC UN ITS e MEGAP ETROLOG I C UNITS CENOZOI C VO LCA NI C FIELDS PRECAMBRIAN CRYSTALLINE BASEM E NT e e Figure A.4.b.-1 TECTONIC UNITS OF THE STUDY AREA formed mostly of Tertiary volcanic rocks, the result of repeated outpourings of lava and ash from a cluster of volcanoes. Water-laid gravels composed of volcanic sand and pebbles are interlayered with basalts and ash beds. The total thickness of these beds reaches many thousands of feet. The widespread volcanic activity which formed most of the San Juan range began in mid-Tertiary time and continued for several million years. A few Quaternary volcanic flows are known in the region, but there is no active volcanism there at present. However, there are some hot springs in the area. The western side of the main San Juan range consists primarily of uplifted and faulted Paleozoic sedimentary layers. These layers are highly dissected by erosion, and can be seen near Ouray, at Molas Lake, and at Durango. Mineralization was intense in the San Juans . Veins of gold, silver, lead, zinc and copper penetrate pre-Cambrian gneiss and granite. Paleozoic limestones are often enriched also. Several mines are still active near Ouray, Silverton, Telluride and Rico . Three small ranges rise just west of the San Juans: the San Miguel, Rico and La Plata Mountains. Each range consists of several small masses of Tertiary igneous rock intruded into Paleozoic conglomerates, shales and limestones. Landslide deposits exist in the mountainous areas of southwestern Colorado, and locally include talus, rock-glacier, and thick colluvial deposits (see Figure A.6.a.-2 ). Many landslides in Colorado took place in the late Pleistocene age, although there are still active areas of movement. Mancos shale is widespread in western Colorado and is commonly associated with landslide areas. COLA.EA A-23 A.4 .c. Seismicity : Th e s tudy area is loca t e d in a Zo n e 1 risk area as no t ed on t h e Seismic Risk Map, Figure A.4.c.-1 . Th e determination of t h is seismic risk zone is based on historic records of earthqu akes, t h eir intensities, evidence of strain release and distribution of geological structures related to earthquake activi t y. Zone 1 designates t h ose seismic areas where t h e most frequently measured intensity is V or VI on the Modifie d Mercalli (M .M.) Intensity Scale of 193 1 . This intensi t y, as categorized on the Modified Mercalli Scale, Table A.4 .c.-1 , is a measu re of th e des t r u c t i ve ca pa c i ty of an earthqua k e or t he effects of th e shock a s obse r v e d by people . Th e Coast and Geod e tic Su r v e y has analyzed c ertain earthquake recurrence relationships , resulting in the estimation of the frequency of earthquake occurrence in certain general i zed areas of the United States (Algermis s en 1969 ). From th is ana lysis the general a r ea wh i ch i nclude s t h e stud y area s h ou ld be ex pected to experience, per 100 years, 182 V-lev e l , 38 VI -level, 7.9 VII -level, and 1 .7 VIII -level earthquakes. For purposes of this study, a search of the Earthquake Data File was requested from the National Geophysical and Solar-Terrestrial Data Center at Boulder, Colorado . An area was outlined, and those earthquakes occurring within those boundaries were used in this study. The area of concern was chosen to be from 107° to 109° W longitude, and from 36°30' to 40° N latitude. This closely approximates the study area boundaries. There were 84 recorded shocks with epicenters locat ed in this area in a 64-year period from 1 91 3 to 1977. The g r eat es t i ntens ity re co r d e d wa s VII on the Modifi e d Me r cal li I n t ensi ty Sca l e, and was located close to the Colorado-New Mexico state line (Figur e A.4 .c .-1 ). CO LA.E A A-24 -------~------·-----------~--------------------------~ Table A.4.c.-1 MODIFIED M ERCALL I (MM) INTENSITY SCALE OF 1931 I. Not felt except by a very few under especia ll y favorable circumstances . II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings . Delica t e ly suspended objects may sw ing . III. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motor cars may rock slig htly . Vibration like passing of t ruck. Duration estimated. IV . During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make crackin g sound. Sensation like h eavy t ruck striking building . Standing motor cars rocked noticeably . V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Som e dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instanc es of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed . Pendulum clock s may stop. VI. Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys . Damage slight. VII. Everybody runs outdoors . Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well -built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken . Noticed by persons driving motor cars . VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary s ubstantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud e jected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motor cars disturbed. IX . Damage considerable in specially designed structures; we ll -designed frame struc tu res thrown out of plumb , great in substantial buildings , with partial collapse . Buildings shifted off foundations . Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken . X. Some well -built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structur es destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked . Rails bent. Landslides considerable from rive r banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks . XI. Few, if any, (masonry) structures remain standing . Bridges destroyed . Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground . Rails bent greatly. XII . Damage total. Practicall y all works of construction are damaged grea tl y or destroyed . Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects are thrown upward into the air. COLUTE 78,4-001 E NV. ANAL., RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRA N S. LINE ;) ' I· ; i.·~ -~.4 ,'' w, , ' I ,. I : ....... ~.·~¥} :~~~·'*~ :' \; ... ~' I; : ) I~ r \: I I r I ' ~r "1'~·;.,1( -1£• ( !7 : I: •#Q'O I '";;'.:· ----------+.z __ "_;:\":::~'f.w' I I u:, A .'' ... "'''-~ .:. N: Burns & MCi)onnell Engineers-Architect•-Consultants Scale: 1 : 1 ,000 ,000 1 In ch Equals Approx. 16 Miles LEG END -ST U D Y AREA BOUNDARY -PREFERRED CORRIDOR ALTERNA TE CORRIDOR (!) EP I CENTER' -F AU LTED AREA" 'AS REPORTED BY THE NATIONAL GEOPHYSICAL AND SOLAR- TERRESTRIAL DATA CENTER (NO AA ), BOULDER, COLORADO. FROM: "EARTHQUAKE POTE NTI AL IN COLORADO: A PRELI MIN ARY EVALUATION", BY R . M. KIRKHAM, AND W. P. ROGERS, COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1978. NOTE: T H E ENTIRE STATE OF COLORADO, AND THE MAJO RITY OF NEW MEXICO HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS SEISMIC RISK ZONE 1 . Z ON E 1 IS THAT AREA WHERE EARTHQUAKES ARE E X PECTED TO PRODUCE ONLY MINO R DAMAGE. T HIS IN FORMATION WAS OBTA IN ED FROM "SEISMIC R I SK STUD I ES IN THE UNIT ED STATES", S.T . ALGERMI SSEN, NATIONAL OC EA NIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINI STRATION, 1969. Figure A.4.c.-1 SEISMIC HISTORY AND FAUL TED AREAS Information on earthquakes occurring from 1870 to 1975 and potentially active faults in the study area was obtained from the Colorado Geological Survey Open -File Report 78 -3 entitled "Earthquake Potential in Colorado," by R. M. Kirkham and W. P. Rogers. A.4.d. Climate : Mo st of Colorado has a cool, semi-arid climate which could be termed a highland or mountain climate of a continental location. Th e mountain regions are nearly always cool. Generally, the thin atmosphere and low hWnidity allows greater penetration of solar radiation and results in moderate daytime temperatures even during the winter. The climates of local areas are profoundly affected by differences in aspect and elevation and, to a lesser degree, by the orientation of mountain ranges and valleys with respect to general air movement s. While temperature decreases, and precipitation generally increases with altitude, these patterns are modified by the orientation of mountain slopes with respect to the prevailing winds and by the effect of topographical features in creating local air movements. As a result of the state's distance from major sources of moisture (the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico), precipitation is generally light in the lower elevations. Prevailing air currents reach Colorado from westerly directions. Eastward-moving storms originating in the Pacific Ocean lose much of their moisture during movement over mountain ranges to the west. A large part of the remaining moisture falls as rain or snow on the mountain tops and westward-facing slopes. Eastern slope areas receive relatively small amounts of precipitation from these storms. COLA.EA A-25 The average ann ual precipitation in the study area ranges from 1 5.79 inches (40 .1 cm ) in the northern and central portions to 10 .84 inches (27 .5 cm) in the southern portion (NOAA 1974). An average of 24.8 pe rcent of the annual precipitation in the northern and central portions, and 33.9 percent in the southern portion, falls during the summer months of June, July and August . Th e rugged topography of western Colorado causes large variations in climate within short distances, and few climatic generalizations apply to the whole area. At the summits of mountains, temperatures are low, averaging less than 32 degrees F (0 degrees C) over the year. Snow -covered mountain peaks and valleys often have very cold nighttime temperatures during the winter (occasionally to 50 degrees F below zero ). Summer in the mountains is a cool season. At typical mountain stations the av erage July temperature is in the neighborhood of 60 degrees F (15.5 degrees C). The mean annual temperature at lower elevations in the study area ranges from 43.8 degrees F (6 .6 degrees C) in the northern and central portions to 49.7 degrees F (9 .8 degrees C) in the southern portion . The relative humidity iri the study area is generally low . The highest average relative humidity occurs near sunrise and averages 58 percent annually. The minimum average relative humidity occurs in mid-afternoon and often is less than 22 percent . Thunderstorms are very infrequent, and tornadoes almost never occur in the mountains and to the west (NOAA 1974). Heavy snows in the high mountains can create the danger of avalanches, and a spring flood potential can result from the melting of high-level snow or heavy rains. COLA .EA A-26 • A.4.e. Water Resources: The study area includes four major drainage basins: The Gunnison River Basin , The Dolores-San Miguel Basin, The San Juan River Basin, and the Upper Colorado River Basin within the State of Colorado. A.4.e.1. The Gunnison River Basin: Surface Water: Melting snowpack in the high mountain areas is the area s principal water supply. Water yields to the Gunnison River vary from more than 30 inches (76 .2 cm) per year of runoff in parts of the Anthracite Range and West Elk and Sun Juan Mountains, to less than 1 inch (2 .5 cm) per year in the low, dry, warmer parts of the area. Surface waters of the area are generally of excellent quality and, in most areas, well suited for irrigation. The Gunnison River above the Black Canyon is used for generation of hydroelectric power as well as for municipal, industrial, and irrigation purposes. The Gunnison Tunnel, whose intake is located just upstream from the Black Canyon, delivers water for irrigation to the Uncompahgre Valley. Groundwater : Groundwater in the area is not generally available, and when tapped, is often high in dissolved solids. Consequently, there has been relatively little use of this water source, and relatively little data have been developed on its use . It is estimated that groundwater provides less than one percent of the area's total water consumption (National Park Service 1979). A.4.e.2. The Dolores -San Miguel River Basin: Surface Water: Throughout their lengths, the Dolores and San Miguel Rivers traverse diverse environments. Both of these rivers originate high in the San Juan Mountains. Below the towns of Dolores, on the Dolores River, and Placerville, on the San Miguel River, the environments change to a desert COLA.EA A-27 ecosystem with attendant variations in climate, vegetation, soils, geology, fish, and wildlife. Near the Colorado border, below the confluence of the two rivers, high desert conditions prevail . The natural flo w of the Dolores will be regulated by the proposed McPhee Reservoir and Dam, near Dolores , Colorado . Groundwater : Groundwater in this area occurs principally in the sandstone formations, and is g~nerally not available in large quantities. Exi s ting wells yield less than 50 gallons per minute (189 liters per minute) in the Montezuma Valley area and less than 10 gallons per minute (38 liters per minute) in the Dove Creek and Towaoc areas . Depths to groundwater vary considerably, from less than 50 feet (15 meters) along stream vall eys to more than 500 feet (152 meters) on plateaus and stream divides. A.4.e .3. The San Juan River Basin: Surface Water : The San Juan River originates in the San Juan Mountains of Colorado, approximately 100 miles (160 km) east of Cortez. Flowing in a westerly direction through New Mexico and the southwestern corner of Colorado, it joins the Colorado River in southern Utah about 100 miles west of Cortez . The San Juan River has extreme fluctuations in flow under natural conditions, reaching its highest levels in the spring snowmelt period and dropping sharply in late summer. The natural flow has been modified by the construction of the Navajo Reservoir on the mainstem of the river, the Lemon Reservoir on the Animas River (a tributary), and Jackson Gulch Reservoir on the Mancos River (also a tributary). Groundwater: Groundwater is limited in this area and is used primarily for domestic water. Supplies are not sufficient for development as irrigation water or for other large-scale uses. In Colorado and New Mexico COLA.EA A-28 depths to groundwater range from less than 50 feet (15 meters) along stream bottoms and on presently irrigated land to more than 500 feet (152 meters) on plateaus and stream divides. Yields of from 5 to 50 gallons per minute (19 to 190 liters per minute) occur in the eastern part of the area and from to 10 gallons per minute west of Hesperus. Approximately 500 wells produce about 200 acre-feet of water per year in the Colorado portion of the Basin; an estimated 200 wells produce about 600 acre-feet of water annually in the New Mexico portion. A.4.e.4. The Upper Colorado River Basin: Surface Water: The flows of the Colorado River are extremely variable. Its total annual flows, its maxima and minima, and its monthly averages exhibit large variances. The lowest recorded flow of 558 cfs (15.8 m3 /s ) contrasts with the highest, 76,800 cfs (2 175 m3 /s ) by a factor of almost 140. The greatest recorded flood, on July 4, 1894, reached an estimated 125,000 cfs (3540 m3/s), or 224 times the lowest flow. Normal annual crests are in the range of 20,000-30,000 cfs (560-850 m3/s). When the Colorado rises from its winter flow to its spring crest, the river is first dotted with melting ice blocks . The melt gathers the waters of the foothills first, and gradually ascends the mountains to the elevations where most of the water is stored. Over the course of weeks the river widens to almost 1000 feet (305 m) in the valley, and rises some 6 to 8 feet (1 .8-2.4 m). Approximately 2.4 million acre -feet per year of surface water is diverted for use in the area. Groundwater: Groundwater occurs under all of the area. However, the yields of wells are generally small or the quality of the water is poor. CO LA.E A A-29 The current and probable future use of groundwater from the area is small compared to the use of surface water . Groundwater withdrawals in 1970 were only about 24,700 acre-feet. A.4.f. Visual Resources: A.4.f.1. BLM Lands: Characteristic Landscape: The ELM lan~ in the study area lies within the Colorado Plateau physiographic region which encompasses a variety of topography (See Section A.4.a). Visual Resource Management (VRM) classification is currently available for four areas of public lands, which include some scattered private lands. The Grand Junction area encompasses most of Mesa County. The topography in this area ranges from sheer-walled canyons to flat-topped mesas. Vegetation includes aspen, fir, ponderosa pine, pinyon pine and juniper, mountain shrubs, mixed brush, and grasses. The overall landscape character of this area is a natural ruggedness and openness. The Uncompahgre Basin area exhibits two general types of landscapes : adobe badlands, and pinyon-juniper/mountain shrub hills and mesas . The adobe badlands are located in the lower elevations. They have a sand dune appearance, being relatively devoid of vegetation, and create distinct visual patterns when viewed from a distance . The hills and mesas are mostly the lower flanks of still higher mesas and mountains . Pinyan-juniper and mountain shrubs cover the soil and rocks almost completely, resulting in little variation of color. Human-made openings in this area tend to be noticeable, although the long viewing distances often reduce the effect of the intrusion. COLA .EA The San Juan area extends westward from Durango to the Colorado-Utah border. Th e t opography includes steep mountains, narrow valleys, broad hills , and furroughed canyons. Canyon walls vary in height and slope, and are generally roughly textured with frequent rock outcroppings and scattered pinyon, juniper, and ponderosa pine trees. In contrast, the mesa tops are generally covered with cropland, grazing land, and timberland. The area in San Juan County, New Mexico has a topography of mesas and canyons, characterized by broad flats on shaly formations. Th e Ho gback monocline offers visual contrast close to the San Juan substation. Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classes : VRM classes represent the overall existing quality of the environment . They describe the degree of alteration that idealistically could be allowed within a characteristic visual landscape . The VRM classes, defined in Table A.4.f .-1, are therefore management objectives setting forth limits of allowable visual impacts. Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V COLA.EA TABLE A.4.f.-1 Visual Resource Management Classes This class provides primarily for natural ecological changes and does not preclude very limited management activity. Any contrast created within the characteristic landscape must not attract attention . This class is applied to wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers , and othe r similar situations . Changes in any of the basic elements (line, form , color, texture) caused by a management activity should not be evident in the characteristic landscape . The contrast may be seen, but must not attract attention . Contrasts to the basic elements, caused by a management activity, may be evident and begin to attract attention, but should remain subordinate to the existing landscape. Contrasts may attract attention and be a dominant feature of the landscape in t erms of scale, but should repeat the basic elements of the landscape . Change is needed or may add acceptable visual variety to an area where the natural character has been disturbed by unacceptable cultural modification. A~1 F i gure A.4 .f .-1 s how s th e VRM classifi cat i ons a vai lable wi thin the study area. These classes are derived from a process described in Appendix A, combining the scenic quality and sensitivity of an area with its distance from the viewer. The contrast that would be created by a transmission line is determined by examining the land form and vegetation variety on a smaller scale. A.4.f.2. Forest Lands : Characteristic Landscape: The study area encompasses portions of five forests: The White River, Grand Mesa, Gunnison, Uncompahgre, and San Juan Na t ional Fores t s (see Figure A.4.f .-2 ). Each forest has a different landscape cha rac t er. Th e Gr and Mesa a nd Wh i te River Fo res t s are veget a t e d pr ed ominately wi th a spen and s pruce f i r. Th e ge ne r al land f orm is mesa, a lthough mou n t ainous areas do ex ist . The Gunni s on Forest is very mounta i nous and r ocky , a lthough a s pen and spr uce fir a re ev i de nt i n s ome a re as . Th e Un comp a hgre Fores t is ge n erally a b road valley land form. Th ere is a variety of vege t ativ e co v er ranging from grasslands to aspen and spruce fir in the higher elevations. The San Juan Forest topography varies from broad valley in the west to mountainous in the east. Ponderosa pine is found in the western part, with spruce fir becoming more evident in the higher elevations. Classification: Forest Service lands are currently being classified according to the Forest Service Visual Management System. However, that information is not currently available. To arrive at an interim classification of these lands, general land forms were examined in conjunction with vegetation types to assess the impact of the proposed transmission line. This analysis r e s u l t e d i n thr e e v isua l a b sorpt ion ca pa city (VAC) classes, s ho wn in Figu re A.4 .f.-2 : high, med i um, and low . A transmiss ion l i ne passing through a high VAC area would be a less obvious intrusion than in a low VAC area . To measure COLA.EA w z ..J ui -®- < ~ - / ~ 1--=c-~~~,fb~.;....""".--ji--4*'---~-i a: f- z <( :::l z <( U/ w _J LL a: _j <( z <( > z w ~ 0 • 0 00 " w f- :::l __J 0 u "' .!? 0 2 0 <:> o. .... x 0 0 0 c. o. c. .... <! .... "' (ij :J ~ C" (ti w CJ en ..c: CJ c: .... >-a: a: a: <( 0 0 0 0 0 z a: Cf) :::l a: 0 0 a: a: z Cl 0 0 Ill LL <( z u u Q__J w <( 0 w w f->-0 (.!) a: w <( a: w w <( a: <(Li: > ...J a: z >-a: o-w z~ Cf) Cf) Cf) 0 LL w Cf) Cf) Cf) :::l w f-:::l <( <( <( <( f-a: __J Q__J __J ..J _J Cf) ll. <( mu u u u I I D D > Cf) Cf) <( ..J u D 1->-_J ·~ / L !. / s ./ ~ 'Y } ~iilillil•"----__,, ::. ~)"'": ' t t ' Q) .... ::::l Cl LI.. / Y,, ~-'-' ) u /' -;/~~.?.,_ ' ·,. ........... -~"! t . ' -r---':~-~---.:_,__ \ /· , ~ii;.~;-~--·~'·•~--·-" .. N~V>Q~•ti~3~Wf--,<.,__', ;· z "\z 'I· I \ :i 0 L .. J . I • :::• t.~ .. ; COLUTE 78-4-00 1 E NV . ANAL., RI FLE -SAN JUAN TRANS. LIN E e ,.. "" ... ,_:j'l ' l/\ +-· ";f11.at!-·~r f'· r _.-•• ~ (. ~ \ <,,. ~·~~~ '\~ ...... ,. ·1'1¥.... '· .. ~:~.# ;"'r-""=-,_;9~::-i~d~;..!S,4!~1iif~ I -,.r" \. \ "L'"-----~..,,,,.,. ,, ( ' <' . . _... """', '· \ , 1.: ... '· ,... I /!! ( t' io'i)i ,. r-; l• )': • .ef._/ ··•-'M ,;,, '·+'~-......... ~ 'I--' ! .. _iJ-4 I n·~' ' +!J-1 ~ .. ..J_ ... ,:: ___ _ ni .. , .. ~ .. · \ _., I\ '~ I ,, I ' ~ I '")i. ---4-H£.-,•fff :; .. ,..:'I' , ~ # ;;/ °)~: ; I ~-! -~~'"6 L.-,--w: ~ 1~ ' ' J : ''~"(,.,~lip. ~ ~~!~~ ,:.-_-I I s-i. ~~,,..~l I : \; !! r' .... - 1 ... ~ ... -: .. ::-· -,,·.:::i.'~'''" ~:.f '.. ~~IN ·..,:;;,,,: ";:::· ~', 7T..t; Sl"'°'0"-~0 PANALl( '>j!) ./ ct, .. <t' - ? S ~-,.A, I" N !::.,'.· ~~i;-....... j u. A N '· -- .......__ '' l/ ___ "Y"'?\· .11.f.-~1 ~~-$ 06.~~-~* \~·-: ·,!., ~-.»..f---\ '·... ): .. ~e· .~.-. ____ ,.._._ -,~ .. ~-f\4 --"'-.;,,.; /.. R-~GI,~,· {· ;; \ t '\' ' ~ :~;. t ··~t \ L 1·· ,•A ~ .> .... -~ -1--'""'!\.~!i,r• -~~1 ..... i Lf -~~ ... -~rl'- , 1··•·1 N N ,. ·--~ .. rH ST..,~ARp PARAL1..~ .... p-~;-.., \.,~~ !.tfl t '-.H r--- r-t_ w. ~ "'' • ' I ' (: }'I ., ¥ 71 -eft-: -, ·-'1;. 'l-:'l', ']' ; I olt.r ~ -~ t I ' )-e,,....jl~Lll,CIJ· t ' t~ ' ...,j ,, .,,. -~· 7 l'N; -, 'H~ I , I\ ··-· \ I 1 1 _ __j_,i-f-~-+-1·/" " ~ \....-..( "' l r o~~~~t.""OAT§AN ·~~AN ,-, j ! ·~• ,,~ ..... ·r-•NATIONAL i;;.ola-est-r, .. ' I.I ... " l • ~ ~··n-'4" H f:J' .... -~-1 t .' ~~ L .. '"'.'f __ _,_ --,. +--y----~~ 'r . '-,,.,•·-vi"'.t. \ 0·: ~-"·, ;}1-"~~·f..r...v,.cJ I ,-J: "l'v -; "J • / \.. ' -..._......._~ ' ' ' c:.7-.~ ... -;/ ~ ,,-i·7f ~ +\-\ ~-~~~~~~<_~:. ( I \ --ii \ :, • ~) --/ "'"" ·~•.,-.. ,' ,/ . ~--~ ~ ~ 8 D Aft E~1' .. ~ J.l l :;~ .--r \ ....,. i·J. ·~--'i._ /,; r---r-:_ -\ --1 -,_ '''''.' _.JOp' .'-' ·r" ' I r'·•, 1_-........ ....... '";.:--:,......· . "'f ' .~c,..;,' .J... .:. \ .. :~. "4-.. .t-} .,,,, ./ :>-·; ')' I~ _ ,,--:( ./ lstH ST¥'~~Abl h'Nd h -("" 'Tu~,·~· ' /.'/ ,..._ ·- '!'\' "' ;~·· ~~-:.: f -~ I --~-~.\~- $' ,·l::r"/ G pl .;.~ ·-" --7 i ___ .' J 'I 1 .f,.;} I v s;..,/. -\'!" j ··~ .f""'-ttA N 1£ \"\L.:::_ ' . ,'.) .. I -'.?!--1 T ': , f , ..J -RIO GRA~~ .. ' , ,/ '"-1Y\IATl_bN'AL FS}~~SiV\ . , ~ . ; \ 'fl ../\ v J v. ! """'''~'' -~ ..,_ './ .... :'..,. '"r~-,".17,~--J::.-:-•.:. .• \.--j ' ... -y ! ..... Yi ,~! ' \ 1 1 '1 J... i •\'"~ ; --~',1 ~~ ·~, / I : ; '\: °',. : \_ + -";; 't +-# J..,;< ---·'--!;-f""' ·~"'Z "'--1 ' , ,. r \. :i · I \ ,,/ -,~·· I '-:::· ~ ~-. 37 \"1 I ,, • ' ( ,_,...,. :··-........ -. , -~/,.)._'>\-.I ""'-c-1 \: ; ,, , ' 1~ { \ ~ \: ... ·• --~:1::L-~~1 l{ __ ' ' . .l, ~•'>o '{:•..O.•i;'t'.:1 :. f~•·'.;C·•• ' J \ -J.~~j'{; ./ -·· I :l'1.( \ '\: .~-~~- • ...,\ 11111 , )/ , i'. , \ 1~~ ,cbi>o ./"( -!,.-.. ••• r ~1·· _... \ .. ~ .-•.• ~ t ;r. ·l ~ ~· c ~i \ / ~ x-/ ~ ~; ·: ·/ ··-' ;; ,i r ~r ~}?¥~~,, • ¢: ~;/ ,. ,, r.-:-.. ~ :-/.~ • ~ _.(~f"~ .. . , y-h AR-c 'H"'.:1.:i' L • ~ 't -,n ,.:;.:,,;*' , .. _,..... •"'H /:. -~'\.~' • -~ :;.Ji ''Jo-' l ·S>' -.ll ... -+~~ -.-N.,\._ .. ...... ·· __ .. ; , ..... , ,.-t- .,, / ,fl'"' -...,,., I "·•·~· '"~ r < I ·1-' {/ ; ·.; ~ :q~.~-. :_ • "•C-Jlll>f!'Oll I • -..I ~ '7:.t,: '~ ~·~· ' .~ ....... ~·-.. ·~ '"'""J., "''•' . )p ·::-:---'""T __ _J_ __ ~l' f. ' -,, '\ ,;•""; ;~-:' \t··'"'i..:,.. ~c:. , I ... ·~-,.,~~·~· ; '~ '{'-..,._ """"'~-~ ~ r-~;. ,.,.. ·<'''("' r· ;o-!'-.• I.,_ 8 I -~ :; I' ·. l ~· ,,,., ]. 2 ~t7f. i"W \' .. , ."->t.'< ,,__ .. [' \,. .i::~ _.1 •. ,~-p.••c'<:; Burns & KG>onncrll Englnem-s-Architec\5-Consuttents ..... ;. ~ ' . ~ I (•~H S1A,,.OAH_.Q >'"-.,"l I~~-~~,~~ . ·--'-'.__~1 ---'--,.--,,-----t t~;~;~· '"\ '"• e ~ e Scal e : 1 : 1 ,000 ,000 1 In.ch Equal s Approx . 16 Miles L EGEND -STUDY A REA BOU N DAR Y -P R EFERRED CORR I DOR ALT ER N ATE CORR I DOR NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDAR Y HIGH A BS O RPT I O N CAPACIT Y L=:J MEDIUM A BSORPTION CAPAC IT Y [==:J LOW ABSO RPTIO N CAPACITY • CAM P S I TES, SK I ARE A S , PICNI C A REAS INT ERST A TE, U .S., AND S T AT E H I GHWA Y S Figure A.4.f .-2 VISUAL ABSORPT IO N CAPACITY ON FORE ST SERV ICE LANDS the importance of this intrusion, viewer sensitivity was estimated by examining the l oca t ion of hi ghw a ys and c amp si t es i n th e area. I n cases wh ere the pro posed corrid or crosses throu gh a low VAC area and is visibl e from a po pu late d or trav eled area, mitiga t ion may be required to lessen the visual impact. Th ese areas will be examined carefully during the centerline selection for the transmission line. A.4.g. Soils: Soil information for this report was derived from New Mexico State Un i v ersity, 197 3, and Colorad o Sta t e Uni versi ty , 1977 . Th e soil bodies are desc r ibed in Tab le A.4 .g .-1 and deline ated on the so i ls exhibit, Figure A.4 .g .-1 . Many different soil types are present in the study area . Certain characteristics such as severe s lopes , high frost action potential , high erodibility , and high shr ink-swell potential can caus e som e soils to be less s u i t a b le t han oth ers f or construction pu rpo ses. Of all the soils foun d a l ong the preferred corridor (see Figure A.4.g.-1 ), eleven types have one or more of these characteristics that could limit their potential for transmission line construction. These include the Typic Cryoboralfs (rock outcrops), Ustollic Haplargids (loamy-rock outcrop), Lithic Camborthid-Lithic Ustic Torriorthents (loamy), Typic Torrifluvents (silty), Ustic Torrifluvents (loamy), Typic Cryoboroll-Typic Cryorthents (clayey), Argie Cryoboroll-Typic Cyroborolls (loamy), Aquic Ustifluvent-Typic Torriorthent (loamy-calcareous ), Us t ic-Torrifluv en t s (loamy ) -Typic Fluvaquents (clayey ), Pergelic Cryumbrept (skele t al ) -Perge l ic Cryoch re pt s (skeletal-rock outcrop ), an d Aridic Argiustolls -Aridic Haploborolls (clayey ). COLA.EA A-33 / These soils do occur in various locations within the study area, but can be avoided if necessary during centerline location and tower placement. Areas where severe slopes, talus slopes, scarps, swamps, or peat bogs occur would be avoided wherever practical. It should be emphasized that even though these soil characteristics could hinder transmission line construction, mitigative measures can be taken to allow construction. The foundation structures can be adapted to provide adequate support for the transmission line. A.4.h. Flora: A.4.h.1. Vegetative Communities: The study area consists of a variety of vegetative communities which result, in part, from changes in elevation and precipitation (Oosting 1956). The general distribution of major plant communities found within the study area is shown in Figure A.4.h.-1 and are described below. Refer to Appendix B for a more complete listing of plant species within the study area. Pinyon-Juniper Community: The pinyon-juniper vegetative community is located in the foothills and mesa areas of southwest Colorado and northern New Mexico. The pinyon-juniper community is usually found where annual" precipitation ranges from 10 to 16 (25 to 40 cm) inches and at elevations from 6,200 to 7,400 feet (1 ,890 to 2,256 meters). In Colorado, the major overstory plant is Colorado pinyon pine and Utah juniper. In New Mexico, the major overstory plants are Colorado pinyon pine and one-seed juniper. Grasses such as bottlebrush squirreltail, Indian ricegrass, and needle-and-thread generally dominate the understory in Colorado. In New Mexico, the dominant understory is blue grama and galleta. Open sagebrush areas consisting of big sagebrush, black sagebrush and rabbitbrush are often interspersed with the pinyon-juniper community. COLA.EA A-34 Table A.4.g.-1 e e SO ILS IN THE STUDY AREA Elevation Prec ip ita ti o n Fro st-Free Map Feet Inc hes Seaso n Soil Map Un it No. Occurre nce (Meters ) Slo pe Where Formed (Ce nt imete rs) Da ys Typic Cry oboralf -Rock 1 Mountainous areas. Timbered and mountain slopes, 7500 -17500 5-65% In materials weathered from a variety of 20-40 0-75 Outcrop high plateaus, m esas, sparsely vegetated (2286 -3505) crystalline and sedimentary rocks (51 -102) escarpments and rock outcrops . Mos tly Snow Typic Eutroboralf-2 On steep mountainsides, ridge crests, canyon walls, 7000-9000 30-50% Weathered in place from sandstone 15-20 75-105 Clayey -Rock Outcrop and escarpments (2134-2743) and shale (38-51) Typic Haplargids -Loamy 3 Irrigated croplands. (major portion of this unit). 5000-6000 0-5% 10 150-190 Majority in private ownership: Occupies mesas, (1524-1829) (25) high terraces and alluvial fans. Ustollic Haplargids -Loamy 4 Uplands and high terraces 5000-7000 0-5% In aeo lian or partly wind-reworked 10-15 90-165 (1516-2134) alluvial materials medium-textured (25 -38) sediments Ustollic Haplargids -5 Mesas, high benches, and mountain slopes. 5000-8000 2-50% In materials weathered residually 10-15 90-165 Loamy-Rock Outcrop (1524-2438) or locally transported from (25 -38) sedimentary rocks, predominantly sandstone Ustollic Haplargids -Silty 6 Uplands 6000-7000 0-15% In aeolian materials often high in 10-15 100-165 (1829 -2134) very fine sand (25-38) Usto llic Hap largid-Ustertic 7 On gently sloping, high terraces or old allu vi al 5000-6000 2-15% In materials weathered residually 15 110-140 Camborth ids - Clayey fans (1524-1829) from shale (38 ) Ustollic Natrargid -Clayey; 8 On mesas and benches 5000-6000 0-15% In materials weathered residually 12 130-165 Ustollic Haplargid -Loamy (1 524-1829 ) or locally transported materials (30 ) from shale or sandstone Typic Calciorthids -9 Mesas, benches, r id ges, hillc rests and high fans 5000-6000 2-30% In materials weathered residually 8 155-180 Skeletal -Ustic and terraces . (1 524-1829 ) from shale a nd sandstone and in (20) Torriorthent -Loamy calcareous, cobbly a lluvium from weathered basalt and sandstone Lithic Camborthids -Lithic 10 Foothills, colluvial slopes ; breaks and canyons 5500-8000 20-50% In materials weathered residually 15 110-155 Ustic Torriorthents -are numerous . (1676-2438) from sandstone and shale (316) Loamy Typic Torrifluvents -Silty 11 Nearly level flood plains, alluvial fans, and 4800-6500 0-2% In silt alluvium from alkaline shales 10 130-140 narrow valleys (1463-1981) (25) Ustic Torrifluvents -12 Mountain meadow area ; occupy flood plains, low 7500-8000 0-5% In medium -and fine-textured alluvium 15 90 Loamy -Typic .fans, and terraces (2286-2438) (316) Fluvaquents -Clayey Ustic Torrifluvents -Loamy 13 Occupy fans and footslopes in upland valleys 6000-7000 0-5% In alluvial materials from sedimentary 15 110-140 (1829 -2134) rocks, mainly sandstone (38) Typic Torriorthents -14 Hills, ridges, and shale breaks. 4500-7500 2-45% In material weathered in place from 10 130-165 (Shallow) -Clayey (1372 -2286) saline shale (25) Lithic Ustic Torriorthents -15 Low hills, upland breaks, and colluvial slopes. 3500-7500 2-50% In materials weathered in place from 10-15 125 -165 Loamy-Rock Outcrop (1067-2286) sandstone and shale (25-38) Pergelic Cryumbrepts -16 Occupy slop es in a lpine meadows where there 11000-14500 2-50% In materials weathered in place or 30-50 0 Skeletal -Pergelic are massive mountain peaks, rock outcrops, and (3353-4420) locally transported largely from (76 -120) Cryochrepts -Skeletal -rock slides. crystalline rocks Rock Outcrop Aridic Argiborolls -17 Mostly on mountain slopes, mesas, and benches . 6000 -9000 2-50% In materials weathered in place from 15-25 115-125 Aridic Hap lobo rolls -(1829 -2743) shale and sandstone (316-63) Clayey Typic Cryo borrolls -18 Occupy subalpine mountain slopes, ruesas, and 8000-10500 2-50% In a wide variety of materials 15-20 25 -65 Loamy-Rock Outcrop upland benches, and old high terraces and fans (2438-3200 ) consisting of glacia l t ill and outwash, (38 -5 1) weathered sandstone, shale, disintegrated granite , and stony and cobbly coarse -tex t ured a ll uv ium M ap So il M ap Unit No. Occurrence Typic Cryoborrolls -19 Mountainsides Clayey -Typic Cryoboral -Skeletal Typic Cryoboroll s -20 Occupy benches, mountain slopes, and alluvial fans . Typ ic Cryorthents - Clayey Argie Cryobo r olls - Ty p ic 21 On b e n ch es , mountain slop es, high t erraces , hill s, Cryoborolls -Loamy hills, ridge s, fans , till plains, morai nes, and valley side slop es Aridic Haploborolls -22 On mountainsides, mesas , canyons, terraces, fans, Loamy; Torriorthentic valley sideslope s , narrow vall e ys and floodplains Haploborrolls -Loamy; Aridic Arg iborr olls - Clay e y Aridic Agriustoll s -23 On uplands, fans, and va ll ey sides lopes. Aridic Hap loborroll s - Clayey \ Aquic Ustifluvent -24 Located in river valleys, on alluvial fans and in Typic Torriorthents -some areas of intermittent drainage. Loamy -Calcareous Source: "~~_Qf_i'.Q!_<!!:_ad~' Bulletin 566S, Colorado State University Experiment Station, Fort Col lin s, Colorado and "Land_flassif!E!!!_!_Q_n_!_or Injgatiol!_,__~n Juan County~' New Mexico State University Research Report 257. Tab le A.4 .g.-1 SO I LS I N THE STUDY AREA (Continued) Elevation Preci p itation Fros t-F ree Fee t Inches Season (M eters) Slope Wh ere Fo rmed (Ce nt im ete rs) Da ys 7000-11500 15-50% In materials largely weathered in 15-25 20-85 (2134 -3505) place from shale and sandstone at (38-63) lower elevation and from igneous and metamorphic rocks at higher elevations 8000-10000 3-50% In materials weathered in place from 15-20 45-85 (2438-3048 ) sh a le or sand sto n e (316-51 ) 8000 -11000 2-50% In r esiduum from a variety of 15 -30 30 -75 (2438-3353) crystalline and sedimentary r ocks, (316 -76) glacial outwash, and colluvial- alluvial mat erial 6000 -8500 2-45% In materials weathered in plac e from 75 -125 (1829 -:2591) sandstone, shale and igneous rocks Some formed in gravelly , sandy , and cobbly alluvium and glacial outwash 600 0-700 0 5-50% In mat eria ls wea thered from sof t sh a le 12-16 80-125 (1829-2134 ) (30-41 ) 4500 -6500 0-103 In stratified alluvium of mixed origin 10 130-150 (1372-1981) (25) COL U TE 78--001 E NV. ANAL., RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRANS. LIN E I ,{ " 1 • ~ --I ·.·. ,,_ ... . ;/ • )''°I- ~L-, ,. \ l<t.~. ..... •::;;• I •" ' -.., : \ "''i,I !\.: \~ ;::~·::~-~-\._'.... )....'*·> ...... --:... .... \ I . . ,,.,. .r •. .,...}t. _p-....,, '"i \"•··' N N 71 • .• <.' "" '•<!- .. ' -'."Pl' '"' ' , ~·1it ' .i:i17 i ;. T 1;·t?' 4t-l~ , . ·1 / -· :~~ .::,_:.~; :·•. ) ,/ic A R .. ·"A ~~"<",. ~ j.;t .. ~·! " •' ~ .. ~.,, ... ·"' ,\ fMR. ---7 ··- \\, .,.. , ......... ,, ... .., ...... , f4•~ ~·"" 1.'i :J,;··r'-·•U \C"1'i- J -·~~ '-.. 1-o· I '):: ;, : ,, . ·'~.~ • 8 . ' ·->.. : .. . ,. • '; ,," .... t.. .;1 '"-' . •• " "2 , ., '" ,. , I ·,-..-, I r I _; Q:\~ : ...... "<·*+~' loilit ~ ./f ~ I "if'.'"..._':" !....... : ' {',( -) \ 2 I I 1 ' I '' ... 24 ~ ' ~,,,., .c:::I 1: r~····-~f, v\ : 1 I : ~, : : -,. } ~ l7 . ~ ~., ~ :& I ' ; . ! J' ~t ,... ,. ! ' . ,. ~ . :<' IJf: S t;A·.·;N J u·,' A-.N~ ' l j r ... t--; ,-;• ' I-" • .,..,... ~,. -.. •,,, .,t .. ,.. j' (' ... ;; ~· . -:..··4 ~!"t'l'l'f:l";<.~·r'...--::' f \~:.."')... b:.. •• ; ... 'f r~"'·'/<t)'.l .k ... ··"' ). / S1._,.; : ~ ; } : ~ ~ . ·~- T ~~ll'l ! "'•·' !J"'\ J 9.! _i j I' I I ' ,· I -" ' .. '''.t--,..... .... ..... ... ,.., · •• •' ' "'1 ·' .... ~ •.• _,i,. ,_,_ """'"P "'"""" NO•>M .~ -1 , .. ., " ..... · ';-r .... j.l\:. .. _}]' ,. f !.o~ ,.-,;,...""< Burns & MG>onnell Engineers-Architects-Consultants ~: >'.:.· ~ ... • ~ Scale: 1 : 1,000 ,000 Inch Equals Approx. 16 Miles LEG END -STUDY AREA BOUNDARY -PREFERR ED CORRIDOR ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ mnm nmm mmm fill[fil[Il ffilillllim ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q2J ~ ~ ALTERNAT E CORR I DOR TYPIC CRYOBO RALF - rock outcrop TYPIC EUTROBO R A LF clayey -rock outcrop TYPIC HAP LARG I D - loamy USTOLLIC HA PL ARGID - loamy USTOLLIC HA PLARGID loamy-rock outcro p USTOLLIC HAP LARGID - silty USTOLLIC HA PL AR GID - USTERIC CAMBORTHID - clayey USTOLLIC NA TRAR GID - clayey; USTOLLIC HAPLA R GID - loamy TYPIC CA L CIORTHIDS - skeletal; USTIC TORRIORTHENT - loamy LITHIC CAMBORTHID - LITHIC USTIC TORRIORTHENT - loamy TYPIC TORRI F LUVENT - silty USTIC TORRI FLUVENT - loamy; TYPIC FL U V AQU E NT clayey USTIC TORRI FL UVENT - loamy TYPIC TORRIORTHEN T - cla'yey LITHIC UST IC TORRIORTHENT - loamy-rock outcrop PERGELIC CR YUMBR EPT - skeletal; PERGELIC CRYOCHR EPT - skeletal-rock outrcop ARIDIC ARGI BOROLL - ARIDIC HAP LOBOROLL - clayey TYPIC CRYO BOROLL - loamy-rock outcrop TYPIC CRYOBO ROLL - clayey; TYPIC CRYOBO RALF - skeletal TYPIC CRYOBOROLL - TYPIC CRYORTH E NTS - clayey ARGIC CRYO BOR OL L - TYPIC CRYO BOROLL - loamy ARIDIC HAPLOBO ROLL - loamy TORRl0RTHENTIC HAPLOBOROLL - loamy ARIDIC ARGIBOROLL - clayey ARIDIC ARGIU ST O LL - ARIDIC HAPLO BOR OL L - clayey AQUIC USTIFLUV E NT - TYPIC TORRIO RTHE N T - loamy -calcareous Figure A.4.g.-1 SOILS IN THE STUDY AREA CO LUTE 78--4-00 1 E NV . ANAL., R I F L E-S AN J U AN TRANS. LINE e I \c; • \' '" .. , ) J-r . • .-~/ .#./ ~.J ''"· lit ' -~ '·.,.~,~ --\.~~·t"'~·~·· ' ~-"1··~-i 'r'--V .,../ N '~i ~/:lj·" ,.:._·V _ L0~"-i.EI" 1 ~---..... 2 : !'~ . ': \ -, : \, v ' '., ' ' ., ,;, i -~ :'.~,--; -;----"i 'T 11 \" ~-'i-L . ? I : ) (., \ , \ \..-I ; •• -I .t/ ,:, •.,) "\' \ ! ::>_ '\ I .;J •• r\r -;;,-·r~,\-y~y,~~::t,· :~1 \l 1\ \,T. ' l ~:;t;;·tJ;~··::i'~i \. ",'!- ~ 5 .,r,!.( ' i t·1f :/ 8 "'\ '-':'!~ , :..;. -I ~ ~-"'"·11 '·_1' ' ..!' I "¥LJ?MM'I ·-'-/,.-r:·: 45• . / ~y .~ ;-~·,.,: ;-) ~ o~~p .. "IORT,., ; I 1 ... ~ , _, 1 ~.'Wll~·,..· /~ ,'\ \ /., r .... , .• ,.... , )r ·,' / \ .. , , , d : ·• (o \ 11" '. ~/l•~COy··~W 3~ I .. j '~ '-"" ·~·--~-~ .!'t.:::\':2+·:~. :; .. ~-:~+)~-:--~u'· -F-~~~: ,____,· j ~~l.m,....,c;.,.,......;;,,J ' J( "'"'-' ........_ .-:\ -~,;_ j! ~;:·4:~;f~+\-)--.. 'i''.7::...-._ -~'./.. (: . °"\' y\ . \~\'"· •O•• ~~..,..,.---..>' I I · ~ -~ 4.(:\ (-/ ""'1;v~f:::, 11/ i \ \ ! H.) ~ 8 D A;!J,. _ _!;;":ij ---+--{-L·,:, ;;:f. --, --.._ "":Jd1. . ":\'... ' / . --r--:--.., ~::.--;.~"'-t·,,.,. ,v" 1-t't". J. .• ;.( -"_1..-. ,,;,. ·' '.'j.'·: ~· \~ : y _ _((' / 1Q!r"HST¥1P~Al1ELIN$H /\ '-, 5 ; J''l'a_a .... : .../,./ .__ . ._-,;;; : oil~ c ~-·' ..... "" ' --..._;.-h· "" "})' : -~)o-"q\"-i'7j l't'"""~'.o l7 -~_/'.ft. Ji c 1"'7, ,-Y~~\. N E \ -' • ·-~'.\ '\ o..I ~ f l /' ' -:C. ;--'_ z. <. ., '\""""')) i 1 :; i i J' "-J ' \ !-~ ( /-.\ ,J \ ....-t' c:o)>.-, __ ty1 '1 ~/ •, I <f'/ '-..{. • 1' ,)) .... .;;.<' ·""" 1 1,-~J -· __ 1',. : ,,.. (I ·t_l.._,_r0f.i : ~~~: UV""'' ' V //( '! ~'un) . ,, f"i I . ""' , ---~ ' . il . ' i ' : ,; • ''\..).:..\\:·+-ff ,,<>/ \: ""ii f"' ·,!:or, ""I ' :; i /> --t !-,. i fl.\ ™"''" A A -~\\..~Y*~/ ' ''I!:· \\ [\ ,,,-1..i;,:;.~~~ ..... +:z~~~~~'-'r"!'E#i~~!!:'.*'·'::;-,\1~'r:·'.1.~l,.!·~trl r / 'I \ '',/ ··.k _/., .. !\~. ,,;; --.),, ... ;~('!~!"' '• \ \ ).. . ··;·.,-~\,----.:-- ) ~~ Pl~~t ' -~!).'...~ J'-..~ / ( \ ,:'\ l ""i~~ ~" _. 4 .vo-··•' :: ~"' ,>-'_ .<. ..., -~.,; \ '•) ·'::".Jl ••• t'" ·-"f"'-j . -t· \· 4-.... ,~; ': ") / 1 ~l_ ( ~. -(-: ' ~. --~ \ \ ·~' \: "' ~. J. ..J ·! ·~ -- ¥\,\·" / ~.-('\ ~ \ ~ \., J .:;:_ii' .-...'1,...1,., -~,, . : J l\ ~' c L: I 1, ~ro:r· -4~0So'!Spro_ , ~-:J~ ~~~~!.! __ 3 __ :·'"< ( .. '/" ;'. AR :C H;·~ Udl ;~ ) j,I ~·'* r~ " ... .,• :''· ;~, ... <;. .. ~ ·~ol.Ol>"t•..i -) t-'-' -·: !:>.. f.Y . --· ·); .... :· :::: f" •. ~i.,.'1 .J !~l•u~I~ ~,.; .~...:·,~ .(/· •:An.t lL+ g.,~,~, • · , I :: ,, ; c i«k, :1;<' ' ' ' ' ' .. , -"':..' "' (.,, \..,11>1· . ' '~. -,_ ,-' t vr .... ~ .• .l'f~: 1-, , v I ';' ~ t ·:: ) ; '. ~w .... nH ~u..,.,._o ARD PAHALLn NQIH... ·~ I ft >) ! ....... _ .. ,. :: I ; • '" " !" ,_ " \j •< , • ·• , ' I ,, ..;1 '" •• / '" 1 " •. :0 "" \ ( ' : ) ,.· / ' '',\, ; ' • ~ ~ 1 I :.i.""\·*''f~ : -, lo61t _) llw!h-'' .,..ii .... ~"" : _.-..•I I -}""'"-~ I I ) Ir-. ' . ., 1;"'· ,, I - ' -;t / ~ ...... .,, ;"''f _._ .. _.. :, "1'.''("' i ' .~·~''" -) .,. ' . j. 2 )rt\ I W '-"_ \ , .. :\ ' I! : (! s "A. ·~ _;· ·1· ~i ! !-, t-" ~ I N \~ Jr11r,,,_., )'..: ,_ -~-. J -· ""' u, A rt·s~·.,~-~~"' .. ' ' ..... . I : ,...' """ -~.~~ ...-~'l~~io-.! ,. (,:,-H ~l.A"-DARP "°"'" .. ,u .. ;...o"'H• I' i -----, ' ., '·' N: ~:;~~'.~ ~'.! ;i'" ,,. , .. ( ' ... l: \;_ , ,.,~. -I -' .. .,. I v· ... ~ .~ ... ;.~ ~--U.: ,;;,,w<i Burns & MG)onnell Engineers-Architects-Consultants r -<-'.r. ~:.:... ~ \· ~ .'i. ,-;-:-.;· e ~ ~ Scale: 1 : 1 ,000 ,000 1 Inch Equals Approx. 16 Miles LEG END -STUDY AREA BOUNDARY -PREFERRED CORRIDOR ALTERNATE CORRIDOR V EGETATIVE COMMUNITI E S AGRI CULTURE e [][]][][][][]I S ALTBUSH AND GREAS E WOOD CJ C ONI FER -ASPEN CJ PINY ON-JUNIPER lf',\;f;i':~·'·f:'-1 MOU NTAIN SHRUB 1·:'.:-_"'·''.'.:J S A GEBRUSH AND GRASSLAND C=:J B AR REN ~ALPIN E CD CD 0 0 NATURAL AREAS ESCALANTE CREEK NAR RAGUINNEP DRY ME SA PIN YON -JUNIPER F OR EST R A RE LI ZARD AND SNAKE NATU RAL AREA Figure A.4.h.-1 VEG ETATIV E COMMUNITIES AND NATU RAL AREAS 91 Saltbush Community: The saltbush community in western Colorado and New Me x ico includes seve ral spec ies of s altbus h and is typic a lly located betwe e n the pinyon-juni per ve g etat i on community and i rrigated cr o pl a nd s found al ong rive r val l e y s. Sal tbus h exis t s in are a s wh ere annua l precipi t ation a v erag es l ess than 10 inches (25 cm). Th e domi nan t s pe c ies inc lude s h adscal e, ma t saltbus h , Gar dner sal tbus h , and in New Mexico, th e fo u r-wing saltbu s h . Preva lent gras ses are galleta, blue grama, a nd bott l e b rush s quirrel t ail. Ra bbitbr u s h and bro om s n a ke we ed al s o occur. Mounta i n Sh r ub Community: The mountain shr ub commun i ty includes untimbered lands where shrubs other than sagebrush and rabbitbrush predominate. It generally occurs in areas with 14 to 18 inches (36 to 46 cm ) of annual precipitation, at elevations from about 6,000 to 9,000 feet (1 ,829 to 2,743 meters). The major ov erstory species are Gambel oak, common service b erry, and mountain mahogany . The understory consists of bluegrass, smooth brome and arrowleaf bal s am r oot . Sagebrush Community: The sagebrush co mm unity is usually found a d jacent t o the pinyon-j uniper co mm uni t ies in similar elevation and precipi t a t ion zones. Big sagebrush and bl ack sageb r u s h are the do minan t species; rabbitbrush occurs less often. Other species include blue grama, galleta grass, bottlebrush squirre l tail, bluegrass, Indian ricegrass, cheatgrass, globmallow, prickly pear, western wheatgrass and Thurber's fescue. COLA.EA A~5 Conifer-Aspen Community: The conifer-aspen community is found at the higher range elevations from 6,000 feet to 11 ,000 feet (1 ,829 to 3,353 meters), which receive 20 inches (51 cm) or more of precipitation annually. Douglas fir, subalpine fir, blue spruce, Engelmann spruce, ponderosa pine and aspen are the major overstory species. Understory species include fescue, junegrass, western yarrow, bluegrass and alpine timothy . Barren Areas: Barren areas are nearly devoid of vegetation due to overgrazing, mining, erosion or poor moisture and soil conditions. Vegetative species present are typical of disturbed or poor soil conditions. Saltbush, alkali sacaton, ring muhly and rice grass often occur. Greasewood and Halfshrub Community: The greasewood and halfshrub vegetation community includes disturbed areas below 6,200 feet (1 ,890 meters) where vegetation has not been totally depleted or has begun to recover. Disturbed areas are often sheep and cattle holding areas or the result of mineral exploration. Major plants representing this community are black greasewood, alkali sacaton, broom snakeweed and wild daisy. Other plants common to this community include sagebrush, saltgrass, saltbush, foxtail barley , cocklebur, ragweed and Russian thistle. Riparian and Broadleaf Tree Community : The broadleaf vegetative community, which can occur in riparian habitat, is located mainly along higher elevation drainages and lower elevation perennial streams. Major riparian tree species in the Uncompahgre Basin area of Colorado are quaking aspen and cottonwood . Conifers are often interspersed with aspens in this community . In the southern Dolores and Montezuma counties of Colorado, dominant riparian species are cottonwood and box elder interspersed with dense growths of willow, alder and hawthorne. A variety of forbs and shrubs make up the understory. COLA.EA A-36 Grasslands: Grassland communities, which are sometimes small and scattered, include mountain meadows in the midwestern counties of Colorado and semidesert grasslands in the southwestern counties. Th e actual plant composition can vary considerably but usually includes Arizona fescue, junegrass, western yarrow, subalpine needlegrass, tufted hairgrass and invader species: cocklebur, Russian thistle and kochia. Agricultural Areas: Major agricultural lands are found along the Uncompahgre River, the North Fork of the Gunnison and in other areas of the Colorado River basin. Irrigated croplands are common in the Montezuma Valley area with smaller irrigated areas located along the Dolores River . The major agricultural uses of the land are for alfalfa, meadow hay and pasture. Dry croplands, with occasional scattered islands of pinyon-juniper woodland, exist between elevations of 6,500 and 7,500 feet (1 ,981 to 2,286 meters) in northwestern Montezuma County and western Dolores County. See Section A.4.k.-1 for a description of the various crops which may occur in the study area. Alpine Community : Alpine areas are scattered throughout southwest Colorado at or above the tree line. The alpine areas have no characteristic dominant plant species but include several tree species and many species of grasses, sedges and forbs. Plant species predominating in the alpine areas include alpine avens, alpine bluegrass , American bistort, aspen sunflower, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, rushes and sedges. A.4.h.2. Threatened and Endangered Plant Species: Four species of plants that are found within the study area have received federal designation as threatened or endangered. The spineless hedgehog cactus and Knowlton's hedgehog cactus are designated as endangered, CO LA.EA A~7 while the fishhook cactus and the Mesa Verde cactus are designated as threatened. The Colorado Native Plant Society and the New Mexico National Heritage Program have developed lists of the plants they consider to be endangered within the states of Colorado and New Mexico . The purpose of these lists is to identify plants for which there is concern within the states and establish a base for individual and public support of programs to preserve threatened and endangered plant species. Although there is no legislated protection for state endangered plants, they were considered during the corridor selection process. Identification of these species in this analysis has been omitted to reduce the possibility of confusion with the federally designated species. The spineless hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. inermis ) received federal designation as endangered on November 7, 1979 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 ). The plant occurs at elevations of 5,000 to 8,000 feet (1 ,524 to 2,438 meters) and is primarily found in shaded areas beneath pinyon pines. It may also be infrequently found with sagebrush on cool exposures. The species has been commercially exploited and is susceptible to grazing and trampling by livestock. Knowlton's hedgehog cactus (Pediocactus knowltonii) was designated as endangered on October 29, 1979 (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979). The species is associated with gravelly soils at elevations of 6,000 to 6,400 feet (1 ,829 to 1 ,952 meters). The major threat to remaining populations is commercial exploi tation . The designation of threatened was given to fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus ) on October 1 1, 1979 (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979 ). The preferred habitat for this species consists of rocky and dry CO LA. EA A-38 alkaline hills at elevations around 5,000 feet (1 ,524 meters ). The cactu s is often associated with shadscale, galleta grass, and Ephedra . Commerc ial exploitation and trampling by livestock are considered to be the major threats to existing populations. Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesae-verdae) was designated a threatened species on October 30, 1979 (U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979). The species is found on dry clay soils at elevations of 4,000 to 5,000 feet (1 ,220 to 1 ,524 meters). It may occur singly or in clusters. Commercial exploitation is the greatest threat to existing populations, and the species does not thrive under cultivation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has not published critical habitat for the above species as each is threatened by commercial exploitation, and it is felt that publishing the location of areas in which these species are found could result in further harm to existing populations. Areas in which these species are likely to be found within the study area were located on maps; however , so as not to threaten further commercial exploitation of these species, these areas are not shown in this report. The possible impacts of the proposed Rifle-San Juan transmission line on threatened and endangered plants and mitigation measures are discussed in Section B.2.c. of this report. A.4.i. Fauna : Information regarding wildlife resources was collected from a variety of sources including the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Water and Power Resources Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Forest Service. Specific references are included in the bibliography. The following is a discussion of representative species, while Appendix B includes a more comprehensive listing. COLA .EA A ~9 A.4.i.1. Mammals: A.4.i.1.a. Large Mammals : Large mammals occurring in the study area include mule deer, elk, bighorn sheep, pronghorn antelope, mountain goat, mountain lion and black bear . Figure A.4.i.-1 gives the known distribution or range within the study area for many of these species. Mule Deer: Mule deer are widely distributed and common throughout the study area (Bissell 1978), particularly during the summer months. During the late fall and winter, heavy snow at upper elevations force the deer to lower elevations where food is available. Winter range is normally found at elevations below 7,000 feet (2,134 meters). Since the turn of the century, much of the winter range utilized by mule dee r has been converted to farmland and other uses. The spring-fall migration routes are generally found at elevations from 6,500 to 8,000 feet (1 ,981 to 2,438 meters). The spring migration routes often serve as fawning grounds as deer move up from their winter range. Mule deer habitat generally includes coniferous forest, desert shrubs, chaparral and grasslands with shrubs. Elk : Elk are also widely distributed throughout the study area. The Colorado Division of Wildlife describes elk populations as common throughout the Colorado study area (Bissell 1978). Elk are less common in the New Mexico portion of the study area (N .M. Department of Game and Fish personal communication). The elk summer range coincides with that of mule deer (7,800 to 14,000 feet; 2,377 to 4,267 meters) although elk band together more than deer. Summer range usually consists of a variety of areas with high altitude grasses, sedges, willows, and herbaceous forbs. Elk generally winter at elevations ~ between 6,500 and 9,600 feet (1 ,981 to 2,926 meters) in riparian, pinyon-juniper COLA.EA A40 COLUTE 78.4-00 1 E NV. ANAL., RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRANS . LINE e •s -,; "1 ) I -l" -... _ i~\ _,'!\ i'~ ''\, x ,c: "•.f,:. \.:, '•• t· • I ,• . "'-*,~~· lfl~ ; ~ ~ .• : ·~ \ , ... ~·~~ ,. .,;. ~ .:;:,,_ V . N ·"'~"" ., it< \-k~ \~~> -\ ' l '\\ ' '\ ·-~ '\'f-1·-;... ·-·- \ ~-'i•. ''-L l" 't I , \ , , ' / Ii 11 ~ ; !-\ ("' 1,, \.~· \.~--\-t.l -~..4~ •·1 ... ',l. \ \ \ ' ;./-; _. ' \. I n'-•-;i;' ';./ ,;..,:!~ \~ .\ ~!* l '-1 ... .. , < ~1 ~ '~;: ,,r, ~ \ 'f 4t'!: , ~ ,, Ji ' \ . ·i , ' ' JU ' //.".I ,c-,s_,,~ -'---~~::.<ii• ~ · · -rQ r;· ..J . . I"'" "~_:_; • • j,•'. ~· JI ~ {~\ -~"' ,.; ; f-, ;: 1,. ..... ·; . ~ ).~ .. =~~;~~: .. ~ --y ~f I~~;,;;; ·-" ·'::-' ,7 ( * ,--f:'::;;."'.......t l 'V ..... >..,.._.. --::I· , I ·n -"' t\-\ ' / "'"' ~ .. ,. ' I I ,j " ,._..,1(-... ~-N(-~ 8 o .A_ft-__ ~!~J/ 1 _ ~-\ .., l '"'. ! , '--., \..;_'::';/,}. ·":\'.~ ' -:_;;r .. -tl .... \ J 'Ll (A N ""'"..; ' ,-.,..., '• :;-·"' ·t f. · -1..:-'-. ,, .. r •• .,,,. ., : ':... " \_ -:i ,'" : I \ <:t"' '4·•+-( "'-~ ~.'\\n ~-·-.''4r*"~T¥3oM' ··'·-. ARAl LE~· N T'"I I " : -.!·-,(,: -;--' ~--.. ,.. ,.. . 'I r +>" . "'/ j,,--.,,_ "'' .................. -:.,~~,...,:=_<~ ~-~-~~~--~~--~.-----~ : ·-·~~~~ . • T . ...,,, ... ~ '\. \ if~ .. \, I 11!11 " .~>~; ~?J. / ~ --~ ,,., '"-·-~}.~ :--'_.r~~ ---t ...... , ( _1;, A R C"NH ,:1.J L , \n .._.,,; (+ .... 1-~<>".,? ·~.-"'~'M ,-.e;.:':"r,.. .. "~; .,_ -/i"~-.. 1 .... , ,~, .. I ~ ~l·~ .. '4: .., -> ........ .<11""' 1.,,_ --~· r-.0 .,_ ;;,/ ,_ .... ·:":" I :: -. :: .( ! \ ~! -. I •-.; •;"' \/\ ., : .... ru(~,"'.'~H I ">: ,::;~· f \<:,, ' I ;1~ ·.I' /, / (...,.,.,~.-9.1•.r· JI . ~,...,.~ "'· . .' I ~!: 11 :;,· ·~,W ~l ,,,<I ,, , ·::., -f -;: > ,··'' t .. w! '°" .• ·' ,,, f " " • , , ." I ,, -{ 1.'i"f"''' ,.--~·-.· ' ~" " ! , . . ..., ·'·, ~, Li •. l ,,l, I . -", _,_, .. ,. , '\ ) . : .... ".' .. -!--~---.. ' . \ \ " j: ; ; ' :· I'/ ~, ·' , ·~ _ "•-! : §I; l_ :(\'; f f!} s t/A.'·'.r "....-N I II .. /\-,.,.,:· l' ,, ' ' ' t -~~kt.--. ;,,. ' I ' f""" -..... :,,_....., .¥ ._.." , ·:. '"" ·"-·~-2 " ·c. " ·... -. . ' i:::: ~ I ( ' ... """'" !'. \ z ' .... r "'1:"ir; . ... :l"' • j ......,... ., ., /Q: ,..,.. . fl..-~,.. •. .. .... '"'· =,. "1>~"t~ r.~ ... ~-,...,.c..,o\I'~:. p,..i....,~1.t., r-.o ... ~... _ ~ -----+ , I " "i ~ f. ~.;..' ~i:. :.1-." -· ,;;;;(.~,< Burns & MG>onnell Engineers-Architects-Consultants ,. 7"'7'---~ --1 :..,. 1. ,~ ij, e ~ Scale: 1 : 1 ,000 ,000 1 Inch Equals Approx. 16 Miles --I Im) CJ ~ CJ ISiJ L EGEND STUDY AR EA BOUNDARY PREFERRED C O RR IDO R ALT ER N ATE CORRIDOR MULE DEER AND E L K CALVING AND FAWNING AREAS MULE DEER AND ELK CRITICAL WINTER RANGE MU LE DE ER AND ELK M I GRATION ROUTES BIGHORN SHEEP OVERALL RANGE BIGHORN SHEEP LAMBING AREAS MOUNTAIN GOAT O V ERALL RANGE PRONGHORN ANTELOPE O V ERALL RANGE Figure A.4.i.-1 LAR GE MAMMALS . and mountain shrub areas. The spring-fall range (7 ,500 to 8,000 feet; 2,286 to 2,438 meters) includes the lower portion of its summer range and the upper portion of its winter range. Elk migrations are variable and usually less extensive than deer movements. Burt and Grossenheider (1976) reported elk habitat to include semi-open forest, mountain meadows, foothills and valleys . Bighorn Sheep: Bighorn sheep are less common than deer and elk and are found at only a few restricted sites within the study area. The Colorado Division of Wildlife reported breeding populations in the northern and eastern mountainous regions of the study area (Bissell 1978). Pronghorn Antelope: Pronghorn antelope are found in highly limited ranges within the study area (Figure A.4.i.-1 ). The Colorado Division of Wildlife classifies antelope as common with scattered herds reported throughout southwest Colorado (Bissell 1978). Remnant herds of unknown size are reported in northern New Mexico (Whitford 1978). Mountain Goat : Mountain goat range within the study area is highly limited (F igure A.4.i.-1 ). During the summer, goats are usually found a·bove the timberline, while in the winter they move to lower elevations. Preferred habitat includes steep slopes and benches along cliffs (Bu rt and Grossenheider 1976). The Colorado Division of Wildlife classifies mountain goats as rare in southwest Colorado (Bissell 1978). Mountain Lion: The mountain lion ranges through most of the study area, although it concentrates along riparian and canyon areas. The distribution of the mountain lion is similar to that of the mule deer . Its hunting radius is extensive, since it often preys on deer and follows the herds ~ to and from their seasonal ranges. Mountain lions occur at low densities in COLA .EA A-4 1 northern New Mexico (Public Service Company of New Mexico 1978). The mountain lion is reported as rare in Colorado (B issell 1978). Black Bear : Biss ell (1 978) repo r ted that black bear are common in Colorado with a hab i t at preference for ri parian and coniferous forest. Whitford (1978) indicated bears were uncommon in northern New Mexico . A.4.i .1.b . Small Mammals : Small mammal s inhab iting the study area include, but are not limited to the raccoon, weasel, mink, coyote, fox, bobcat, beaver and muskrat. Table APP .B.-1 includes scientific names and additional s pe cies. The following is a brief description of the above species, based on the general habitat in which they are found . Table APP.B .-6 indicates the relative distribution and abundance of a variety of other small mammals known to occur in the study area. Riparian and Lake Habitat: The Colorado Division of Wildlife classifies the beaver, raccoon and muskrat as common in the study area (Bis sell 1978). The incidence of the mink ha s been undetermined, but mink are known to breed within the study area (B issell 1978). Th e beaver prefers deciduous forest, marshes and l akes. Muskrat habitat includes streams, lakes and irrigation ditches where they inhabit burrows in stream banks or lodges built of vegetation and mud. Raccoons are common along riparian habitat, ponds and irrigated areas. Forest and Shrub Habitat : The long-tailed weasel, red fox, grey fox, bobcat and coyote are classified as common in the study area by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (B issell 1978). Whil e the s ho rt-tailed weasel is generally restricted to higher elevation conifer and mountain shrub habitats , the more common long-tailed weasel is less restricted in its habitat requirements. The red and gray fox prefer a mixture of forest, open areas and brushy country. COLA .EA A-42 Bobcats and coyotes are found in a variety of habitat with a preference for partially wooded and brushy areas . A.4.i.2. Birds: A.4.i.2.a. Gallinaceo u s Birds: Gallinaceous birds within the study area include turkeys, Gambel's quail, ring-necked pheasants, chukars, blue grouse, sage grouse and s h arp-tailed grouse. Th e a b ov e species are discussed according to the habitat in which th ey occur. Forest and Shrub: Tu rkeys are commonly found i n pinyon-juni pe r woodlands and ponderosa pine forest with a Gambel oak understory . The blue grouse is found at higher elevations, preferring a coniferous forest environment. Sharp-tailed grouse inhabit a variety of vegetative communities, particularly rougher oak brush areas from 7,000 to 9,000 feet (2,134 to 2,743 meters) in elevation. Gambel's quail inhabits warm dry valleys of saltbush and pinyon-juniper woodlands. Cropland an d Sage-Grassland Areas: Th e ring-necked pheasant is an introduced species preferring farmlands with good vegetative cover. Sage grouse are not widespread in Colorado but are an important gamebird requiring open sage-grassland areas. Dry climate and broken rimrock areas are preferred by chukars, a game bird introduced from Eurasia (Udvardy 1977). Sharp-tailed grouse may occur in sage-grassland areas as well as in more shrubby habitats. A.4.i.2.b. Ducks and Geese: Th e greatest concentrations of waterfowl and s ho rebirds occu r around reservoirs and lakes; how e ver , streams, ponds and wetland habitats are important. Although most birds of this group migrate south in the fall to New Mexico, Arizona and Mexico, a few birds of certain species are present year COLA.EA A-43 round. Species known to be present during the winter include the Canada goose, mallard, gadwall, American shoveler, American wigeon, blue -winged and green-winged teal and the American coot. Kingery and Graul (1978) reported these species as common within the study area. The study area is not located within the Nation's principal waterfowl migration corridors (B ellrose 197 6 ). Major waterfowl concentrations within the stud y area generally coexist with the bald eagle concentration areas indicated on Figure A.4.i.-2 which includes the Paonia-Hotchkiss region of Delta County, Co lorado. Table APP .B.-6 and Table APP.B.-2 indicate additional waterfowl, including shorebirds and marsh birds, that may occur in the study area. A.4.i.2.c. Pigeons, Doves and Songbirds: Mourning doves can be found in a variety of habitats including croplands, reservoirs and shrub lands. The band-tailed pigeon is a summer resident of coniferous forest but also frequents pinyon-juniper communities. Mourning dove s are desc ri bed as a bundant in Colorado and the band-tailed pigeon is classified as fairly common (Kingery and Graul 1978). A large number of songbirds (passerine species) are found in the study area, many of which are migrants. In general, sage-grassland habitats support a variety of bird species, but forest and mountain shrub areas will have a higher diversity of birds (Karr and Roth 1971 ). Table APP .B.-2 and APP .B.-6 list other species which are known to occur in the study area. A.4.i.2.d. Hawks, Eagles and Falcons: The raptors, or birds of prey, that occur in the study area include eagles, hawks, owls, falcons, ospre y and vultures . There is a variety of ra pto r habitats in the study area, including nesting, hunting and resting areas. Raptors are attracted to ponds, reservoirs, marshes and rivers where waterfowl COLA.EA A44 and other prey are present. Specific raptors found in the study area include turkey vultures , red-tailed hawk , rough-legged hawk , Cooper's hawk, American kestrel, marsh hawk, Swainson's hawk, great horned owl, bald eagle, golden eagle and peregrine falcon. The bald eagle and peregrine falcon are discussed further in Section A.4.i.5. A.4.i .3. Reptiles and Amphibians: The amphibians and reptiles reported to occur in the study area are widespread in the southwestern United States. Common or abundant species (Bissel 1978 ) include the Arizona tiger salamander, leopard frog, Boreal chorus frog and the Woodhouse's toad. Less common species include the bull frog, yellow-headed collared lizard, northern sagebrush lizard, northern tree lizard, Utah milk snake, and the wandering gardner snake. See Table APP.B.-6 for the habitat of selected species and Table APP.B.-3 for scientific names and additional species. A.4.i.4. Fish: Distribution of fish varies from stream to stream and according to differences in water quality within streams. Fish species not listed as threatened or endangered and found within the study area include the brown trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, mottled sculpin, flannelmouth sucker, speckled dace, brassy minnows, fathead minnows, red shiner, smallmouth bass, black bullhead, and channel catfish. See Table APP.B.-4 for scientific names. A.4.i.5. Threatened and Endangered Animal Species: A number of animal species that have received federal or state protection may occur in the study area. These species are listed in Table A.4.i.-1 . A discussion of these species follows. COLA .EA A-4 5 Federal: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service currently includes eight species on its list of threatened or endangered species that may be found in the study area. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), the black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), the whooping crane (Gru s americana), the Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius), the humpback chub (Gila cypha) and the bonytail chub (Gila elegans ) are designated as endangered while the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) is designated as threatened. In addition, the Great Basin silverspot butterfly (Spey eria nokomis nokomis) is currently proposed for listing as threatened. Most bald eagles that occur in the study area belong to the northern subspecies and migrate far to the north of the study area during the summer breeding months. In winter they migrate south to areas of open water where they occupy temporary roosts along major watercourses and reservoirs. These water bodies provide abundant fish resources, one of the eagle's principal food items. Several nest sites were located in the study area but will not be affected by the proposed project (see Section B.3.e ). Figure A.4 .i.-2 shows hunting and concentration areas for the bald eagle in the study area. Reasons for decline in numbers of bald eagles include loss of habitat, removal of mature old growth trees preferred for nesting, pollution of streams, shooting and poisoning (Sprunt 1972). Peregrine falcons utilize certain parts of the study area as hunting territories and nesting areas (see Section B.3.e.). Nesting sites are generally located on cliffs ranging in height from 400 to 2,000 feet (121 to 610 meters). Hunting territories are generally large as the peregrine falcon will commonly travel 10 miles (1 6 kilometers ) to locate prey which generally consists of ~ smaller bird s (C olorado Division of Wildlife 1978 ). Population declines of this CO LA.E A A4 6 • , Table A.4.i.-1 THREATENED AND ENDA NG ERED ANIMAL SPEC IE S IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name BIRDS Bald eagle Mississippi kite Peregrine fa lcon Red·headed woodpecker Whooping crane MAMMALS Black -footed ferret Grizzly bear Mink River otter Wolverine FISH Bonytail chub Colorado river cutthroat Colorado squawfish Humpback chub Razorback sucker Round tail chub INVERTEBRATES Great Basin silverspot butterfly 1 E = Designated as an endangered species . 2 T = Designated as a threatened species. 3 PT = Proposed for threatened status. Status Sc ient ific Name Federa l Co lo rado Haliaeetus leucocephalus El E Ictinia mississippiensis Fa lco peregrinus E E Melanerpes erythrocephalus Grus americana E E Mustela nigripes E E Ursus arctos horribilis Tz E Mustela vison Lutra canadensis E G!.!lo gulo E Gila el egans E E Sa l mo clarki p l euriticus T Ptychoche ilus lucius E E Gila cypha E E Xyrauchen texanus T Gila robusta Speyeria nokomis nokomis PT 3 New Mexico E E E E E E E E E E E • COLU T E 78-069-4-001 E NV. ANAL., RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRANS . LINE ' -'-.\ •1 t'""""' " \ 1 ,...,.(, \ '· ' \. ''-· ·' ., -.< 'l ·····:\ ' ( \~~ l,' I. l ,_ 'I< r:-~.-~~·~ "i 1 •' 41;-"1-;.· ~-· ·:~ ': ... ~ ~ e ,,:: l' '> 4t/ c -~:r I )~j)~·_li£11t ~ 'it.•~ ' I l '\ ~ ,. I Burns & MG>onnell Englneers-Archltect•-Consultents Scale: 1 : 1 ,000 ,000 In ch Equals Approx. 16 Miles -- - LEG END STUDY AR EA BOUNDARY PREFERR ED CORR I DOR ALTERNAT E CORRIDOR AREAS CONTAINING PRAIRIE DOG TOWNS WOLVERINE RIVER OTTER BALD EAGLE HUNTING AND CONCENTRATION A REA S MISSISSIPPI KITE RED H EADED WOODPECKER MINK Figure A.4.i .-2 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED FAUNA species are associated with the killing and capture of birds on their breeding and wintering grounds and the widespread use of persistent pesticides (H ickey and Roelle 1969). The black-footed ferret is a highly specialized predator that depends on prairie dogs for food and prairie dog tunnels for shelter. As a result of this close assoc1ation with the prairie dog, the ferret's distribution was and is highly correlated with the distribution of large prairie dog towns. Programs to eradicate prairie dogs through the years appear to have resulted in the decline of ferret populations. No confirmed sightings of black-footed ferrets have occurred in the study area in recent years; however, should this species be found in the study area, it would be in association with large prairie dog towns. Areas with large prairie dog towns are shown in Figure A.4.i .-2. Mr. Harold Olson, Director, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish indicated that prairie dogs range throughout the New Mexico portion of the study area; h owever, there is no record of black-footed ferrets ever being in the area and the presence of black-footed ferrets now is very doubtful (personal communication). The whooping crane does not reside within the study area but may pass through it duri ng migration . Limiti ng factors for the whooping crane include a low reproductive rate and the need for extreme isolation while nesting (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1978). The Colorado squawfish has historically inhabited the main river channels of the entire Colorado River and its major tributaries from Mexico to Wyoming . The species is currently re po r ted as rare or nearly absent from most ~ of its former range. The degradation and alteration of virtually the entire Colorado River basin by water development projects, with their associated water COLA.EA A~7 • level fluctuations, is reported as a major reason for declining numbers of squawfish (Joseph and Sinning 1977). Th e int roduction of, and competition with, nonendemic species is another possible reason for declining squawfish numbers. Within the study area the squawfish may occur in the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers near Grand Junction, Colorado and the San Juan River in New Mexico. The bonytail chub has not been collected in Colorado since the late 1960s. Historically the bonytail chub inhabited the large tributaries of t~e Colorado River system, which included the Yampa, Green, Colorado, Gunnison and perhaps the White , San Juan and Dolores Rivers in Colorado. Since there are no known bonytail chub populations in Colorado, no essential habitat for the species has been designated in the study area. Water development projects and competition with introduced species are likely reasons for the bonytail's decline (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1978 ). The humpback chub has been collected in deep, slow-moving canyon-bound waters. Within the study area, it may be found in the Colo rado River near Grand Junction. Water development projects and loss of genetic integrity is likely to have triggered the extreme rarity of the humpback chub (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1978). Known populations of grizzly bears are generally associated with isolated or inaccessible regions. Although it is considered likely that this species has been extirpated within the study area, the southern San Juan Mountains appear to have suitable habitats for a breeding population of this species (Colo rado Division of Wildlife 1978). The Great Basin silverspot butterfly is restricted to isolated seeps and springs in the Colorado Plateau and Great Basin. The species requires a • marshy meadow in which violets, the butterfly's larval food, can grow. The main COLA.E A A-48 threat facing this species is the conflict between th e vi olet's need fo r a moi st ha b i t a t and man 's growing water nee d s. Stat e: In addition to those species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wild l ife service, four species from the Colorado list of threatened or endangered wildlife may occur in the study area. These are the wolverine (Gulo gulo ), river otter (Lutra canad ensis ), razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus ) and the Colorado River cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki pleuriticus). New Mexico lists four additional species of endangered wildlife that may occur in the study area. Th ese are the mi nk (Mu s t ela vis on), the Miss i ssippi ki t e (Ictin ia mississippiensis ), th e r ed -headed woodp ecke r (M e laner pes erythr ocephalus ) and the roundtail chub (Gi la r obusta ). In the Colorado portion of the s tudy area th ere have been no recent confirmed sightings of the wolverine , and no part of the state i s currently c onside r ed e s sentia l hab i tat . The ri v er ott er was ex t irpa t e d in Colo r ado , but has been recent ly reint roduce d into t he Gunnison River drainage. Figure A.4.i.-2 shows the river otter range and the location of recent unconfirmed wolverine sightings in the study area. The Colorado River cutthroat trout occurs in two locations in the state, one of which (Northwater Creek) occurs near the northern boundary of the study area. Within the study area the razorback sucker frequents the Colorado River from DeBeque, Colorado downstream to the Utah border and the Gunnison River from Whitewater, Colorado downstream to the confluence with the Colorado River. The mink, Mississippi kite, and the red-headed woodpecker all may oc cur i n a s s ocia t i on wi th ri pa rian ha b i t a t s on th e Sa n Jua n, La Pl a t a and Anima s ~ Rivers in t h e New Mexico portion of the stud y a r ea (Figure A.4 .i .-2 ). The COLA .EA A-49 roundtail chub may be found in the San Juan River drainage in this area (New Mexico Department of Game an d Fish 1978). A.4.j. Special Land Clas sificati ons: A.4 .j.1 . Prime Farmland: Prime farmland is described qualitatively by the Soil Conservation Service as " land used for the production of food and fiber, or available for these uses. It has a soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply neeeded to produce economical ly sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to modern farming methods ." The majority of the prime farmland in the study area, as delineated by the Soil Conservation Service, is concentrated in the North Fork Valley, Orchard City, and between Delta and Montrose. Smaller concentrations are located east of Rifle, southeast of Durango, south of Cahone ~ and east of Grand Junction (Figure A.6.a.-2 ). In New Mexico, prime farmland is centered around Farmington along the Animas , La Plata, and San Juan Rivers . A.4 .j .2. Wetland s: Wetlands are defined in the Federal Register as "those areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances do or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs , and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows , river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds." These types of aquatic environments furnish essential habitat for all waterfowl and many species of small mamm a l s. Th e problem of saving wetlands is to prevent them from being drained, flooded or filled, thus losing their value as wildlife habitat. COLA.EA A-5 0 Executive Order 11990 , signed in May 1977, establishes Federal policy to preserv e and enha n ce the natu ra l an d beneficial va lues of we tl a nd s; F e d eral a g enc i es are re qu ired t o take ac t i on to a vo id a dv ersely im pacting we t l and s wh erev er po ssib l e, to minimize wetland s destru ction, and to preserv e t h e values of wetlands. # The information on wetland s in southwestern Colorado is very limited, due primarily to t h e limited amount of wetland areas in this semi-arid region. Distribution of twen ty we t l a n d ca tegories, map pe d for t h e entire Uni t ed States by the Fish and Wi ldlife Se r vice in 1971, r eveals no we t l and s of s ignificant size in the portions of Colorado and New Mexico relevant to this project. Communication with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS ) revealed that a wetlands map of the study area has not been developed. In general, low-lying areas near r ivers, lakes and ponds a r e likely to be wetlands (see Fi gure A.6 .a .-1 ). A.4 .j .3. Floodplain s: Floodplains are defined in the Federal Register as "the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters including floodprone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year." Executive Order 11988 entitled "Floodplain Management" was signed by President Carter in 1977. It requires agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modifica t ion of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of fl oodpl ain de v elopment. Flooding in southwestern Colorado can result f r om large f r ontal-type rainstorms approaching from the southwest, from rapidly melting snow, and from localized cloudburst storms. Flooding from general rain can occur from mid -June COLA.EA A-5 1 through December , but reco r ds show that major flood -producing rainstorms in thi s area most fre quently occur in Sep t em b er an d Octo ber. Information on floodplains is i mport ant because obs t ructions in the flood plain during a floo d tend to raise the water surface elev ations upstream. Th is effect would be more rele v ant to a large, solid construction than to a transmission tower. However, transmission towers in the floodplain would be susceptible to structural damage from the forces of floo dwater and flood borne de bris. Specific floo d plain information on fi v e localized areas within the study area is currently available from the Corps o f Eng i n eers, and is discu ssed be l ow. Floodpla i n inform a t ion for the Uncompahgre River at Montrose and the Gunnison Rive r at De lta is being developed by the Colorado Water Conse r vation Board . Department of Hou s ing and Urban Development flood insurance rate maps are available fo r portions of the study area and can be used to supplement information for pertinent river cross i ngs during c e nte r l i n e determinati on . Colo ra d o Ri ver a nd Tri butaries a t Grand J unction: Th e informat ion on this area ii applicable to the Colorado River from 22 Road to 32 Road (12 miles, 19 km), the Gunnison River from the mouth to Redlands Dam (2 miles, 3 km ), Leach Creek from 23 Road to H Road (4 miles, 6 km), Lewis Wash from its mouth to Government Highline Canal (3 miles, 5 km), and Horizon Drive Channel from F Road to the vicinity of Walker Field (3 miles, 5 km). Rapid melting of mountain snowpacks in spring and early summer is the major cause of flooding in this area. Flood ing is most severe when snowmelt is augmented by rain. The most severe flood in Grand Junction occurred in June-Ju l y 1884 , and the mo s t re c en t re co r de d f lood wa s in June 1957 . Howe v er, COLA.EA A-52 due to the r ural natur e of this region , flooding of farm and orchard land is oft en not a mat t er of record. The 100-year flood is one with a peak flow magnitu de that has a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any giv en year, and a fre qu ency of occurrence of about once in 100 years on the long-term average. Table A.4.j.-1 shows peak flows for 100-and 500-year floods. Table A.4.j.-2 displays the water surface elevation of a 100 -year flood along the stream reaches in this area. The low elevation occurs towards the mouth of the stream and grad ual l y increases as t h e measu rements progress upst r eam . Colorado Rive r at Palisade : The information in this se ction covers the Colorado River in the vicinity of Palisade from about the Interstate Highway 70 bridge east of Palisade downstream to 32 Road, a distance of 10 mi les (1 6 km). Mo s t of the a nnual preci p i tation i n the highe r r eg i ons of the Colorado Ri v er Basin occurs as snow, an d flo od ing is normall y the res u lt of ra pi d me lti ng of the mountain snowpa?k in spring and early summer. The first recorded flood in this area occurred in June-July 1884, with the latest recorded flood occurring in 1957 . The peak flow for the 100-year floods in the area is shown in Tabl ~ A.4.j.-1, while surface water elevations are shown in Table A.4.j.-2. Dolores River and Tributaries at Dolores : The information in this section covers a 15-mile section of the Dolores River in the vicinity of Dolores, the lower 1 mile of Lost Canyon Creek, and the lower 3 /4-mile of the West Dolo res Riv er. Th e Do lo r e s Ri ve r is a t r ibuta ry to the Colo r ado Ri v er, joining the stream approximately 100 miles northwest of Dolores, in Utah . The COLA.EA A-53 West Dolores River joins the Dolores River about 15 miles upstream from Dolores. Lost Canyon Creek joins the Dolores from the south at Dolore s. The largest flood on record occurred in October 1911, while the largest recent flood occurred in September 1970. The peak flow at four points in this area is shown in Table A.4.j.-1. Water surface elevations of areas subject to sheet flow (broad overload flooding characterized by unpredictable flow paths) are independent of those along adjacent streamways and are affected primarily by obstructions and local topography. Elevation measurements are generally lowest towards the mouth of the stream and increase gradually as one moves upstream, and are shown in Table A.4.j.-2. Animas River and Tributaries at Durango: The information in this section is applicable to the Animas River from La Porta Road to the San Juan National Forest boundary (9 miles, 14 km), Junction Creek from its mouth to the San Juan National Forest boundary (4 miles, 6 km), and Dry Gulch Creek from its mouth to the Canyon mouth (one mile, 1.6 km). Dry Gulch Creek is a tributary to Junction Creek, which flows into the Animas River. The Animas River is a tributary to the Colorado River via the San Juan River. Convective-type cloudburst storms can be expected to occur frequently in the Durango area during the summer months. Flood problems are intensified by high-velocity flow and manmade encroachments in streamways. Ten major floods have occurred in this area since 1900, with the most severe occurring in October 1911 and the latest flood recorded in Octob er 1972. Peak flows for the Animas River were determined by a frequency analysis of streamflow records, while theoretical modeling of floods was used to ~ COLA.EA A-54 Table A.4.j.·1 PEAK FLOWS OF 100· AND 500-YEAR FLOODS Stream At Grand Junction: Colorado River, above mouth of Gunnison River Colorado River, below mouth of Gunnison River Gunnison River, at Grand Junction Leach Creek, at H Road Horizon Drive Channel, at Independence Ranchmens Ditch Lewis Wash, at 1-70 At Palisade : Colorado River At Dolores: Dolores River, above mouth of W. Dolores River Dolores River, below mouth of Lost Canyon Creek West Dolores River, at mouth Lost Canyon Creek, at mouth ~tDurango: • Animas River, at San Juan National Forest boundary Animas River, above Junction Creek Animas River, at Durango Stream Gage Animas River, at La Posta Road Junction Creek at San Juan National Forest boundary Junction Creek at Animas River Dry Gulch Creek at Junction Creek At Hermosa: Animas River, 69. 760 -76.012 miles upstream from mouth Animas River, 76.495 -78.541 miles upstream from mouth Animas River, 78.770 -78.940 miles upstream from mouth Animas River, 79.199 -83.395 miles upstream from mouth Hermosa Creek, 130 feet upstream from mouth Hermosa Creek, 5,470 feet upstream from mouth Hermosa Creek, 6,420 -14,930 feet upstream from mouth Peak Flow (cubic feet per second) 100-Yea r Flood 500-Year Flood 63,000 82,000 20,000 1,800 600 1,400 63,000 7,500 14,500 4,800 2,500 24,000 22,500 23,000 23,500 4,000 4,350 1,200 24,000 24,600 25,000 23,000 2,1 00 3,600 4,400 82,000 107,000 25,000 4,200 1,800 3,800 82,000 20,000 36,000 11,500 4,500 40,500 38,000 39,000 40,000 7,100 7,700 3,000 40,500 41,500 42,000 39,000 2,200 4,100 6,300 Table A.4.j.-2 WAT ER SURFAC E ELEVATIONS OF 100 -YEAR FLOOD Strea m Lo w Elev at ion (Loc ation ) High Elevat ion (Lo cation ) At Grand J unction: Colo ra do Ri ver 4,521 fee t 4,627 feet (380.7 miles above Lees Ferry) (393 miles above Lees Ferry) Leach Creek 4,538 feet 4,685 feet (mouth) (22,600 feet above mou th ) Gunnison River 4,562 feet 4,569 feet (.8 miles above mouth) (3.2 miles above mouth) Lewis Wash 4,610 feet 4, 770 feet (mouth) (18, 100 feet above mouth) Horiz on Drive Channel 4,563 feet 4,692 feet (5 ,200 fee t a bo ve 24 Roa d) (19,590 feet above 24 Roa d) At P alisade: Co lo rado Rive r 4,628 feet 4 , 721 feet (393 .1 mile s above Lees Ferry) (402 mile s above Lees Ferry) At Dolores: Dolo res River 6,9 24 feet 7 ,40 4 feet (Junction of Hwy 145 ) (81 ,350 feet upstream ) West Do lores River 7,360 feet 7 ,391 feet (Junction with Dolores River) (3 ,600 feet upstream ) Los t Ca nyon Creek 6,925 f ee t 6,943 f e et (Jun ction with Dolo res Ri ver) (4,6 00 feet upst ream) At Durango: Animas River 6,449 feet 6,553 feet (61.93 miles above mouth) (70.84 miles above mouth) Junction Creek 6,522 feet 6,947 feet (mouth) (3. 78 miles above mouth) Dry Creek Gulch 6,577 feet 6, 721 feet (mouth) (.84 miles above mouth) At Hermosa: Animas River 6,552 feet 6, 756 feet (69.7 miles above mouth) (83.4 miles above mouth) Hermosa Creek 6,591 feet 6,810 feet (mouth) (2.82 miles above mouth) determine peak flows for Junction Creek and Dry Gulch Creek . This information is s h own in Ta ble A.4.j .-1 . Water s u rface elev ation s, s h own in Ta bl e A.4 .j.-2, reflec t t h e assumpt ion t ha t brid ge and culv ert openings remain ob stru cte d by floo d bo rne de b ris or sediment. Th e low elev ation is taken from t he area closest to the stream's mouth, with the high elevation occurring at the farthest point ups t ream. An i mas Ri ver a n d Hermo s a Creek at Hermo sa: Th e fol l owing info rm ation covers the Animas Ri ve r for 13 .6 mile s downstream fr om Bake r s Bri dg e and the lower 2 .8 miles of Hermosa Creek . The greatest rain-caused flood of record on the Animas Rive r occurred in Octobe r 1911, and the largest snowmelt flood on record for Hermosa Creek occurred in May 1941. The most recent rain-caused flooding in Animas Valley occurred in September 1970, with a snowmelt flood in June 197 3. Tables A.4 .j .-1 and A.4 .j .-2 g ive the peak flow and water sur face elev a t i on, res pectiv ely , for this area. A.4.k. Social and Economic Profile: The study area for the proposed Rifle -San Juan 345-kV transmission line is comprised of all or part of eleven counties in Colorado and one in New Mexico. Colorado counties are divided into thirteen economic planning and management regions. The Colorado counties of Garfield and Mesa are part of the Colorado Plateau Region. San Miguel, Gunnison, Montrose, Ouray and Delta are located with t h e Black Canyon Region; while Montezuma, La Plata, Dolores, and San J uan are included in t he San Juan Basin Region. San J uan County, wh ere t he p r oposed t r ansmission facilit i e s will te r minat e, is located i n New Me x ico . COLA.EA A-55 A.4.k.1. Agriculture: Agriculture ha s t raditionally been important to the economy of the Colorado Plateau Region. In 1974 , 8.7 percent of the work force was employed in agriculture. Hay is the principal field crop of the region, accounting for 45 percent of the total value of crops produced. Other important field crops include wheat and corn. Mesa County fruit production represents a major portion of the state's fruit crop. Fruit crops include peaches, pears, and cherries. Livestock activity is primarily limited to cattle, sheep, and pigs. In the Black Canyon Region, 15 .4 percent of the region's labor force is employed by agricultural enterprises. The Delta-Montrose area is a major fruit growing region, producing a large portion of the state's apples, cherries, and pears. This region also produces hay, wheat, onions, barley and dry beans. ~ Livestock activity primarily involves cattle, sheep, and pigs. In the San Juan Basin, agriculture provided 9 .0 percent of the region's total employment in 1974. Irrigated cropland produces pasture grass, hay, small grain and corn silage. Nonirrigated lands are used to grow dry beans and winter wheat. In 1973, Montezuma and Dolores Counties accounted for 70 percent of the region's total field crops. The livestock industry has recently begun increasing in importance in Dolores, La Plata and Montezuma Counties during the 1970-1974 period. In San Juan County, New Mexico, agriculture provided 2.7 percent of the county's total employment in 1974. The agricultural land is concentrated in narrow bands adjacent to the river valleys. Agricultural lands have increased greatly i n value due to the scarcity of potential farmland within the county . Alfalfa hay is the crop of greatest value in the county, with corn production ranking second. Livestock activities include the raising of sheep and beef COLA.EA A-56 cattle with dairy cattle being of lesser importance. The total value of agricultural products produced in the county is expected to increase in the future. This will be due in part to the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NIIP). A.4.k.2. Industry, Trade and Services: According to the most recent Census of Manufacturing, published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in 1972, 87 manufacturing establishments added $25.6 million to the economy of those study area counties within the Colorado Plateau Region. Colorado's Black Canyon and San Juan Basin Regions totaled 61 and 52 manufacturing establishments, respectively. In 1972, San Juan County, New Mexico had a total of 30 manufacturing establishments that added $17.6 million to the economy of that area. In 1972, a total of 5,271 retail, wholesale, and selected service establishments operated in the study area, generating receipts of approximately 869.5 million dollars. Appendix C lists detailed information for the individual counties within the study area. A.4.k.3. Transportation Facilities: The Colorado Plateau Region is served by the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad, with stops at each of the region's major communities. The Black Canyon Region is also served by the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad. Currently, there are no rail freight services to the San Juan Basin region of Colorado. These rail services provide intrastate and interstate carload shipping, and intersect with other lines at major terminals inside Colorado. There are no railroads serving the San Juan County, New Mexico area CO LA.EA A-57 at this time. Plans to build a railroad in the area have been made by the Atchison, Top eka, and Santa Fe Railroad , but little progress has been made . Th e Colorado Plateau Region is served by commercial airports located in Grand Junction and the Hayden-Craig area. United and Frontier Airlines provide daily flights to several cities from Grand Junction, and Western Air Stages (W estair ) offers access from Grand Junction to Colorado's major ski areas, and areas in Utah . Air transportation within the Black Canyon Region is available at commercial airports at Gunnison and Montrose. Frontier Airlines provides service between these airports and Stapleton International Airport in Denver, which provides air transport service ranging from intrastate to international. The San Juan Basin Region is served by commercial airports located in Durango, Cortez, and Farmington, New Mexico. Frontier Airlines offers daily flights from Cortez, Durango and Farmington, to Denver. There are several other commuter airlines which connect many of these communities and Denver . A number of national and regional trucklines offers interstate service to the area. The Continental Trailways bus system interconnects almost all of the communities within the study area. A.4.k.4. Mineral Resources: Mineral industries in the Colorado Plateau Region employed nearly 3.8 percent of the labor force in 1974 . The region produced $184.8 million of petroleum (60 percent of the state total ) and $11 .1 million of natural gas (37 percent of the state total) in 1974 . It is anticipated that future developments in the region's mineral industries will have a major impact on the Plateau Region. The Piceance Creek Basin of Garfield, Mesa, and Rio Blanco Counties ~ contains extensive deposits of oil shale equal to the equivalent of an estimated COLA.EA A-58 480 billion barrels of crude oil. Currently in the pilot plant stage of production, commercial development of oil shale would have a great impact on the region's economy and population. Mining in the Black Canyon Region is second to agriculture among basic industries, employing 7.2 percent of the work force in 1974. The region's $54.7 million mineral production equaled 7.8 percent of the state total. Major mineral products in the Black Ca~yon Region include zinc, vanadium, uranium, lead, copper, gold, silver, sand, gravel, and limestone. Coal is the principal energy resource in this region. Coal is currently mined in Delta, Gunnison, and Montrose counties. Limited quantities of oil and gas are produced in San Miguel County. In the San Juan Basin region of Colorado, mineral production employed approximately 2 percent of the work force in 1974 . Among these resources, natural gas is the greatest source of income, accounting for $5.6 million. Crude petroleum generated 5.0 million and coal generated $97,600. La Plata County is the major source of natural gas in the region, accounting for 91 percent of regional production in 1974 . Dolores and Montezuma counties are the principal producers of petroleum in the region, generating 88.1 percent of the region's 603,900 barrels in 1974. Economic development of the San Juan County, New Mexico area is largely dependent upon the continuation of mineral extraction throughout the county. San Juan County has mineable supplies of coal, natural gas, uranium, petroleum, helium, and vanadium. COLA .EA A-59 A.4.k.5. Employment and Income: As of 1974 , the work force for counties comprising the study area within the Colorado Plateau Region numbered 34,155 people. Th e Black Canyon an d San Juan Basin Reg ions numbered work forces of 18 ,962 and 15 ,372 people , respectively. During the same period, San Juan County, New Mexico's work force totaled 14 ,099 people. Only two counties, Dolores in Colorado and San Juan in New Mexico, experienced a decline in total employment for the period of 1970 to 1974 . The eleven counties that make up the study area in Colorado reported an unemployment rate of 6.5 percent as compared to 5 .5 percent for the state of Colorado . In 1975 , the median family income for the Colorado portion of the study area averaged $9,925 while that for San Juan County , New Mexico averaged $12,990. Additional information re lated to the study area is given in Appendi x c. A.4 .k.6 . Population and Trends : Since 1950, the study area has exhibited continued growth in population. For the period 1970 through 1976, the population of counties within the Colorado Plateau Region of the study area increased approximately 18 percent, while that of the Black Canyon and San Juan Basin Regions increased approximately 7 .1 and 21 .1 percent respectively. San Juan County, New Mexico experienced an increase of approximately 22.8 percent over the same six year period. The population dens i ty for the twelve county study area in 1975 averaged 8 .3 people per square mile. However, density varies a great deal from county to county, ranging from a high of 19 people per square mile in Mesa County to a low of 2 people per square mile in Dolores and San Miguel Counties. COLA.EA A-60 The median age for the study area ranges from a high of 39.6 in Delta Count y to a low of 20 .6 in San Jua n County, New Mexico. Po pu lation trend s and sta ti s t ical information for t h e s tudy area are giv en in Ap pe nd ix C. A.4.1. Formally Classified Areas and Features: A.4 .1.1 . National: There is a variety of nationally classified areas to be foun d with in t h e s tudy area. These include Primitive Areas, Wild erness Areas, Natural Areas, Rare II Area s, Nat i on a l Trail s, Nat ional Parks and Na tional Monuments . Re f er to Figure A.6 .a .-1 fo r location of most of the areas . Wilderness Areas : The Wilderness Act of 1964 defines a wilderness area as " ••• an area of undeveloped federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed s o as t o pr ese r v e i ts na tur al cond i t i on ••• " The Federal Land Po l icy a nd Management Act of 197 6 s t ates t h at the lands un der c on sidera t ion will be managed so that their suitability for wilderness designation will not be impaired. Figure A.6 .a .-1 shows the location of the various existing and proposed wilderness areas . BLM : The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) i s currently conducting a wilderness review to identify areas suitable for wilderness designation . There were 3 1 initial inventory units in the study area, which were identified during t he corrid or selection process. Twenty of these units were reclassified as pr op osed wi lderness study areas after BLM's intensive inventory was co mpleted in February , 1980, and a r e in the final stage s of r e view : American Flat s ~ (0 30 -2 17), West Needles Contiguous (030-229A ), Needle Creek (0 30-229B ), Whitehead Gulch (0 30 -2 0 3B ), Weminuche Contiguous (0 3 0 -238B ), Menefee Mountain COLA .EA A-6 1 (030-251 ), Weber Mountain (030-252 ), Cross Canyon (030-265 ), Squaw/Papoose Canyons (0 3 0-2 65A), Cahon e Canyon (030-2 65D), McKenna Peak (0 30-286 ), Dolo res Rive r Canyon/Coyote Wa sh (030-290), Tabeguache Creek (0 3 0-3 00), Sewemup Mesa (030-3 10A/070-176), Baldy Peak Contiguous (030-332 ), Camel Back (0 3 0-353 ), Dom inguez Canyon (0 30 -363 /070-150), Kannah Creek Contiguous (03 0-3 70A/070-1 03A), Adobe Badlands (0 30-3 70B), and Black Canyon of the Gunnison Contiguous (0 30-388). Forest Service: Five portions of land within the study area are currently being proposed by the Forest Service for wilderness designation : Mount Wilson (NF -912 ), Dolores Peak (NF-910 ), Mount Sneffels (NF -914), Courthouse Mountain (NF-909), and Big Blue (NF-908 ). The western half of the existing Weminuche Wilderness (NF-088 ) also lies within the study area (see Figure A.6.a.-1 ). Two alternate proposals for Wilderness designations, U.S. Senate Bill 2123 (S .2123) and U.S. House of Representatives Bill 5487 (H .R. 5487), are currently under consideration and, if passed, could affect the designations of these areas. S.2123, sponsored by Senator Gary Hart of Colorado, is currently in Committee hearings . In the study area this proposal would combine Mount Wilson and Dolores Peak (totaling 19,000 acres) into a larger unit, the Wilson Mountains Wilderness Area (40,000 acres), and combine Courthouse Mountain and Big Blue (totaling 59,500 acres) into the Uncompahgre Wilderness area (100,000 acres). S.2123 proposes the same area as the Forest Service for Mount Sneffels (16 ,200 acres ), and the same addition (6 6,000 acres ) to the existing Weminuche Wilderness. H.R. 5487, co -s ponsored by Representatives James Johnson and Ray Kogovsek of Colorado, passed the House last year. This bill makes the same proposals as S.21 23 for these areas, but CO LA.EA A-6 2 --~---------------------------------------------------~ refers to the Courthouse Mountain -Big Blue combination as "Big Blue" and the Mount Wilson -Dolores Peak combination as "L izard Head." Park Service: Th e National Park Service ha s declared two wilderness units within the study area. The northern shoulders of Mesa Verde Nat ional Park are designated as the Mesa Verde Wilderness (NP -012 ), and the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument has been established as wilderness NP-003. Th e Colorado National Monument, part of which lies ill the study area, is currently under proposal as Wild erness NP-909. Primitive Areas : "Primitive area" is a residual term denoting a type of wilderness area that has not been officially designated as "Wilderness" or as a RARE II area. Two primitive areas are located within the study area. Th e Uncompahgre Primitive Area lies in the southern portion of Ou ray County and includes historic mining camps as well as a variety of wildlife. The Wilson Mountains Primitive Area, located in both San Miguel and Dolores Count ies, includes three 14 ,000-foot peaks. Both S.2123 and H.R. 5487 propose that the "primitive area" designation be repealed for the Uncompahgre Primitive Area and the Wilson Mountains Primitive Area and that the essential parts of these areas be incorporated into the wilderness areas discussed in the previous section. Natural Areas: Natural areas come under both State and Federal jurisdictions, and are defined and discussed further in Section A.4.1.2. Three Natural Areas under Federal jurisdiction exist within the study area (See Figure A.4.h.-1 ). The BLM Rare Lizard and Snake Natural Area was eliminated from the Wilderness Study Program in February, 1980, but is still considered a natural area by that agency . The area co v ers 480 acres of land surround ed by BLM Wilderness Unit 030-2 63 . COLA.EA A-63 The Forest Service has declared the Narraguinnep Natural Area as a Research Natural Area, thus preserving its excellent example of undi s tur bed plant communities for southwest Colo rado by allowing only researc h-oriented activity within the area. Th e Escalante Creek Blue Spruce Forest, located in Montrose County, is currently under consideration for designation as a Research Natural Ar ea, pending Congressional approval. RARE II: The Forest Service ha s identified roadless and undeveloped areas (RARE II) on Fore st Service lands to be considered for the National Wilderness Preservation System. This designation will ensure that typical examples of the Nation's landforms, ecosystems, and wilderness-associated wildlife are represented in the National Wilderness Preservation System . In January, 1979, 16 RARE II areas within the study area were presented to Congress to be considered as wilderness areas . Refer to Figure A.6.a.-1 for RARE II locations within the study area. Trails : There are no elements of the National Trails System within the study area. However , the Dominguez -Escalante Trail is currently being studied by the National Park Service for possible inclusion into the system, and is shown in Figure A.4.m.-1. Parks: One National Park lies within the study area. The Mesa Verde National Park is the site of a variety of Indian ruins ranging from the pithouses of the 500 A.D. era to the cliff dwellings of the 1200 A.D. period. Monuments: Five national monuments exist within the study area. The Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument is the deepest part of a gorge cut by the Gunnison River . Within the monument boundaries, the canyon depth ranges from 1 ,730 to 2,425 feet (527 to 739 meters). This monument also serves ~ as a sanctuary for native animals. The southern portion of the Colorado COLA.EA A-64 National Monument, near Grand Junction, is also included in the study area. This monument is known for its sheer cliffs, unusual rock format ions, and dinosaur bones. It also serves as a wildlife refuge, and s uppo r ts about 10 bison. The Hovenweep National Monument is an isola t ed area of Indian ruins near Cortez that is the site of the Square Tower Ruins Camp ground. Th e Yucca House National Monument, located southwest of Cortez, is an undeveloped site of Indian ruins, currently closed to the public. Th e Aztec Ruins National Monument is located in the New Mexico portion of the study area. Wild and Scenic Rivers : Two rivers in the s tudy area have been proposed for classification under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, P .L. 90 -542. The U.S. Department of the Interior (National Park Service) and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources jointly recommended that approximately 26 miles (42 km ) of the Gunnison River be classified as a "wild" river. This portion extends from the upstream boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument to about one mile below the confluence with the Smith Fork (see Figure A.6.a.-1 ). The Departments of the Interior (Bu reau of Outdoor Recreation ) and Agriculture (Forest Service) jointly proposed in November, 1976, that 105 miles (169 km) of the Dolores River, including the visual corridor, be included in the National Wild and Scenic River System. The proposed segment of river extends from 1 .3 miles (2 km) below the proposed McPhee Dam site to one miie (1 .6 km) above the Highway 90 bridge near Bedrock. Of the total 105 miles, 33 miles (53 km) are recommended for designation as "wild," 41 miles (66 km ) as "scenic," and 31 miles (50 km) as "recreational." A portion of the lower Dolores River was also recommended by the Department of the Interior (National Park Service) for "scenic" designation, in February of 1979. The section in the study area COLA.EA A-65 extends from the Colorado Highway 141 bridge at Gateway to the Colorado-Utah borde r, for a distance of approximately 8 miles (1 3 km) (se e Figure A.6.a.-1 ). A.4.1.2. State: The Colorado Division of Wildlife manages several State Wildlife Areas and State Fishing Areas within the study area. State Recreation areas are managed by the Division of Parks and Ou tdoor Recreation . Table A.4 .1.-2 lists the state areas within the study area (refer to Figure A.6 .a.-1 ). Fishing Areas : Th ere are 14 State Fishing Areas (SFA ) within the study area, five of which are more relevant to this project due to their location. The Fruitgrowers Reservoir SFA, which has 600 surface acres of water, lies one mile (1 .6 km ) south of Cedaredge (see Figure A.6 .a.-1 ). The Gurley Reservoir SFA, with 363 surface acres of water, lies close to Norwood. The Narraguinnep Reservoir SFA is close to Cortez and involves waterfowl hunting and fishing on 857 acres . The Puett Reservoir SFA has waterfowl hunting on 140 surface acres of water and lies near Manco s. The Summit Reservoir SFA has lake fishing on 440 surface acres of water, and lies northwest of Mancos . The remaining State Fishing Areas include the Andrews Lake, Chipeta Lakes, Colby Horse Park Reservoir, Groundhog Reservoir, Haviland Lake, Joe Moore Reservoir, Mesa Lake #1, Pastorius Reservoir, Sunset Lake, and Woods Lake State Fishing Areas. Wildlife Areas: The re are seven State Wildlife Areas (SWA) within the study area. The Dry Creek Basin SWA has big game hunting on 8,733 acres of land in the vicinity of Norwood . The Escalante SWA, just west of Delta, hosts big and small game hunting on 7,139 acres of land. The Plateau Creek SWA has big game hunting on 1,346 acres is three miles west of Collbran. The Lone Cone SWA ~ has big game, upland game, and bird hunting on over 5 9 03 0 acres near Norwood. CO LA.EA A-66 Table A.4.1.-2 STATE WILDLIFE, FISHING AND RECREATION AREAS 1 Andrews Lake State Fishing Area San Juan County 2 Billy Creek State W il dlife Area Mont rose County 3 Chipeta Lakes State Fishing Area Montrose County 4 Colby Horse Park Re se r voi r Mesa County 5 Crawford Reservoir State Recreation Area Delta County 6 Dry Creek Basin State Wildlife Area * San Miguel County 7 Escalante State Wildlife Area Delta County 8 Fish Creek State Wildlife Area Dolores County 9 Fruitgrower's Reservoir State Fishing Area Delta County 10 Groundhog Reservoir State F ishing Area Dolores County 11 Gu r ley Reservoir State Fishing Area San Miguel County 12 Haviland Lake St a te Fishing Area La Plata County 13 Island Acres State Recreation Area Mesa County 14 Joe Moore Reservoir Stat e Fishing Area Montezuma County 15 Lone Cone State Wildlife Area San Miguel County 16 Mesa Lake #l State Fishing Area Mesa County 17 Miramonte Reservoir State Recreation Area San Miguel County 18 Narraguinnep Reservoir State Fishing Area Montezuma County 19 Paonia Reservoir State Recreation Area Gunnison County 20 Pastorius Reservoir State Fishing Area La Plata County 21 Perins Peak State Wildlife Area La Plata County 22 Plateau Creek State Wildlife Area Mesa County 23 Puett Reservoir State Fishing Area Montezuma County 24 Summit Reservoir State Fishing Area Montezuma County 25 Sunse t Lake State F ishing Area Mesa County 26 Sweitzer Lake State Recreation Area Delta County 27 Vega Reservoir State Recreation Area Mesa County 28 Woods Lake State Fishing Area San Miguel County The remaining State Wildlife Areas include the Billy Creek SWA in Montrose County, the Fish Creek SWA in Dolores County, and the Perins Peak SWA in La Plata County (see Figure A.6.a.-1 ). Recreation Areas: Six State Recreation Areas (SRA) lie within the study area boundaries. The Crawford Reservoir SRA has 20 camping units, 821 acres of land, and 397 surface acres of water. It lies one mile south of Crawford. Island Acres SRA, 15 miles east of Grand Junction, has lake fishing over 4 acres and stream fishing in the Colorado River, as well as 32 camping units. The Miramonte Reservoir SRA lies near Norwood. It has lake fishing on 294 surface acres of water and 17 camping units on 514 acres of land . The remaining State Recreation areas include the Paonia Reservoir SRA in Gunnison County, Sweitzer Lake SRA in Delta County, and Vega Reservoir SRA in Mesa County (see Figure A.6.a .-1 ). Natural Areas: A natural area is defined by the Colorado Natu ral Areas Program as "a physical and biological area which either retains or has reestablished its natural character, although it need not be completely undisturbed, and which typifies native vegetation and associated biological and geological features or provides habitat for rare or endangered animal or plant species or includes geological or other natural features of scientific or educational value." The Natural Areas Program has a cooperative agreement with Federal land-management agencies to designate and manage natural areas in Colorado. Four natural areas are defined at the state level for the study area (see Figure A.4 .h.1). The Nar raguinnep and the Ra re Lizard and Snake Natu ral Areas are both classified as "registered" sites with the Natural Areas Program . The program has three levels of classification: designated, registered, and COLA.EA A-6 7 identified, with only the designated sites having legal access restrictions. The Dry Mesa Pinyon-Juniper Fo res t and the Escalante Creek Blue Spruce Forest are both considered to be "identified" natural areas a t the state level. A.4 .m. Cultural Resources : A.4.m.1. Archaeological Reso u rces: Th e study area has been continuously occupied by humans for at least the last 10 ,000 years, beginning with the Paleo Indian Period (10 ,000 -6,000 B.C.). The southwestern portion of the study area developed through the Archaic Period into the Anasazi Period (A .D. 450 -1300). This was a period of sophisticated farming and complex social and settlement systems now preserved in the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde National Park. The north-central portion of the study area was the location of the Ute Indians, whose occupation there ended in A.D . 1880 . Their culture was influenced by the Anasazi group and the Fremont group, who appeared about A.D. 700 and developed a horticultural lifestyle supplemented by hunting and gathering. A.4.m.2. Historical Resources: There are 426 State Historical Register Sites (See Appendix D) including the 19 National Register Sites, which are also listed separately in Table A.4.m.-1. These sites are scattered over the entire study area, although two highly concentrated areas exist, one in the Telluride --Silverton area and another in and near Du rango (S ee Figure A.4.m.-1 ). There are no Nat ional Regi ster listings in the Garfield, Delta, and San Juan (NM) County po r t ions of the study area. COLA.EA A-68 Tab le A .4.m .-1 NATIO N AL REG ISTER OF HI STOR I C PLACES LIST I NGS WI T HIN STUDY AREA Mesa County 1 Molin a Vicinity . C ONVI CTS ' BREAD OVEN . West of Moli na on C065 . 2 DeBeque Vicinity . ARCHAEOLOGY SITE 5ME82. Montrose County 3 Cimarron Vicinity. D&RGW NARROW GAUGE TRESTLE. Northeast of Cimarron. 4 Montrose Vicinity . UTE MEMORIAL SITE . 2 miles south of Montrose on U.S. 550. 5 Mon trose Vicinity . GUNNISON WATER TUNNEL. 6.5 miles east of Montrose off U.S. 50. Ouray County 6 Ouray. BEAUMONT HOTEL. 7 Ouray. OURAY CITY HALL AND WALSH LIBRARY. 6th Avenue between 3rd and 4th Streets. San Miguel County 8 Telluride . TELLURIDE HISTORIC DISTRICT. 9 Tell urid e Vicin ity. SMUGGLER -UNION HYDR OELECTRIC POWER PLANT S outheast of Te llu r ide at Brida l Veil Fall s. Dolores County 10 Rico . RICO CITY HALL. Northeast corner of Commerical and Mantz S t reets . San Juan County 11 DURANGO-SILVERTON NARROW-GAUGE RAILROAD . Right-of -Way between Durango and Silverton . 12 Silverton . SILVERTON HISTORIC DISTRICT . Montezuma County 13 Mancos Vicinity. UTE MOUNTAIN UTE MANCOS CANYON HISTORIC DISTRICT. Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation . 14 Cortez Vicinity . HOVENWEEP NATIONAL MONUMENT . Northwest of Cortez. 15 Cortez Vicinity . MESA VERDE NATIONAL PARK . (Nominated to World Heritage List) 10 miles east of Cortez on U.S . 160. 16 Cortez Vicinity . YUCCA HOUSE NATIONAL MONUMENT . 12 miles south of Cortez via U.S. 666. 17 Dolores Vicinity . ESCALANTE RUIN. Wes t of Do lores. 18 P leasant View Vicinity. LOWRY RUIN. 30 mil es n orthw est of Cor t ez vi a U.S. 160 . La Plata County 11 DURA NGO -S ILV E RTON N AR ROW -GAUG E RAILRO AD . Right -of -Way between Durango and S ilverton . 13 Durango Vicinity. UTE MOUNTAIN UTE MANCOS CAN Y ON HISTORIC DI S TRIC T . Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation. ' CO L U TE 78-069-4-00 1 E NV. ANAL., R I FLE -SA N JU A N TRA N S. L IN E I : ·.•-:1~; • ) .• r "f·"· -.:J :{ ,, I TIF ::• .. / I ~i: :} h~; ~o ' . /. I :1· ·' I ; •M ' I .~ •·· r~!~ ·i~ ) ' I: ' f I ', j t .. .i ,__ I I r' ' I ., •I; ..... ., I ' !,': ' . ;.-· N , .. 4.· ~ • .,. ---'---~---U,::._ __ •.:.:~~.""~· ' ' ,..,. .. ;,.,:-.,, r ""\" •• J • I ' I ' .r 1 .. ' I J U, A I·.· (' f ~ ..j ...:::. Af ' -. ·-----t t- ) -~.d-'/ -~~ ... ~ ; .. .\ --,., .., , .} . ·lr.!"" ........ ••"I ) ~v '' -' ' 1.• ~"{-{.JU ' )•ell: 1..,'" ' -2 ,\j 1VI.' f \ I ;.. 1 --*---.l~. Burns & KG>onnell Englneef'S-Arch ltecta-Consult•nt s ~I I f",':""1 '!'.1 ...... t;ARf ;:.IAl-l ... ll~ '"'--~-;..-_._ __ -----'''-J1----<<------~-"--------'----_J ,, . I • Scale: 1 : 1,000 ,000 1 Inch Equals Approx. 16 Miles LEG EN D -STUDY A REA BOUNDARY - • PR EFERRED CORR I DOR ALT E RNAT E CORRIDOR STATE HISTO R I CAL R EG IST ER S I T ES (TA B L E APP. D.-1) -DOM I NGU EZ-E SCALANT E TRA I L Figure A.4.m .-1 STAT E HISTO R ICAL REGISTER LI STI N GS • COL UT E 78-069-4 -001 E NV. ANAL., RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRANS. LINE • • Scale: 1:1 ,000,000 1 Inch Equals Approx. 16 Miles LEGEND E XISTIN G TRAN S MI SS I O N LIN E A SUBSTAT I ON • GE N ERATING ST ATION COU N TY BOUNDARY C:=J NATIONAL PARK ~ NATIONAL R ESO URCE LANDS C:=J WITHDRAWN NATIONAL RESOURCE LANDS C:=J NATIONAL FOREST -IN D IAN R ESERVAT I O N C:=J PRIVATE -PR E FERR ED CORRIDOR -ALTERNAT E CORR I DOR -STUDY AR E A BOU N DARY Figure A.5.-2 LAND OWNERSHIP A.5 . Description of Land and Features Along the Transmission Corridor : Th e s tudy area encomp asses a vari e ty of land uses (F i gure A.5.-1) and is co mp rised of various amoun t s of pu blic land , private l and, and Ind ian Reservations (see Figure A.5.-2 ). Table A.5, presented on the fol l owing pages, giv es a summ ary of the features crossed and paral lele d along the route. The description of Segment V encompasses both the 345-kV line and the 115-kV line extension (see Figure A.5.-3 ). A.6. Met hod of Corridor Selection: The corridor selec t ion process was a ph ased process inv olv ing t h ree disti nct s t e ps: 1 . The det e rm i nation of ne e d f o r th e line and the area s r equi r ing service . 2 . The selection of the study area and the as s ociated constraint mapping . 3. Th e selection of s u itable routes. The determination that this line was needed to serve projected loads at several midpoints was an important factor in selecting corridors (see Section A.1.b .1.a.). This determination essentially required the proposed corridors to pass through these areas. As an alternative to passing through the areas, a single branch line could theoretically be built to serve an area, but considering reliability and cost, this would be much less desirable. After determining the end points and mid points of the proposed line, a study area was selected t hat included the end points and the pro j ected l oa d areas. Th e environm ent al cons t raint s tha t mu st be a v oid e d by a new t ran s mission line were mapped within this study area . Information received through public meetings and contacts with gove r nment agencies was used to help establish these COLA.EA A-69 constraints . Other environmental constraints that could potentially affect, or be affected by the transmission line construction, were also mapped . Potential corridors were then selected according to the following basic criteria: 1. Corridors must connect Colorado-Ute member load areas where delivery into the underlying electric system could be provided to serve existing and planned loads. 2. Corridors should avoid areas of known environmental and engineering constraints. 3. Where possible, corridors should coincide with existing transmission line rights-of-way to minimize environmental impacts in accordance with the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The following subsections describe phases of the corridor selection process in grea t er detail. Th e evaluation of environmental constraints associated with all of the potential corridors, that led to the selection of the preferred corridor, is provided in Section E.3. A.6.a. Projected Load Areas and Future Plans: An important factor in selecting the location of the corridors was the projected and potential load areas (shown in Figure A.6.b.-1) that will be served by the proposed line. Member load centers were determined by the location of concentrated population areas, commercial and industrial developments, and projections of growth trends. The primary purpose of the proposed transmission line is to supply power to four of Colorado -Ute's certificated member service areas: Delta-Montrose Electric Association, San Miguel Power Association, Empire COLA.EA A-70 w z :::i ui z <( a: ... z <( :::l ..., z <( Cl/ w _J u. a: _J <( z <( > z w ~ 0 0 '1 ~i,..- ,,_...<.. + " · ..... ,, ~----_,._ I @- of' \ I I -i "' ~ ~ 0 0 co o. ..... x 0 0 0 0 o. ~ 2 w ':': <( e,, .... "' w Cii -I Q) ::I C" (ii w C.l ~ en u c: > a: <( 0 z :::l 0 C!l <( w a: <( > 0 :::l ... (/) I i ' . I ,, t l . , t l~ I~ _ ' i-1--r r----- 1 _Y-f ) en I-z UJ <".' ~ (.!) Lq UJ <( en Q) ... cc 0 ::I Cl 0 u.. cc cc 0 (..) I . '; ' ~ .. ' ; - .,( . r --~ I 1- 1 l· .• I ! .• r t ' ·) .. ,. i'---_-----------~ ,- r-' --,_ ":,,~~~··+ ,.._ 1' !I I ~-u I \t I '. z ,, J ~ . h '; :1 • --"~ 11 .. ~.,. 1 · \t_ »..,,~ :;·., ..... :~,..--z - Tab le A.5.a D ESCR I PT ION O F LAND AND FE ATURE S I N TH E V I C I N ITY OF TH E TRANSM ISSION LIN E C O R RI D OR RI FLE -NORT H FOR K VALLE Y Seg ment A Seg me nt B Seg ment C Seg me nt D Seg ment E 1. T ota l le ng th of % Th Th Th Th proposed li ne or segment-approx. mil es (km ) 48.0 (77.2) 10 .0 (16.1) 40 .0 (64 3) 61.0 (98.2) 32.0 (51.4) a. Privately owne d land 16.0 (25.7) 33.3 7.9 (12. 7) 79 .0 30 .0 (48.2) 75.0 10.0 (16 .1) 16.4 6.0 ( 9 6) 18.8 b. Publi c ly owned land 32.0 (51.4) 66.7 2.1 ( 3.4) 21.0 10 .0 (16.1) 25.0 51.0 (82 .1) 83 .6 26.0 (41.8) 81.2 2. Land Use-a p prox. m il es (km) a. Cropland 1) Prime 1.0 ( 1.6) 2.1 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 .5 ( 0.8) 1.6 2) Uniq ue 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 0 ) 0.0 b. Range or pastu re 13.0 (20.9 ) 27.1 8.6 (13 .8 ) 86.0 7.0 (11.3 ) 17.5 12 .0 (19 3) 19.6 30.0 (48.2 ) 93.8 c. Forest 32.0 (51.4) 66.7 1.4 ( 2.3) 14.0 22.0 (35.4) 55.0 45.0 (72.4 ) 73 .8 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 d. Res identia l 2.0 ( 3.2) 4.2 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 2.0 ( 3.2) 5 .0 4.0 ( 6.4) 6.6 1.5 ( 2.4) 4.7 3. Relation to utili ty facilities-app r ox. m il es (km) a. Adjacent t o ex is t ing wood struc t ure transmission line s 0 .0 ( 0 0) 0 .0 4.2 ( 6.8) 42 .0 40 .0 (6 4.3) 100 .0 50.l (80 .6) 82.1 32.0 (51.4) 10 0.0 b . Adj a c e nt to ex is ting m e tal structure transmission lines 48.0 (77.2 ) 100.0 0 .0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 0 .0 ( 0 0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 c. A dj a c e nt to e xis ting oil or g as pipeline 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 3 .4 ( 5.5) 34 .0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 2 .8 ( 4.5) 4 .6 0.0 ( 0 0) 0 .0 e 4. Adjacent to roads a. Adjacent to U .S. Highw a ys-Mile s (km) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 4.0 ( 6.4 ) 0 .0 0 .0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 b . Ad jac e n t to g rade d o r grav e l roads-Mil e s (km) 0 .1 ( 0 .2 ) 0.2 0 .0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 0 .0 ( 0.Q) 0 .0 0 .2 ( 0 .3) 0 .6 c. Ad jac e n t to primi t ive or unimp r ove d roa ds-M il es (k m) 0 .0 ( 0 0) 0 .0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0 .0 ( 0 .0 ) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 .3 ( 0 .5) 0.9 d. Ma in Highway Cross ings U.S. 50 e. State Road Crossings co 133 5. Water Crossings Spring Creek West Mamm Creek Middleton Creek Beaver Creek Kennah Creek Cottonwood Creek Middle Mamm Colli er Creek West Brush Indian Creek Porcupine Creek Creek Brush Creek Creek Deer Creek Beaver Creek East Mamm Creek Buzzard Creek Brush Creek Plateau Creek P lateau Creek Col li er Creek Cottonwood Cheney Creek Creek East Mamm Spring Creek Creek Muddy Gulch Dyke Creek Hubbard Creek ·East Fork Terror Creek West Fork Terror Creek North Fork Gunnison River 6. Areas a. Total right -of -way - max . acres (h ectares) 873.0 (353 3) 14.5 (5.9) 727.0 (294.4) 1,091.1 (449.1) 582 .0 (235 .6) b. Su bstation-acres (h ectares) e 7. Width of Rig ht -of -Way- f eet (me t ers ) 150 .0 ( 45 . 7) 150.0 ( 45.7 ) 15 0 .0 ( 45 .7) 150 .0 ( 45 .7) 150 .0 ( 45.7 ) 8 . S t r u c tures pe r mile (av g.) 4 .4 4 .4 4.4 4.4 4.4 Table A.5.b DESCRIPTION OF LAND AND FEATURES IN THE VICINITY OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR NORTH FORK VALLEY -MONTROSE Segment F Segment G Segment H Segment I Segment J Segment K Segment L 1. Total length of % % % % % % % proposed line or segment-approx. miles (km) 16.0 (25.7) 39.0 (62 .8) 36.0 (57 .9 ) 24.0 (38 .6 ) 17.0 (27.4) 48.0 (77.2) 12.0 (19.3) a. Privately owned land 11.0 (17.7) 68.8 24.0 (38.6) 61.5 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 18.0 (28 .9 ) 75.0 10.0 (16 .1 ) 58.8 27.0 (43.4) 56.3 5.0 ( 8.0) 41.7 b. Publicly owned land 5.0 ( 8.0) 31.2 15.0 (24.2) 38.5 36.0 (57 .9 ) 100.0 6.0 ( 9.6) 25.0 7.0 (11 .3) 41.2 21.0 (33.8) 43.7 7.0 (11.3) 58.3 2. Land Use-approx. miles (km) a. Cropland 1) Prime 1.0 ( 1.6) 6 .3 4.5 ( 7.2) 11 .5 0.5 ( 0.8) 1.4 6.0 ( 9.6) 25.0 2.3 ( 3.7) 13.5 2.0 ( 3.2) 4 .2 2.0 ( 3 .2 ) 16.7 2) Unique 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 2.0 ( 3.2) 5.1 0.0 ( 0.0 ) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 1.0 ( 1.6) 5.9 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 b. Range or pasture 6.5 (10.5) 40.6 31.5 (50. 7) 80 .8 13.0 (20.9) 36.1 16.5 (26.5 ) 68.8 13.0 (20 .9 ) 76.5 19.0 (30.5) 39.6 4.0 ( 6.4 ) 33.3 c. Forest 8.0 (12.9) 50.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 22 .5 (36.2) 62.5 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 26.0 (41.8) 54.2 4.5 ( 7.2) 37.5 d. Residential 0.5 ( 0.8) 3.1 1.0 ( 1.6 ) 2.6 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 1.5 ( 2.4) 6.3 0.7 ( 1.1 ) 4.1 1.0 ( 1.6) 2.1 1.5 ( 2.4) 12.5 3. Re lation to utility fac ili t ies a. Adj acent t o ex is ting wood structu re transmission li nes 0 .0 ( 0 .0 ) 0.0 22.0 (35.4 ) 56.4 0.0 ( 0 .0 ) 0.0 16.0 (25 . 7 ) 66.7 17.0 (27.4 ) 100.0 0.0 ( 0.0 ) 0.0 4.0 ( 6.4 ) 33.3 b. Adjacent to exist ing metal structure transmission lines 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 48.0 (77.2) 100.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 c. Adjacent to existing oil or gas pipeline 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 4. Relation to roads a. Adjacent to U.S. Highways-Miles (km) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 b. Adjacent to graded or gravel roads-Miles (km) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 c. Adjacent to primitive or unimproved roads-Miles (km) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 7.2 (11.6) 15.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 d. Main Highway Crossings U .S. 50 U.S. 50 e. State Road Crossings co 92 co 92 co 135 co 65 5. Water Crossings North Fork Stevens Gulch Potter Creek Uncompahgre Roubideau Creek Cottonwood Creek Spring Creek Gunnison River North Fork of the Monitor Creek River Dry Creek Smith Fork McDonald Creek Gunnison River Cottonwood Creek Alkale Creek Cottonwood Creek Alfalfa Run Criswell Creek Dear Fork Bell Creek Tongue Creek Roubideau Creek Muddy Creek Reyno l ds Creek Currant Creek Moore Creek Uncompahgre River Lerou x Creek Traver Creek Cim arron Creek S tingle y Gulch Cotton w oo d Creek Hairpin Creek Cedar Gulch Lawhead Gulch Jay Cr eek Roatcap C reek Table A.5.b (continued) Segment F Segment G Segment H Segment I SegmentJ Segment K Segment L 6 . Areas a. Total right-of-way- rriax. acres (hectares) 291.0 (117.8) 709.1 (287 .1) 763 .6 (309.2) b . Substation acres 436.0 (176. 7) 360.6 (145 .9) 873.0 (353 .3) 254.5 (103.1) (hectares) 10 1 (4.0 1) 7. Width of Right-of-Way- feet (meters) 150 .0 ( 45.7) 150.0 ( 45.7) 175.0 ( 53.3) 150.0 ( 45.7) 1 75 . 0 ( 53. 3) 150.0 ( 45.7) 175.0 ( 53.3) 8. Structures per mile (avg.) 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4 .4 4.4 1 North Fork Va lley Sub st a tion . Table A.5.c DESCRIPTION OF LAND AND FEATURES IN THE VICINITY OF THE TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR MONTROSE -LOST CANYON Segment M Segment N Segment 0 Segment P Segment 0 Segment R Segment S Segment T Segment U 1. Total length of % % % % % % % % % proposed line or segment-approx. miles (km) 30.0 (48 .2 ) 16.0 (25 . 7) 8.0 (12.9) 20.0 (32.2) 32.0 (51.4) 40.0 (64.3) 24.0 (38.6) 45.0 (72.4) 32.0 (51.4) a. Privately owned land 9.5 (15 .3) 31.7 4.0 ( 9.6) 37.5 3.0 ( 4.8) 37.5 4.0 ( 6.4) 20.0 10.0 (16 .1) 31.3 12.0 (19.3) 30.0 3.0 ( 4.8) 12.5 26.5 (42.6) 58.9 31.0 (49 .8 ) 96.9 b. Publicly owned land 20.5 (32 .9 ) 68.3 10.0 (16.1) 62.5 5.0 ( 8.0) 62.5 16.0 (25 .8 ) 80.0 22.0 (35 .4 ) 68.7 28.0 (45.0) 70.0 21.0 (33 .8 ) 87.5 18.5 (29 .8 ) 41.1 1.0 ( 1.6) 3.1 2. Land Use-approx. miles (km) a. Cropland 1) Prime 3.0 ( 4 .8 ) 10.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 2) Unique 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0 .0 ( O.Q) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 b. Range or pasture 6.0 ( 9.6) 20.0 7.5 (12.1) 46.9 4.0 ( 6.4) 50 .. 0 6.0 ( 9.6) 30.0 13.0 (20.9) 40 .6 9.0 (14 .5 ) 22.5 6.0 ( 9.6) 25.0 13.6 (21.9) 30 .2 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 c. Forest 21.0 (33 .8) 70 .0 7 .0 (11.3) 43.8 4.0 ( 6.4) 50.0 12.3 (19.8) 61.5 18.5 (29 .7 ) 57.8 29.0 (46 .6 ) 72.5 18.0 (28.9) 75.0 31.4 (50.5) 69.8 30.0 (48.2) 93.8 d. Residential 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0 .0 ( O.Q) 0 .0 2.0 ( 3.2) 5.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 3. Relation to utility facilities-approx. miles (km) a. Adjacent to existing wood structure transmission lines 30.0 (48.2) 100.0 16.0 (25.7) 100.0 8.0 (12 .9) 100 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 24.0 (38.6) 100.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 32 .0 (51.4) 100.0 b. Adjacent to existing metal structure transmission lines 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 32.0 (51.4) 100.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 45.0 (7 2.4) 100.0 0:0 ( 0.0) 0.0 c. Adjacent to existing oil or gas pipeline 0.4 ( 0.6) 1.3 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 1.1 ( 1.8) 3.4 4. Re la ti on to roads a. Adjacent to U.S. Highways-Miles (km) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 b. Adjacent to graded or gravel roads-Miles (km) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 c. Adjacent to primitive or unimproved roads-Miles (km) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.1 ( 0.2) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 2.8 ( 4.5) 11.7 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 d. Main Highway Crossings e. State Road Crossings U.S.550 co 90 co 90 co 80 co 145 co 80 C080 co 147 co 145 co 145 co 145 Table A.5.c (continued) Segment M Segment N Segment 0 Segment P Segment Q Segment R Segment S SegmentT Segment U 5. Water Crossings San Miguel River Naturita Creek Naturita Creek Horsefly Creek Dolores River Dolores River Spectacle Creek Sheep Creek San Miguel River Beaver Creek Turner Creek Brewster Creek East Fork Middle Naturita Beaver Creek Morrison Creek Dry Creek Creek San Miguel Disappointment Brewster Creek River Creek Saltado Creek Dolores River Lost Canyon 6. Areas Creek a. T ot al r ight -of-way- max . acres (hectares) 636 .4 (257.6) 339 .4 (137 .4) 169.7 ( 68.7) 424 .2 (171.8) 678.8 (274.8 ) 848.5 (343.5) 509 .1 (206.1) 954.5 }386.4) 678.8 p74.8) b . Substation (acres) 10 (4.0 1) 10.0 (4.0 1 ) 7. Width of Right-of -Way- feet (meters) 175.0 ( 53 .3) 175.0 ( 53.3) 175 .0 ( 53.3) 175.0 (53.3) 175.0 ( 53.3) 175.0 ( 53.3) 175.0 ( 53.3) 175.0 ( 53 .3) 175.0 ( 53.3) 8. Structures per mile (avg .) 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4 .4 4.4 4.4 1 Lost Canyon Substation. Tab le A.5.d DESCRIPT I ON OF LAND AND FEATURES I N THE V I C I NITY OF THE TRANS M ISSION LINE CORR I DOR LOST CANYON -HESPERUS HESPERUS-SAN JUAN STATION Segment V SegmentW Segment X Segment Y 1. Total length of proposed line or 37.0/4.1 5 (59 .5/6 .6 5 ) segment-approx . miles (km) 64.0 (102.9) 39.0 (62 .8 ) 45.0 (72.4) a. Privately owned land 23.0 (37.0) 62.2 55.0 1 (88.4 1 ) 85.9 23.0 3 (37.0 3 ) 58.9 . 2 2 25.0 (40 .2 ) 55.6 b . Publicly owned land 14.0 (22 .5 ) 37.8 9.0 ( 14.5) 14 .1 16 .0 (25 .8 ) 41.1 20.0 (32.2) 44.4 2. Land Use-approx. miles (km) a. Cropland 1) .Prime 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 2.0 ( 3.2) 4.4 2) Unique 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0 ) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 b. Range or pasture 13.4 (21.6) 36 .2 62 .5 (100.6) 77 .7 30.5 (49.1) 78.2 30.1 (48.4) 67.0 c. Forest 21.6 (34 .8) 58.4 0 .0 ( 0 .0) 0.0 8.0 (12 .9 ) 20.5 10.5 (17 .5 ) 23.3 d. Residen t ial 2.0 ( 3 .2 ) 5.4 1.5 ( 2.4 ) 2.3 0.5 ( 0 .8) 1.3 2.4 ( 3.9) 5.3 3. Re la tio n to utili ty fa ciliti es-app r ox. m il es (km ) a. Adjace nt to existing wood structure e t ran smi ssion lin es 37 .0 (5 9 .5 )100 .0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 17.8 (28.6) 45.6 45.0 (72 .4 ) 100.0 b . Adjac e nt to exis ting m e tal structure t ran smiss ion lin es 0 .0 ( 0 .0 ) 0.0 64.0 (102.9)100 .0 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0 .0 ) 0 .0 c. Adj ace nt t o ex isting oil or gas pipeli nes 0 .9 ( 1.4) 2.4 0 .0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0 .0 ( 0 .0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 4. Adjacent to roads a. AdjacenttoU.S . Highways-Miles (km) 8.5 (13. 7) 22.9 16.0 ( 25. 7) 25.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0 .0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 b. Ad j acent to graded or gravel roads-Miles (km) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 26.2 (42 .2 ) 67.2 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 c . Adjacent to primitive or unimproved roads-Miles (km) 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 13.3 (21.4) 34.1 0.0 ( 0.0) 0.0 d . Main Highway Crossings U.S . 160 U .S . 160, U.S. 666 e. State Road Crossings co 184 co 140 NM 17 5. Water Crossings Cash Canyon Cash Canyon Long Hollow LaPlata River Creek Creek Ch urch Hollow Chicken Creek Simon Draw Mooney Draw East Mancos Government River Draw West Mancos LaPlata River River La Plata River 6. Areas e a. T otal r ight-of-way- 672.7 /74.5 5 (272.3/30 .2 5) m ax. a cres (h ectares) 1,164.0 (471.3 ) 709 .1 (287.1 ) 818.2 (331.3 ) b . Sub st a tion-ac r e s 10 .0 4 (4 .0 4) (h e cta res) Table A.5.d (continued) Segment V Segment W 7. Width of Right -of -Way - feet (meters) 150 .0/150 .0 5 (45. 7) 150.0 ( 45 .7) 8. Structures per mile (avg .) 4 .4/5.3 5 4.4 1 Includes18 miles across Ute Mountain Ute Reservation and 21 miles across Navajo Reservation. 2 Includes 7 mil es across Southern Ute Reservation. Segment X 150.0 ( 45 .7) 4 .4 3 Includes 22. 5 miles across Southern Ute Reservation and 14 mil es across Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. 4 Hesperus Substation. 5 These figures for 115-kV double -circuit line from Hesperus Substation to existing 115-kV Lost Canyon -Durango line .. Segment Y 150 .0 ( 45.7) 4.4 Electric Association, and La Plata Electric Association (see Figure A.1 .b .-1 ). Th e total peak annual power requ irements for these four areas is expec ted to triple between 1979 and 1992 . Th e proposed line therefore needs to be routed in a manner that best serves these areas. Since much of the projected load demand is concentrated around the North Fork Valley and Cortez-Durango areas, the following points were designated as essential tie-in points for the transmission system: a new substation in the Paonia area, the Lost Canyon Substation and the proposed Hesperus Substation. Several potential projects in the study area could develop into additional powe r requirements on the Colorado-Ute system. Potential projects include the Mt . Gunnison Mine in Gunnison County, the Shell Oil Company co 2 project in southwestern Colorado, the Dallas Creek Project, the Dolores Project, the Animas-La Plata Project, the Paradox Valley Salinity Project, the Fruitland-Mesa Project, the Dominguez Reservoir Project, and the Mt . Emmons Project (S ee Figure A.6.b.-1 ). All of these potential projects are located in Colorado-Ute member's certificated service areas. In addition to these major projects, substantial load growth is expected in some areas due to development of residential areas, coal mining, uranium recovery, increased irrigation, and development of recreation facilities. An additional factor related to corridor selection involves the location of sites under consideration for the Colorado-Ute projected generating station in southwestern Colorado. Potential corridors were plotted with consideration given to these sites in an attempt to minimize the length of additional transmission line s that will be needed to carry power from the proposed plant . CO LA.E A A-7 1 A.6.b. Selection of a Study Area and Constraint Mapping: The search for an environmentally compatible transmission line corridor began with the selection of a suitable study area based primarily on the origin and destination of the proposed line. Th e resulting area was approximately 100 miles (160 km) wide and 200 miles (322 km) long, encompass ing parts of eleven counties in southwestern Colorado and one county in northwestern New Mexico. The study areas was selected to allow for all reasonable possibilities for the location of the line. The northern and southern boundaries were based on the end points of the proposed line : the Colorado-Ute Rifle Substation in Garfield County, Colorado and the switchyard of the San Juan Generating Station in San Juan County, New Mexico. The western boundary was drawn primarily along the state line between Colorado and Utah; the eastern edge was generally north-south, being specifically defined by the western boundaries of Hinsdale, Archuleta and Pitkin Counties. Information was collected within this study area and analyzed through a constraint mapping process to develop a feasible network of corridors. Recognized constraints, areas that essentially prohibit transmission line crossings, were located and excluded from further consideration (see Figure A.6.a.-1 ). These constraints, determined from maps and from consultation with various agencies, included the Forest Service RARE II areas, proposed and existing wilderness areas, designated primitive areas, and wild and scenic river classifications; the Bureau of Land Management proposed wilderness inventory units; the Water and Power Resources Service proposed reservoir projects; the National Park Service Monuments, parks and proposed wilderness areas; and ' endangered species critical habitat. COLA.EA A-72 w z _J vi z <( a: I- z <( :::) .., z <( Cf! w _J LL a: _J <( z <( > z w e -! <D 0 00 ,.... w I- :::) _J 0 u - M "' .!? o~ 0 CD o . .- 0 x 0 0 0 c. • c. ':': <( .... "' (ij .s! g. C1:I w (J .i= Cl) u c: >- _J a: a: <( a: <( 0 0 I- 0 0 0 z z w :::) a: a: I- 0 a: a: 0 Cl 0 0 CL m z u u LL <( 0 w w 0 w (.!) a: w I-z (/) w <( a: <( 0 I- ..J a: z -u >-w a: I-w 0 LL w <( .., :::) w I-uo I-a: _J 0 a: (/) CL <( _J CL I I • . .h .... w (/) I- <( :::) (.'.) 6 w z a: 0 - <( a:<I'.~~ 0 oa:<l'.a: 0 <( LL g ~ W ZQ (/) 0 (/) z <( _J ~uo~ 0 _J w <( a: 0 w u I--<(~~a;z u I->-o°;-1-Q w z .., w OCL_JUI- 0 I-:)Q<l'.W <( a: 0 1-a:O...J1- CL CL (/)CL U W (/) lJ fl I I L_J :jL ~•"C.~31<o 'Yo-!' ,,.1~d <.. ~ ..... ~ -< ,, --~.i ~I -, ) ' I i.). '• , .. 1' $ .. \,-- ?' ; ~ ; ,_ L j, ...J <( I-z UJ .... I- ' 0 ..q Cl. (!) 0 <i. z Q) ... <( ::I 0 Cl UJ u.. I- (,) UJ -, 0 a: Cl. -· "ii c~ c• o& e ~ :£~ ~~ ~~ .. z ::I~ 11:1~ / v, ~ -· v, I~ ' :- £ I ·'1 \.. .. " .. -v-··--, .U z ' <( z 'f Ii '"" , ""·~<( ,__ (/) '" ' ,._ .t.. \ ";. ~, ~\ '-1 -t -: ---~:--~ "T --~ ~"' . t ,,-' J ~--__ ; 1 ' -: ,_ Cl) <( UJ a: <( 0 <( 0 ...J ' ' / .. l ~ z < ' < . \"'=;". - _ __!!_ __________ ..,,._ ____ _ Other environmental constraints that should be avoided where practical , but do not prevent the construction of a transmission line were also identified for the study area. The environmental constraints identified within the study area include: prime farmland, wetlands, floodplains, mineral resources, soils, flora, fauna, National or State Parks, and other formally classified areas. Areas where threatened or endangered plants may occur are not identified in this document because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified that they may be jeopardized by commercial exploitation. During the identification of potential corridors, consideration was given to general engineering constraints including excessive length of the line, steep or rough terrain, frequent or sharp angles, long spans, and river crossings. This was accomplished in part by the use of aerial photos at 1:24,000 scale. These were obtained from the state planning office and provided details on the terrain and land form of certain areas along the proposed corridors. Federal, state, and county agencies were contacted during the information-gathering process to supply environmental data and planning considerations (see Table APP .F.-1 ). A concerted effort was made to obtain their input into the corridor selection process. In many cases, after the general corridor locations were initially determined, the information was submitted to interested agencies for comments and recommendations. Copies of representative correspondence are included in Appendix F. A.6.c. Use of Existing Corridors: An attempt was made to utilize existing transmission corridors wherever possible, as recommended by Section 503 of the Federal Land Policy & Management Act of 1976 . In general, sharing a corridor can help alleviate the COLA.EA A-73 overall environmental impact. However, several new corridors have been offered a s a lte r nat ive s bec a use of th e i r s ho r t er length , avo i danc e of env ironme n t a l c ons t r a i nt s, or other f a c to rs. A.6 .d . Cri t eria for Tr ans mission Lin e Routing: Th e proposed transmission line wil l be routed within t h e selec t ed corridor. Following the se l ection of t he preferred corridor, low-lev el aerial pho t ogra ph y a nd ground reconnaissance wil l be conducted by Colorad o-Ute t o e n s u re t hat t h e mo st recent de v elo pm ents wi thin the corridor are c onsidere d . A p r imar y f actor is to r oute all se ctions of the line a s st r aight as po s sible t o minimize the use of angle structures, which can be three to four times mo r e costly than tangent structures . A second consideration is the potential interference with irrigation projects. Where practical, when traversing irrigable land, the transmission line will be routed along section lines or property boundaries and the towers will be spaced to s pan areas of potential int erf erence. Ad di t i on a l fac t ors affec t i ng ce nt erline ro ut i n g i nclud e existin g residences, steep or rugged terrain, landslide deposits, soil conditions, existing airports, river crossings, visual consid erations, threatened or endangered plant species, and other environmental constraints. The preliminary line routing will then be subject to several reviews prior to final line routing. These reviews may include the county permitting process, federal and state agency review, federal land manager's permitting process, sta t e land manager's review, and Indian Tribal Council approval as d escrib e d in Sec t ion A.2. COLA.EA A-74 A.7 . Description of Transmission Line Equipment, Methods an d Right-of-Way Considerations : A.7 .a. Conducto rs and Structures: Double-circuit 345-kV Line: h~;J' t lowe.rf ~ ') Jf of the transmission line will be double-circuited, utilizing steel lattice towers (see Figure A.7.a.-1 ). Each tower will have a base dimension of approximately 1,600 square feet (148 square meters) and will be anchored to the earth by two or four reinforced concrete foundations. The average s~n will range from 1 ,000 to 1 ,200 feet (305 to 366 met ers ) with an average span sag of 30 feet (9 .1 meters) and minimum distance above ground level of 30 feet (9.1 meters). Typically, there will be four or five towers per mile (1 .6 km ), with span length adjusted where necessary to avoid archaeological sites and other environmentally sensitive areas. The normal foundation for the lattice steel towers proposed for t h e line will be circular , cast -in -place concrete cylinders . These foundations are co nside re d t o be economical as well as practical and can be ins talled in almost any area with the availability of modern construction equipment. The foundation for the tangent, light angle, and medium angle lattice tower will vary from two to four feet (0 .6 to 1 .2 meters) in diameter and extend approximately 15 to 20 feet (4 .5 to 6 meters) below grade. Larger concrete cylinders will be used for the heavy angle and terminal towers. The line will utilize a two-conductor bundle for each of its three phases. The conductors will be bundled vertically with 18-inch (45 cm) spacing. The conductor material will be nonspecular aluminum cable, steel reinforced (ACSR). In a conductor of this type, the current is carried primarily by the aluminum strands. The steel core provides the mechanical strength necessary to CO LA.E A A-7 5 support the conductors. This conductor will use 45 strands of aluminum and 7 strands of steel. The diameter of each conductor comprising the two -conductor bundle will be approximately 1.4 inches (3 .6 cm). Two overhead shield wires will be strung at the uppermost extremity of the support structures to protect the conductors and electrical equipment from lightning. If lightning should strike the line, the shield wires will drain the energy to earth through the towers. The wire material will be extra-high strength galvanized steel cable, 7/16 of an inch (1 .1 cm) in diameter~ It is essential that the conductors be electrically insulated from the support structures. This is accomplished by suspending the conductors from the support structures by strings of suspension insulators. Porcelain insulators, gray in color, will be used on this line. An individual insulator is 10 inches (25.4 cm ) in diameter, and 5-3 /4 inches (14.6 cm ) deep. Eighteen insulators will be used per string on tangent structures, and 20-22 will be used on dead ends. Two strings of insulators will be utilized per conductor bundle. The two strings will form a vee supporting the conductor bundle at the base of the vee. Conductor spacing will be approximately 26.5 feet (8 .08 meters). Single-Circuit 345-kV Line: The single circuit 345-kV transmission line will utilize steel lattice H-frame supports (see Figure A.?.a.-2). Each structure will have a base dimension of approximately 120 square feet (11 square meters), with the land actually covered by each leg measuring approximately 16 square feet (1 .5 square meters). The structures will be anchored by two reinforced concrete foundations. The average span will be 1,200 feet (366 meters) with a minimum distance above ground level of 29 feet (8.8 meters). Typically, there will be four or five towers per mile (1 .6 km ), with the span .CO LA.EA A-76 w z _J ui q z i:n <( a: @(!) f-: I-z oz <( ,' LU :J ~~ ..., ::) LU z <( 0: 0: u; IU w I-~ _J IL a: q _j i:n <( z <( > z w -;; 0 .,t a, (!) 0 cO ..... w f- :J _J 0 u z 0 q 0 <O (/) _J z <( LU U I--Xo... LU >-I-(.'.)- LU _J 16'-0" 1--I Burns & MG>onnvll Engineers-Architects-Consultant s Figure A.7.a.-1 TYPICAL 345-kV STEEL LATTICE DOUBLE CIRCUIT VERTICAL TANGENT STRUCTURE w z ...J vi z <( a: 1- z <( :::> ...., z <( ~ w ...J LL i! ...J <( z <( > z w m <!l 0 ro " w I- :> ...J 0 u ...J <( u Cl.. >-f- 9 0 0 Cf' L!) co GRADE 25'-0" 16'-9" I- 16'-9" 25 '-0" Barns & MG>onncrll Engineers-Architects-Consultants Figure A.7.a.-2 TYPICAL 345-kV STEEL LATTICE H-FRAM E TAN GE N T STRUCTURE length adjusted where possible to avoid archaeological sites and other environmentally sensitive areas. The normal foundation for the lattice steel structures will be circular, cast-in-place concrete cylinders. The foundations will be 6 feet (1 .8 meters) in diameter and 20 to 30 feet (6 .1 to 9.1 meters) below grade. The conductor and insulator specifications are identical to those given for the double circuit 345-kV line. Double-Circuit 115-kV Line: The 115-kv portion of the project, an approximately 8 mile (13 km ) extension of the existing 115-kV line from Empire to Durango, will utilize double-circuit steel lattice towers (see Figure A.?.a.-3). The average span will be 1,200 feet (366 meters), with the towers placed adjacent to the 345-kV towers where practical. This line will require a minimum conductor clearance of 22 feet (7 meters) from ground. The foundation for the proposed towers will be circular concrete cylinders, two feet in diameter and 10 to 15 feet deep. The base dimension will be 20 feet by 20 feet, or 400 square feet (37 .2 square meters). Each phase will utilize a single conductor , approximately one inch in diameter, made of steel reinforced aluminum conductor (ACSR). Two overhead shield wires, 3/8-inch in diameter, will be strung at the uppermost extremity of the support structures to protect the conductors and electrical equipment from lightning. It is essential to electrically insulate the conductors from the support structures. Nine insulators, each ten inches in diameter, will be used to suspend the conductor. COLA.EA A-77 A.7.b. Electrical Characteristics: Double -Circuit 345-kV Line : The maximum operating voltage of each circuit of the transmission line will be 3 4 5 k V from line-to-line and 209 kV from line-to-ground. The resistance of the structure footing is expected to be 10 to 1 5 ohms. Electrostatic and electromagnetic fields associated with this line and steps to be taken to reduce radio and TV interference and to mitigate induced currents are discussed in Section B.11. Single-Circuit 345-kV Line : Electrical characteristics are the same as thos e discussed for doubl e circuit 345-kV line. Double -Circuit 115 -kV Line : The maximum operating voltage of this loop will be 115 -kV from line-to-line and 66 .4-kV from line-to-ground . The resistance _of the structure footing is expected to be 10 to 15 ohms. A.7. Construction Meth ~ Construction methods for both the 345-kV and the 11 5-kV lines will be essentially the same. Const r u ction of a transmission line normally fo llows a sequence of right-of-way preparation and access road construction, foundation installation, material delivery, tower assembly, tower erection, conductor and shield wire stringing, tensioning and finally, site restoration. Prior to actual construction, extensive aerial photography and on-the-ground survey work must be completed. Colorado-Ute has estimated that the construction will require a crew of approximately 150 to 200 men per segment. This crew will typically be split into smaller units each involved with a different construction ac t ivity. These units are generally distributed over 50 to 75 miles of the line . One unit of the construction crew will be involved with preparing the tt right -of-way, developing access, and putting in gates where necessary. COLA .EA A-78 0 L.() Burns & MG>onnvll Englneers-Arc hU ect a-Con sultants Figure A.7.a.-3 TYPICAL 115-kV STEEL LATTICE DOUBLE CIRCUIT VERTICAL TANGENT STRUCTURE A second construction unit will follow to place the foundations . This involves augering or blasting holes for the structure foundations, and filling with concrete. Th e next task is ma t erial delivery and steel layout. Large and bulky materials will be delivered by rail to railheads and then delivered by conventional vehicles to each site. Staging areas for temporary material and equipment storage will be located approximately 10 miles (16 km ) apart along the transmission line. At this time it is expected that the support towers will be partially assembled at the sites. In general, flat-bed trucks will. be used to haul the structural steel needed for the support structures to the site areas and small cranes will be used to unload the structure components. An assembly crane will probably be used to help assemble portions of the steel structures. Another construction unit will then erect the tower structures onto the foundations using a setting crane. After the structures are in place, the conductors will be strung. A series of steps are required to pull the conductor in under tension. First a rope will be pulled through the pulleys located on each tower. The sock line, a steel cable 3/8-1 /2 -inches (0 .95 to 1 .3 cm) in diameter, is pulled back through by the rope. The sock line is used to pull a larger diameter steel cable, 3/4-inch (1 .9 cm) in diameter, back through. The conductor is then pulled in by the large steel cable. A tensioner is used to keep tension on the conductor after it comes off the conductor spool and a conductor puller is used on the o the r end to pull the conductor through. Due to the size of the support structures, access to every structure site will be required. Existing access roads will be used to the greatest COLA.EA A-79 ex t ent practical. Nonconventional (i.e., helicopter ) methods will be used in alpine areas if suitable. Guidelines in Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmiss ion Systems, published jointly by the U.S. Department of Ag riculture and the U.S. Depa r tm ent of Interior, will be followed du ring the construction , operation, and maintenance of the transmission line. Colorado-Ute will also be regulated by p rov isions of the grants of right-of-way, s pecial use permits, and right-of-way easements ob tained prior to construction. A.7 .d. Right -of-Way Considerations : The _nominal widths of the rights -of-way (ROW) will be 150 feet (46m) for the double-circuit 115-kV line and the single-circuit 345-kV line, and 175 feet (53m ) for the double-circuit 345-kV line. However, it could be more or less in specific areas depending on span length, conductor sag, and wind characteristics. These widths will ensure that mid -span conductor breakage clearances to any existing buildings or structures will be provided in accordanc e with the National Electric Safety Code (NESC), 1977 Ed ition. A permanent ROW easement will be purchased from private landowners. The landowner will be able to use the ROW for any agricultural purpose , but will not be permitted to erect structures or conduct a business within the ROW, which would be hazardous to himself, the line, or the general public . Permanent structures are normally not permitted in any part of the ROW. Selective routing, attention to structure locations, and detailed adjustment of span lengths will be employed to the extent practical in order to avoid interference with existing and known future irrigation systems. If center pivot irrigation systems are encountered, the transmission line structures will be placed along section or quarter-section lines. COLA.E A A-8 0 The clearing of some vegetation may be required. However, selective -- clearing will be exercised and will be performed only when necessary to provide for electrical clearance, line reliability, and for construction and maintenance operations. Trees and brush in the right-of-way that intrude into the clearance areas will be cut back by means of topping, feathering, and undulating clearing. This is necessary to provide adequate clearance according to NESC standards, and to remove trees that could possibly fall on the line. Trees that could affect the line during wind-induced swing will also be topped or removed. Clearing of vegetation for conductor clearance will be regulated by the type of tree to be topped and the amount of topping required. In coniferous timber stands, if less than 30 percent of the crown is to be topped the tree will be left in place; otherwise it will be removed. Aspen trees will probably be removed as they cannot survive partial topping. The normal clearing procedure is to top or fell large trees . Clearing crews will make a minimal number of passes through the right-of-way, making use of existing access roads where possible. The amount and type of clearing or grading required for electrical clearance cannot be accurately estimated prior to a survey of the right-of-way since these activities are very specific to certain locations. In general, the extent of clearing or grading is minimal . A.7.e. Inspection, Clean-up and Maintenance Methods: A continuous inspection of construction methods and procedures will be performed by Colorado-Ute's design engineer. Colorado-Ute will make a final inspection of the transmission line to ensure compliance with environmental regulations, guidelines, and stipulations. COLA.EA A-81 All waste and scrap materials will be removed from the right-of-way and deposited in local landfills in conformance with local regulations and in accordance with land management agency or landowner agreement. Any damage to any property, bridges, fences, culverts, driveways , roadways , etc. incurred during construction will be repaired by the Contracto r. Land disturbed by construction operations will be regraded, if necessary, and then provided with a vegetative cover as suggested by the Soil Conservation Service or the appropriate land manag er. Native vegetation, particularly that of value to wildlife, which does not pose a hazard to the powerline, will be allowed to grow on the right-of-way. Where permitted, access roads will be maintained with native grass cover, and will be graded in such a way as to prevent soil erosion. Aerial maintenance inspection of the line will occur two to three times per year, with ground inspection occurring one to two times per year. -- Inspection intervals will be established so that routine maintenance will occur when the ground is firm, dry, or frozen. Aerial and ground maintenance inspection of the power line will include observations of soil erosion problems, fallen timber, and conditions of the vegetation that require attention, as well as conditions of the conductors, support structures, and other features associated with the mechanical and electrical function of the line. If maintenance needs require access to a structure, the appropriate landowner will be notified as established in the easement arrangements. A.?.f. Access and Road Construction : The construction of access roads is required to allow for the movement of the various sizes and types of vehicles required for construction of the line. Access roads are temporary, nonpaved construction roads along the right- COLA.EA A-82 • of-way, permitting access and egress of personnel and materials to the right-of- way. New access roads are generally bladed with a caterpillar tractor , with all vegetation removed to allow for leveling and smoothing of the roadway . Without such access, variable terrain conditions would generally require a longer ov erland access into and along the right-of-way. The width of these roads is normally 14 feet (4 .3 meters). Flat roads with a maximum grade of 7-10 percent are de sired for safe construction. Existing roads are used, when possible, for construction access. Wh ere necessary, roadside drainage ditches and water ba rs will be installed to control erosion. Where fences are encountered crossing the route, gates will be installed and locked if required . The total amount of new access roads required to construct the facilities cannot be precisely determined until completion of right-of-way surveys, final alignment and structure siting . A.8 . (Substation Details : ' Colorado-Ute plans to construct substation or terminal facilities near the following locations: r Rifle the Paonia area, Lost Canyon, Hesperus and the San Juan Generating Station. All of these installations are planned to be low profile with a rigid bus design. These facilities will be protected from system disturbances by protective relays and lightning arrestors. Specific information for each location is given below. Figure A.8.-1 is a perspective view of a typical 345-kV substation . Colorado-Ut e's existing Rifle 23 0 -1 38-115 -6 9-2 4 .9-kV Substation will b e expanded as part of the Rifle -San Juan Project. A portion of the substation expansion is associated with the Craig Station Unit 3 Project. Those facilities associated with the Rifle-San Juan Project will include one three -circuit COLA.E A A-83 breaker bay, one-half of three 345-kV circuit breakers, one circuit switcher, one 25 MVAR reac to r and three single phase 345-230-kV transformers each having a 100/133/167 MVA rating. A new 345-1 15 -kV substation will be constructed in the Paonia area. The 345-kV section will consist of two three-circuit breaker bays, three 345-kV circuit breakers, two 25 MVAR reactors, one circuit switcher and three single phase 345-115-kV transformers each having a 50/67/83 MVA rating. The 115 -kV section will consist of five circuit breaker bays and five oil circuit breakers to terminate existing and planned 115-kV circuits. An insulated masonry block building will be constructed to serve as a control house. Colorado-Ute plans to add a 345-kV switchyard to the Lost Canyon 23 0 -115 -kV Substation . The Lost Canyon 230 -115 -kV Substation is scheduled to be • constructed in 1980 and will be located near Dolores, Colorado on a 120 acre ~ tract that is in the NE 1/4, NE 1/4, Sec . 35, T37N, R15W and E 1/2 , SW 1/4, Sec. 26, T37N, R15W, New Me xico Prime Meridian (NMPM), Montezuma County, Colorado. A new 345 -115 -kV substation will be constructed, (the construction time frame depends on load growth,) on a tract of land located in Sections 14 and 15 , T34 North R11 West , (NMPM), La Plata County , Colorado . The 345 -kV switchyard will consist of two three -circuit breake r bays , three circuit breakers, one circuit switcher and three single phase 345 -115 -kV .transformers each with a rating of 50/67/83 MVA . The 115 -kV section will consist of six circuit breaker bays and six oil circuit breakers to terminate existing and planned 115 -kV circuits. The existing CUEA and PSNM 11 5-kV transmission lines west of Durango will be tied into the CUEA system at the Hesperus Substation for COLA .EA A-84 • _,,....-~~ ~--::-__ -7.· w z _J ui z <( a: I- z <( :i -.., z <( CJ? w _J LL a: _j <( z <( > z w ~ 0 0 • ~ Ol lD 0 cii .... w I- :i _J 0 u 1 -y.-·-.l...~ -, ~· . ---·/ ' '··. \ "· Burns & MG>onnvll Englneers-Arcl"litect s-Consultants ·····-. ·~- Figure A.8.-1 TYPICAL 345-kV SUBSTATION increased system reliability. An insulated masonry block building will be constructed to serve as a control house . Two 3 45-kV circuit breakers and associated breaker bays will be required to terminate the line in the existing switchyard at Public Service Company of New Mexico's San Juan Generating Station. A.9. Transmission System Planning: Plans for the future electrical transmission system in western Colorado have been developed jointly by various electrical power suppliers. The se s uppl iers include Colorado-Ute, the Western Area Power Administration (W estern ) and Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCC). The three above-mentioned entities are participating with others in a study to determine future system additions needed in western Colorado and Utah . The study has identified the need for two 345-kV transmission lines from the Hayden -Craig area to the Shiprock-San Juan area. An ultimate system of three 345-kV lines could be developed as the system requirements dictate. To meet their transmission requirements, Western and PSCC are proposing to develop a transmission path from the Craig-Hayden, Colorado area to the Shiprock-San Juan-Fou r Corners, New Mexico area . The portion of the path from Delta to Lost Canyon , Colorado will utilize the second circuit of the proposed Colorado -Ute Rifle -San Juan 345 -kV transmission line . Because of different service areas and load sites, only the Delta-Lost Canyon portion will be double circuit. This second circuit will have joint ownership and capacity between Western and PSCC. The second circuit will be strung during initial co nst ruction to minimize environmental impact and re duce overall cost. Thi s strategy will require advanced funding by Western and PSCC and will result in a COLA.EA A-85 short pe ri od when the second circuit cannot be utilized until contiguous line segment s are co mp leted . Continuity with the second circuit of the Rifle-San Juan 345-kV line (i.e., Hayden to Del t a, Lost Canyon to Sh iprock ) and voltage support are expected to be provided in the future by the following additional 345-kV lines: COLA.EA 1. A 345-kV transmission line from Craig Generating Station to Western's Rifle Substation would be constructed to provide continuity from Hayden to Shiprock. This facility would probably be an upra t e of t he existing 23 0-kV line and wou l d be owned ent irely by Wes t ern. 2 . A 345 -kV t r ansmission l i ne f rom Rifle Substation to Delta v i a Cameo would be constructed by Western and PSCC . Th i s facility would provide continuity from Hayden to Shipr ock . Weste r n would a lso use thi s ci r cuit to market the powe r provi ded by the ir proposed Dominguez pu mp-s t orage project. PS CC wo u ld use t h eir capacity in this circuit for their Grand Junction loads and regional transfer of energy. 3. A 345-kV transmission line from Lost Canyon Substation to Shiprock Substation would be constructed by Western and PSCC Substation to Shiprock Substation. This facility would provide continuity from Hayden to Shiprock. Although planned to be located along the existing Lost Canyon-Shiprock corridor, a possible alternate route would be to parallel the Colorado-Ute line through Hesperus. 4 . A 345-kV transmission line fr om Mon t rose Su bs t a t ion to Cu recanti Substation would be con s tructed to provid e an i nte r connecti on between the Rifle -San Juan 345 -kV system and the Western 230-kV A-86 system. This facility would probably replace the existing 115 -kV circuit, and would be constructed by Colorado-Ute, Western, and PSCC . The interconnection would provide reliabil ity in the event of line failure in the Ri fle-San Juan system. 5. A 345-kV transmission line from Shiprock Substation to Four .corners Substation would be constructed to provide continuity to the Four Corners area. Th is facility would probably replace the exis ting 23 0 -kV circuit , and would be constructed by Colorado-Ut e, Weste rn, and PSCC. 6. A 345 -kV transmission line from Craig Generating Station to Hayden Substation would be constructed, probably as an uprate of one of the existing 230-kV lines. The cost would be shared by Colorado-Ute, Western, and possibly others . 7. Colorado-Ute's future planning includes new substations for the Meeker and Naturita areas, and 345-kV bays to be added at the existing Montrose Substation. Th ese facilities would be constructed when load growth in those load areas justifies these facilities. Location studies for these facilities have not been performed, hence site specific analysis for these additional lines are not available. These lines will be the subject of additional NEPA documents at future dates as more information is known. The intent of mentioning these additional facilities is ( to make the reviewing public aware of the magnitud e of the interrelated plans of the three entities. * * * * * COLA.EA A-87 B. Environmental Impact of the Proposed Project: Although Sec tion B deals specifically with the impact of the pro ject on the preferred corridor, all of the general impact and mitigation information in the following section applies as well to any of the alternate corridors. Di scus sion of i mpact s along the pref erred corridor at the proposed He sperus Substation will include both the 345 -kV transmission line and the 115-kV line paralleling it. Th e evaluation of environmental constraints associated with all of the potential corridors, that led to the selection of the preferred corridor, is provided in Section E.3. B.1. Impact on Soils: B.1.a. Erosion: Impacts on soils that may be associated with transmission line projects are usually due to the movement of heavy equipment and construction of access roads and laydown areas which may result in erosion, increased erosion potential , mi xing of the soil profile, and compaction. The erosion impact along the preferred corridor is expected to be minimal, since 76 percent of the corridor is paralleling existing transmission lines, and therefore should require little, if any, additional access road construction. The corridor permitting process will serve as a check for possible erosion potential in the new portions of the proposed corridor. In addition, the proposed line will be constructed in a manner that will minimize soil erosion. Existing roads will be used when practical to minimize access road construction. Clearing and grading of construction areas such as storage and staging areas, set-up sites, etc., will be minimal . Th ere will be close supervision of COLE.EA B-1 • construction activities to make sure that soil disturbance and damage to v ege t a t ion is k e pt t o a mi nimum . The disturbance of steeply sloping areas and highly erodible soils, as determined by soil s u rveys, will be a v oided as much as possible. If t he soil is exposed during construction, erosion will be minimized by filling any ruts, terracing, diking or by spreading a straw mulch on the surface. Earth will be replaced at slopes less than the normal angle of repose for the soil type involved. Reseeding and restoration of the native vegetative cover will be carried out as direc t e d by the Soil Conservation Serv ice or a pp ro priat e land manage r. Unl ess othe rw is e d ire c ted by the land man a gers, th e restoration of vegetation will involve the replacement of the native grasses, shrubs or trees that were present before the disturbance . Special care will be taken to locate stream cr ossings where damage to the bank and channel will be held to a min i mum . An evaluation of relative depths of wa t er, s ub s t ra t e materials and s l ope conditions wi l l determine wh ere streams are to be forded by construction ve h icles. B.1.b. Prime Farmland: Although prime farmland is found in the preferred corridor at the point where it traverses the North Fork Valley, areas so designated will be avoided to the extent possible. Table A.5 provides the mileage of prime and unique farmland located within the corridor. Any impact on cultivated farmland will be minimal, since only the land directly under the support structures would be removed from cultivation. Ass um ing t he entire block of land under t h e s u p port struc ture is farmland but is not cultivated as a result of the structure, then 1,936 sq . ft . of land would be removed from production by each double-circuit towe r , and 272 sq. ft . would be COLE.EA B-2 removed from production by each single-circuit H-frame. Since there are a total of ten miles (16 km) of prime farmland a long the preferred corridor, approximately 1.2 total acres (.5 hectares) would be removed from production. Each leg of the structures would actually occupy only 16 square feet of land. Where feasible, the line will be located along property or section or quarter section lines. This procedure should eliminate most or all interference with farming activities during both construction and operation stages. The proposed new substation in the Paonia area will not be located on prime farmland. B.2 . Impact on Flora: Negligible impacts to vegetation will occur during construction of the proposed 345 -kV transmission line. The degree of potential impact to vegetation will relate in part to the specific nature of the rights-of-way selected during the line routing phase of the project . The preferred corridor follows existing rights-of-way for 76 percent of its length. Thi s will significant ly re duc e the potential for negative impacts upon native vegetation. Protec·tion for existing vegetation and alleviation of potential impacts will be considered during line routing and construction . This section discusses the potential impacts which may result from construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project and how these potential impacts will be minimized. Many representative plant species were mentioned in Section A.4 .h . to define the vegetative communities present in the study area. None of those species are expected to be vulnerable to project impacts except as noted in the following discussion. COLE.EA B-3 B.2.a . Construction-Related Impac ts: Con s t r uction-related impacts wi ll gene r ally include ve getati on r emov a l and trimming along righ ts-of-way, access roads and staging areas. All v e g e t a t ion wi l l be remov ed from s ub s t ation sites and regrowth will be prevent ed by a lay er of cru s h e d rock spread over th e s u bstation area, and by t h e concrete equipment foundations. Protection of vege t ation will be given consideration t h rou gh out t h e plannin g and construction phases of t h e pro j ect. Existing corridors and access roa ds will be used wh enever practical to reduce potential i mpa c ts to und is tur b e d areas . The design , const r uction and maintenance of the pr oposed t r ansm i s sion line and clean-up and restoration of disturbed areas will follow all applicable criteria set forth by the USDA and USDI in the publication "Environmental Criteria for the Electric Transmission Systems." When wooded or forested areas ~ must be crossed by the line, only vegetation tall enough to be a hazard to conductor and s uppo r t s t r uctu res wil l be t r immed and then only t o the ex t ent requ ired for safe t y, as re qu ired by t h e National Elec t ric Sa fe ty Cod e. Ap proxima t ely 19 percent of t h e preferred corridor crosses such forested areas. Species such as the aspen, which would not survive topping or extensive trimming, will be removed. Aspen occurs on less than one percent of the preferred corridor. Clear cutting may be required at support structure locations and in areas where new access is required . Revegetation and conservation procedures suggested by the Soil Conservation Service and the USDA and USD I pub lication will be applied wh en necessary t o pre v ent erosion. When e ve r pr acti c a l , s uppo r t structur e s wi l l be l o cated so as t o a ll ow spanning of riparian vegetation. In addition, preferred lines will cross rivers in alignments that tend to minimize impacts on riparian vegetation . Potential COLB.EA B-4 impacts to vegetation will be further reduced by the selected trimming of ve g e t a t ion only t o the ex t e n t ne c es sa r y t o pro v i de safe clear anc e f or conduct ors and support structures. Following construction, disturbed areas will be s t a b ilized and revegeta t ed t o t h e extent re qu ired to prevent erosion. All cons t ruction and revegetation will be done in accordance with applicable permits and grants of right-of-way. Pesticides and herbicides will not be applied to the rights-of-way unless specifically requested by property owners or land managers and approved by Colorado-Ute. If such ch emi ca l s are re qu ired , only tho se rec omm end e d by the a ppropr iat e authori t ies s uch as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S . Department of the Interior will be employed . Chemicals will be applied in a manner acceptable to the Environmental Protection Agency unde r the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act . B.2 .b. Operation-and Maintenance-Related Impacts : Fo l lowing cons t ruc t ion and re-es t a b lishm ent of vege t a t ion i n dis tur be d areas, few operational-and maintenance-related impacts to vegetation are expected. Potential vegetative impacts are the effects of oxidant and ozone production on vegetation and the disturbance to soils and vegetation resulting from maintenance of the transmission lines. As discussed in Section B.11.a.4., numerous studies have indicated that oxidant production by 345-kV transmission lines is negligible and has no significant effects on vegetation. Therefore, oxidant and ozone production will not be a problem resulting from the construction and operation of t h e proposed tran s mission l ine. Maintenance personnel a r e ex pected to requi r e entry on the rights -of-way two to four times pe r year. In order to minimize disturbance of COLE.EA B-5 soils and vegetation, routine inspections of lines will be conducted when the ground is dry or froz e n . Du r ing maintenance inspe ctions any problems with conductor clearance or soil erosion would be noted and corrected . Pu b lic access t o right s-of-way will be restricted to t h e extent determined necessary to protect and enhance the environment. Special use permit s from appropriate agencies will be sought to identify areas in which access should be restricted. B.2.c. I mpacts on Threa t ened and Endangered Species: Two plant species that are designated as endangered by the U.S. Fish a nd Wi ld life Service may occur within the s tudy area. Th e designa t ed species are the spineless hedgehog cactus and the Know l ton 's hedgehog cactus . The fishook cactus and the Mesa Verde cactus may also occur in the study area and have been designated by the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened. Endangered and threatened plant species are not expected to be adversely affected by construction and operation of the proposed 345 -kV transmission l ine. Maps showing region s where s pe c i al s tatus plant s may oc cur in the s tu dy area were pre pare d by Ecological Consu ltant s Inc., of Fort Collins, Colorado for use during selection of the preferred and alternate transmission line corridors. These regions were avoided during corridor selection where practical. Precautions, as outlined in the Biological Assessment for this project, will ensure that the continued existence of special status species will not be jeopardized . The Biological Assessment was prepared in accordance with Section 7 procedures of the Endangered Species Act. B.3. Imp acts on Fa una: No sign ifi cant nega t i v e i mp acts t o wi ldlife are ex pec t e d to resu lt from the construction and operation of the proposed 345 -kV transmission line . The proposed line will follow existing rights-of-way along much of its length. COLB.EA B-6 This will significantly reduce the negative impacts to wildlife. Construction of the proposed facility will be coordinated with the appropriate land managers to prevent unnecessary adverse impacts to wildlife. Short-term effects of the project (i.e., temporary avoidance by some wildlife of areas under construction, possible loss of avian and mammalian nests during construction) will not result in significant adverse impacts to wildlife populations. Effects of the proposed project that relate to potential long term impacts on wildlife populations are discussed below. Many representative animal species were mentioned in Section A.4.i., in order to provide a complete biological profile of the study area. None of those species are expected to be vulnerable to project impacts except as noted in the following discussion. B.3.a. Construction-Related Impacts: As discussed in the previous sections, careful corridor and route selection is expected to minimize the removal of woody vegetation; however, some clearing and trimming, especially in forested areas, will be needed. This alteration of habitat is likely to result in increased forage for big game species. Several biologists (Fletcher and Busnel 1978) reported bear , deer, elk, and bighorn sheep benefited from additional forage and new growth of vegetation along transmission line rights-of-way. Fletcher and Busnel (1978) report that construction of power lines in the northwest United States had negligible effects on the density and diversity of nonga.me birds and mammals as well. Construction of the proposed transmission line is not expected to have a significant adverse impact on wildlife. The line will be adjacent to existing rights-of-way wherever possible, and the small amount of vegetation that will be COLE.EA B-7 removed is not expected to have an adverse impact on wildlife when considering the known utilization of transmission r ights-of-way by wildl i f e. B.3.b. Timing of Construc t ion: Cons t r u c t ion dis t urbances may disrupt normal be h avior of elk and mu le deer during crucial stages of t heir life cycle, such as migration or calving. Proper timing of construction in sensitive areas would alleviate the potential for adverse i mpacts. At several points ind icated on Figure A.4.i.-1, t h e preferred route a~proaches or crosses deer and elk migration and calving areas. Op era t ion of a l i n e crossing migrat ion rout es is not ex pec t e d t o be a pro b lem to migrating animals . Coordination with the appropria t e l a nd managers through th e permitting process (Section A.2) will guide construction during the spring calving and fall migration periods, minimizing potential impacts upon wildlife activities . B.3.c. Access Roads and River Crossings: Aquat i c ha b i tat s and re gions of high deer a nd e lk activity such a s wint er range and calv i ng areas are of special con c ern in regard to hum an access. When final line routes are selected , input from the appropriate agencies will be sought to determine the areas in which public access should be restricted, and by what means. Although the nature and number of streams and rivers to be crossed by the transmission system are dependent on the actual line route selected, construction practices will be employed to minimize adverse impacts to aquatic env ironm en t s. To minimize possible erosion and siltation prob l ems, bridges will be ut i lize d by c on s t r uc t ion e qu i pm ent wh e n e v er po ssib l e. In other areas, pro per fording locations will be developed and maintained during construction . COLE.EA B-8 Following construction, disturbed areas will be revegetated according to the Soil Conservation Service and appropriate land managers . The construction of access roads and river crossings will be in accordance with Corps of Engineers recommendations and as specified by the applicable permits and grants of rights-of-way, issued by other agencies. B.3.d. Ope ration-and Maintenance-Related Impacts: Oxidants: As discussed in Section B.11.a .4., oxidant production by 345-kV transmission lines is negligible and has no significant effect on wildlife. Noise: In addition to the discussion in Section B.11.a.3., recent studies of many species of wildlife including deer, elk, coyotes, ravens, blue grouse, ruffed grouse, several hawks and numerous nongame birds have determined that they are not adversely affected by power line related noises. Various animals were observed under or on power lines during periods of adverse weather and abnormally high transmission line noise levels (Fletcher and Busnel 1978). Noise associated with the proposed power line is not expected to have significant adverse impacts on wildlife. Maintenance Inspection: Maintenance personnel are expected to require entry on the rights-of-way two to four times per year to make inspections, repairs, and keep conductors and support structures clear of vegetation. These brief and infrequent inspections are not expected to have significant impacts on wildlife. Avian Collisions with Power Lines: Although there are winter waterfowl concentrations between the Escalante Creek and Gunnison River confluence, and the North Fork Valley area of the Gunnison River, the proposed COLE.EA B-9 transmission line does not lie within the nation's principal waterfowl migration corridors (Bell rose 1976) and is not expected to pose any serious threat to migrating birds. Anderson (197 8) reported avian collisional mortality is generally associated with high concentration areas, such as preferred feeding and resting areas, which will be avoided by the proposed transmission line whenever practical. Electrocution: A variety of bird life including ravens, eagles, hawks and turkeys are known to utilize transmission structures for roosting, nesting, and sites from which they conduct foraging activities (Fletcher and Busnel 1978). Design features such as adequate separation of the energized conductors and other parts of the support structures will effectively eliminate the possibility of electrocuting raptors and other birds that may use the structures for nesting and perching. Electrocution is not considered a problem with high voltage transmission lines, because conductors are far enough apart to prevent simultaneous contact of the bird's extremities with adjacent conductors (Fletcher and Busnel 1978). All conductors for the proposed facility will be separated by at least 24 feet (see Figures A.7.a.-1, 2, and 3). This is adequate distance to prevent simultaneous contact of conductors by eagles, since their wing span ranges from six to eight feet. B.3.e. Impacts on Threatened and Endangered Species: Table A.4.i.-2 lists the animal species considered threatened or endangered by the federal government and special status animals designated by Colorado and New Mexico . Areas where threatened and endangered species may occur were mapped during the corridor selection process. Areas where protected species occur were avoided whenever possible. In areas where their habitat COLE.EA B-10 could not be avoided, precautions will be taken to assure that no significant i mpa cts wi l l occur. In or der to ens u re that t h rea t ened and endang ere d spe cies receiv e a p propria t e considera t ion, a biological assessment has been prepared and consul t a t ion with t h e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be conducted accord ing to the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A discussion of t h e potential i mpacts to threatened and endangered animals follows. Bl ack-Footed Ferret: Historically, the black-footed ferret, a federally endangered species, ranged throughQut most of the Plains states from Nor th Dako t a to New Mexico. Although it cannot categorically be stated t hat t h e black-footed fe rre t does or do es n ot pr e sently exis t i n the s tudy area , no confirmed sightings have been re ported in r ecent years. Until the presence o f black-footed ferrets is confirmed , the Colorado Division of Wildlife (1 978 ) considers no area in the study area as essential f erre t habitat . However, several a r eas in Colo r ado were sugg ested as possi ble si te s for black-footed ferret ha b itation. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (1978 ) defines potential ferret habitat as "those areas with at least eight prairie dog towns per township, all of at least 12 hectares in size and two of 40 hectares or more ." This indicates that a substantial prairie dog population is required to support a breeding pair of black-footed ferrets. Although known prairie dog towns are avoided to the extent practical, some areas indicated as containing large prairie dog populations are crossed by t h e preferred corridor (Figure A.4.i.-2 ). However, because of the prairie dog's grass-like ha b itat, the construction and oper~tion of the pro posed transmission line is not expected to have a significant advers e impact on pr airie dog populations . COLB.EA B-11 Since the proposed transmission line will not adversely affect essential ferret habitat or have a significant adverse impact on prairie dogs,· the project is not expected to have an adverse impact on the black-footed ferret. Bald Eagle: The bald eagle, another federally endangered species, has an overall range encompassing Canada, Alaska and the 48 contiguous states of the United States. At the time of the enactment of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, two subspecies were recognized and treated differently under the Act. The northern subspecies (.!!=.. 1. alascanus) was considered threatened, while the southern subspecies (.!!=.. 1 . leucocephalus ) was listed as endangered. Because of the considerable confusion that resulted over the identification of the two subspecies where their ranges overlapped, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service published on March 11, 1978 in the Federal Register a final rulemaking decision ~ whereby both subspecies were to be considered as the same species and would both be considered endangered through the contiguous U.S. except for five northern states where it would be listed as threatened. All bald eagles occurring in the study area are therefore considered endangered. Because of the bald eagle's broad geographic range, no "critical habitat" has been proposed for this species. Known bald eagle nests were located on maps . To protect the bald eagle from public harassment, known nest sites are omitted from Figure A.4 .i.-2 by request of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, who reviewed the maps for accuracy. The preferred corridor does not approach within five miles of areas where bald eagle nests are known to occur. If active nest sites are identified at a later date they will be avoided during centerline placement. COLE.EA B-12 Known winter concentration grounds, winter range, feeding areas and fall roosting sites for the bald eagle in the study area were mapped and are shown as hunting and concentration areas in Figure A.4.i.-2. Concentration areas for the bald eagle generally follow the major river systems in the study area including sections of the Colorado, Uncompahgre, Animas, Los Pines, Dolores, San Juan and La Plata Rivers. In the~e areas, the preferred corridor follows existing transmission line corridors whenever practical.' In addition, the preferred corridor crosses rivers in alignments that tend to minimize impacts on riparian woodlands. Where the clearing of woody vegetation is necessary for the placement of transmission facilities, selective cutting and trimming will be employed to the fullest extent possible to minimize impacts on • these areas • Special design features and adequate separation of the energized conductors and other parts of the support structures will effectively eliminate the electrocution of eagles and other birds that may use the structures for nesting and perching. In summary, the preferred corridor will not interfere with active nesting areas, is adjacent to existing lines wherever practical, and is designed to minimize impacts to riparian woodlands which are sometimes used as roosting or concentration areas by the eagle. Therefore, it is unlikely that the construction or presence of the Rifle -San Juan transmission line will have a negative effect on the continued survival and reproduction of the bald eagle. Peregrine Falcon: The peregrine falcon has been considered endangered since 1970 by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Habitat requirements for ~ peregrine falcons in the Central Rocky Mountain Region vary from site to site. In general, two requirements are necessary to support breeding peregrine falcon CO LE.EA B-13 populations: 1 ) adequate nesting habitat , and 2 ) extensive hunting habitat wi th suf f ic i e nt prey t o s uppo r t bree d i n g fa lcons and t h eir offs pr i ng (Colo ra do Di v ision of Wildlife 1978 ). Th e peregrine falc on is most sensitive t o hum an disturbance from February t hrough March which is the courtsh ip-egg laying period (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1978). Hunting and nesting areas for the peregrine falcon were drawn on maps. In order to pro t ect the en dangered falcon from public harassment, hunting and nes t ing areas are omitted from Figure A.4.i.-2 by request of the Colorado Di v ision of Wi l dlife who reviewed t he maps for accuracy. The preferred c o rridor avoids all active and potent i al nesting areas that occur in the study a rea by a t least fiv e miles . In addition , the co r ridor avo i ds all hunting t e rritories in the study area with the exception of a hunting territor y located north and east of Grand Junction, Colorado . Mr. Chuck Grand Pre (Di r ector, Colorado Di vision of Wildlif e) and Mr. Ge rald Cr aig (Raptor Specialist , Colo r ado Division of Wild life ) ind icat ed t ha t lines passing several miles fr om nes t ing areas would not constitute a significant negative impact to the peregrine falcon. On the basis of the above discussion, the construction and operation of the proposed transmission line is not expected to adversely impact the continued survival and reproduction of the peregrine falcon. Whooping Crane: The whooping crane is a federally endangered species which historically was rather widespread in North America but subsequently declined to 60 or 70 birds . Reasons for declining populations include habitat destruction, inadvertent shooting of the bird s and a very l ow reproduction rate. Th e whoop i ng cr ane pres ently b ree d s in Wood Buff a l o Na tional Park , Ca nad a and • migrates through the plains to winter on the Texas coast at the Aransas National ~ Wildlife Refuge . The main migration path is to the east of Colorado . COLE.EA B-14 Recently, an experiment was initiated to propagate the endangered crane whereby grea ter sandhill crane foster parents raised whooping crane chicks at Gray's Lake, Idaho. The experimental birds from Idaho only pass through wes te rn Colorado on an unpredictable and sporad ic basis. As a consequence no region within t he study area is presently considered essential habitat for t h e whooping crane by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (1978). It is clear that the construction and operation of the proposed transmission line will not adversely affect essential whooping crane habitat or cross the crane's main migration route. Therefore, the transmission line will not have an adverse impact on the whooping crane . Grizzly Bear: The grizzly bear is a federally designated threatened animal whose historic range includes the entire study area. The grizzly is probably extirpated in Colorado; however, the San Juan Mountains, which are avoided by the preferred corridor, appear to be a likely area to sustain a breeding population (Colo rado Division of Wildlife 1978). Since grizzly bears are probably extirpated in Colorado, and since existing lines will be followed whenever practical, the construction and operation of the proposed transmission line would have no significant adverse impact on the grizzly bear. Threatened and Endangered Fish: Three fish which may occur within the study area and are considered federally endangered are the Colorado squawfish, humpback chub, and the bonytail chub. The razorback sucker is considered a threatened species by the State of Colorado, and the roundtail chub is considered an endange re d species by the state of New Me xico. These species are generally adapted to large river environments and in most cases historically occupied many of the major rivers and tributaries of the CO LB .EA B-15 study area . The major reasons for declining populations of the above -mentioned species are: a ) introdu ction and co mp e t i t ion from none nd emic species, b ) cold water releases from large upstream reservoirs and c) fluctuations in water lev els (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1978 ). The proposed transmission line will not have significant adverse impacts on aquatic organisms or their habitat. Measures to control soil erosion and minimize subsequent siltation of streams will be employed during construction and operation of the proposed line. No blockages or alterations of stream flow will be required. Rivers and streams will be spanned and no s t r uc t u res wil l be placed i n the ri ver be d s. Gr eat Basin Silverspot Butte r fly : The Great Basin silve rspo t ha s be en proposed a s a f ede r ally threatened spec i es. The silverspot butterfly is r estricted to i sola ted seeps a nd s p r ings in the Colo r ado Plateau and Gre a t Basin . Th e s pe cies r equi r e s a ma r shy me a dow in wh i ch v i olets, the but terfly's larval food, can grow. Th e deterioration of these mars hy habita t s resulting from growing water needs is the main threat facing this species of butterfly. Areas in which this species is likely to be found within the study area were located on maps. To avoid further exploitation to existing populations, these areas are not shown in this report. The preferred and alternate corridors will avoid areas where the silverspot butterfly is known to occur. No significant adverse impacts to this species will result from the proposed project. Other State Endangered Species: The Mississippi kite and the red-headed woodpecker are considered endangered in New Mexico. The Mississippi kite and the r ed -he aded woodp e cke r a r e gene r ally associate d with r iparian ~ habitat and planted groves in New Mexico (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish COLE.EA B-16 1978). Known areas where these species have been observed or where there is potential fo r the ir occurrence are shown on Figure A.4 .i.-2. The proposed transmission line is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the areas where these species are known to occur; however, protective measu res will be initiated to protect riparian habitats (see impacts on vegetation, Section B.2.a) during construction and operation of the proposed transmission line. The mink, which is seldom found far from perm.anent water, is considered en dangered in New Me xico. Thi s species is widespread and still common throughout much of its historic range but is declining in numbers in New Mexico (New Mexico Department of Game and Fish 1978). The decline of mink populations in New Mexico may be related to habitat degradation, t rapping, disease and interspecific competition. Areas in New Mexico where this species may occur are indicated in Figure A.4.i .-2. However, the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish believes the mink ha s disappeared from the study area. Th e preferred corridor crosses or approaches indicated areas where the mink may occur in New Mexico. Existing lines will be followed and riparian habitat avoided wherever practical. In addition, special protective measures will be initiated to protect riparian habitat (see Section B.2.a) wherever it proves necessary to cross such areas. On the basis of the above discussion the mink is not expected to be adversely impacted by the proposed action. The river otter, which historically may have occurred in every major drainage of the study area is presently considered endangered in Colorado (Colo rado Division of Wildlife 1978). River otters were extirpated in Colorado but have been reintroduced into the South Platte and Gunnison drainages. Known areas where the river otter may occur are shown on Figure A.4.i.-2. The COLE.EA B-17 preferred corridor crosses or approaches known are a s wh ere t h e river otter may occur. Howeve r, the proposed pr oject will not alter essential river otter habita t . Existing corridors will be followed when practical and special precautions t aken to protect riparian habitat (see Section B.2.a.) if new rights-of-way are re qu ired. The wolverine is considered endangered in Colorado. This species generally prefers densely forested, higher elevat ions in mountainous regions. Although there are no recent confirmations of the wolverine in Colorado (Colorado Division of Wildlife 1978), areas in which unconfirmed wolverine sitings have occurred are shown on Figure A.4.i .-2. The preferred corridor does not cross any areas where unconfirmed wol v erine sitings have occurred. In all cases special precautions to protect the vegetation (described in Section B.2.a.) would be initiated to protect wolverine habitat . B.4. Aesthetic Impact : Any change in the existing landscape would constitute some degree of visual impact. Th e greatest degree of visual impact from this project will Gccur during the construction phase, when construction equipment and workers will add to the visual disturbance. The transmission line itself will create a degree of visual impact for the life of the project. The degree of impact to a specific area can be estimated by assessing the topography and vegetation types, the uniqueness of the scenic view, and the proximity of the project to populated or traveled areas. BLM Lands : The preferred corridor passes through only three Class II visual resource areas, as designated by BLM: approximately one mile (2 km ) in t he Lost Canyon area, seven miles (11 km ) near Hesperus, and one mile (2 km ) CO LB.EA B-18 nea r Orchard City (see Figure A.4 .f .-1 ). These a r eas have been determi ned to be a co mb ina t ion of land s mod erately and high l y sensiti ve to trans mission line construction. In these areas, mitigative measures will be imple mented to comply with the ELM management objective for Class II areas (see Table A.4.f.-1 ). An additional 22 miles (35 km ) of land along the preferred corridor have been rated as highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line, but these lands are classified as Class III and should require less mitigation to comply with Class III objectives. The rest of the preferred corridor crosses Classes III and I V lands which have much less stringent management objectives that s hould be satis f ied by t h e ge n era l c ons t r u c t i on t ec hni ques describe d be l ow. Fo r e s t Se r v i c e Lands : Th e pre f e rre d corrid or cr osses a pp r oximat e ly 38 miles (61 ·km ) of lands that hav e been r ated as hi ghly sens i t i ve to the visual intrusion of a transmission line . These areas occur in th e Gr and Mesa , Gunnis on , an d Un com pa h gre Na t iona l Fo res t s (see Figure A.4 .f .-2 ). All of th e highly sensitive land is located in areas where the proposed line will be paralleling an existing line. The transmission line will be double circuited through the highly sensitive areas of the Uncompahgre National Forest for a distance of approximately 18 miles (29 km). Visual impact may be greater in this area because of the taller support structures and the. wider right-of-way. The rest of the highly sensitive forest land, in the Grand Mesa and Gunnison National Forests, occurs in areas where the structures will be single circuited and therefore less visible. Campgrounds in these areas would be the primary i mpacted sites, but because of their localized nature the visual impact can be minimized during centerline placement. Recent co rre s pondenc e wi th the Fo r e s t Servic e ha s ind i cated that th e VIEWIT computer program for th e fo r ests in the s tudy a r ea may become avai lable COLE.EA E-19 before centerline location is determined. This information would provide more detail on visual sensitivity and distance zones for the pertinent fores t lands. Private Lands: Visual impact on private lands was minimized during the corridor selection process by avoiding major population centers where possible. Communities located within three miles of the centerline of the preferred corridor are shown in Table B.4.-1. Community TABLE B. 4. -1 COMMUNITIES WITHIN THREE MILES OF THE PREFERRED CORRIDOR Distance from Centerline 1970 Population Miles (km ) 2, 150 2.5 (4.03 ) 2 (3.22 ) 1 '1 61 1 (1.61) 507 1.5 (2.42 ) 1 '163 2 (3.22 ) 1 (1.11) 820 2 (3 .22) 709 1 .5 (2 .42) .5 ( 0 .81 ) Mitigation: A total of approximately 69 miles (111 km) along the preferred corridor has been designated as highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line, and therefore susceptible to visual impact. Selection of the preferred corridor was based in part on the visual sensitivity of the land. Where such land could not be avoided, mitigation can be employed during centerline location and construction. The general construction methods listed in Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems, published jointly by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, will be utilized to minimize aesthetic impact. Where possible, rights-of-way COLE.EA B-2 0 through sensitive fo r est and timber areas will be established with curved un d ul a t i ng b oun d aries. Topping an d pruning of t rees will cont ribute to t h is effect and existing small trees and plants will be used to "feather" the rights-of-way from grass and shrubbery to larger trees. Clear cutting of the right-of-way will be avoided where practical. However, topping and pruning of certain trees could destroy the tree and result in its removal. Site specific mitigation measures will be used wherever feasible. A low-profile concept of construction will ~educe the visual impact of the substations. "Skylining" t he tower structures will be ·avoided if possible by s taying aw a y fr om h i l l t op s an d not crossing h ighways at the high est po int . Highway c r ossi ng s will al s o be br ok e n or sc reen e d wi th ve g e t a ti on to avoid "tunnel" viewing of the r ight -of-way and the natu r al line s of the topography and vegetation will be followed , where possible , to de c rease the visual impact . B.5 . Impact on Wa t er Resou r c es: Th ere will be little if any impact on either surface or groundwater resources in the area as a result of constructing the proposed line. Major reservoirs and other large bodies of water were avoided during corridor selection. The preferred corridor crosses six major rivers: San Miguel, Dolores, Mancos, North Fork of the Gunnison, Gunnison, and LaPlata. Soil erosion and stream siltation during construction along the rivers will be minimized by the use of appropriate construction practices. The timing and method of clearing rights-of-way will take into account soil stability, the protection of natural vegetation, and appropriate measures for minimizing or prev enting silt deposi t ion in water courses. Except wh en it is necesssary to a ctually c r os s r ivers or s t r eams , wat er ways will be avo i d e d so that the natural r iparian vegetation will not be disturbed by construction or maintenance COLB .EA B-21 operations . For further information, refer to Section B.3.c. (Access Roads and Ri ver Cr ossings). The Corps of Engineers will be contacted concerning areas where the line wi ll cross rivers, s t reams, or drainage ways. Su pport t owers will be loca t ed a b ove the flood plain, if practical, so that the stream bed and adjacent lowlands are spanned. Stream crossings will be carefully selected on the basis of slope conditions, vegetative cover, depth of water, and substrate material so that damage to the stream bank and channel will be minimal. Staging si t es will be loca t ed away fr om stream s to prevent oil and chemical s from ente r ing the s t r eams and a f fecting wate r qual i ty . Herbi cides will not be applied along stream banks . B.6. Impact on Formally Classified Areas : National : The proposed corridors were selected to avoid formally ~ classified areas , therefore, no adverse impact is expected in these areas . Some o f the corr i do rs, howev er, do c om e cl ose to pro po sed wild e rne s s area s and co uld creat e s om e visua l i mpac t (See Figure A.6.a.-1 ). BLM proposed Wi lderness Un it 030-370B is bordered by preferred Segment I for a short distance. Unit 0 30 -353 borders preferred Segement M for approximately two miles . Proposed RARE II unit 241 approaches within two miles of preferred Segment Q. Since none of the segments are located within the boundaries of any classified areas , the impact to these areas will be minimal. Any visual impact will be mitigated by using the construction practices discussed in Section B.4. Th e Domingu ez-Escalante Trail, a proposed unit of t h e National Trails Sy s t em, is crossed by t h e preferred corrido r in fi v e loca t ions (see Figu re A.4.m .-1 ). The existence of a transmission line could result in some visual COLE.EA B-22 impact to users of the trail. This will be mitigated by using the construction practices discussed in Section B.4 . State: Most of the stat e Recreation, Wildlife, and Fishing Areas were avoided during selection of the proposed and alternate corridors and therefore should not be i mpact e d by the project. The state areas that lie on or near th e preferred corridor (see Figure A.6.a .-1) may be affected by the transmission line. Contact and coordination with the appropriate managing agency during centerline location and construction will be required to minimize the potential impact to these areas, which include Escalante SWA along Segment J, Gurley Reservoir SFA along Segment P, the Puett Reservoir and Summit Reservoir SFAs along Segment V, and the Fruit-Growers Reservoir SFA close to Segment G. Impact to fishing and recreational areas from a nearby line would be primarily visual. Possible disturbance to a wildlife area would result primarily from construction through the area, and may involve vegetation removal, access road construction, erosion, and a temporary increase in human activity. These impacts can be mitigated through coordination and consultation with the managing agency . B.7 . Impact of Maintenance Operations: Standard vehicles used in line maintenanc e include small tracked vehicles for use in snow or on wet ground, four-wheel-drive pick-up trucks, boom and basket trucks, and crane trucks. Maintenance activities will involve aerial and ground observations of soil erosion, fallen timber, vegetation growth, and the line and support structures that require attention. Ground activities will be carried out only when necessary, and maintenance inspection intervals will be scheduled so that routine maintenance will occur when access roads are firm, COLE.EA B-23 dry, or frozen, to minimize disturbance of the vegetative cover. For this reason, there should be little impact on the surrounding environment. It will be necessary to keep potentially obstructive vegetation away from the line by maintaining the initial clearing and feathering of the vegetation in the ROW. Determination of a hazard to the power line in critical areas and the selection of clearing or erosion-control methods will be a joint endeavor of the utility company and the applicable land manager in keeping with the National Electrical Safety Code and other electric safety and reliability re qu irements. B.8 . Impact on Aviation:. Airports within the study area were given careful consideration as constraints in regard to transmission line location (see Figure A.6 .a .-2). Major airports, private airports and landing strips were located and avoided in ~ compliance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. Special consideration was given to the Delta Airport (Blake Field) during the corridor selection process along Segment G. The corridor was narrowed considerably to comply with FAA requirements concerning the distance between tower structures and the runway (primary surface). The FAA will be contacted during centerline location to minimize impact to navigation. A potential safety hazard for low -flying aircraft is created when transmission lines, which are not readily visible, are strung across canyons . Colorado-Ute has agreed to provide local FAA officials with detailed information concerning the location of such lines. This is a particular concern of the Colorado Division of Wildlife and other land managers who routinely conduct low-level aerial surveys. Hazard markers will be placed on lines where required. COLE.EA B-24 B.9. Impact on Human Activities: Except for small land areas to be taken up by support structures and substations, the proposed project will not interfere with normal human activity in the area. The preferred corridor is not routed through areas of concentrated population. Where the corridor is near a city or town, care will be taken to avoid the developed areas during · line routing. No classified recreation areas are crossed by the preferred corridor. Construction of this project will have no adverse effect on recreational facilities in the area. The farmland directly unde r the towers and a small clearance surrounding the towers (approximately 1,936 square feet, 179 square meters ) will be removed from cultivation; however, the preferred corridor passes through only ~ 10 miles (16 km ) of prime farmland, and the overall impact should be slight (see Section B.1 .b.). Wherever possible, the line will be located along property lines in rural areas so that there will be little or no interference with farming activities during either the construction or operation phase of the project. Landowners will be able to use the right-of-way for agricultural purposes, but for reasons of safety will not be permitted to erect structures within this area . Multiple use of the right -of-way in either semi-urban or rural areas will be allowed as specified by Colorado-Ute . Trees and brush that could develop into hazards as they grow closer to the conductors will be cut back by means of topping, feathering and modified clearing. COLB.EA B-25 B.10. Economic Impact: The number of const r uct ion workers and the du ra tion of construction associated with the proposed line are the key factors in assessing the overall impact on the economy. As a general rule, the larger the work force and the longer the construction phase, the greater the impact on the project area. In the case of this proposed 345-kV transmission line, the construction crew is expected to number between 150 and 200 workers per section. This workforce will be split into smaller units or crews involved with different phases of construction along the line. Typically , these crews will be distributed over 50 to 75 miles of the line with no more than 20 to 50 workers living in any one location. The transient workforce moving along with construction of the transmission line is not expected to be incompatible with the existing economic capacity of the area and in many cases will be obscured by the short-term influx ~ of tourist and hunting populations. Although the construction of the proposed line will not generally entail the empl oyment of local workers, the purchase of goods and services by the construction crews will give a temporary minor boost to the local economy. Since the workers will be moving along the route during the construction phase, the economic impact of wages spent will occur in numerous communities along the line route . Long -term economic stimulus will come f r om the tax revenues paid in each county. Increased availability and reliability of electrical power in the region is necessary to adequately respond to the anticipated residential, recreational, commercial and industrial demands . The immediate impact on local and regional businesses will be negligible due to the transient workforce and short duration of construction. The population moving into the area as a result COLB.EA B~6 ----------·----- of the project will be limited to the transient of construction workers, located in co mmun i t ies al on g the l ine on a temp orary basis. Th erefore, there s h ould be no discerna b le i mpact in s u ch areas as housing, educational institutions, or municipal serv ices. B.1 1 . Electrical Effects: This section describes the electrical effects of the 345-kV transmission line between Rifle, Colorado and the San Juan Generating Station in northwest New Mexi~o. Ex t ra h igh v oltage (EHV) tran s miss i on lines, (i.e., with vol t age gre ater than 230 kV), produc e ce r tain e l e ct rical ef f ects that can i nfluenc e the surrounding environment . These effect s a r e discussed below, including a discussion of how modern design techniques will be used in the construction of the Rifle -San Juan line t o minimize such effects , if they occur . The topics to be discussed include co r ona , along with the manife s tation s associated with corona s u c h as ra dio interference, television interference, aud i ble noise a nd the formation of ozone and nitrogen oxide. Also included is a discussion of electrostatic and electromagnetic fields and their effect on the surrounding environment. Finally, safety considerations associated with a single-and double-circuit 345-kV line, and how they will be mitigated, is discussed. B.11.a. Corona: When a transmission line is energized, energy is transmitted to the surrounding air establishing an electric "field." As the field intensity increases t he air becomes ionized (i.e. air molecules will lose electrons and t ake on an electrical ch arge ). Wh en suff icient ch arge is bui l t u p in t h e surrounding air, a partial electrical discharge between the energized conductor and the surrounding air occurs . This discharge is called corona. If the COLE.EA B-27 discharge is of sufficient intensity, it can result in interference to radio and television reception, audible noise, and chemical reactions which produce ozone and nitrogen oxide. The levels of these possible electrical effects associated with a single-and double-circuit 34 5-kV transmission line are given below. B.11.a.1. Radio Int erference (R I ): The electromagnetic radiation resulting from corona can interfere with radio reception in the amplitude-modulated (AM) radio broadcast range (535-1605 kHz ) and to a smaller degree with higher AM frequencies, including the television broadcast band where the antenna is located near a t ransmission line. Maximum radio interference occurs near the outside conductor and decreases as one moves away from the line. Also, as the transmission line conductor diameter increases, corona decreases and hence radio interference also decreases . Due to the weight of the conductor, a practical maximum diameter ~ exists. The conductor diameter selected for this project is 1 .345 inches (3 .43 cm). Grouping two or more conductors for each phase into bundles and then spacing them approximately 18 inches (46 cm) apart is a te c hnique which results in transmitting more power through the same total amount of conductor. This technique also reduces corona and radio interference. Elevated corona activity and subsequent increased RI may occur as a result of rain, snow, dust or insects on the transmission line. The predicted fair weather RI on the Rifle to San Juan 345 -kV line was calculated using the method developed by Bonneville Power Administration and is shown in Figure B.11.a.-1. Th e "heavy rain" or foul weather condition is predicted to be 21 decibels (dB) greater than the fair weather values (EPRI 1975). The quality of radio reception depends upon the size and configuration of the conductors, weather conditions, the strength of the radio signal and the COLE.EA B-28 w z :i ui z <( a: r- z <( :J ..., z <( (/) w _J u.. a: _j <( z <( > z w 0 00 ,... w r- :J _J 0 m 0 ' L:..: u z L;c Cl'.'. ~ L_ Cl'.'. L: 1--z I-• 0 ..... 0 <( [!'. 0 0 IS) (S) -[) 0 IS> iS) 0 LD 0 'S! 0 'Si "' IS) <SJ IS) 0 r'l 0 0 IS) <S! r~ IS) 'Si IS) tSl <SJ 0 0 I hEAVY RAIN I !I ~ I ~ I ~ I <( g I a: "-"- <( .~00 I 1 .000 2.000 3.000 5.000 6 .000 8.000 DIST ANG:: FROM OLJT.SIDr:: PhAS[, r=-T. ( X102 ) Note : 345 kV Transm ission Line Sin gle or Dou b le C ircu it , 2 Co nd u cto r 1272 k cmil , A CS R. Bu ;ns & MG>onnvll Engineers-Archit ects-Consu ltant s Figure B.11.a.-1 PREDICTED RADIO INTERFERENCE@ 1000KH 2 FRO M THE RIFLE-SA N JUAN TRANSMISSION LINE UL..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~..&.~~~~~~.1..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__. distance of the receiver from the transmission line. It is normally expressed as a ratio of the radio station signal strength to the level of background interference (in this case, any transmission line radio interference). These signal-to-noise ratios (SNR's) are usually expressed in dB. The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers developed the guidelines shown in Table B.11.a.-1 in 1965 to classify the quality of radio reception. TABLE B.11 .a.-1 RELATIONSHIP OF QUALITY OF RADIO RECEPTION AND SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO Quality of Radio Reception Signal -to-Noise Ratio (dB ) A. Entirely Satisfactory 32 dB B. Very Good, Background 27 dB Unobstructive C. Fairly Satisfactory, Background 22 dB Plainly Evident D. Background Very Evident, but 16 dB Speech Easily Understood Signal-to-Noise Ratio (Microvolts /M) 40/1 24 /1 13 /1 7 /1 The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) specifies 24dB (16/1 ratio) as the SNR for "satisfactory service" (EPRI 1975). The Rifle to San Juan line will be designed to provide FCC satisfactory service under fair weather conditions for all residences 300 feet or greater from the line. This design is based on FCC minimum summer time signal strength requirements for rural areas. This is considered with the corridor location process, which avoids population centers. Therefore, the proposed 345-kV line should have minimal impact on radio reception. CO LE.E A B-2 9 B.11 .a.2. Television Interference: Television Interference (TV I ) can be generated in one or two ways: (1) sparking between insulators or between unbonded items of hardware; and/or (2) corona emissions from water droplets or snow on the conductors. TVI caused by sparking is minimized by good design and construction methods. Occurrences of sparking can be corrected by replacing or tightening line hardware. This line will employ good design and construction methods, therefore, TVI due to sparking is not considered a problem. TVI caused by corona is similar to AM radio interference (RI) because picture quality is dependent upon the signal-to-noise ratio. Since the Rifle to San Juan line will be designed to provide satisfactory AM RI performance, TVI caused by corona is not expected to be a problem. B.11.a.3. Audibl e Noise: Transmission line corona can produce audible noise. Audible noise generally has two components--a hum at frequencies of 120 hertz and a random cracking or hissing sound. The magnitude of transmission line audible noise is very closely related to weather conditions. Fair weather audible noise levels are low and rarely of concern. Audible noise may increase during and after rain due to the water droplets on the conductor. During rain, much of the transmission line audible noise is masked by the rain storm itself. Based on the predicted levels of audible noise shown in Figure B.11.a.-2, it is anticipated that the Colorado-Ute double-circuit 345-kV transmission line should cause little or no audible noise annoyance. COLB.EA CO LUTE 78-069-4-001 ENV. ANAL., RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRANS. LINE 40 -<( ca 30 '"C w en 0 2 w -I ca 0 20 :::> <( 10 0 ------1f----+-----VERY QUIET (Soft Whisp er at 15 Ft.) ~I s l lL 0 f- I (.') a: lL o I ~I 0 w w f- <l: <:71 I ~ I B:: I r-: u_ 0 0 ~-~~----JUST AUDIBLE (Threshold of Hearing) 0 a: I tl. c.. <l: 100 200 300 L5 L50 L5 =Audible Noise Level Excee ded 5 Percent of Time L50 =Audible Noise Level Exceeded 50 Percent of Time 400 500 600 700 800 DISTANC E FROM OUTSIDE PHASE (FT.) Note: Audible Noise Values Shown Are Predicted During Rain For 345 kV Transmission Line, Single or Double Circuit, 2 Conductor 1272 kcmil, ACSR. Burns & MG:>onnvll Engineers-Architects-Consultants Figure B.11.a.-2 PREDICTED AUDIBLE NOISE FOR THE RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRANSMISSION LINE B.11 .a.4. Oxidant Production: Transmission line corona can produce minute quantities of ozone and oxides of nitrogen. In recent years, numerous studies have been made to analyze the effect upon the environment of oxidants produced by EHV transmissi on lines through 76 5 kV (Ro ach, Chartier, Dietrich 1974; Frydman and Miller 1973; Fern and Brabets 1974; Roach, Dietrick, Chartier, Nowak 1977). The consistent conclusion drawn by the investigators is that the levels of oxidants produced by transmission line corona are too low to be deleterious to the environment, and are, in fact, too low to even be measured at ground level. Therefore, the Colorado-Ute 345 -kV transmission line will make no significant contribution to atmospheric oxidant levels. B.11.b. Electrostatic Field Effects: B.1 1 .b.1. Description: The electrostatic (electric ) field results from the voltage of the conductors. The strength , or intensity, of this field increases with increased conductor voltage and decreases as the distance from the conductor is increased. Other factors affecting the electric field intensity are conductor size, phase spacing, ground clearance, terrain and vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the line. Ground level electric fields have been calculated for the Colorado-Ute double-circuit and single-circuit 345 -kV transmission line and are shown on Figure B.11.b.-1 . As indicated, electric field strength is very dependent upon location with respect to the conductors. Field strength decreases rapidly as one moves laterally from beneath the conductors, and as one remains beneath the conductors but mo v es longitudinally away from the low point of sag. COLE.EA B-3 1 The magni tude of the electric field is expressed as a voltage gradient in un its of volts per uni t l eng th . Wh en considering e l ec t ric fie l d effects, electric field strength near t he ground is most often used. B.1 1 .b .2. General Effects: When conductive objects are close to the line, the electrostatic field may cause a charge to accumulate on the object (Figure B.11.b.-2 ). If this • occurs and if a path to ground is provided, an electric current will flow. If the conductive object within the field is sufficiently insulated from ground (i.e. no goo d path t o groun d is provid e d), a person or animal c om ing in con t act wi th the object may provide a path to g r ound r e sulti n g in a s park d i schar g e or shock . The effect is similar to the discharge one som e times encounters afte r walking across a carpet. Currents below the perception level are thos e that a human would not b e able to feel continuously by sense of touch . Thi s cu r rent is usually le ss t han or equal to 1 mA (m ill iamp ere ). Current s a bov e t h e perce ption lev el are those which one could notice by a slight tingling sensation. These levels usually range between 1 and 2 mA. Currents ranging from 2 mA to 5 mA cause no direct physiological harm, but may be annoying. Currents above 5 mA are classified as primary shock currents. The Rifle to San Juan transmission line has been designed to keep induced current levels below 5 mA . Fences will be grounded according to recommendations established by the National Electrical Safety Code and as discussed in REA Bulletin 62-1 • The Colorado-Ute double-circuit and single-circuit 34 5-kV transmission line was modele d by a computer program and calculations were ma d e which analyzed potential current levels of a tractor , pick-up truck, car and fence situated in the vicinity of t he line (Figure B.11 .b .-3 and Figure B.11 .b.-4). The maximum COLB.E A COLUT E 78-0· 01 E NV. ANAL., RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRA N S. LIN E Q <SJ {'S err--) L! I- L ! 'L '--Q >tS; >.L 0-.J -2 0.00 0 -60 .000 30 ' Ground Cl earan ce At Low Po in t of Sag (100% Sag ) .000 20.000 DISTANCE FROM Cl_ I N FEET Note: Assumes 2 Conductors, 1272 kcmil, ACSR. 345 kV Double Circuit 345 kV Singl e C ircuit 40.0 00 60.000 20.000 100. 000 Burns & MG>onncrll Englnee~-Architects-Consultants Figure B.11 .b.-1 ELECTROSTATIC FI E LD BENEATH TH E RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRANSMI SSION LIN E w z :i ui z <( a: 1- z <( ::i --, z <( (/) w _J u. a: _j <( z <( > z w (J) 0 ob " w 1- :::i _J 0 Co nd uct i11 e Pl ate (Gro un d Plane) Alternating Voltage So u rce T ran sm iss i on L i n e Co nd u ctor (Vo ltage Source ) E l ectrostatic F i e ld Dielectric (Ai r ) Condu ct i 11 e Pl ate (Car ) (G ro u nd ) \ Die lectri c (Tires ) .. INSULATED OBJECT IN ELECTROSTATIC FIELD + +/ +-+ +Y EQUIVALENT CIRCUIT Borns & MG>onncrll Englneers-Archltects-Consullant s Co ndu ct i11 e Pl ate (Co ndu ctors ) Dielectric (Ai r ) Cond u ct i11 e Pl ate (Car) D i el ectric (Tires) Co ndu ct i11 e Plate Fi gu re B.11.b.-2 ELECTRICAL D I AGRAM OF IN SULATED OBJECT I N ELECTROSTATIC F I ELD u .... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~ .... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..... w z :i vi z <( CI: f- z <( :::J -, z <( "? w _J lL ii: _j <( z <( > z w ~ e 0 0 ..;f c:n <D 0 00 ,.... w f- :::J _J 0 u '._!": --------N ES C M I N I MUM RE Q U I R E M E NT ~C omb in e (ESA = 180 Sq. M.) Fe nce (1 50 Ft. Lon g 4 Ft . Hi gh) /T ractor (ESA = 69 Sq. M .) -oo.eee --60.000 -40.000 -20 .000 .000 20.000 ~e.eee 60.000 DTSTANC[ FROM CCNT[R L IN[ IN F[[T Notes: 1. ESA -Eq uivalent Surface A rea 2 .. Doub le Circu it, 345-kV T ran sm iss ion L in e, 2 Condu cto r, 1272 k cmi l , A CS R. Barns & MG:>onnvll Engineers-Archi tects-Consultant s Figure B.11.b.-3 PREDICTED SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT-DOUBLE CIRCUIT LINE w z _J ui z <( a: I- z <( :J ..., z <( <Q w _J u. a: _j <( z <( > z w e ~ 0 0 <t di ~ cb .... w I- :J _J 0 u ~ 0 ------N ESC Minimum Requi re ment U1 ---Combine (ESA = 180 Sq. M .) Fe n ce (150 f t . L on g, 4 f t. High) Tractor (ES A = 69 Sq. M .) Pick u p (ES A = 3 9 Sq . M .) (5) ~ ..... ----------------------------------------------------. -80.000 -60.000 -40.000 -20 .000 .000 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 DI ST ANO'.: FRm1 CE NTER LI NE IN FTET Notes : 1. ES A -Eq uivalent Surface Are a 2. Si ng le Ci rcui t , 345-kV T ransmi ss ion L in e, 1272 kcmil, A CS R. Burns & MG>onne ll Engineers-Architects-Consultants Figure B.11.b .-4 PREDICTED SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT -SI N GLE CIRCUIT LINE induced electrostatic current of the largest anticipated vehicle does not exceed the 5 mA level. This level is set by the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC 1977 Edition), American Nat ional Standards Institute Standard C2. B.11.b.3. Biological Effects: The presence of an animal or human in an electric field can result in small electric currents flowing through the body. Because those currents are a function of the electrostatic field gradient, the biological effects are normally relateq to the electrostatic field gradient. Th e maximum possible electrostatic field expected beneath the Colorado-Ute 345-kV transmission line is 5.5 kV/mas shown by Figure B.11 .b.-1. This field drops quickly as one moves away from the outside phase and is less than 1 .0 kV /mat the edge of the right-of-way. A thorough review of the literature has been made and based upon the evidence available to date, and considering the history of operating 345-kV lines, it is concluded that the Colo rado -Ut e 345-kV transmission line will not constitute a biological hazard . B.11.c. Electromagnetic Field Effects: B.11.c.1. Description: When current flows in a conductor, there exists a magnetic field about that conductor. The intensity of this field increases with increased current and decreases with increased distance from the conductors. Magnetic coupling can occur with long, conductive objects which lie within the magnetic field and are oriented parallel (or nearly parallel) to the conductors. The magnitude of 2 a electromagnetic field is expressed in units of Gauss (Weber/m ). CO LE.E A B~3 B.11.c.2. General Effects : If a person makes contact with an inadequately g r ounded objec t i n an electromagne t ic field, a magnetically induced current can flow through his body. Und er normally or even h eav ily load e d lines, the magnetic field and res ul ting induced c u rrents are insignificant. A hazard can occur, however, if a person or animal makes contact with the conductive object at the time of a fault on the line. (A fault is the condition where one or more conductors co me in contact with one another or ground ). Faults can result from structural failures caused by sto rm s or accide nt s. Fault cu rrents are extremely hi gh . Du e t o design consideration , howev er, fault s r a r ely occur and a r e of e xt r emely sho r t durat ion . They are typically detected and the current stopped by circuit breakers in less than 1/20th of a second . Intermittent grounding of fences , in accordance with NESC standards, will reduce the shock potentials under worst case fault conditions to safe levels. B.11 .c .3 . Biologi cal Effect s: Magn e t ic fiel d s be n ea th a norma l ly operating 34 5-kV tra nsmission line are very weak (0.3 gauss ) in comparison to other magnetic fields typically encountered, as shown in Figure B.11 .c.-1 . Although regulations do not exist relative to allowable exposure to magnetic fields, safety standards recommended by the Stanford Linear Accelerato r Center allow human whole body exposures of 200 gauss for extended periods of time (Kaufman and Michaelson, 1974). Therefore, no adverse biological effects are expected from the proposed 345 -kV transmission line magnetic fields. COLE.EA B~4 • w z ...J ui z <! a: 1- z <! :J ..., z <! CIJ w _J u_ a: _j <! z <! > z w ~ • "' 0 cO " w 1- :J ...J 0 -~ <( w ~ Cl) Cl) ::> <( (!) ' > I--Cl) z w Cl x ::> ..J LL. (.) I-w z (!) <( :2: 0 I i I I 1 I 1 I I 0 100 200 . 300 HORIZONTAL D I STANCE FRO M CE N TER OF RO W-FEET Figure B.11.c.-1 PROFILE OF CALCULATED Burns & MG>onnvll MAGNETIC FLUX DENSITY (60 Hz) Eng lnee.s-A<cM eots -Con•uil•nls AT 1.5M ABOVE GROUND FOR THIS TRANSMISSION LINE COMPARED WITH LOCALIZED FIELDS u ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ...... ~~~~~ ...... ~~~~~~~~~~~~- B.11 .d. Safety Considerations: Th e s tandard s establ ished by the National Electric Sa fety Code are designe d to av oid po t ential safe t y hazards, and wi ll be used by Colorado-Ut e in t h e design and construction of t h is 34 5-kV transmission line project. B.11 .d.1 . Lightning: The ground potential surrounding a transmission tower can increase • significantly if lightning strikes the tower. However, ground rods are used wh ere required to provide low structure footing resistance, thus reducing t h e area of h igh po tent ial and reducing the danger. B.11.d .2 . Induced Spa r ki ng : Th e e l e ct r ic field present beneath a transmission line can produce a buildup of electrical potential on ungrounded or poorly grounded conductive objects. This condition can result in the discharge of a spark which in turn can create a f ire hazard when fueling a vehicle parked beneath the transmission line. There hav e been no repor t e d incid ent s of f u el i gnition due to transmission line-caused sparking. The occurrence of fuel ignition is high ly unlikely because the following events must occur simultaneously (EPRI 1975 ): a) "The vehicle is well insulated from ground, as when it is moved on dry pavement on a dry day. b) The spout pouring gasoline is grounded, for instance through the body of a person standing on humid ground or vegetation. COLE.EA B~5 c ) The spark occurs in the region where the fuel vapor and air mi xtu re has a concentration close to the stoichiometric proportion. Transmission lines are designed for increased clearances at road crossings. This design reduces the electric field strength and further lowers the probability of fuel ignition. As a protective measure, farmers and other equipment operators whose property is crossed by the transmission line should be cautioned against refueling directly under the transmission line. B.11.d.3. Irrigation Equipment: Irrigation systems do not normally pose a shock hazard due to electrostatic induction because the metallic pipes and equipment normally make contact with the ground. The greatest danger is the possibility that a person may upend a long section of pipe and contact the conductors. While this possibility is remote, (a 30-foot section of pipe would be required to cause flashover to the conductors) persons operating irrigation systems near the transmission lines will be warned of the dangers involved. Irrigation systems should be operated so that solid streams of water do not pass near the transmission line conductors. When contact between a broken stream of water and the conductors cannot be avoided, the distance between the conductors and the spray nozzle should be greater than 55 to 130 feet depending on nozzle size (Bonn eville Power Administration 1977). CO LE.EA B.12. Impact on Cultural Resources: B.12.a. Archaeological Resources: A file search of the Colo rado Archaeolog ical Site Inventory, the Colorado Inventory of Historic Sites, and the National Register of Historic Places revealed 24 7 sites of archaeological interest along the preferred corridor. Of these sites, five are on the National Register of Historic Places, eight are currently nominated for inclusion, and an additional twelve are classified as eligible for inclusion. The major concentration of sites is located along Segment P (see Figure A.5.-3 ), with additional clusters of sites along Segments J and T. Little difficulty is expected in either avoiding these sites or in utilizing care during construction to minimize po t ential damage. The area to be impacted by the pro j ect will be surveyed by a qualified archaeologist at the time the route centerline is selected. B.12.b. Hist orical Resources : The historical sites in the area are catalogued with the State Historical Register and the National Register of Historic Places, enabling them to be easily identified and thus avoided. Many of the historical sites are located within city limits and were therefore excluded during the corridor selection process. The majo r concentration of sites is clustered in an area encompassing northern San Juan County Colorado (Figure A.4.m.-1 ), and is therefore avoided by the preferred corridor. Scattered sites lie mainly along preferred Segments G, J, V, and X • These sites will be avoided where possible during centerline location. COLE .EA B-3 7 B.13. Secondary Impacts: Se conda r y impacts a re consid ered to be thos e impacts a ssoc i a t e d with de v e l o pm e nt s i nd uc e d by the pro po sed projec t bu t not dire ctly a tt ributa ble t o t h e pro j ect. Th ere are no second ary im pacts expected to result from the pro j ect for t h e following reasons: A. Due to t h e short construction time frame and large geographical distance, there is little potential for transmission equipment suppliers or oth er support industries to develop during construction of the line. B. Future indu s t rial develo pm ent s (i.e., Mt . Emm ons Proj ec t , Sh e l l co 2 Project, etc .) are planned projects that hav e or will have env i ronmental documents prepared to address the impacts associated with their activities. Transmission lines that are required to supply the projected power needs are discussed in these documents as a secondary impact . Additionally , industrial growth is constrained principally by t ran s portation ne tw orks and human -l a bo r mark et c on d i t i on s. Th e energy-based resource is typically low among most industrial location decision parameters (Constantin 1966). For these reasons, rapid secondary impacts are not likely to be stimulated by increased availability of electrical energy. C. Future residential and commercial developments are associated with normal population increases or associated with industrial developments . Although the existing Colorado-Ute 115 -kV transmission system in southwestern Colorado is presently fully loaded, t h is has not c on s t rain e d th e po pu lation grow th in this regi on . Th erefore, residential and commercial developments are not constrained by the availability of electrical energy. COLE.EA D. The Colorado House Bill 1041 provides a vehicle for community planning. All developments must be in accordance with the county planning requirements. Additionally, permits for the location and operation of developments must be in accordance with state and federal environmental regulations and must have prior approval by each respective county government. It is, therefore, the local planning officials, and not the availability of electrical power, that determines the level of future industrial, commercial and residential development in each county. E. As a regulated utility of the State of Colorado, Colorado-Ute is obligated by state law to provide electrical power and energy to the people and industries within the certificated service areas of Colorado -Ute's member systems. It is therefore concluded that neither the construction of the Rifle-San Juan 345-kV transmission facility or the availability of adequate power and energy will create additional developments and subsequent impacts. B.14. Cumulative Effects: The construction of the proposed Rifle -San Juan 345 -kV transmission line as described in this environmental assessment will precede construction of additional facilities by Western and PSCC . As described in Section A.9 of this document , Western and/or PSCC will also construct interconnecting facilities from the Hayden-Craig area to Western's Rifle Substation, to Delta via Cameo, from Montrose Substation to Curecanti Substation, and from Shiprock Substation to Four Corners Switchyard. As previously stated, the planning for these facilities has not advanced nearly as far as Col orado-Ut e's Rifle-San Juan transmission line proposal. Consequently, site specific data are not yet available; therefore, COLE.EA B-3 9 the proposa l s by We s tern a nd PSCC will be the subject of futu r e environmental doc um ent s. It is recognized that there will be environmental impacts associated with the construction of these additional facilities. However, because of the diverse nature of alternatives available to Western and PSCC, the nature and severity of the impacts cannot be accurately determined at this time. Efforts will be made to locate transmission facilities so they will cause minimal impact on the environment, through consideration of new alignment alternatives, use of existing corridors, uprating of existing facilities and replacement of old fa c i l i ti es wi th ne w f a ci l i t ies. CO LE.EA C. Favorable Environmental Effects : C.1. Improvement in the Standard of Living: The construction of the proposed transmission facilities is required if Colorado-Ute and its member cooperatives are to serve the projected demand for power within their respective service areas. The provision of adequate and " reliable electrical service, which the new lines will allow, is essential to serve the demands of the area. These demands must be served to enable the existing standard of living to be maintained. The proposed transmission line will also economically provide for future ex pansion of the area's economic base . C.2. Economic Benefits: During construction of the line, crews of 150 to 200 men may be working on different segments of the line simultaneously. Business in t h e communities adjacent to the line will be stimulated through the supply of materials and services associated with the construction ac t ivity. After the line is completed, few additional personnel will be needed for maintenance. Additional jobs projected to result from energy resource development, hard rock mining and agricultural sectors of the economy will not be restrained due to the lack of reliable power. This would allow the expected growth in the area to occur. When the line and substations are constructed, the various governmental bodies will benefit directly from the estimated $1 ,147,000 in additional tax revenues to be paid by Colorado-Ute. COLC .EA C-1 D. Adverse Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided : D.1 . Noise and Dust : Nearby residents and wil d life may be exposed to a s mall inc rease in dust and noise during construction of the line. Since no large area of soil will be exposed during construction, dust will be held to a minimum. Engine noise will be generated from trucks and support vehicles, but will be limited in duration in any given area as the construction activities move along the trans mission line corridor. Similar exposure may occur when maintenance of the line is required, which would also be very limited in duration. D.2. Effect on Vege t a t ion and Soils: Som e v ege t a t i v e cov er may be damaged an d rutt i ng ma y oc cu r during c on s t r uct ion of the lin e or wh e n emerg e ncy maintenance a c t ivities are r e quired . Filling of ruts and reseeding will be done to speed recover y of the vegetation, and reduce e rosion potential . A total of 55 mile s (88 km ), or 1 9 percent of the pre f erre d co rrid or, crosses th ro ugh spru ce, as pen , and pine f ore s t s. Approximately 82 percent of t h e forested land occurs wh ere the preferred corridor is paralleling an existing line. Reseeding and restoration will be carried out as suggested by the Soil Conservation Service or the appropriate land manager. D.3. Effect on Agricultural Activities : The proposed transmission line will not interfere with agricultural activities except that the area immediately below the support structures cannot always be used for cultivated cropland. The amount of land removed from production by a double-circuit steel lattice tower, 1,936 sq. ft. (17 9 s q . met ers ), i ncludes th e 40 -by 40 -f oot ba se and enough of th e s u rrounding ar ea to allow a safe clearance between the st r ucture and farm machinery . A COLC .EA D-1 single-circuit steel lattice H-frame tower wo u ld re mov e 27 2 sq. ft. (25.3 sq. meters ) from cultivation. A total of 1 .2 acres (.49 hectares ) of prime farmland will be removed from production as a result of this project . Pivot and flood irrigation operations can be accommodat ed in the right -of-way by the proper choice of span lengths and structure locations. Livestock can continue to graze underneath the line and support structures. Most of the transmission line will pass through areas where there is no potential for interference with agricultural activities. D.4. Effect on Aesthetic Values: Because of the substantial length of the proposed transmission line, it will be visible at many points . A total of 69 miles (111 km ) or 24 percent of the preferred corridor crosses lands that have been determined to be highly visu ally sensitive. Of these 69 miles, only 15 miles, or 22 percent, would be constructed as new corridor . The remaining visually-sensitive portions of the corridor occur where existing lines will be paralleled . Colorado-Ute will construct the line in accordance with guidelines recomm ended by the various land management agencies in an effort to minimize the aesthetic intrusion of the line on the landscape. Construction on ridges and the resultant "skylining" will be minimized to the greatest extent possible along the line route. The visual resources within the study area have been reviewed with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Where the landscape has been classified according to the visual resources, the project will be designed to be compatible with the established goals. Where classification of the lands is not yet co mplet e, the susceptibility of the area to visual impact has been determined . Colorado -Ut e will consult with the appropriate land manage rs with CO LC.EA D-2 regard to the selection of the centerline in order to reduc e the visual impact t o a minimum . D.5. Electrical Effects Du ring Op erati on of t h e Li ne: A h igh-voltage transmission line prod u ces a partial electric discharge, or corona, that can cause interference with television and part icularly radio reception; however, radio reception will be satisfactory, under fair weather conditions, at all points 300 feet or more from the single- or double-circuit lines. The corridor selection process was designed to avoid resid ent ial and urban areas wh erever practical. COLC.EA D-3 E. Alternatives to the Pro po sed Action: E.1. Project Alternatives Rejected After Initial Consideration : E .1 .a. No Action : The alternative of t a king no ac tion a nd thus not providing ad ditional transmission support to the local southwestern Colorado area was considered. Thi s a pproach would, howeve r, have several potentially adverse consequenc es. Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc., is regulated by the Colorado Public Util i tie s Commission and, therefore, has regulatory as well as contractual obligations to serve its member cooperatives with an adequate and reliable supply of electrical power and energy. Presently a 115-kV transmission system serves as Colorado-Ute's bulk transmission system between Rifle, Colorado and north west New Mexic o . This 11 5-kV transmission system was fully loaded in 1979 and does not have enough capacity to supply future loads in southwest Colorado. In order to meet its obligations, Colorado -Ute must develop additional transmission capacity. Otherwise , there will be an increased probability of system instability, reduced reliability, and resultant power outages. The existing system will be strengthened by an interim measure of interconnecting the Colorado-Ute 115 -kV system with the Western Area Power Administration 230-kV system at the Lost Canyon Substation, to be constructed in 1980. Although the new substation will provide electrical reinforcement, it will provide only limited additional capacity for serving new loads and improving system reliability. The proposed 345-kV system is the long-range plan for serving new loads . A "no action" decision would leave Colorado -Ute without transmission facilities capab le o f supplying its me mb er cooperatives with COLE .EA E-1 reliable and adequate amounts of electrical power. This alternative, therefore, would be c ont rary to Colorado-Ute's contractual and regul a tory obligations t o furnis h reliab l e and adequ a t e e l ectrical service, and mu st be considered an unacceptable option. Similarly, the construction of the 11 5-kV connecting loop at th e Hesperus Substation is necessary to provide the Cortez-Durango area with an acceptable level of reliability. Connecting the existing line with the proposed substation will make additional power available to the subtransmission system in that area. E.1 .b. Purchase of Power by Member Cooperatives : If adequate surplus power were available from federally or privately owned sources within or near each of the service areas to be served by the proposed 345 -kV transmission line, it would constitute a valid response to several of the needs cited to justify the project . However , there is insufficient generating capacity in service or under construction in the western Colorado area, at present, to serve the projected loads through 1982 . Power generated by other utilities in or near Colorado-Ute 's load areas is required by those utilities to satisfy thei r own loads and on -peak reserve commitments , and can not be obtained as firm purchased power through long-term contracts . Another consideration is the need for transmission capacity to deliver power from future generating stations in southwest Colorado and to provide an interconnection with the regional transmission network for increased service reliability. E .1 .c. Conservation of Elec t rical En ergy: Conservation measures alone will not eliminate the need for the proposed 345 -kV transmission line. A consumer move to conserve energy would COLE.EA E-2 reduce rates of load growth only if prolonged and widespread . Historically, s uch c onsume r action has been temporary and brief, l eav ing the energy growth rate largely unaffected . Even with a large conservation effort, the potential for significant long-term energy savings appears to be limited. There are currently programs in effect by the thirteen members that enc ou rage the adequate insulation of all new homes. Considering the predominance of industrial growth in the Colorado-Ute load projections , the potential impact of energy conservation in the residential and small -commercial classifications will become even smaller. Th e bulk of projected large commercial and industrial growth of the combined 13 members' system is energy-related (coal, co 2 , oil shale). Due to the pressing need for new energy sources, it is unlikely that a significant reduction is possible in the electrical energy requirements for those developments . Load management , through time-of-day pricing , might increase Colorado -Ute's composite daily and weekly load factors. However, since Colorado-Ute's composite daily load factor has historically exceeded 80 percent, the potential for additional improvement is limited. Further, the impact would · be negligible due to the predominance of seasonal load cycle variations compared to the daily or weekly load cycle variations. Energy savings due to load management would be minimal, and therefore load management is not an electric energy-conserving program. Based on these reasons and in consideration of the projected power requirements, the proposed 345-kV transmission line is regarded as necessary to adequately supply power to Colorado -Ute's member cooperatives in western Colorado. COLE.EA E-3 E.1.d. Development of New Generation within the Various Load Areas: Construction of small power generating units in the immediate vicinity of the various load areas would not be a feasible alternative to the proposed transmission line. The necessary power to supply the projected load demand is available; what is lacking is the means to transmit that power to the areas where it is needed. Construction of a power generating station at different load centers would be a more complex undertaking than construction of transmission lines, involving greater expense and higher potential for adverse environmental effects. Small scattered coal-fired generating units are not considered practical because of the large initial expense and the amount of land required for plant facilities, regardless of size, and the cost of transporting coal to each additional plant. Combustion turbines have been more reasonable alternatives in the past for supplying small load demands, but since they utilize natural gas or oil as a fuel source, recent developments have made them less suitable. The National Energy Act of 1978 prohibits the use of oil or natural gas as a primary fuel in newly constructed plants, with a few exceptions, and even if natural gas or oil could be utilized, the rapidly raising prices and instability of supply would make this an unattractive alternative. E.1.e. Use of Existing Transmission Lines: There are no existing lines that can be upgraded to carry sufficient amounts of power from the Rifle Substation to the various load centers. The existing 115 -kV line owned by Colorado-Ute and a 230-kV line owned by the Western Area Power Administration form the current transmission system between COLE.EA E-4 Rifle and northwestern New Mexico. Neither of these lines could be removed from service long enough to uprat e. Since these lines are already op erating at or near capacity, it is neces sary to construct a new 345-kV line to serve the increasing energy demand s of the member coopera tiv es. Th e ex i sting 115 -kV transmission line will remain in service to provide power to members as a subtransmission line. E.1.f. Installing Series Compensation: In order to provide the necessary bulk transmission capacity in southwestern Colora do , Colorado -Ute 's existing 115 -kV system could be series compensated . This would involve the installation of capacitors, associated line terminals, and protective equipment at various sites. As previously indicated, Colorado-Ute's existing 115 -kV system is already fully loaded . The use of series compensation would result in more heavily loaded lines because no new transmission lines would be constructed. This would serve to increase dramatically the lo sses incurred in transmitting power, making this option highly uneconomical . In addition, subsynchronous resonance (SSR) problems exist in other series compensated systems. Possible effects of SSR include the destruction of large turbine generators and the subsequent possibility of major blackouts for extended periods of time . Consequently, series compensation must be considered very carefully in terms of economic and reliable electric power transmission and therefore would not be an acceptable alternative for the Colorado -Ute system . E.2. Design and Construction Alternatives: E.2.a. Alternate Line Voltages : The voltage of the proposed 115 -kV loop into the Hesperus Substation was chosen because it would be an extension of an existing 115 -kV line . Using a COLE.EA E-5 different voltage for this loop would require transformation facilities, which would increase the costs of the project as well as the potential for environmental impact. The proposed 345-kV system is necessary to supply the projected power needs into the 1990s and to tie into Colorado-Ute's existing 345-kV transmission line from Craig to Rifle. , Utilization of a lower-voltage system was eliminated for several reasons: 1. The 345-kV voltage is optimal for this project in order to mesh with the existing and developing ERV system in southwestern Colorado. 2. Approximately five or more 115-kV lines, depending on the individual loading of the lines, would be required to transfer the same amount of power as the single 345-kV line proposed for this project. A 230-kV alternative would require two lines to transfer the necessary amount of power. 3. The cumulative environmental impacts of multiple lower-voltage lines are far in excess of the impacts of a single ERV line. 4 . The total cost of transmitting a given amount of energy over a single high-voltage line is significantly less than the cost of transmitting the same amount of power over several low -voltage lines. A higher-voltage system was also eliminated as an alternative to the proposed 345-kV project: COLE.EA 1 . The long-range planning of Colorado-Ute, Western, and PSCC involves upgrading the Southwestern Colorado EHV grid to 345-kV. E-6 A 500-kV line from Rifle to San Juan would not be compatible with these plans. 2. The alternative of using a single 500-kV line for the proposed double-circuit 345-kV portion of the line was eliminated because of the increased expense of the step-down facilities that would be required. Also, the second circuit of this portion would be financed by PSCC and Western to be a link in their transmission grid, and a single 500-kV line would not be as conducive to system sharing. 3. The increased expense of constructing a 500 -kV line instead of a 345-kV line cannot be justified by the current load growth . E.2.b. Alternate Transmission Line Equipment: E.2.b.1. Alte rnate Support Structures: Common types of support structures are steel lattice towers, tubular steel poles , precast concrete poles, and treated wood poles . Basic characteristics of alternate support structure types are compared in Table E.2.b.-1. For single-circuit construction, single-pole and H-frame structures are commonly used. Single-pole construction is generally more expensive than H- frame because single poles require, on the average, ten-foot greater pole height to support the triangular conductor configuration, and more single poles than H- frames are required per mile. An H-frame support has the advantage of being more resistant to wind than a single pole. Of the H-frames considered, the steel pole H-frame is the most expensive and the most visible, and was therefore eliminated. The wood H-frame is less visible, due to its lower height and the wood construction, but is not as strong, and has higher maintenance and COLE .EA E-7 replacement requirements. The steel lattice H-frame is the tallest of the alternate structures, but its lattice construction reduces the visual impact. Th e long-term maintenance requirements for this structure are low. Since the steel lattice H-frame is stronger and more wind-resistant, it is generally more reliable. After consideration of the above factors, it was determined that the steel lattice H-frame structures would be the most appropriate choice for the single-circuit portions of the proposed line. For a double-circuit line, steel lattice four-legged towers are generally used. They occupy more s pac e than pole or H-frame structures, but provide the best support for extra high loading conditions such as the bundled conductors and double -circuiting proposed for this project. The towers would be visible, due to their height, but the lattice construction is designed to reduce the visual impact. For the above reasons, steel lattice towers were considered the most appropriate choice for the double -circuit portions of the proposed l ine. E.2.b.2. Alternate Conductors and Insulators: The conductors for the proposed line will be steel-reinforced aluminum conductor (ACSR). Different diameters of conductor can be utilized for transmission lines, within a suitable range of sizes, and there is a tradeoff involved in determining the appropriate size. A smaller conductor will be less visible and less expensive, but will result in increased corona, noise static, and transmission line losses. A larger conductor carries the voltage more efficiently, but is more readily visible and has a more pronouced sag, due to its weight . One solution to this problem is bundling : using two small conductors or subconductors for each phase . The subconductors reduce the electrical problems of a single small conductor and help eliminate line loss COLE.EA E-8 Table E.2.b.-1 SUMMARY OF DATA FOR SUPPORT STRUCTURE TYPES 345 -kV 11 5-kV 345-kV Double Double 345-kV 345-kV 345-kV 345-kV Stee l Circui t Circu it Steel Concrete W ood St ee l Pole Lattice Stee l Steel Pole Pole H-frame H-frame H-Frame Lattice Lattice 1. Number of structures 6.6 6.6 6.6 4.4 4.4 4.4 5.3 per mile 2 . Structure Height (meters) 90 90 80 100 105 150 125 (27.4) (27 .4) (24.4 ) (30 .5 ) (32 .0) (45 .7 ) (38 .1) 3. Land area per 25 25 90 100 120 1,600 400 structure-sq. ft. (2.3) (2.3) (8.4) (9.3) (11) (149) (37 .2) (sq. meters) 4. Co s t per tangent 19,400 15,800 9,100 22,000 19,800 34,000 17,600 structure (dollars) 5. Foundation Concrete Concrete Direct Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Caisson Embedment Embedment Embedment Caisson Caisson Caisson 6 . Width of right-of-way 100 100 125 150 150 17 5 150 require d-feet (meters) (30.5) (30.5) (38.1 ) (4 5 .7) (45.7) (53.3) (4 5. 7) 7 . Guying requirements No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 8. Construction cost per 300,000 246,000 152,000 240,000 232,000 430,000 213,000 mile (dollars) since each subconductor can continue to function separately, yet a two-conductor bundle is less visible and easier to string than one large conductor. For these reasons, a two-conductor bundle for each of the three phases is proposed for both the single-circuit and the double-circuit 345-kV lines. The 115-kV extension, being of a lower voltage, will be using a smaller diameter conductor, making bundling unnecessary. It is essential that the conductors be electrically insulated from the towers. Any material that is an electrical insulator and has the support strength required can be considered an alternative. To date, the proposed insulators have proven to be the most economical selection. E.2.c. Alternate Number of Circuits: Single, double, and triple circuiting have been considered for the proposed line. Although a single 345-kV line is capable of supplying the present Colorado -Ute member load in the area, other utilities serving this area also have a present need for more transmission capacity. Coordination with other power suppliers in the area has resulted in the proposed construction of a double-circuit portion of this line. This additional capacity will provide a necessary link in their future power supply plans. Building this section as a double circuit will delay the need for additional lines in this area. Construction of single-circuit structures for this portion of the line is not a desirable alternative when considering the fact that additional transmission systems would have to be constructed in the future to meet load demands of other utilities. Constructing two parallel lines would require a wider right-of-way, creating a greater environmental disturbance. The single-circuit support structures are shorter than double-circuit towers; however, the visual impact would be increased because of the double set COLE.EA E-9 of towers and the wider right-of-way. There is also the possibility that the additional transmission structures could be located in a new route, and a greater potential for environmental disturbance co uld result. For these reasons, the North Fork Valley-Lost Canyon portion of this line will be constructed doubl e circuit, in cooperation with neighboring utilities . The remaining portions of the line, Rifle-North Fork Valley and Lost Canyon-San Juan, will be single-circuited. The load demands of other utilities do not overlap in these areas and therefore the expense of double-circuit construction cannot be justified. Triple-circuiting is not a common practice because of the potential for loss of all three circuits as a result of damage to a single support structure. Triple-circuiting also involves a tremendous expense that would not be recovered for many years. Although the addition of a third circuit might render unnecessary the construction of an additional corridor at some point in time, the future load projections do not justify the immediate risk. The 115 -kV line is utilizing double circuit structures to minimize the number of necessary structures and rights-of-way, and thus minimize potential environmental i mpact and expense. The alternative would be two separate lines of single-circuit structures, one to carry the circuit to the Hesperus Substation and another to carry the returning circuit back to rejoin the existing line . E.2.d. Alternate Methods of Line and Substation Construction and Right -of-Way Clearance: The usual method of construction for lines of this type is discussed in Section A. Alternate methods of conductor stringing include slack-line and helicopter construction. Slack-line stringing allows the conductor to drop to COLE.EA E-10 the ground between the structures when the pulling force is relaxed. The conductor and vegetative cover can be damaged when tension is again applied and the conductor is dragged over the ground. Th e proposed method of tension stringing avoids this situation through the use of a braking device on the conductor reel which prevents the conduc to r from sagging to the ground between the structures. Since helicopter stringing is more hazardous for construction personnel and much more expensive than t ension or slack-line stringing, it is generally used only when crossing ertremely swampy, mountainous, or hazardous terrain. In certain alpine areas along this line, it may be necessary to utilize helicopters . A rarely used type of transmission construction in rural areas is underground or buried conductor. Buried conductor must be insulated from the ground by being completely enclosed in continuous insulation, in contrast to an overhead conductor which is bare and is insulated from ground only at the points of support. Considerable research has been performed to develop equipment and methods for underground circuits. However, the only practical applications have been in urban areas where space is very limited. High-pressure oil-filled pipe, self-contained oil -filled, and gas insulated (sF 6 ) cables have been used in the United States for 69-kV and higher voltages . Underground installations do not lend themselves to rapid repair and restoration of service. The installation and repair can cause significant adverse env ironment al impacts, and a number of studi es indicate an underground system would cost 7 -10 times more than an overhead line . Therefo re, i t was determined that an underground transmission line would not be a desirable alternative. CO LE.EA E-11 This project will be using right-of-way selection and clearing methods that take visual impact into consideration. Natural vegetation will be cleared only when necessary to provide electrical clearance, line reliability, or suitable access for construction, operation and maintenance of the system. The alternative of clearcutting was determined to be environmentally unacceptable . Use of the proposed low profile concept for substation construction will enhance the overall facility appearance. Simplified, functional equipment will reduce the visual impact of the substations. There are no practical alternatives available for substation construction. E.3. Alternate Corridors: The study area was divided into four sections for corridor selection and analysis, separated by the North Fork Valley, Lost Canyon, and Hesperus. A comparative summary analysis of the segments is presented in Table E.3 .-1. A detailed description of the factors along the segments appears in the following paragraphs. Information on the specific impacts and mitigation measures that may be involved are discussed in Section B. Also , Table A.5 outlines more detailed information on land use along the segments. The visual resource factors designated in Table E.3.-1 were determined by analyzing Figures A.4.f.-1 and A.4.f.-2, and recognizing the proximity of populated areas to each segment. Since formally classified areas were avoided during preliminary corridor selection, "O" ratings in the Formally Classified Areas Column denote a segment that passes close enough to a formally classified area to have some potential for visual impact. Segment S is an exception to this, since it actually crosses the Dolores River in an area that has received "scenic" classification. COLE.EA E-12 "' ~ 0 2 0 c.c o, 0 x -@-0 0 o, c. .... c. <! .... "' <ti ~ :::J er ctl w CJ ..r: C/') (.) c: ,/ < < J:' :i}'j,..,....lj..,<!0'1•1"' aJ,,,~ HL!I UJ z _J ui z <! a:: I- z <! :J z <! if! UJ _J u.. a:: _J <! ) •' ·I 1 + f 'f. + ) ' \ "\ I I ~ ">~ ,-'" ' . ' ' ~. z <! > z :.., ~ - UJ 0 t· 0 e .t °' "' 0 00 '~ r ·J ·• 7:·;\ ,.. -\, " UJ I- :J _J 0 u 'r '' ~--.. ': ' .-. .> -.....,. I ; '\_.i ~ . " 1 ··"i I z if ~ ~I z I ,, r,. ~ ·' ) '· (/) " 1 H '7 ~ LU Q) ... :::l Cl u... C/') I- 2 LU ::E (.';J LU C/') 0::: 0 Cl 0::: 0::: 0 u I 1• I .t~l I ( pj ii • ·-1 1. ,.._ tt t I r 1 . ~ i ·. ) ;-. ··~1~ ~ !. . . ~ ~ ' ' . i: --------------___ ._ _________ ...___ ____ _ .. CO LUTE 78 -069-4 -001 E NV . ANAL., RIFLE-SAN JUAN TRANS. LIN E ' f' I j, . ' <1(,.,4 •• 'I .. r----------+-- - .i'~ 0 . ' 1.1 -~ ~.tr- J.t ~ ---! ;;,·f .. 4-f ....i·-- .. 3~' I ' . . b.-..... +·~ ..... ---.-.. -·~~-----* -;--.------l'-,, / ~ 11 ... 1,~''",·~~ I I '{. , .. ~i· .• ..: ~- "'" ... s .~ A -----..__.;,_ N 11.i• '•'l> ' .- j u ...... ... A N 8\r'lfJ'-·-... ":=··' ........ I .... _.._ _ _...,,_'~ --- .,..,~-it• I f ·,,,. ;·• i ·----- , .•.. "t./~ I. -:n-"7."" ---··r-- i j ~i ~1. ; i I ' , ...... _ "• ' I ---r-, ' I I ' I ( ' I ·-·'\ }~ - .1 I >. '"""'·•if< ,, '•· ''° ; .. ... ---· ..---~ ~ -...----------- 1 . ~ .. r--:....-L-~-,_..;.-. I ' .... 1- lllo<•-·· . .,.., ~. ~.;;_-.., 4 .... t,. ,, 'I " i~ ·1 ...... 1 .. ., ... ~ .... -+-J-, ., Burns & MG>onnell Erti1int:ers-Archltects-Consult•nts Scal e : 1 : 1,000 ,000 1 Inch Equals Approx . 16 Miles LEGEND -STUDY AREA BOUNDARY Figure E.3.-1 CORRIDOR SEGMENTS Prime Flora and Visual Farmland Fauna Re sou rces egment A 0 0 egment B + 0 0 egment C + 0 egment D + egment E 0 0 egment F 0 0 egment G 0 egment H 0 egment I egment J 0 0 egment K 0 0 0 egment L 0 0 0 egment M 0 egment N + 0 0 egment 0 + 0 0 egment P + 0 0 egment Q + 0 0 egment R + 0 0 egment S + 0 0 egment T + 0 0 egment U + 0 0 egment V + 0 egment W + egment X + 0 egment Y 0 0 No impact Minimal impact Impact requiring mitigation Table E.3.-1 ANALY SIS OF SEGMENTS Environmenta l Factors Formally Trans- W ater Classified Cultura l portation Reso urces Areas Resources Features 0 0 0 0 + + + 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0 0 0 + + 0 + + + + 0 0 + 0 0 + 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 + 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 0 0 0 + + 0 l igation would require change from "scenic'' to ''recreational'' classification of Dolores River. Other Factors Parallel t o Access to Compatible with Residential Existing Load Long -Rang e Length Areas Lines Centers Pl an ning (Miles) + Yes No Partial 48 0 Partial Yes Yes 10 0 Yes No Partial 40 0 Partial Yes Yes 61 + Yes Partial Partial e 0 No Yes Partial Partial Ye s Yes 39 + No Partial Partial 36 0 Partial Yes Partial 24 + Yes Yes Yes 17 + Yes Partial No 48 + Partial Par tial No 12 + Yes Yes Yes 30 + Yes Ye s Yes 16 + Yes No Yes 8 + No Ye s Yes 20 + Yes No Partial 32 + No No Yes 40 + Yes No Yes 24 0 Yes Ye s Yes 45 + Yes Ye s Yes 32 0 Yes Ye s Yes 37 + Yes No Partial • 0 No Ye s Yes 0 Yes Ye s Yes 45 e . Information concerning paralleling existing lines, access to load centers, and compatibility with long-range planning is depicted in Figure A.6.b.-1. Two a lternate r ou tes were re j ected af t er b rief analysis and are not shown in Figure E.3.-1. A straigh t-line alterna t ive from Rifle to San Juan was rejected because it did not serve the predesignated midpoints and because it was not compatible with numerous environm ental constraints. A proposed route fro~ Montrose to San Juan by way of Monticello, Ut ah was suggested under the assumpt ion that the supports of the existing line in Ut ah could be strung with the proposed 345-kV circuit. Since this line was found to be of single-circ uit , wooden pole construction, such action would not be feasible. The additional cost and potential environmental impact of the longer corridor could not be justified. E.3.a. Rifle to the North Fork Valley: All of the corridors discussed in this section follow existing lines . A north-south alternate ove r the Grand Mesa was rejected because of the rugged topography and the abundance of concentrated recreation facilities within the Grand Mesa National Forest. Segment A: Only two percent of this segment crosses prime farmland. Biological constraints include a bald eagle winter concentration area, mule deer and elk winter range, and peregrine falcon hunting territory. Squawfish, razorback sucker, and the humpback chub are found in the Colorado River in this area, but the proposed segment does not cross the river. Segment A does cross 24 mil es (39 km) of land where a federally-designated threatened plant species, the fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) may exist. Approximately 18 percent of this segment crosses BLM land that has been given a Class II visual resource rating . Five creek crossings are involved CO LE.EA E-13 in this segment. Segment A crosses within two miles of the proposed BLM Wilderness Unit 070 -066, and crosses in the vicinity of one National Register Site (Archaeology Site 5ME82 near De beque) and one State Historic Reg ister Site. Th is segment also involves one crossing of the Dominguez-Escalante Trail, and passes in the vicinity of the Island Acres State Recreation Area. Utilizing Segment A could involve possible interference with the extension of I-70 by the Colorado Highway Department. Segment A parallels an existing line, the Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCC) 230-kV line, for the entire length of the segment. Segment B: This segment does not cross any prime farmland or any land that has been determined to be highly sensitive to the visual impact of a transmission line. The West Mamm, Middle Mamm, and East Mamm Creeks would be crossed by a line in this corridor. Th e corridor does not cross in the vicinity of any formally classified areas or any major highways. The community of Rifle, Colorado lies approximately 2.5 miles (4 .0 km) from the centerline of Segment B and could be visually impacted by a line constructed in this area. Segment B parallels the existing Colorado-Ute Electric Association (CUEA) 115-kV line for 42 percent of the segment. The primary disadvantage of this alternative is the terrain . Segment C: No prime farmland is crossed by this segment . Biological constraints include a peregrine falcon nesting area and elk and mule deer winter range. Approximately 50 percent of this segment crosses BLM lands that have been given a Class II visual resource rating, and 70 percent of the segment lies across land that has been rated as highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line. This segment would involve seven creek crossings and one gulch crossing. COLE.EA E-14 A line along this route could impact the Plateau Cr eek State Wildlife Area a nd the Conv ic t 's Bread Ov en wes t of Mo lin a, a Na t i onal Regis t er Si t e. Th is segment a l so crosses near a Sta t e Regis t er Si t e and crosses t h e Domi ng u ez- Escalante Trail. Th is segment crosses near a s ub division north of Vega Reservoir and the Rapid Creek Watershed area owned by the town of Palisade. Segment C parallels t h e existing CUEA 11 5-kV line, and would provide bu l k transmission lines in the vicinity of one site under consideration for Colorado-Ute's proposed generating station. Segment D : Segmen t D does not cro ss any prime farmland, bu t does pass through some mul e de e r and elk calving, fawning, and winte r r a ng e a reas . Appro x imately 20 percent of thi s s e gment l i es across f o res t l and tha t has been rated as highly sensitive to the visual impact of a transmission l i n e, with anothe r 30 percent of the segment rated moderately sensitive (see Section A.4 .f.2). Segment D involves c r o s sing t en cre eks and th e North Fo r k of the Gunn ison Ri v er. Segment D does not cross in the vicinity of any formally classified areas, but does make two crossings over the Dominguez-Escalante Trail. Colorado Highway 133 would be crossed once by this segment. The community of Rifle, Colorado lies approximately 2.5 miles (4.0 km) from the centerline of Segment D, and could be visually impacted by a line constructed in this area. The corridor also passes in the vicinity of the Electric Mountain Lodge and recreational development east of Overland Reservoir . Segment D parallels first th e CUEA 11 5-kV line and then the Western Ar ea Pow er Admin i st ra tion (West ern) 23 0 -kV line, fo r a tot a l of 82 pe r c e n t o f the segment. The transmission line proposed for this segment is single-circuit 345 -kV . This segment ties in directly to the North Fork Valley, which is an COLE.EA E-15 area of developing load demand, and would be a convenient route to one of Colo r ado -Ut e 's propo s ed sites for a futu r e gene rating stati on . Se gm ent E: Two percent of thi s segm en t cro sses prime f a rm l and . Bio l ogical constraints in th e v icinity o f t h is segme nt includ e pronghorn antelope areas, scatt ered prairie dog towns, bald eagle concent ra t i on areas, and elk and mul e deer win t er range. Appr oxima t ely 38 percent o f this segm ent cro sses BLM land that has b een ra t ed as co n t aining Class II visu al resources, a nd a pp r oxima t e ly 66 percent of this segme nt passes th rou gh l a nd tha t has been cla s sified as highly s e nsiti v e to the v isual i n t r usion o f a t r ans mi s s ion l i n e. Utilizing the segment would involve crossing the Kannah, Indian, and Deer Creeks . Segment E borders the proposed BLM Wilderness Unit 170-103, but does not pass near any designated cultural areas. The segment crosses U.S. Highway 50, and comes within half a mile of an airport southeast of Grand Junction . This segment parallels the existing CUEA 115 -kV line and approaches two potent ial si t es f o r f uture g en era tion ; one n ear Delta a nd on e wes t of Grand Junction. Summ ary: After careful consideration of Segments A through E, it was determined that Segment D provided the most efficient access to the North Fork Valley load center. Utilizing Segment B instead of the north portion of Segment D would be the shortest route to the load center, but the difficult terrain located along that segment made Segment D a more desirable alternative. E.3 .b. North Fork Valley to Lost Canyon : Al though th e sub s t a t i on a t Mo n t r o se will not be expand ed as part o f this project, it is ant i cipated that such a pr oject will become necessary i n the future. Therefore, corridors passing in the vicinity of Montrose are more COLE.EA E-16 desirable for this project in order to avoid future transmission lines in the area. Segment F: Approximately 6 percent of Segment F crosses prime farmland. Biological constraints include mule deer and elk calving and fawning areas, winter range, and migration routes. Approximately 18 percent of this line has been determined to be highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line, with an additional 44 percent designated as moderately sensitive. Utilizing this corridor would require crossing the North Fork of the Gunnison River, and McDonald, Cottonwood , Bell, and Reynold s Creeks. Segment F does not border any formally classified areas or designated cultural resources, but would cross Colorado Highways 92 and 135 . Scattered small communities could be visually impacted in and around Paonia. Segment F does not parallel any existing lines; it would require 16 miles (25 km ) of new corridor . This route would serve the load centers of the No r th Fork Valley and would be compatible with long-range planning in this area. Segment G: Approximately 12 percent of Segment G crosses prime farmland. Biological constraints include bald eagle and river otter territory, and 8 miles (13 km) of prairie dog towns that could signify black-footed ferret habitat . Segment G also crosses 8 miles (13 km) of land where a federally-designated threatened plant species, the fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus), may exist. Approximately 39 percent of this segment crosses land that has been rated highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line. Ut ilizing this segment would require crossing the North Fork of the Gunnison River as well as 10 smaller crossings. The corridor passes near the southern boundary of proposed BLM Wilderness Unit 030-370B, currently under intensive inventory for potential wilderness designation, the Escalante State Wildlife COLE.EA E-17 Area, and the Fruitgrowers Reservoir State Fishing Area. The line passes by one State Register Site. Segment G crosses U.S. Highway 50 and Colorado Highways 92 and 65. The Blake Field Airport and a private landing strip lie close to the corridor, although the distance to the transmission line itself would be in accordance with FAA regulations. Five communities lie within three miles of the corridor: Bowie, Paonia, Hotchkiss, Orchard City, and North Delta. The new high school under construction and several residential developments near Hotchkiss were specifically avoided during corridor selection. Segment G is planned as a single-circuit 345-kV line, and parallels the existing Western 230-kV line for approximately 56 percent of its length, requiring 17 miles (27 km ) of new corridor. This segment would make power readily accessible to the North Fork Valley load center, and would provide bulk transmission lines for two sites currently under study for future generating station locations. Segment H: Less than percent of this corridor crosses prime farmland. Biological constraints include elk and mule deer winter range, pronghorn antelope areas, river otter areas, bald eagle hunting and concentration areas, wolverine areas, 16 miles (26 km) of land that may contain the federally-designated endangered plant species spineless hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiata var. inermis), and 12 miles (19 km) of land that may contain the federally-designated threatened plant species Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesae -verdae). Approximately 42 percent of this corridor crosses land that has been designated as highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line, with the remainder of the line designated as moderately sensitive. Eight creek crossings would be involved by following this route. This corridor borders both proposed BLM Wilderness Unit 030-353 and RARE II Unit 24 1 . Three State Register Sites are located in the vicinity of COLE.EA E-18 this line, and one crossing of the Dominguez -Escalante Trail would be involved. No highway crossings would be required, and residential areas have been avoided. Segment His not a desirable alternative because of the extent of new corridor that would be required. The segment itself is approximately 36 miles (57 km) long, and at least 30 additional miles (48 km), probably to be built along Segment M, would be needed in the future to serve the Montrose load center. This segment, however, could feed into the Nucla load center and could serve two of the potential sites being considered for a future generating station. Segment I : This segment could be utilized instead of the western portion of Segment G and part of Segment J . Twenty-five percent of this route crosses prime farmland. Biological constraints include a large prairie dog town, a bald eagle winter concentration area, river otter territory, peregrine falcon hunting territory, and 8 miles (13 km) of land where a federally- designated threatened plant species, the fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) may exist. Approximately 23 percent of this segment lies across land that has been determined to be highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line. Segment I would involve crossing the Uncompahgre River, and would come within one mile of proposed BLM Wilderness Unit 030 -388 . The Dominguez - Escalante Trail would be crossed once, as would U.S. Highway 50 . Clifford Field Airport is located in the vicinity of this this segment . Scattered communities between Delta and Montrose could receive some visual impact from a line along this route. Nearly 67 percent of this segment parallels the existing CUEA 115 -kV line. This route could serve the North Fork Valley indirectly, and crosses close to Montrose. It would also provide bulk transmission lines for the COLE.EA E-19 potential generating site located northeast of Delta. Segment I is considered less desirable than Segment G/Segment J because a longer transmission tie would be required between the bulk transmission system and a future generating station, should that station be located at one of the potential sites located near Delta or Grand Junction. Segment J: Fourteen percent of Segment J crosses prime farmland. Biological constraints include elk and mule deer winter range and scattered prairie dog towns. Approximately 61 percent of this segment crosses land that has been determined to be highly senstitive to the visual intrustion of a transmission line. Segment J crosses Roubideau and Dry Creeks, and borders proposed BLM Wilderness Unit 030-353. Cultural resources along this route include one State Register Site and two crossings of the Dominguez-Escalante Trail. No highway crossings or airports are involved with this route, and no communities lie within three miles of the designated segment. Segment J parallels the existing CUEA 115 -kV line, and ties directly into the Montrose Switching Station, which is expected to be a necessary tie -in point in the future. This segment would be constructed as double -circuit 345-kV, and does cross one potential site for Colorado -Ute's proposed generating station. Segment K: Only 4 percent of this segment crosses prime farmland. Biological constraints include elk and mule deer winter range, prairie dog towns, and a bald eagle concentration area. Only 13 percent of the land along this route has been determined to be highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line. Utilizing this segment would require crossing the Uncompahgre River as well as seven smaller creek crossings. This corridor borders the Crawford Reservoir State Recreation Area, two State Register Sites, and one National Register Site: the D&RGW Narrow-Gauge Trestle northeast of COLE.EA E-20 Cima r ron . No highway cr ossings or resid entia l a r e as would be involved with this segmen t . Segment K parallels the existing Western 230-kV line, but is one of the least desirable alternatives because of its length and location. Utilizing this segment would require an additional line to Montrose, possibly along Segment L, sometime in the future to meet anticipated load growth in t h at area. In addition, t h is segment would not serve any of the sites presently under consideration for a future generating station. Segm ent L: Approxim ately 17 percent of t h is segment crosses prime f armland . Biological c ons t raint s i nclud e ba ld eagle an d prairi e do g areas. Th e co rrido r crosses som e fa i r l y h i gh mount a inous t erra in and only s ev en percent of the land has been rated as highly sensitiv e to th e visual intrusion of a t r ansmission line . Only one creek cr ossing , Sp ring Cr e ek, would be i nvolved in th is segme n t . Segment L does n ot bo r der any f ormal ly classified ar eas , but does cross t h e Dominguez-Escalante Trail and co mes near one Sta t e Register Site. No transportation or residential impacts are expected along this route. Segment L would be used only to connect Montrose and Segments K or Q. It parallels the existing Western 115-kV for 33 percent of its length, but would require 8 miles (13 km) of new corridor. This segment would connect with the Montrose load center, but would not directly serve any other load centers or future generating station sites. Segment M: Segment M crosses over prime farmland for approximately 10 percent of its length. Biological constraints include elk and mule deer winter rang e, sev en mil es (11 km) of land tha t may co n t ain a fe d eral ly-designat e d endangered plant species, the spineless hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiata var . inermis ), and eight miles (1 3 km ) of land that may contain a CO LE.EA E-2 1 federally-designated threatened plant species, the Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesae -verdae ). Approximately 27 percent of this segment crosses forest land that has been determined to be highly sensi t ive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line. Utilizing this segment would require crossing the San Miguel River as well as the Sheep and East Fork Dry Creeks. This segment does not border any formally classified areas, but does make one crossing of the Dominguez-Escalante Trail, and crosses Colorado Highways 145 and 90. No communities are located in the vicinity of this segment. Segment M would be constructed as double-circuit 345-kV, and would parallel the existing CUEA 115 -kV line. The Nucla and Montrose load centers would be served by this route, and one site for future generation would be supplied with bulk transmission lines . Segment N: Segment N does not cross any prime farmland, but would ~ cross some mule deer and elk winter range and a bald eagle winter concentration area. Appr oximat ely 15 percent of this segment crosses land that ha s been rated as highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line . This segment crosses the San Miguel River and Naturita Creek. No formally classified areas or designated cultural resources occur in the vicinity of this segment . Utilizing this segment would require crossing Colorado Highways 90 and 145 . No resident i al areas occur along this route . Segment N parallels the existing CUEA 115 -kV line and would provide bulk transmission lines to the potential generation site surrounding Nucla . Segment N is less desirable than Segment P primarily because of the San Miguel Ri v er crossing; Segment P crosses the river in a better location, and is a mo re direct route down to Segment T. COLE.E A E-22 Segment 0: Segment 0 does not cross any prime farmland, but does cross pronghorn antelope territory and a bald eagle winter concentration area. No water crossings or highway crossings would be involved, and no formally classified areas, designated cultural resources, or residential areas would be affected by this segment. Segment 0 parallels the existing CUEA 11 5-kV line, and although it does not tie in directly to major load centers, it would provide bulk transmission lines for one potential site for Colorado-Ute's proposed future generating station. Segment P: Segment P does not cross any prime farmland, but does cross elk and mule deer winter range, prairie dog towns, and a bald eagle hunting and concentration area. Approximately 60 percent of this segment crosses land that has been rated as moderately sensitive to the visual impact of a transmission line. Utilizing this segment would require crossing Naturita, Beaver, Middle Naturita, and Brewster Creeks . This segment passes between the Gurley Reservoir State Fishing Area and the Miramonte Reservoir State Recreation Area, but does not impact any designated cultural resources. Colorado Highway 80 would be crossed by this line. Segment P would be of double-circuit 345-kV construction, and does not parallel an existing line; approximately 20 miles (32 km) of new corridor would be required . The load centers around Nucla would be served, and this segment would tie indirectly into the Lost Canyon Substation . One site being considered for a future generating station would be supplied with bulk transmission lines by utilizing this route. Segment Q: Segment Q does not cross any prime farmland, but borders an area of elk and mule deer winter range. This segment would cross the San Miguel River and the Horsefly, Turner, Beaver, and Saltado Creeks. No formally classified areas would be affected by this segment, but two crossings of the COLE.EA E-23 Dominguez-Escalante Creek would be required. U.S. Highway 550 and Colorado Highway 145 would both be crossed by this segment. No residential areas should be affected by a line along this route. Segment Q parallels the existing Western 230-kV line, but would not pass as close to the Nucla area as Segment M and therefore would not serve that load center as efficiently. Utilizing this segment could require the construction of additional lines in the future to provide bulk transmission lines to the potential generating station site near Nucla. Segment R: Segment R does not cross any prime farmland, but does cross some pronghorn antelope areas and bald eagle winter concentration areas. Approximately 10 percent of the forest lands along this segment have been determined to be highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line. Since this segment follows Colorado Highway 141 for several miles, the potential for visual impact is increased. The Dolores River would be crossed by this route near Slick Rock , where the river is being proposed for recreational classification. The Dominguez -Escalante Trail would be crossed once by this route, which also crosses Colorado Highway 141 . No residential areas would be directly affected by this segment. Utilizing Segment R would involve 40 miles (64 km) of new corridor, the entire length of the segment, which would not satisfy the request of the Montelores Planning Commission to follow existing routes in this area. This route does not directly tie in to major load centers, but would serve two potential generation sites with bulk transmission lines. Segment S: Segment S does not cross any prime farmland, but does cross some elk and mule deer winter range and a bald eagle concentration area. Approximately 15 percent of this route crosses land that has been rated as COLE.EA E-24 highly sensitive to th e vis ual intrus ion of a transmission line . Utilizing Segment S wo uld inv olv e crossing th e Dolores River in an area currentl y proposed for scenic classification. If t h e proposal for scenic designation is denied, this segment would become a more viable alternative. This segment makes two crossings of the Dominguez-Escalante Trail, and crosses Colorado Highway 80. No residential areas would be directly affected by a line through this area. Segment S parallels the existing CUE A 11 5-kV line, but would not serve the major load areas as efficiently as Segment T. Segment S would provide bulk t ransmission lines to two of the sites under consideration for a propo sed fu t ure gene r ating s tation. Se gment T: Segment T do e s not cross any prime farm l and , but do es cross a bald eagle hunting and concentration area. Only 2 pe r cent of this rout e c r osses ELM lands r ated a s Class I I v i sua l r esour ce s; app r ox imately 49 p e rcent o f the r out e has be en de t erm ine d to be mod era t e ly sensi t i v e t o the v isua l intrusion of a t ransmission line. Utilizing this line would require crossing the Dolores River and the Spectacle, Brewster, Morrison, Disappointment, and Lost Canyon Creeks. This segment does not come near any formally classified area, but does cross the Dominguez -Escalante Trail . No highway crossings would be involved, but the line would pass near the community of Dolores, Colorado. Segment T would be constructed as a double-circuit 345-kV line, and would parallel the existing Western 230-kV line. This segment would tie directly into the Lost Canyon Substation, and would supply a potential site for future generation with bulk transmission lines. Segme nt U: Th is segment do es not cross any prime farmland , bu t crosses a small bald eagle hunting and winter conc entration area . Six pe r cent of this segment crosses ELM lands that have been given Class II visual resource COLE.EA E-25 designation, with a total of 11 percent of the segment rated as highly sensitive to the visual impact of a transmission line. No water crossings would be required along this route. The Narraguinnep Reservoir State Fishing Area lies within the mile-wide corridor, which also passes near two National Register Sites: the Escalante Ruins west of Dolores and the Lowry Ruins northwest of Cortez. Segment U crosses Colorado Highways 147 and 145. No residential areas would be directly affected by a line along this route. Segment U parallels the existing CUEA 115-kV line and ties directly into the Lost Canyon Substation. The entire segment lies within an area currently under study as a potential site for a future generating station, but was considered less desirable than Segment T because of the additional mileage it would require. Summary: Segments M through U are all located in the western portion of the study area for several reasons. The growing load centers are concentrated in the west due to the population center around Nucla and the commercial and industrial developments in the area. In addition, the terrain east of the potential corridors is mountainous, most of the area is a declared avalanche hazard area, and there is an abundance of classified wilderness areas. Input was received from the Montelores Planning Commission indicating that they would prefer that the project follow one of the existing corridors in Montezuma and Dolores Counties, either Segment T or Segments S and U. Segment S crosses more farmland and involves a crossing of the Dolores River at a point currently proposed for scenic classification, making Segment T more desirable. After evaluation the various aspects of each segment, it was determined that Segments G, J, M, P, and T comprised the most desirable route from the North Fork Vall ey to Lost Canyon. Utilizing this route would serve the COLE.EA E-26 three major load centers (North Fork Valley , Montrose, and Nucla) and would provide bulk t ransmission lines for four of the potential areas under consideration for future genera ting sites. E.3.c. Lost Canyon to Hesperus: Segment V connects Lost Canyon with Hesperus; this corridor encompasses both the proposed 345-kV line and the proposed 11 5-kV extension of the existing CUEA 11 5-kV line. This segment crosses no prime farmland, but does cross a bald eagle winter range. Nearly 38 percent of the segment cross es BLM Class II lands, which have also been rated as highly sensitive to the visual intrusion of a transmission line. This segment would cross Cash Canyon and Chicken Creeks, and the East Mancos, West Mancos, and La Plata Rivers. The corridor crosses near two state fishing areas--Puett Reservoir and Summit Reservoir--and one National Register Site: the Ute Mountain Ut e Mancos Canyon Historic District . Utilizing this segment would involve crossing U.S. Highway 160 and Colorad o Highway 184 . The communities of Mancos and Hesperus in Colorado lie within two miles of the centerline of this corridor. Segment V parallels the existing CUEA 115-kV line, and directly connects the Lost Canyon Substaton with the proposed Hesperus Substation, thus increasing the reliability of electrical service to the Hesperus-Durango load center. This segment could serve either of two sites being considered for a fut u re generating station. Since the distance between the two substations is relatively short and the exis ting line forms a direct route between them, alternate routes would be considered only if significant environmental benefits would be gained . Deviating from the existing route would require the development of a new corridor, which has a greater potential for environmental disturbance as well as COLE.EA E-27 a significantly higher cost. A route leading south from Lost Canyon would be blocked by Mesa Verde National Park and BLM Wilderness Units 030 -25 1 and 030 -252, and passage would be difficult through some areas of steep terrain. A route to the north, into San Juan National Forest, would also involve crossing rugged, mountainous terrain. However, the corridor for this segment has been made two miles wide to allow for greater flexibility in center line location. E.3.d. Hesperus to San Juan: Segment W: Segment W does not cross any prime farmland. Approximately 74 percent of this corridor crosses lands where a federally- designated endangered plant species, the Mesa Verde cactus (Sclerocactus mesae-verdae), may exist. Nearly 8 percent of this segment crosses BLM lands that have received Class II visual resource designation, but only two percent has been rated as highly sensitive. Because of the absence of taller vegetation, transmission lines in this area would be visible for many miles. Cash Canyon Creek and Simon Draw would be crossed by a line along this route. Approximately one-third of this segment crosses the Ute Mountain Indian Reservation, which might entail some access difficulty. A large portion of this land, from U.S . Highway 666 east to the reservation border, is being considered for historic designation. This segment would cross U.S. Highway 160, and follow U.S. Highway 666 for approximately 25 percent of the line. No dense residential areas would be directly affected by this segment. While Segment W appears to be a viable alternate route to the San Juan Generating Station, it must be considered in terms of the whole system. Provision would have to be made for additional service to the Durango area, which would involve additional transmission lines, incurring potential environmental impact and greater cost. This segment parallels the existing COLE.EA E-28 Western 230 -kV line to the San Juan Generating Station and there is a p o ssibility that Wes t ern will up grad e th is l ine to 345 -kV s om e tim e i n th e f uture. Se gm ent X: Th is segmen t was proposed by t he Southern Ut e Ind ian Trib e as an al t ernative to Segment Y. Bi ological constraints inc lude mule deer and elk calv ing and fawning areas. Approximately eigh t percent of t h is segmen t crosses l and t hat has been determined to be highly sensitive t o t h e visu a l i nt r usi on of a t ransmissi on line. Wa t er crossings re qu ired by t h is r out e i n c lude Lon g Hollow, Chu r ch Hollow , Moon e y Draw, Gov e rnment Draw, and the La Plata River. One State Regi s ter Site is located near this segment , and Colorado Highway 140 and New Mexico Hi ghways 17 and 173 would be crossed . No dense residential areas would be directly affected by this segment; however, scattered farm housing does exist in the river valley . Segment X does not parallel any ex isting rout e and would therefore re qu ire 3 9 mi l es (6 3 km) of ne w c orrido r. Th is segment do es c onnec t th e Hesperus Substation with the San Juan Generating Station, and could supply bulk transmission lines to one potential site being considered for a future generating station . Segment Y: Approximately four pe rcent of this segment crosses prime farmland . Biological constraints include mule deer and elk calving and fawning areas . The New Me x ico portion of this segment crosses BLM Class III lands that have been designated as moderately sensitive to the visual impact of a tran s mission lin e. Th e proposed corridor wo ul d cross the La Pla t a Ri v er. No formally classifie d a reas or de signated cultur al r esour c es are locat e d in th e vicinity of this segment . New Mexico Highway 17 would be crossed, and the COLE.EA E-29 communities of Fruitland and Waterflow in New Mexico might receive some visual im pa c t f r om t he l i ne . Se gm en t Y parallels the existing CUEA 11 5-kV line. Th e La Plata Coun t y planners ind ica t e d th eir preference tha t t h e l ine be rout ed through t h e western port ion or "dry side" of t h e county and follow existing rout es . The San J u an Count y, New Mexico planners also ind ica t ed t h at t h ey wo uld prefer t h e line to fo l low exis t ing c orridors and a v oid the river valleys, due to development in t h ose areas. Th is segment connects Hesperus wi th t h e San J uan Generating · Sta tion , and would pr ov i d e bulk t ransmissi on l i n es to on e pot en t ial s ite for a future generating station. Summary: After consideration of the segments in this area, it was determined that Segments V and X would provide the best route between Lost Canyon and the San Juan Generating Station . Segment W would not serve the Hesperus Land , and Segment Y would not be agreeabl e to the Southern Ute India n Tr ibe. * * * * * COLE.EA E-3 0 F . Relat ionsh i p Be tw e en Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity: F.1. Land Use: F.1.a. Area of Land Involved and Prior Use: The proposed transmission and substation facilities will result in the occupation of approximately 70.2 acres of land. The greatest portion of the land is required for new substations and enlargements of existing facilities. The land required for a support structure is considered to be the area beneath t h e s u p port legs and eno ugh of t h e s u rround ing area to allow a safe clearance b e tw e en th e s t r u c tu re and f arm i mpl emen t s. Thi s is an arb i t rary de f initi on ex c e pt in an area of cult i vated cr opland . The t r ans miss ion l i ne will pa ss th r ough so me ag r icultural land ; howev er, most of the co rrido r is on no na gri c ultur al land s. Mu ch of th e l i n e wi ll be a dj acen t to exis t i ng transmission right s-of-wa y . F.1 .b. Long-Range Land Use and Productivity: The transmission line will have little effect on the long-term productivity of the land along the corridor. Agricultural land traversed by the line will continue to be used for that purpose in the future. Where possible, the line will avoid areas near population centers where present development is occurring and future development is likely. F.2. Material Use: Most of the metal (aluminum and steel) employed in the fabrication of power lines and support hardware can be reclaimed for subsequent use. F.3. Sh or t -Term Effec t s: ~ Du r ing the constructi on of the transmission l i ne, equipment and personnel may be noticeable to people i n the immediate vicinity . Construction COLC.EA F-1 activities will progress along the corridor, and no prolonged periods of construction activity are expected in any given location . Construction in areas will be scheduled to avoid seasons during which certain wildlife species would be especially sensitive to the presence of construction crews and equipment. F.4. Long-Term Effects: Completion of this project will provide continued adequate and reliable electrical service to the Colorado-Ute distribution cooperative members. The project represents a response to the anticipated demands related to residential, agricultural, mineral and rural industrial development. The additional power and reliability resulting from the proposed transmission line will be a factor favoring successful development of these activities. COLC .EA F-2 G. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commi tm ents of Resources: G.1. Material: At the end of the useful life of the proposed facilities, all of the equipment can be removed and much of it can be recycled. All metal in supports and conductors is reusable. Insulators can be tested at the time of disassembly to determine their usefulness. G. 2. Labor: The construction of the proposed transmission line involves the unrecoverabl e commitment of a significant amount of labo r and energy. COLC.EA G-1 APPENDIX A: VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The VRM system was developed by the Bureau of Land Management to evaluate the visual resources of their lands and to determine the level of management that is desirable and practical to protect, rehabilitate, or enhance these resources. The system classifies the land according to visual resource characteristics. VRM classes are composed of three factors: scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zones. Scenic quality is determined by a combination of several factors, as presented in Table APP.A .-1 . It is an attempt to quantify the relationship between the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture. The degree of variety and harmony between these elements determines the scenic quality. Visual sensitivity levels indicate the relativ e degree of user interest in visual resources and concern for changes in the existing landscape character. User volume and user attitudes are combined, as in Table APP.A.-2, to determine the sensitivity of an area. Distance zones are evaluated because landscape characteristics are a function of contrast. The distance between the viewer and the object determines in part the degree of contrast that is perceived. Foreground-middleground (FG -MG ) is defined as the area that can be seen for a distance of up to five miles. Background (BG) is the remaining area that can be seen, to approximately 15 miles. Seldom-seen areas (SS) are those lands beyond 15 miles, or areas that cannot be seen at all. COLAPA.EA These three factors -scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distanc e zones -are combined to determine the VRM classes. Table APP.A.-3 shows how this is done. VRM classes are the basis for determining whether or not a management activity would result in a visual impact and, if so, what degree of mitigation would be required. To analyze the degree of contrast a specific project will create, the vegetation and landform of the area must be analyzed in terms of that project. Different landscapes will be more amenable than others to a particular type of project , regardless of VRM classification. COLAPA.EA 2 key factors landform vegetation water color influence of adjacent scenery scarcity cultural modifications Table APP .A.-1 SCENIC QUALITY INVENTORY AND EVALUATION CHART rating criteria and score High vertic al relief as ex pressed Steep canyons, mesas, buttes, Low. ro lli ng hills, footh ill s or in prominent cliffs, sp ires or cind er cones and drumli ns; or flat va ll ey bottoms. Interesting massive rock outcrops, or severe interestin g erosiona l patterns or detail landscape features few or surface variation or highly variety in size and shape of land · lacking. . eroded formations including forms; or detail features present major badlands or dune systems; and interesting though not or detail feat ures dominant and dom in ant or exceptional. exceptionall y striking and intri · guing such as glaciers. 5 3 1 A variety of vegetative types as Som e variety of vegetation, but Li ttle or no variety or contrast expressed in interesting forms, only on e or two major types. in vegetation. textures, and patterns. 5 3 1 Clear and clean appearing, still , Flowing, or still, but not domi · Absent, or present, but not cascading white water, any of nant in the landscap e . notic eable. which are a dominant factor in the landscape. 5 3 0 Rich color combin ations, variety Some intensit y or variety in col · Subtle color variations, cont rast of vivid color; or pleasing con· ors and contrast of the soil, r ock or interest; generally mute tras ts in the soil, rock, vegeta · and vegetation, but not a domi · tones . tion , water or sn ow fie ld s. 5 nant scenic element . 3 1 Ad jacent scenery grea tl y Adjacent scenery moderately Adjacent scenery has little or no enhances visual quality. enhances overall visual quality. influence on overall visua l quality. 5 3 0 One of a kind; or unusually Distinctive, though somewhat Interesting within its setting, memorable, or very rare within similar to others within the but fairly common with in the region. Consistent chance for region. region. exceptional wildlife or wild· flower viewing, etc. 6 2 1 Free from aestheticall y undesir· Scenic quality is somewhat Modifications are so extensive able or discordant sights and depreciated by inharmonious that scenic qualities are for the influ ences; or modifications add intrusions, but not so extensive most part nullified or substan· favorab ly to visual variety . that the scenic qualities are t ially reduced. entirely negated or modifica - tions add little or no visual vari · 2 ety to the area. 0 -4 SCENIC QUALITY A= 19-33 8=12-18 c = 0-11 Table APP .A.-2 MATRIX FOR DETERMINING VISUAL SENSITIVITY LEVELS H H H M HIGH M H H L SENSITIVITY L H MEDIUM M M M L SENSITIVITY L M LOW L L SENSITIVITY NOTE: User attitude will take precedence over quantity of use for this eva luation . T a b l e APP .A.-3 MATRIX FOR DETERMINING VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASSES VISUAL SENSITIVITY high medium low special I I I I I I I areas u~A --I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z...J B I I I I I Ill I I I IV IV IV w< IV u ::::> IV cnoc I I I IV IV IV IV IV DISTANCE f g-bg SS f g-bg SS SS ZONES mg mg Table APP.B.-1 MAMMALS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Sc ient ific Nam e Artiodactyla Elk Cervus canadensis Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Pronghorn antelope Antilocapra americana Mountain goat Oreamnos americanus Bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis Carnivora Black bear Ursus americanus Raccoon Procyon lotor Ringtail Bassariscus astutus Marten Martes americana Shorttail weasel Mustela erminea Longtail weasel Mustela frenata Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Mink Mustela vison River otter Lutra canadensis Wolverine Gula luscu s Badger Taxidea taxus Spotted skunk Spilogale putorius Striped skunk Me phi tis mephitis Coyote Canis la trans Gray wolf Canis lupus Red fox Vu l pes fulva Swift fox Vulpes ve lox Kit fox Vulpes macro tis Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Mountain lion Felis concolor Bobcat Lynx r ufus Chiroptera Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus Cave myotis Myotis velifer Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Long-legged myotis Myotis volans California myotis Myotis californicus Small-footed myotis Myotis subula tus Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Western pipestrel Pipistrellus hesperus Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Spotted bat Euderma maculata Western big -eared bat Plecotus townsendi Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Mexican freetail bat Tadarida brasiliensis Big freetail bat Tadarida molossa Table APP.B.-1 MAMMALS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (Continued ) Co mmon Name Masked shrew Merriam shrew Vagrant shrew Dusky shrew Dwarf shrew Northern water shrew Pika Whitetail jackrabbit Mountain cottontail Desert cottontail Ye llowbelly marmot Whitetail prairie dog Rock squirrel Richardson ground squirrel Uinta ground squirrel Thirteen-lined ground s quirrel Golde n-man tled squirrel Whitetail antelope squirrel Least chipmunk Colorado chipmunk Uinta chipmunk Tassel-eared squirrel Red squirrel Valley pocket gopher Northern pocket gopher Apache pocket mouse Ord kangaroo rat Beaver Western harvest mouse Deer mouse Brush mouse Pinyon mouse Rock mouse Northern grasshopper mouse Bushytail woodrat Mountain phenacomys Boreal redback vo le Meadow vole Mountain vole Longtail vole Muskrat Western jumping mouse Porcupine Insectivora Lagomorpha Rodentia Sc ientific Nam e Sorex cinereus Sorex merriami Sorex vagrans Sorex obscurus Sorex nanus Sorex palustris Ochotona princeps Lepus townsendi Sylvilagus nuttalli Sylvilagus auduboni Marmota flaviventris Cynomys gunnisoni Spermophilus variegatus Spermophilus richardsoni Spermophilus armatus Sperm ophilus tridecemlineatus Spermophilus lateralis Ammospermophilus leucurus Eutamias minim us Eutamias quadrivittatus Eutamias umbrinus Sciurus aberti Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Thomomys bottae Thomomys talpoides Perognathus apache Dipodomys ordi Castor canadensis Reithrodontomys megalotis Peromyscus manicula tus Peromyscus boylei Peromyscus truei Peromyscus difficilis Onychomys leucogaste r Neotoma cinerea Phenacomys intermedius Cl eth rionomys gapperi Microtus pennsylvanicus Microtus montanus Microtus longicaudus Ondatra zibethica Zap us princeps Erethizon dorsatum Table APP.B.-2 BI RDS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Common Nam e Sc ien tific Name Accipitridae Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Rough -legged hawk Buteo lagopus Ferruginous hawk Buteo rega lis Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Marsh hawk Circus cyaneus Alaudidae Horned la rk Eremophila alpestris Alcedinidae Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Anatidae · Whistling swan Olor columbianus Canada goose Branta canadensis Snow goose Chen caerulescens Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Gad wall Anas strepera Pintail Anas acuta Green-winged teal Anascrecca Blue-winged teal Anas discors Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera American wigeon Anas americana Northern shoveler Anas clypea ta Redhead Aythya americana Ring -necked duck Aythya collaris Canvasback Aythya valisineria Lesser scaup Aythya aff inis Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis Common merganser Mergusmerganser Apodidae White-throated swift Aeronautes saxata lis Ardeidae Great blue heron Ardea herodias Snowy egret Egretta thula Black-crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax Table APP.B.-2 BI RDS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (Continued ) Commo n Name Scientific Name Bombycillidae Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Caprimulgidae Poor-will Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Cathartidae Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Charadriidae Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Columbidae Band-tailed pigeon Columba fasciata Rock dove Ze naida macr oura Corvidae Steller's jay Cyanocitta stelleri Scrub jay Aphelo coma coerul escens Black-billed magpie Pica pica Common raven Corvus corax Common crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Pinyonjay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus Elaninae Mississippi kite Ictinia missisippiensis Falconidae Merlin Falco columbarius American kestrel Falco sparverius Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Fringillidae Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Baird's sparrow Ammodramus bairdii Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena House finch Carpodacus mexicanus Pine siskin Carduelis pin us American goldfinch Carduelis tristis Lesser goldfinch Carduelis p sa ltria Red crossbill Loxia curvirostra Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus Rufous-sided towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus e e Table APP.B.·2 BIRDS WITHIN THE STUDY AR EA (Continued) Common Name Lark bu nting Savann ah sparrow Vesper sp arrow Lark sparrow Dark-eyed junco Tree sparrow Chipping sparrow Brewer's sparrow White-crowned sparrow Linco ln's sparrow Song sparrow Whooping crane Sandhill crane Violet-green swallow Tree swallow Bank swallow Rough -winged swallow Barn swallo w Cliff swallo w . Bobolink Wes t ern meadowlark Yellow -headed blackbird Red -winged blackbird Northern oriole Brewer's blackbird Common grackle Brown-headed cowbird Northern shrike Loggerhead shrike Rin g-bill e d g ull Franklin 's gull Black tern Turkey Gru id ae Hirundinidae Icteridae Laniidae Laridae Meleagrididae Sci entific Nam e Ca l amospiza melanocorys Passerculus san d wi ch ensis Pooece t es gramin eus Chondestes grammacus Junco hyema l is Sp i ze lla arborea Sp i ze lla passerina Sp i ze lla breweri Zonotrichia l eucop h rys Me l osp i za l incol nii Melospiza m elodia Grus american a Grus canadensis Tachycineta thalassina Iridoprocne bicolor Riparia riparia Stelgidopteryx ruficollis H irundo rustica Pe t r och elidon pyrrhonota Dolichonyx oryzivorus Sturnella negl ecta Xanthocephalus xanthocepha l us Agelaius phoeniceus Icterus galbula Euphagus cyanocephalus Quiscalus quiscula Molothrus ater Lanius excubitor Lanius ludovicianus L arus d elawarensi s L arus pipix can Chlidonias niger Meleagris gallopavo Table APP.B.-2 BIRDS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (Continu ed ) Co mmon Name Sc ientific Nam e Mimidae Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Paridae Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus Parulidae Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata Virginia's warbler Verm ivora virginiae Ye llow warbler Dendroica petechia Ye llow -rumped warbler Dendroi ca corona ta Townsend 's warbler Dendroica townsendi Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis MacGillivray's warbler Opo r ornis tolmiei Common yellowthroat Geothylpis trichas Yellow -breasted chat Icteria virens Wilson 's warbler Wilsonia pusilla Phalaropodidae Wilson's phalarope Steganopus tricolor Phasianidae Chukar Alectoris chukar Gambel's quail Lophortyx gambelii Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus co lchicus Picidae Common flicker Colaptes auratus Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Red -headed woodpecker M elanerpes erythrocephalus Red -bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Ploceidae House sparrow Passer domesticus Podicipedidae Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Rallidae Virginia rail Rallus limicola Sora Porzana carolina American coot Fulica americana Table APP.B.·2 BIRDS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (Continued) Common Name Sc ientific Name Rescurvirostridae American avocet Recurvirostra americana Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Scolopacidae Common snipe Capella gallinago Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos Least sandpiper Calidris minutilla Western sandpiper Calidris mauri Sittidae White -breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Strigidae Screech owl Otus asio Long-eared owl Asia otus Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Saw -whet owl Aegolius acadicus Sturnidae Starling Sturn us vulgaris Sylviidae Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Tetraonidae Blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus Sharp-tailed grouse Pedioecetes phasianellus Sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus Thraupidae Wes tern tanager Piranga Judoviciana Threskiornithidae White -faced ibis Plegadis chihi Trochilidae Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus Co mm o n Nam e House wren Canyon wren Rock wren American robin Hermit thrush Swainson's thrush Veery Mountain b luebird Eastern kingbird Western kingbir d Say's phoebe Willow flycatcher Dusky flycatcher Western flycatche r Table APP.B.-2 BI RDS WITHIN TH E STUDY A RE A (Continu ed) Sc ient ific Nam e Troglodytidae Troglodytes aedon Catherpes mexicanus Salpinctes obsoletus Turdidae Turd us migra tori us Catharus guttatus Catharus ustulatus Ca t harus fuscescens Si alia currucoi des Tyrannidae Tyrannu s ty rannus Tyrannus verticalis Sayornis saya Empidona x traillii Empidona x oberholseri Empidonax difficilis We s t ern wood pew ee Con to pus sor didulus Vireonidae Solitary vireo Vi reo so l itarius Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Source: The Audubon Soc i ety Field Guide to North American Birds, Miklos D. F. Udvardy, Ca l ifornia State University, Sacremento 1977. Alfred A. Knopf, New York Table APP.B.-3 REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Blotched tiger salamander Arizona tige r salamander Boreal toad Red-spotted toad Woodhouse's toad Western painted turtle Northern whiptail Plateau whiptail Midget faded rattlesnake Hopi rattlesnake Prairie rattlesnake Ye llow -headed collared liza rd Long-nosed leopa rd lizard Great Plains rat snake Southern many-lined skink Canyon tree frog Mesa Verde night snake New Mexico milk snake Utah milk snake Desert striped whipsnake Western smooth green snake Mountain short-horned lizard Desert short-horned lizard Great Basin gopher snake Borealchorusfrog Bu llfrog Leopard frog Western spadef oot Great Basin spadefoot Northern sagebrush lizard Twin-spotted spiny lizard Northern plateau lizard Western black -necked garter snake Wandering garter snake Northern tree lizard Northern side-blotched lizard Source: Colorado Reptile and Amphibian Distribution Latilong Study, Colorado Division of Wildlife, January 1, 1978. Sc ientifi c Name Ambystoma tigrinum melanostictum Ambystoma tigrinum nebulosum Bufo boreas boreas Bufo punctatus Bufo woodhousei woodhousei Chrysemys picta belli Cnemidophorus tigris septentrionalis Cnemidophorus velox Crotalus viridis concolor Crotalus viridis nuntius Crotalus viridis viridis Crotaphytus collaris auriceps Crotaphytus wislizeni wislizeni Elaphe gutta ta emoryi Eumeces multivirgatus gaigeae Hyla arenicolor Hypsiglena torquata loreala Lampropeltis triangulum celaenops Lampropeltis triangulum taylori Masticophis taeniatus taeniatus Opheodrys vernalis blanchardi Phrynosoma douglassi hernandesi Phrynosoma douglassi ornatissimum Pituophis melanoleucus deserticola Pseudacris triseriata maculata Rana ca tesbiana Rana pipiens Scaphiopus hammondi Scaphiopus intermontanus Sceloporus graciosus graciosus Sceloporus magister bimaculosus Sceloporus undulatus elongatus Thamnophis cyrtopsis cyrtopsis Thamnophis elegans vagrans Urosaurus ornatus wrighti Uta stansburiana stansburiana Ta ble APP.B.-4 FI S H S PECI ES WI T HIN TH E STUDY AR EA Commo n Name Wh ite sucker Flannelmouth su cker Mottled scu lpin Humpback ch ub Bonytail chub Brassy minnow Black bu ll head Channel catfish Small mouth bass Bluehead sucker Fathead minnow Mountain whi t efish Colo rado squawfish Speckl e d dace Redsid e shiner Colorado cutthroat trout Ra inbow trout Br own trout Brook trout Razorback sucker Sc ient ific Name Catostomus commersoni Cat ostomus latipinnis Cottus bairdi Gila cypha Gil a robusta Hybognathus hankinson Ictal aurus mel as Ictalurus punctatus Micropterus dolomieui lacepede Pantosteus de lphinus Pimephales promelas Prosopium williamsoni Ptycho che i l us l ucius Rhinichthys osculu s Richardsonius balt eatus Salmo clarki pleur iticus Salmo gairdneri Salmo trutta Salvelinus fontinalis Xyrauchen te x anus Sou r ce: McCl an e 's F ield Guide to Fresh wa t er Fish es of N orth A m erica, A. J. McCl an e, 1978 . Table APP.B.-5 PLANT SPECIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Colorado pinyon pine Utah juniper Bottlebrush squirrel tail Indian ricegrass Needle-and-thread Big sagebrush Black sagebrush Douglas rabbitbrush One-seed juniper Shadscale Mat sa ltbush Gardner salt bush Galleta Blue grama Rubber rabbitbrush Broom snakeweed Four-wing saltbush Gambel oak Common servicebe rry Mountain mahogany Bluegrass Smooth brome Arrowleaf balsamroot Cheatgrass Globmallow Prickly pear Western wheatgrass Thurber's fescue Douglas fir Ponderosa pine Aspen Fescue Junegrass Western yarrow Alpine timothy Alk a li sacaton Ring muhly Scientifi c Name Pinyon-Juniper Community Pin us edulis Juniperus osteosperma Sitanion hystrix Oryzopsis hymenoides Stipa comata Artemisia tridentata Artemisia nova Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Juniperus monosperma Saltbush Community A triplex confertif olia A triplex corruga ta A triplex gardne r i Hilaria jam esii B outeloua gracilis Chrysothamnus nauseo sus Gutierrezia sarothrae Etriplex canescens Mountain Shrub Community Quercus gambelii Amelanchier spp. Cercocarpus montanus Paa spp. Brom us inermis Balsamorhiza sagittata Sagebrush Community Bromus tectorum Sphaeralcea sp . Opuntia sp. Agropyron smithii Festuca thurberi Conifer-Aspen Community Pseudotsuga menziesii Pin us ponderosa Populus tremuloides Festuca sp. Koeleria cristata Achillea lanulosa Phleum alpinum Barren and Waste Areas Sporobolus airoides Muhlenbergia punge ns Table APP.B.-5 PLANT SPECIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA (Continued) Common Name Sc ientific Name Greasewood and Halfshrub Community Black greasewood Wild daisy Salt grass Foxtail barley Cocklebur Ragweed Russian thistle Sarcobatus vermiculatus Erigeron sp. Districhlis stricta Hordeum jubatum Xanthium strumarium Ambrosia sp. Salsola kali Riparian and Broadleaf Tree Community Quaking aspen Cottonwood Box elder Willow Alder Hawthorne Kochia Arizona f escue Subalpine needlegrass Tufted hair grass Alpine avens Alpine bluegrass American bistort Aspen sunflower Engelmann spruce Rushes Sedges Grasslands Alpine Community Pop ulu s tremuloides Populus sp . Acer negundo Sa lix sp. A lnus sp. Crataegus sp . Kochia sp. Festuca arizonica Stipa columbiana Deschampsia caespitosa Geum rosii Poa alpina Polygonum bistortoides Helianthella guinguenervis Picea engelmannii Juncussp . Carexsp . Threatened and Endangered Spineless hedgehog cactus Echinocereus triglochidiatus Knowlton's hedgehog cactus Fishhook cactus Mesa Verde cactus var. inermis Pediocactus knowltonii Sclerocactus glaucus Sclerocactus mesae -verdae So urce: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management , 1979 . Table APP.B.-6 FAUNAL DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE** LEGEND VE GETAT IV E COMMUNITY absent or rare 3 moderate ab un dance .c 2 .c Qi 2 low abundance 4 high ab undanc e .c. ::J c: .c. (/) .... c. Q) 2 ::J .c. ·c: c. "ni :8 (/) (/) " c: ::J <I: c: J: -;;; "ni c: 7 ~ "' SELECTED NON-GAME SPECIES c;; c: (/) "E "' c: Q) ~ di ·;: 0 c: (/) ::J "' >-·c: ~ ~ Cl 0 c. c: ·a. "' a: a: 0 < C!) Cll (/) ::E (.) MAMMALS Strip ed skunk Mephitis mephitis 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Badger Tax id ea taxus 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 Bobc at Lyn x rufus 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Whitetail prairi e dog Cy nomys gunnisoni 3 2 2 Whitetail a nte lop e squ irre l Ammospermoph ilu s le ucuru s 2 1 1 Least ch ipmunk Eutamia s minimus 2 2 Colorado chipmunk Eutamias quadrivittatus 2 3 Tassel -ea r squ irre l Sc iuru s aberti 1 1 1 4 1 Valley pocket gopher Thomomys bottae 4 1 1 3 3 3 2 e Silky pocket mouse Perognathus f/avus 3 2 2 2 Bannerta il kangaroo rat Dipodomys spectabilis 3 1 1 Ord's kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii 3 2 2 2 1 Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 Pinon mous e Peromyscus truei 1 2 3 2 4 Northern grasshopper mouse Onyc homys le ucogas ter 2 2 2 1 Mexican wood rat Neotoma mexicana 2 3 3 2 4 4 Longta il vo le Microtus longica udus 1 3 1 Mexican vole Microtus mexicanus 1 1 1 1 3 3 Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum 1 2 2 2 3 3 Blacktail jackrabbit Lepus ca lifornicus 2 2 2 2 1 2 Eastern cottontail Sy/vilagus floridanus 2 2 1 1 3 2 Desert cottontail Sy /vilagu s auduboni 3 2 3 2 2 3 1 1 Coyote Canis latrans 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 REPTILES Lesser ear less li zard Holbrookia maculata 3 2 2 1 2 1 Eastern fence lizard Sce loporus undulatus 1 2 2 2 2 Sagebrush li zard Sce loporu s graciosus 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 Short-horn ed li zard Phrynosoma doug lassi 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Northern wh i pta il Cnem idophorus tigris 2 2 2 2 2 2 Plateau whiptail Cnemidophorus ve /ox 2 2 2 2 2 BIRDS Turkey vulture Cathartes striatus 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Red-ta il ed haw k B uteo j ama ice ns is 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Golden eag le Aqu ila chrysaetos 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 American kestre l Fa lco sparverius 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 e Poor-wi ll Pha laenoptilu s nuttallii 1 1 3 3 Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor 2 2 2 3 2 3 1 Broad -tailed hummingbird Archilochus al exa ndri 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 Common flicker Colaptes auratus 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 Yellow -bellied saps ucker Sphyrap icus varius 2 2 3 FAUNAL DISTRIBUTION AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE** LEGEND abse nt or rare 3 mod erate ab un dance 2 low abundanc e 4 high ab und a nc e SELECTED NON-GAME SPEC IES BIRDS (Continued ) Ha i ry woodp ecker Dendrocopos villos us Northern three-to ed woodpecker Pi co id es tridactylu s We stern k in gb i rd Ty rannus ve rtica lis Sa y's phoebe Sayorn is saya Horned lark Eremophila alp estris Cliff swallow Pe trochelidon pyrrhonota Scrub jay Aphelo coma coeru lesce ns Ste ll ar's jay Cyanoc itta ste lleri Common raven Corvus corax Pinon jay Gymnorh inu s cyanocepha lu s Mountain ch ickadee Parus gambe li Plain titmouse Parus in ornatus Whit e-breas ted nuth atch Sitta caro lin en sis Pygmy nuth atc h Sitta pygmaea Rob in Turdu s migra toriu s Wes t e rn b l uebird Sialia m exicanus Mounta in bluebird Sia lia currucoides To wn sen d 's so lita i re Myadestes townsendi Loggerhead s hrik e Lan iu s lu dovic ianus So litary vi reo Vireo so litariu s Ye ll ow-rumped warb ler Dendroica coronata Grace's warbler Dendroica gaciae Wilson's warbler Wilson ia pusilla MacGillivray' s warb l er Opororn is to lm iei House sparrow Passer domestic us Western meadow lark Sturn e lla neglecta Brewer 's blackbird Euphagus cyanocepha l us Weste rn tanager Piranga l udovic iana Eve ning grosbeak Hesperi phona vespertin a Cass i n 's fin ch Ca rpodacus cass inii Pin e s is kin Sp inus p inu s Star lin g Sturnus vu lgaris Brown towhe e Pip ilo fu scus Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Sage sparrow Amphispiza be/Ii Dark -eyed junco Junco hyemalis Chipping sparrow Spize lla passerina Tab le APP.B.-6 (Continued ) 1 3 2 4 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 4 2 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 •Adapted from ''Western Area Survey,'' Public Service Co. of New Mexico, 1978. "Species abundance may vary with latitude . season and year. 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 VEGETAT IV E CO MMUNITY 1 3 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 4 1 2 4 2 1 2 2 2· 1 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 c: Q) c. (/) <( ~ c: 0 u 3 3 1 3 4 3 1 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 Q) c: ·a. < 1 2 2 1 3 3 3 Table APP.C.-1 SELECTED FARM STAT I ST IC S FOR THE STUDY-AREA, 1974 Landin Number of Fa rm s County Farms (Acres I Montezuma 596 843,502 LaPlata 560 589,642 Dolores 176 171,184 San Miguel 74 180, 797 Gunnison 160 299,913 Montrose 844 433,836 Ouray 80 159,284 Delta 912 272,279 Garfield 369 413,388 Mesa 1,320 527,542 San Juan 0 0 San Juan, N .M. 407 1,912,000 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Agriculture, 19 74 . Table APP.C.-2 NUMBER OF LIVESTOCK IN THE STUDY AREA IN 1974 1 County Montezuma LaPlata Dolores San Miguel Gunnison Montrose Ouray Delta Garfield Mesa San Juan2 San Juan, N.M . Cattle and Ca lve s 27,090 39,740 5,211 11,032 44,270 62,083 11,347 47,263 45,236 77,432 500 23,301 22,371 13,624 2,864 30,146 11,715 77,331 1,360 41,916 42,105 43,460 500 42,183 Source: U.S . Department of Commerce, Census of Agriculture, 19 74. 2 19 75 Data. Average Size of Farm (Acres) 1,415.3 1,052.9 972.6 2,443.2 1,874.5 514.0 1,991.1 298.6 1,120.3 399.7 0 4,698 341 1,888 44 18 15 8,347 50 3,335 1,047 9,862 0 887 Table APP.C.·3 ACRES OF VARIOUS CROPS IN PRODUCTION IN 1974 County Corn Wheat Hay Montezuma 594 25,251 16,445 LaPlata 2,034 10,426 32,968 Dolores 118 32,023 2,443 San Migu el 122 1,480 6,209 Gunnison 206 150 34,434 Montrose 9,721 3,962 28, 714 Ouray 76 169 12,698 De lta 7,528 1,695 24,388 Garfield 1,483 2,708 33,495 Mesa 13,366 1,207 34,828 San Juan2 0 0 0 San Juan, N.M. 3,773 517 15,904 1 U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Agriculture, 1974 . 2 1975 Data. Table APP.C.-4 VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS SOLD, 1974 (In Thousands of Dollars) Average Total Per Farm Forest County Value (in dollars) Crops Products Montezuma $7,852 $13, 174 $5,035 $2 LaPlata 7,776 13,886 1,768 40 Dolores 4,534 25,762 3,775 25 San Miguel 1,988 26,866 286 z Gunnison 5,114 31,961 358 0 Montrose 25,052 29,682 9,163 4 Ouray 1,507 18,839 367 5 Delta 19,651 21,547 8,943 45 Garfield 8,683 23,531 1,254 1 Mesa 27,077 20,513 12,465 56 San Juan 0 0 0 0 San Juan, N .M. 5,585 13, 722 2,642 D Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Agriculture, 1974. (Z ) -Not shown because amount is Jess than one half the measurement unit reported. (D )-Data withheld to avoid disclosing information about individual forms. Vegetables 70 6 1 0 0 608 0 595 1 204 0 699 Livestock Poultry and and Poultry Livestock Products Products $3 $2,812 49 5,920 1 733 z 1,702 1 4,755 40 15,845 4 1,130 30 10,633 15 7,413 33 14,522 0 0 38 2,849 e Table APP.C.-5 MANUFACTURING ESTAB LISHM ENTS FOR TH E STUDY AREA, 1972 Number Number of of Annual County Estab li shments Emp loyees Payro ll Montezuma 32 400 2, 700,000 LaPlata 20 300 2,100,000 Dolores 0 0 0 San Miguel 5 z 100,000 Gunnison 10 z 300,000 Montrose 20 200 1,000,000 Ouray 1 D D Delta 25 400 2,400,000 Garfield 15 100 600,000 Mesa 72 2,000 12,500,000 San Juan 0 0 0 San Juan, N.M. 30 1,200 6,800,000 Source : U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Co un ty and City Da t a Book, 1977. (D) -Withheld to avoid discl osure (Z) -Less than half the unit of measure shown. Value Added by Man ufacturer 6,100,000 3,900,000 0 200,000 600,000 1,900,000 D 4 ,500,000 1,600,000 24,000,000 0 17 ,600,000 Table APP.C.-6 RETAIL, WHOLESALE & SELECTED SERVICES, 1972 Number of Number of Retail Retail Wholesale Wholesale County Estab lishments Sa les Establishments Sa le s Montezuma 184 33,975,000 34 17,900,000 LaPlata 308 51,040,000 45 19,200 ,000 Dolores 22 1,295 ,000 9 10,000,000 San Miguel 40 2,687,000 3 400,000 Gunnison 142 20,194 ,000 7 3,100,000 Montrose 230 36,047,000 43 18,200,000 Ouray 36 2,238,000 2 D Delta 225 29,870,000 26 21,500,000 Garfield 279 50,924,000 38 17,000,000 Mesa 611 134,493,000 135 122,800,000 San Juan 29 1,371,000 D D San Juan, N.M. 541 121,952 ,000 107 59,600,000 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census . County and City Data Book, 1977 (D) -Withheld to avoid disclosure Number of Service Service Estab li shments Sa le s 146 6,216,000 278 10,926 ,000 10 56,000 30 370,000 121 5,235,000 179 4,974,000 27 575,000 157 3,548,000 215 8, 104,000 596 23,952,000 12 177,000 404 29,648,000 e Tabl e APP.C.-7 TOTAL EM PLO YM ENT FOR THE ST U D Y AREA , 197 0 & 1974 1 County 1970 1974 Montezuma 4,474 5,124 LaPlata 7,183 9,547 Do lores 567 491 San Miguel 726 1,038 Gunnison 2,762 3,463 Montrose 7,004 7,875 Ouray 681 849 Delta 5,572 5,737 Garfield 6,520 8,675 Mesa 21,300 25,480 San Juan 298 210* San Juan, N.M. 2 15,159 14,099* Source: 1 St atistica l A bstrac t of Col orado , 1976-77. 2 U.S. D ep artment of Comm erce, County and City Dat a Book, 1977. (*)-1975 D at a. Tab le A PP .C.-8 I NCO M E BREA K DOW N FOR THE ST U DY A REA, 1975 1 Less Tha n Pe rcent Change 1970-1974 14 .5 32.9 -13.4 43 .0 25.4 12 .4 24.7 3 .0 33 .0 19.6 -29 .5 -7.0 Co u nty $5,000 $5,000-7,999 $8 ,000-9 ,999 $10 ,000-14,999 Montezuma 17.5 20.9 13.3 26.3 LaPlata 16.9 18.4 13.7 24.9 Dolores 11.9 17.0 18.8 26.7 San Miguel 15.1 19.8 17.6 29.5 Gunnison 15.0 21.2 12.1 24.8 Montrose 18.5 18.4 12.5 24.5 Ouray 12.4 13.3 24.9 32.8 Delta 28.1 21.0 12 .7 20.0 Garfield 10.3 17.5 12.1 26.6 Mesa 15 .1 18.2 10 .7 25.4 San Juan 2.2 13.4 53.9 San Juan, N .M.2 28.4 20.2 15.7 23.3 $15,000 &Over 22.0 26.2 25.6 18.0 27.0 26.0 16.6 18.2 33.6 30.6 30.5 12.4 Source: 1 Demographic Profil e, Colorado Department of Health, 1976. 2 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Popul ation, General Social and Econom i c Characteristics. 1970. Table APP.C .-9 POPULATION TRENDS FOR THE STUDY AREA 1 Percent 19762 Change County 1950 1960 1970 1970-1976 Montezuma 9,991 14,024 12,952 15,359 18 .6 LaPlata 14,880 19,225 19,199 23,970 24 .8 Dolores 1,966 2,196 1,641 1,747 6.4 San Miguel 2,693 2,944 1,949 2,046 4.9 Gunnison 5,716 5,477 7,578 8 ,869 17 .0 Montrose 15,220 18,286 18,366 18,600 1.3 Ouray 2,103 1,601 1,546 1,849 19 .6 Delta 17,365 15,602 15,286 16,533 8.1 Garfield 11,625 12,017 14,821 18, 115 22 .2 Mesa 38,974 50,715 54,374 63,544 16.9 San Juan 1,471 849 831 841* 1.2 San Juan, N.M. 3 18,800 53,200 52,700 64 , 719 4 * 22 .8 Source: 1 Statistical Abstract of Colorado, 1976 -77. 2 Demographic Profile, Colorado Department of Health, 1976 . 3 New Mexico Statistical Abstract, 1975 . 4 U.S. Department of Commerce, County and City Data Book, 1977. (•)-Number represents 1975 Estimate . Table APP .C.-10 STATISTICAL INFORMATION FOR THE STUDY AREA, 1975 1 Median • Per 65 School Square Median • Year and Years County Population Mile Urban 2·3 • Age2,3 Over Completed 2 · 3 Montezuma 14,950 7 46 .6 27.4 9 .8 11.8 LaPlata 23,242 14 53.8 26.3 9 .2 12 .3 Dolores 1,682 2 0 27 .9 9 .3 10 .8 San Miguel 2,194 2 0 27 .3 8 .1 11.8 Gunnison 9,105 3 50 .9 22.3 4 .6 12 .7 Montrose 20,651 9 35.4 29.1 11 .0 12 .1 Ouray 1,810 3 0 31.2 9 .7 12.2 Delta 17,484 15 24.2 39.6 18 .9 11.9 Garfield 17,906 6 27.7 30 .0 10 .5 12.2 Mesa 62,474 19 47 .8 30.2 11.9 12.3 San Juan 841 2 0 26.3 5 .0 12 .3 San Juan, N .M. 64,719 12 48.2 18 .6 5.3 12.0 Source: 1 U.S . Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City Data Book, 1977. 2 Demographic Profile, Colorado Department of Health, 1976. 3 Statistical Abstract, New Mexico, 1975. (•) -1970 Data. e e Table APP.D.-1 STATE HISTORICAL REGISTER SITES LISTINGS WITHIN STUDY AREA (Co lo rado Historical Society does not publish certain lo cationa l re ferences for reas on s of site preservation) No. Name Locat ion 1. Battlement Cemetery T7S, R95W, Sl 7 2. Fairview School T7S, R92W, S26 3. United Methodist-Presbyterian Church 200 E. 4th St., Rifle 4. Presbyterian Church White River Ave. & 4th St., Rifle 5. McLearn Mercantile Co. Railroad Ave. & W. 3rd St ., Rifle 6. St. Mary's Catholic Church 341 E . 5th St., Rifle 7 . Munro Mercantile Store 144 E. 3rd St., Rifle 8. Le Rossignol Home 201 E. 3rd St., Rifle 9. Rifle Sanitarium (Midland Hotel) 111 E. 3rd St., Rifle 10. Seventh Day Adventist Church 515 W. Ave., Rifle 11. Rex Theater 237 W. Ave., Rifle 12 . 9th St. High Schoo l 9th St. & East Ave., Rifle 13. Government Road Between Rifle & Meeker (Hwy 13) 14 . Union Divide Creek Cemetery T7S, R92W, S13, NW'l4 15 . Anvil Point Experimental S t a tion T6S, R94W , S19, NEY4 16. Pattie Expedition T8-11S, R97 -104, S-many 17 . Loring Expedition Followed Gunnison River 18 . Glade Park Cemetery T12S, R102W, S13, SEY4 19. Glade Archaeological Site 20 . Little Book -Cliff Railroad Carpenter to Grand Junction 21. Town of Carpenter TlOS, R98W, S7 22. Convict's Bread Oven TlOS, R97W, Sll 23. Halfway House TlOS, R97W, S13 24. Roan Creek Toll Road T8 -11S, R97 -98W, S-many 25. Petroglyph 26 . Cabin TlOS, R98W, S24, NE'i4, NE'l4, NW'l4 27. Jail TlOS, R98W, S24 , NE'l4 , NE'l4, NW'l4 28 . DeBeque Cut -off Road T8 -10S, R96 -97W , S -many 29. Little Park Archaeological Site 30 . Grand Valley Diversion Dam 31. Meeker Tree (Surrender Tree) TllS , R96W, S5 32. Mesa Springs Petroglyphs 33 . Battlement Forts TSS, R95W, S24 34 . Deep Creek Cow Camp T12S, R96W, Sl 7 35. Englehart and Parkinson Store 219 Main St. Collbran 36. Collbran Post Office Main St. by Plateau Valley Bridge 37. Erwin Coakley Homesite TlOS, R95W, S2 SW'i4, SW'l4, NE'l4 38. Collbran Audito rium SE Corner Main St., Collbran 39. Sunnyside Ditch T9S, R94 -95W, S -many 40. A tkinson and Bonham Reservoirs TllS, R94W, S15, 16 41 . Ha u xhurst Hom estead Cabin T9S, R94W, S18, SEY4 42. Plateau Milling Co. TlOS, R95W, S18, SW'i4 (Cottonwood Flour Mill) 43. John P. Brown Homestead TlOS, R96W, S29, SW'i4, SEY4 S32, NW 'l4 , NE 'l4 44. J . F . Brink Cattle Co . TllS, R96W, S5, NW'i4 45. Dominguez -Escalante Trail T8 -10S, R92 -95W, S-many 46. Currier Homestead Cabin T9S, R93W, S2, Nlf2 County Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfield Garfie ld Garfield Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa Mesa e e Table APP.D.-1 STAT E H I STORICAL REGISTER SITE S LI ST I NGS WIT H IN STUDY AR EA (con tin ue d) No. Na me Lo ca ti on Co un ty 47. Crawford's Tomb (in Municipal Cemetery) T13S, RlOOW, S16 Mesa 48. Residence 644 Ute, Grand Junction Mesa 49. S u gar Beet Factory S. 12th & Win t ers Ave ., Grand Junction Mesa 50. Teller Institute 2800 D Road, Grand Junction Mesa 51. Marcus Whitman Monument Whitman Park, Grand Junction Mesa 52. Chestnut Park Block 42, Grand Junction Mesa 53. Cottonwood Park Block 140, Grand Junction Mesa 54. Walnut Park Block 37, Grand Junction Mesa 55 . Maple Park Block 135, Grand Junction Mesa 56. African Methodist Episcopal Church 202 White Ave., Grand Junction Mesa 57. Blaine Orchard TIS, RlE, S13 Mesa 58. North Fork Trail T12S,R97W, S9, 10, 16,20,21 Mesa 59. North End (Kannah Creek) Coal Mine T12S, R97W, S17 Mesa 60. Whitman Exp edition Mesa 6 1. J . P . Ha rlow Ra nch 2 m i. NE of P alisade Mesa 62. Hogback Ro a d T 11 S , R96 -98W, S-many Mes a 63. Blue Flame Mine T 11S, R98W, S2 , SEY4 , NWY4, NEY4 Mesa 64 . Whitewate r Hote l and Sn y de r's Whitewate r Me sa General Store 65 . Coffman's Ranch T 2S, RlE , SlO, SWY4, SEY4 Mesa 66. Grand Valley Diversion Dam TlOS , R98W, S 13 , NWY4 Mesa 67. Cross Ranch TI S, RlE, S9, NEY4 Mesa 68 . Cabin T1 5S , R10 2W, S lO , NW Y4, NEY4, SW Y4 Mesa 69. Gill Me adows Ranch House T15S , R10 2W , S12, SW Y4, SWY4, NW Y4 Mesa 70 . T aylo r Archaeolo gical Site Mesa 71. Arc hae olo gical Site Mesa 72. Gunnison Expedition T10-14S, R99-104W, S -many Mesa 73. Archaeological Site Mesa 74. Archaeological Site Mesa 75. Homestead T14S, R99W, S15, SWY4, NE Mesa 76. Rock Structure Shelter T14S, R98W, S19, SWY4, NEY4, SWY4 Mesa 77. Stone Structure Shelter T14S, R98W, Sl9, SEY4, NEY4, NEY4 Mesa 78. Wagon Road T13S, R99W, S35, SWY4, SEY4, SEY4 Mesa 79. Halfway House T14S, RlOOW, S15, NEY4, NEY4 Mesa 80. Casement Ranch T15S, RlOlW, S5, NWY4, NEY4 Mesa 81. Petroglyphs Mesa 82 . Petroglyphs Mesa 83. Brown's Mill T51N, R19W, S15, SEY4, SWY4, SWY4 Mesa 84. Grampa Foy Cabin T51N, R19W, S15, NWY4, SEY4, SWY4 Mesa 85. Copper Mine T49N, R19W, SlO, NWY4 Mesa 86 . Blue Creek Ute Trail Mesa 87. Pyramid Mine and Mill Mesa 88. Gateway Cemetery Gateway Mesa 89 . A lk a li Indian Camp Alkali Basin De lta 90. North For k -P lat e au Wagon Road T11 S , R94W, S34 D e lt a 91. Dominguez-Escalante Expedition T51N, 11 -15S, RlOW , 91 -95W , S -many Delta 92. Bowie T13S, R91 W, S15 De lta 93. Dry Fork Petroglyphs T15S, R97W, S32, NWY4 Delta e e Table APP.D.-1 STATE HISTORICAL REGISTER SITES LISTINGS WITHIN STUDY AREA (continued) No . Name Location County 94. Denver & Rio Grande Western T4S, R3E, S33, NEY4, SWY4, SEY4 Delta Railroad Bed T15S, R97W, S8, NWY4, SWY4, SEY4 95. Steel Truss Bridge T15S, R97W, S8, NWY4, NEY4 Delta 96. Walker Homestead T15S, R97W, S31, NWY4, SEY4 Delta 97. Ute Council Tree T15S, R96W, S13 Delta 98. Christmas Rock Shelter T51N, R12W, S24 Delta 99. Fort Uncompahgre T15S, R96W, S14 Delta 100. Monastery of St. Juliana 3rd St. & Parker St., Delta Delta 101. Pumphouse T14S, R96W, S24, NEY4 Delta 102. Davis Clothing Co . 4th & Main, Delta Delta 103. Black Canyon Rock Art Work On Basalt Cliffs Delta 104. Hanson Castle T13S, R93W, S2, NWY4, NWY4 Delta 105. Howell's Village T51N, R9W, SlO, SWY4 Delta 106. Denver & Rio Grande Western T14S, R91W, S6 Delta Railroad Depot 107. Hotchkiss Hotel 101 Bridge St., Hotchkiss Delta 108 . Ray Bruce Property Delta 109. Lee Ranch Wickiup Village Montrose 110. Sandburg Site Montrose 111. Moore & Casbier Sites Montrose 912. Cushman Creek Site Montrose 113. Flint Caves Montrose 114. Homestead T50N, R13W, S35, NWY4, NWY4 , NWY4 Montrose 115. John C. Bell Home 319 N. Park, Montrose Montrose 116. Old Carriage Shop N. 3rd & Cascade Ave., Montros e Montrose 117. Old Uranium & Radium Mill Main St . & Grand Ave., Montrose Montrose 118. Rio Grande Depot Railroad Tracks & Main St., Montrose Montrose 119. Cabin 423 S. Second St., Montrose Montrose 120. Uncompahgre Water Users Assoc . Office 601 N . Park, Montrose Montrose 121. Townsend House S. 5th & Townsend, Montrose Montrose 122. Gunnison Tunnel T49N, R7W, S9, 10, 16 -19/R SW S24 , 26 Montrose 123 . Gunnison Expedition T47 -51N, R8 -10W, S-many Montrose 124. Potato Sheds T50N , R9W, S20, NWY4, NEY4 Montrose 125. Homestead T50N, R9W, S20 , SWY4 , NEY4 Montrose 126. Homestead T50N, R9W, S17, SWY4, SWY4 Montrose 127. Mines T51N, R9W, S27, NEY4 , SWY4, SEY4 Montrose 128 . Ute Trail Ford T51N, R9W, S23, SWY4, NEY4, SWY4 Montrose 129. Duncan Cabin T51N, R9W, S27, SWY4, NEY4, NEY4 Montrose 130 . Narrow Gauge Trestle of D&RGW T48N, R6W, S5 Montrose Crossing 131. Barlow and Sanderson Stage Line T48N, R6W, S -many Montrose 132. Cimarron T48N, R6W, S5 Montrose 133. Loring Expedition T48-51N, R6-9W, S-many Montrose 134. D&RGW Railroad Grade T48-49N, R7-8W, S-many Montrose 135. LaSal Canyon Rock Petroglyphs Montrose .36. Paradox Valley Indian Site Montrose 37. Eldridge Mines Montrose 138. Doaks and Brown Ranch Montrose e e Table APP.D.-1 STATE HISTORICAL REGISTER SITES LISTINGS WITHIN STUDY AREA (continued) No. Name Location County 139. McCarty Gang Hide out Cabin Montrose 140. S inbad Valley Post Office Montrose 141. Black Springs Ute Campground Montrose 142. Charcoal Kiln T48N, R18W, SlO Montrose 143. Hanging Flume T48N, R18W, S14, 23, 24, 25 Mont rose Rl 7W, S29, 30 144. Atkinson Creek Indian Site Montrose 145 . McCarty Canyon Gateway Trail Montrose 146. Nucla T46N, R15W, S5 Montrose 147. Tabeguache Cave No . 1 Montrose 148. Tabeguache Dave No. 2 Montrose 149. Naturita Picture Rock T46N, R15W, S30 Montrose 150. Early Graves T45N, R12W, S11 Montrose 151 Dominguez-Escalante Expedition T45-46 N, R13-19W, S-many Montrose T47-51N, R8-10W, S-many 152. Rivera Expedition T45-51N, R10-18W , S-many Montrose 153. Pinon Cemetery T46N, R14W , S3, NEY4, SWY4 Montrose 154. Ute Memorial Site T48N, R9W, S9 Montrose 155. Fort Crawford T48N, R9W, S34, 35 Montrose 156. Shavano Valley Petroglyphs Montrose 157. Canal Ruins T48N, R8W, S18, SEY4, SEY4, SEY4 Montrose 158 . Barlow and Sanderson Stage Line T43 -47 N, R7 -8W, S-many Ouray 159. Dallas T46N, R8W, S33 Ouray 160. Rio Grande Southern Railroad T45N, R9 -1 0W Ouray 161. Ouray City Hall & Walsh Library 6th Ave. & Main, Ouray Ouray 162. Beaumont Hotel Main St., Ouray Ouray 163 . Go ldb elt Theatre (site) Main St. & 7th Ave., Ouray Ouray 164 . Ridgeway Railway Station Main St., Ridgeway Ouray 165 . Portland T44N, R8W, S11 Ouray 166. Western Hotel Ouray Ouray 167. Arrastra Site T44N, R8W , S15 Ouray 168. The Blowout T44N, R7W, S30 Ouray 169. Elks Club 4th & Main Sts., Ouray Ouray 170 . Wrights Hall Opera House 4th & Main Sts ., Ouray Ouray 171. McCoy Home 510 Fifth Ave., Ouray Ouray 172 . Ashley House 4th St . & 5th Ave ., Ouray Ouray 173. St. John's Episcopal Church 4th St. & 5th Ave., Ouray Ouray 174 . Hurlburt House 4th St. & 5th Ave ., Ouray Ouray 175. Presbyterian Church 4th St. & 4th Ave ., Ouray Ouray 176. Duckett's Market 621 Main, Ouray Ouray 177. Ouray County Courthouse 4th St. & 6th Ave., Ouray Ouray 178. Bachelo r Mine Ouray 179. American Nettie Mine Ouray 180. Moonshine Park -R.R. T44N, R8W, S14, SEY4, SEY4 Ouray 181. Moonshine Park -Mining T44N, R8W, S14, SEY4, SEY4 Ouray 182. Cedar Hill Cemetery T44N, R8W, S2, SEY4, NWY4 Ouray e 183. Herran House Hotel Ridgway Ouray 184. Jackson Place T44N, R8W, S2, SEY4, SEY4, SWY4, SEY4 Ouray No . 185. 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194 . 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. .04. 05. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 224. 225 . 226. 227 . 228. 229. .30 . 31. 232 . Table APP.D.-1 STATE HI STOR ICAL REGISTER S ITE S LISTINGS WITHIN STUDY AREA (c ontinued) Name Location Ridgway Fire Station Ridgway St. Joseph's Hospital 43 E . 6th Ave., Ouray Rowley's Corner 3rd Ave., Ouray Mining Area South of Ouray Camp Bird Mine & Mill T43N, RSW, S22 Corkscrew Gulch & Turntable T42N, R7W, S6 Imogene Pass T42N, R8W, S3 Mount Snef fles T43N, RSW, S7 Yankee Girl Mine T42N, RSW, S12 Red Mountain Townsite T42N, RSW, S13 Silverton Railroad T41-43N, R7-8W, S-many Ptarmigan Lake Pumping Station T42N, RSW, S3, SE'i4 Red Mountain Pass T43N, R7W, SS Engineer Pass T43N, R7W, S24 Ironton T43N, R7W, S31 Guston Mines and T ow n T42N, R8W, S12 Sneffels T43N, RSW, S21 Mountain Top Mine T43N , R8W, S20 Michael Breen Mining and Milling Co. 5 mi. SE of Ouray San Juan Chief Mill Near Engineer Pass Stamp Mill at Atlas Mine Revenue Mill Virginius Mine At Governor Basin The Terribl e Mine Near Virginius Mine Humboldt Mine Surroz Homestead T12S, R90W, S16 Somerset Cemetery T13S, R90W, SS, SEY2, SW'i4 Paonia Dam T13S, R89W, S8, NE'i4, NE'l4 Loring Expedition T4S-49N, Rl-6W, S-many Gunnison Expedition T4S-49N, Rl-6W, S-many Curecanti Depot Site/Curecanti Needle T48N, R5W, S3 Overhang Campsite Dominguez-Escalante Expedition T41-45N, Rl 7-19W, S-many Rivera Expedition T42-45N, R18-19W, S-many Naturita Canyon Indian Site Aspen Groves T42N, R12W, S35, NW'l4, NE'l4 Placerville T44N, RllW, S35, SE'i4, NW'l4 Telluride Historic District Town of Telluride Telluride Institute 427 W. Columbia, Telluride Bank of Telluride Colorado Ave. & Fir St., Telluride Charles D. Waggoner House Pine & Galena Sts., Telluride Hospital 317N. Fir, Telluride Mahr Building Co lo rado Ave. & Fir, Telluride Miner's Union Building Co lumbia & P in e S ts ., Tellurid e L. L. Nunn Residence 219 N. Aspen St., Telluride Old Town Jail 123 S. Spruce, Telluride The Old School Columbia & Townsend Sts ., Telluride San Miguel County Courthouse Colorado Ave. & Oak, Telluride County Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Ouray Gunnison Gunnison Gunnison Gunnison Gunnison Gunnison San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel San Miguel e e Table APP.D.·1 STATE HISTORICAL REGISTER SITES LISTINGS WITHIN STUDY AREA (continued) No . Name Location County 233. T h e Sen a t e 123 S. Spruce, Tellu ride San Miguel 23 4 . S he r ida n Op era House 11 0 N . Oa k , Tell u ride San Mi guel 235 . S t. P atr ick 's Catholic Chur ch Gal en a & S pruce S t s., Tell uride San Migu e l 23 6 . T elephone Company Building 12 0 N . F ir, Tellu r ide San Mig u el 23 7 . New S h eridan Hote l 231 W . Colo rado Ave., Tell uride San Miguel 238 . Barlo w a nd Sanderson Stage Line T41-44N , R8-11W, S-many San Miguel 23 9 . S h eridan Mine San Migu e l 240 . Im ogene Pass T42N, R8W, S3 San Migue l 241. T om bo y San Mig u el 242. Pando ra T43 N , R8W, S31 San Migu e l 243. O phir T42 N , R9W, S33 San Miguel 244. Ophir Loo p Near Ophir San Miguel 245 . Alta T 42N , R9W , S22 S an Miguel 246 . Ophir Pass T4 2N , R8W , S31 San Miguel 247. Ames Electrical Transmission Site T42N, R9W, S32 San Miguel 248. Rio Grande Southern Railroad San Miguel 249 . Old Ophir T42N, R9W, S35 San Miguel 250. Black Bear Pass T42N, R8W, S15 -16 San Miguel 251. Silver Pick Boarding House T41-42N, R9W San Miguel 252. San Miguel T43N, R9W, S35 San Miguel 253 . Smuggler-Union Hydroelectric Power T42N, R8W, S5 San Miguel e Plant 254. Ames T42N , R9W, S32 San Miguel 255. Gold King Mining and Milling Comp a n y T42N , R9W, S23, NW1/4 San Miguel 256. Trout Lake T4 1N, R9W, SS S an Mi gu e l 257 . A mes -Tellur id e Transmis sio n Line T42 N , R9W , S l , 11, 12, 14, 23 S a n Mi gu e l 258 . For t P e a body T42 N , R9W , Sl San Mi gu e l 259. Smugglers Mine T42N, R9W, Sl San Miguel 260. R ico Ci ty Hall Commerci al & Manz Sts., Rico Do lo res 261. Lizard Head T41N, R9W, S18 Do lores 262. Barlow and Sanderson Stage Line T40-41N, R9-11W, S-many Dolores 263 . Gold Run Trail T39N, Rl1W, S2, 11, 14 , 15 Dolores T40N, R11W , S35 , 36 264 . Rio Grande Southern T39-41N, R9-11 W, S -many Dolores 265. Rico -Silverton Stage Route T39 -40N, R10 -11W , S -many Dolores 266. Coke Ovens T39N, R11W, S2, NE1/4 Dolores 267. First Public School Rico Dolores 268. Rico State Bank Glasgow Ave . , Rico Dolores 269 . Charles Engel Mercantile Company Glasgow Ave . , Rico Dolores 270. Rico Hardware Company Glasgow Ave ., Rico Dolores 271. Rho de Hote l Glasgow Ave. , Rico Dolores 272. H. Ob e ndorf er Mercant ile Glasg ow Ave ., Ric o Dolo res 27 3. J . B. B egu e and Company Glasgow Ave . , Rico Dolo r e s 274 . Dey Building Glasgow Ave . , Rico Dolores 275 . First Protestant Church Mantz & Silver Sts., Rico Dolores 276. Burley Building Glasgow Ave., Rico Dolores 277. First Rico Post Office Glasgow Ave., Rico Dolores 278 . Atlantic Cable Mine Main St., Rico Dolores No. 279. 280. 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292 . 293. 294. 295. 296. 9297. 298. 299. 300 . 301. 302 . 303. 304 . 305 . 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. -319 . 320. 321. Name Sacred Mountain District Table APP.D.-1 STATE HISTORICAL REGISTER S IT ES LISTINGS WITHIN STUDY AREA (conti nued ) Locat ion T35-40N, R14-20W, S-many Anasazi Archaeological District Narraguinnep Fort T40N, R16W, S14 Beaver Creek Massacre T39N, R14W, S9 Ice Lake Basin Mines & Mills T41N, R8W, S17, 18 T41N , R9W, S13, 24 Chattanooga T42N , R8W, S26 Lime Creek Burn T40N, R8W, S-many Ophir Pass T42N, R8W, S31 Red Mountain Pass T43N, R7W, S8 Silverton Railroad T41 -43N, R7-8W, S-many Black Bear Pass T42N, R8W, S15-16 Pandora Mine T41N, R8W, S30 Chattanoog a Cemetery T42N, R8W, S26 Old Li me Creek Road T39N, R8W , S4, 9, 16, 17 T40N, R8W, S21, 28, 33 Durango-Silverton Highway T35-41N, R7-9W, S-many Rico-Silverton Stage Route T40-41N , R7-11W, S-many Silverton Historic District T41N, R7W, Sl 7-19 Arrastra Gulch T41N, R7W,S14, 15,22,23, 26 Cunningham Gulch T41N, R7W, S12, 13, 24, 25, R6W, S7, 18 , 19 Caledonia Min e, Kittimack Mine, T42N, R6W, S28, 29, 33 Esmerelda Mine Grand Imperial Hotel 1219 Greene, Silverton Animas Forks T42N, R6W, S6 Silverton City Hall 1360 Greene, Silverton Cinnamon Pass T43N, R6W, S33 Otto Near's House 10th and Reese, Silverton St. Patrick's Catholic Church 1005 Reese, Silverton Eureka T42N, R6W, S19 Gladstone T42N, R7W, S16 Howardsville T41N, R7W, Sl, 2 Mineral Point T42N, R7W, S25 Old Hundred Mill Site & T41N, R6W, S7 Boarding House Poughkeepsie T42N, R7W, S3 Silverton, Gladstone & Northerly Railroad T41-42N, R7W, S-many Silverton Hillside Cemetery T41N, R7W, S8 Silverton Northern Railroad T41-42N, R6 -7W, S-many Stony Pass T41N, R6W, S20 Waldheim T41N, R7W, SlO Walsh House T42N, R6W, S6, NW1;;2 United Church of Silverton 1070 Reese, Silverton Highland Mary Lake & Dam T41N, R6W, S31, SW)t4 Tabasco Mine and Millsite T43N, R6W, S33, 34 Buffalo Boy Mine & Tram T41N, R6W, S18 Middeton Townsite T42N, R6W, S31 Co unty Dolores Dolores Dolores Dolores San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan San Juan e e Table APP.D.-1 STATE HISTORICAL REGISTER SITES LISTINGS WITHIN STUDY AREA (continued) No. Name Location Co unty 322. Highland Mary T41N , R7W, S25 San Juan 323. Beartown T4 0N , R6W, S22 San Juan 324. Durango-Silverton Narrow-Gauge T35-41 N, R7 -9W , S-many San Juan Railroad 325. Sacred Mountain District T35-4 0N, R14-20W, S-many Montezuma 326 . Lowry Ruin Montezuma 327. Ye ll ow Jack et Ruins Montezuma 328. Eaton Family Cemetery T37N , Rl 7W, S36, SWY4, SWY4 Montezuma 329 . James A. Lancaster Site T39N, R18W, S32 Montezuma 330. Pigge Site T38N, R19W, S2 Montezuma 331. Ariola Cemetery District T37N, R16W, S31, NEY4, SEY4 Montezuma 332. Escalante River T37N, R15W, S7 Montezuma 333 . Exon Mercantile Company 315 Central Ave ., Dolores Montezuma 334. Galloping Goose Railroad Engine City Park, Dolores Montezuma 335 . Taylor Hardware 423 Central Ave., Dolores Montezuma 336. Site of Big Bend, Colorado T37N, R15W, S7 Montezuma 337. McPhee T38N, R15W, S31 Montezuma 338 . Rio Grande Southern Railroad T36-39N, Rll-15W, S-many Montezuma 339 . Rivera Expedition Montezuma 340. Dominguez-Escalante Expedition T35-39N, R13-17W , S-many Montezuma 341. Gold Run Trail T37 -39N, Rll-12W, S-many Montezuma e 342. Goodman Point Group -Hovenweep T36N, Rl 7W, S4 Montezuma National Monument 343. Yucca House National Monument T35N, Rl 7W, S35 Montezuma 344. Mesa Verde National Park T33-36N, R14-15W, S-many Montezuma 345. Rocky Rosemar Hotel N . Mesa St., Mancos Montezuma 346. Alamo Ranch Home T36 N, R13W, S31 Montezuma 347. Bauer Bank Building Grand Ave. & Main St., Mancos Montezuma 348. Bauer Mansion N . Main St., Mancos Montezuma 349. Mancos Opera House Mesa St. & Grand Ave., Mancos Montezuma 350. Menefee Homestead T36N, R13W, S22 Montezuma 351. Cortez Cemetery District T36N, R15W, S30, NEY4 Montezuma 352. Mesa Verde National Park Archaeological T33-36N, R14-15W, S-many Montezuma District 353. Towaoc Cemetery T33N, Rl 7W, S16 Montezuma 354. Navajo Trail T32-33N, Rl 7-20W, S-many Montezuma 355. Ute Mountain Ute Mancos Canyon T32-35N, R14-17W, S-many Montezuma Historic District 356. Spruce Tree Point T33N, R15W, S21 Montezuma Mesa Verde National Park 357. Baker's Bridge T37N, R9W, S24 LaP lata 358 . LaPlata Canyon T36-37N, RlO -llW, S-many LaPlata 359. Neglected & Orofino Mine Area T37N, RlOW, S26, 27, 34, 35 LaPlata 360 . Bell Ranger Station T37N, R9W, S12 LaPlata 361. Pinkerton Ranger Station T37N, R9W, S25 LaPlata 362. Wallace Park G.S. Site T37N, R8W, S23 LaPlata 363. Relay Creek Retaining Pond T39N, R9W, S19 LaPlata 364 . Flume, Tacoma Power Plant T38N, R8W, S31 -32 LaPlata e e Table APP.D .·1 STATE HISTORICAL REGISTER SITES LISTINGS WITHIN STUDY AREA (continued) No. Name Lo ca tion County 365. He r mos a Riv er R ock Art W ork LaP lat a 366. Old Durango -S ilv erto n Highway T35-39 N , R8 -9W, S-many LaP lata 367. Trans f er Park T37N, R7W , S19 LaP lata 368 . Tuck ervill e T37N, R6W, S12 LaP lata 36 9 . L og T own (formerly Hewitt ) T38N, R7W, S13 LaP la t a 370 . Ch icago Basin Mining Community T39N, R7W, S30, 32, 33 , 34 LaP lata and Road T39N , R8W, S24, 25 371. Animas City T35N, R9W, Sl 7 LaPlata 372. Animas Ci t y Ceme t ery Co ll ege Drive, Durango LaP lata 373. Animas Sc h ool 28 00 W . 2nd Ave., Du rango LaP l ata 374 . Chu rch of Hesperus Hesperus LaPlata 375 . Escalant e Cross ing T34%N, R9W, S32 LaP lata 37 6 . F ort Lewis Numb er 2 T34N, RllW, S3 LaP lat a 37 7 . Gable House 8th St. & 5t h Ave., Durango LaP lat a 378. Graden Mill T 35N, R9W , S3 0 La P lata 379. Joy Cabin 2300 Block N . Main, Durango LaPlata 380 . LaPlata City T36N, RllW , S9 LaPlata 381. Strater Hotel 7th & Main, Durango LaPlata 382. Rio Grande Southern Railroad LaPlata 383. Trimble Guard Station T36N, R9W, S27 LaPlata .84. Gardenswartz Store 7th & Main, Durango LaPlata 85. Durango-Silverton Narrow -Gauge T35 -41N , R7 -9W, S-many LaPlata Railroad 386. Gold Run Trail T 37 -39N , Rll-12W , S-many LaPlat a 38 7 . W alt er Weightman House 67 0 T h ird Ave., Du rango LaP lata 388. Pe t er Kee gan Hou se 622 Third Ave., Du rang o LaPla t a 389. St. Mark's Ep isc opal Ch urch 9th St. & 3rd Ave., Du rango LaPlata 390. St. Mark's Parsonage 951 Third Avenue, Durango LaPlata 391. Presby t erian Church 12th St. & Third Ave ., Durango LaPlata 392. Thomas Wigglesworth Home 1154 Third Ave., Durango LaPlata 393 . Christian Church 11th St. & Third Ave., Durango LaPlata 394 . Frank Young Home 747 Third Ave ., Durango LaPlata 395. Newman Block 8th St. & Main, Durango LaPlata 396. Durango & Silverton Narrow-Ga uge Main St., Durango LaPlata Railroad Depot 397 . Commercial Building 9th & Main, Durango LaPlata 398. First National Bank 9th & Main, Durango LaPlata 399 . Richey's Store 900 Main, Durango LaPlata 400 . Burn's National Bank 9th & Main, Durango LaPlata 401. New York Bakery 8th & Main, Durango LaPlata 40 2 . T own House 10 th & Ma in, Durango LaP lata 40 3. Coors Bo t tling Works 6th & Main, Du rango LaP lata 404. A. P. Camp House 7 4 7 T hir d Ave., Durango LaP la ta 405 . William Vaile House 76 1 Thir d Ave ., Durango LaPlata 406. St. Columba's Catholic Church 1830 E. 2nd Ave., Durango LaPlata 901. San Juan Branch Agricultural T34N, RllW, S3 LaPlata Experiment Station 408. Rivera Expedition T35 -57N, R6 -11W, S-many LaPlata No. 409. 410. 411. 412 . 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420 . 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. Table APP.D.-1 STATE HISTORICAL REGISTER SITES LISTINGS WITHIN STUDY AREA (continued) Name Location Ute Mountain Ute Manocs Canyon T32-35N, R14 -17W, S-many Historic District LaPosta Church T33N, RlOW , S12 Wooden Trestle Bridge T34N, R9W, S8 Ute Cemetery T33N, R7W, S8 Ute Memorial Monument T33N, R7W, S8 Thomas Jefferson Arrington House 506 W. Arrington St., Farmington Aztec Presbyterian Church 215 N. Church, Aztec Aztec Ruins National Monument T30N, RllW, S4 & Collections Bloomfield Irrigation Ditch Christmas Tree Ruin 19 Mi. NE of Bloomfield Old Indian Racetrack T30N, R12W, S24 Original Farmington Schoolhouse 208 N . Wall St., Farmington Pictured Cliffs Archaeological Site Between Farmington & Shiprock Salmon Ruin 9 mi. E . of Farmington San Juan River Bridge Ship rock Simon Canyon Ruin 20 mi. NE of Bloomfield Brigham Young, Jr. House Fruitland Morris Site 41 T31N, R13W, SlO County LaPlata LaPlata LaPlata LaPlata LaPlata San Juan, NM San Juan, NM San Juan, NM San Juan, NM San Juan, NM San Juan, NM San Juan , NM San Juan, NM San Juan , NM San Juan, NM San Juan, NM San Juan, NM San Juan, NM e APPENDIX E BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbot, D., Extra-High Voltage Transmission Lines and Health: The Controversy. Ontario Hydro, Toronto, Ontario, 1979 . Algermissen, S. T., Seismic Risk Studies in The United States. NOAA . 1969 American National Standards Institute . National Electrical Safety Code, Standard C2 . 1977 Anderson, w. L., Waterfowl Collisions with Power Lines at a Coal-Fired Power Plant. Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 6, No-.-2-: 1978. Banks, s., Kanniainer, M., and Clark, D. Public Health and Safety Effects of High-Voltage Ov erhead Transmiss ion Lines. Mi nnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota , 1977 . Bellrose, F . c., Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America . Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa ., 197~ Bissell, s . J., Colorado Mammal Distribution -Latilong Study. Colorado Division of Wildlife, 1978. Bonneville Power Administration. Description of Equations and Computer Program for Predicting Audible Noise , Radio Interference, Television Interference, and Ozon e From AC Transmission Lines. Technical Rep ort No. ERJ-77-167:-Vancouver, Washington, 1977 . Bonneville Power Administration . Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review. Portland, Oregon, 1977. Bridges, J . E., Biological Considerations Concerning the Biological Effects of Power Frequency (50 ..2!:. 60 Hz) Electric Fields . IEEE Transmission on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol . PAS -97, No . 1, 1978 . Bureau of Land Management . Fruitland Mesa Project -Final ES . 1977 . Bureau of Land Management. Proposed Domestic Livestock Grazing Program for the ----Uncompahgre Basin Resource Area -Final ES . 1978 . Bureau of Land Management. West-Central Colorado Coal -Final ES. 1978. Bureau of Land Management. Visual Resource Management -Manual 8400. 1978. Bureau of Land Management. Wilderness Inventory Handbook. 1978 . Bureau of Land Management. Proposed Domestic Livestock Grazing Program for the Grand Junction Resource Area -Draft ES. 19 7 9 COLA PE.EA Bureau of Land Management . Visual Resource Inventory -Final ES . 1979 . Bu reau of La nd Managemen t. New Mex i c o Wi ld erness Rev i ew. 1979 . Bu r eau of Land Managemen t. ~ Pro j ect -Fi na l ES. 19 7 9. Bureau of La nd Management. Qu estions and An swers -Wilderness Revie w Program. 1979. Bureau of Land Management. Interim Manage ment Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review. 1979 . Bureau of Land Managemen t . Pro posed Wi l derness St udy Areas. 198 0 . Bu rns & McDonne l l En g. Macro Corridor Study . 19 7 9. Burns & Mc Donn el l En g. Craig Station Uni t .2. Env ironm enta l Analys is . 1979 . Burt, w. H. and Gr ossenheider, R. P. A Field Guide to the Mammals . Houghton -Mifflin Co ., Boston-;-Ma ., 1976 . ---~- Clark, T. w., The Black-Footed Ferret . Oryx XIII, 275 -280 . 1976 . Colorado Division of Wildlife . Wildlife in Colorado . Essential Habitat for Threatened and Endangered 1978 . Colorado Histo r ical Society . File Se arch . 1979 , 1980 . Col orado La nd Use Comm ission. Se d i ment Yie ld (M a p). 1974 . Colorado State Legislature. Colorado Energy Conservation Standards. 1977. Colorado State University Experiment Station. Soils of Colorado, Bulletin 566S. 1977. Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc. Siting Study. 1979. Constantin, James A., Principles of Logistics Management, Appleton-Century-Crofts., New York, 1966. Dalziel, c. F. Electric Shock Hazard. IEEE Spectrum, 1972. Dalziel, c. F., and Lee, w. R. Lethal Electric Cu rrents. I EE E Spectrum, 1969. Edd y, s. Th e Fresh wa t er Fish es. w. M. C. Brown Co., I owa. 1957. El e ctrical Power Re sear ch Institut e. Tr ansmission Line Refe r ence Book 345 kV and Above . 1975 . COLAPE.EA 2 Emrich, S. L., and Painter, E. ! Field Inventory of Cand idate Threatened and Endangered Plants of the Piceance Basin Including Adjacent Areas and ~ Floris t i c Survey a t Cross Moun t ain Canyon . 1978 . Env ironmental Research and Technology, Inc. Biol ogical Const raints Associated With Selecting the Colo rado-Ute Rifl e~ San Juan Transmission Line Corridor. Fort Collins, Co . 1979 . Fenneman, Nevin M., Physiography of Western United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York; 193 1 • Fern, w. S., and Brabets, R. I. Field Investigation of Ozone Adjacent~ High-Voltage Transmission Lines. IEEE Transmission on Power App aratus and Systems, Vol. PAS-74. 1974 . Fletcher, J. L. and Busnel , R. G., Effects of Noise.on Wildlife . Academic Press, New York 1978 . Frydman, L. and Miller, E. Oxidant Measurements in the Vicinity of Energized 765 -kV Lines. IEEE Transmission on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS -74 . 1974 . Hickey, J. J. and Roelle, J. E., Peregrine Falcon Populations, Their Biology and Decline . Conference Summary and Conclusions, Chapter 47. University of Wisconsin Press. 1969 . Hoover, R. L., Till, C. E., and Ogilvie, S. The Antelope of Colorado . Colorado Division of Wildlife Technical Bulletin No . 4 . 1959. Hunt, C. B., Natural Regions of the United States and Canada. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. 1974. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Transmission System Radio Influence. IEEE Transmission on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-84, No. 8. 1965. Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers. Radio Noise Design Guide for High-Voltage Transmission Lines IEEE Transmission on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-90, No. 2. 1971. Joseph, T. W. and Sinning, J. A., An Education of the Status, Life History and Habitat Requirements of Endangered and Th reatened Fishes of the Upp er Colorado River System . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. 1977. Karr, J. R., and Roth , R. R. Vegetation Structure and Avian Diversity in Several New World Areas. American Naturalist, Vol. 105 , 1971 . Kaufman, G. E., and Michaelson, S. M. Critical Review of the Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields. Springfield-.-1974. COLAPE.EA 3 Kingery, H. E., and Graul, w. D. Colorado Bird Distribution -Latilong Study . Co l or ado Di vis i on of Wi ldlife, 1978 . Kirkham, R. M. and Rogers, w. P. Earthquake Potential in Colorado, Open-File Report 78-3, Colorado Geological Survey, Denver, 1978. Kornberg, H. A. Ecological Influence of Electric Fields. Electric Power Institute, Pro j ect 129, Interim Report 2, Publication PB-260-641, 1976. Kornberg, H. A. Concern Overhead. EPRI Journal. 1977. Korobkova, V. P., Morozov, Y. A., Stolyaizov, M. D., and Yakub, A. Influences of the Electric Field in 500-and 750-kV Switchyards on Maintenance "Starr-and Means for Mailltenance Staff and Means for its Protection. CI GR E Paper 23-06,197 2. - - Kowenk ove n , w. B., Lan gwo r thy, O. R., Sing e wald , M. L., and Kn i cke r bocker, G. G. Medic a l Evaluation of Man Work i ng in AC Elect r ic Fields . IEEE Transmission on Power Apparatus and Systems , Vol . PS -80 , No . 4 , 1967 . Lyskov, Y. I ., Emma, Y. s., and Stolyar ov, M. D. Electrical Field As a Parameter Considered In Designing Electric Power TransmisSTon of 750 -1150-kV; The Measuring Methods, The Design Practices , and Di rection of Further Research . Bonneville Power Administration , Portland , Oregon . 1975 . Marino, A. A., Becker, R. O., and Ullrichm , R. Th e Effect of Co n t inu ous Ex posure !2_ Low Frequency El ectric Fie lds 2!!. Th ree Generations of Mice: A Pilot Study. Experimentia, 197 6. Murie, O. J. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA. 1975-; National Academy of Sciences. Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields Associated With Proposed Project seafarer. Washington, D.C. 1977. National Climatic Center. Local Climatological Data, Annual Summaries For 1975, Part..!!· Asheville, NC 1975. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climates of the States. 1974. National Park Service. Colorado and Lower Dolores Rivers -Wild and Scenic ----River Study -Draft ES. 19 77. Na t i ona l Pa r k Serv i c e. Gunni s on Ri v er Wild and Sc e n i c Ri v er Study -Fi nal ES. 1979 . New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resou r ces . Mineral and Water Resources of New Mexico. 1965 . COLAPE.EA 4 New Mexico Department of Game and Fish . Handbook of Species Endangered in New Me xico. 1978. New Mexico State Un iversity Agricultural Experiment Station. Soil Associations and Land Classification for Irrigation San Juan County; Research Report, 25 7 . 1973. Costing, H. J. The Study of Plant Communities. w. H. Freeman and Co. San Francisco and London. 1956. Perry, D. E. An Analysis of Transmission Audible Noise Levels Based Upon Field and Three -Phase Test Line Measurements. IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol. PAS-91, 1972. Public Service Company of New Mexico. Western Area Survey. Albuquerque, NM 1978. Roach, J . F., Dietrich, F . M., Chartie r, V. L., and Nowak, H. s., Ozone Concentration Measurements on the C-Line of the Apple Grove 750 -kV Project and Theoretical Estiiiiate'S of Ozone-concentrations Near 765 -kV Lines of"""N"Ormal Design . IEEE Conference Paper F77 -740-4 . --r97'7. Roach, J. F., Chartier, V. L., and Dietrich, F. M. Experimental Oxidant Rates for EHV Transmission Lines and Theoretical Estimates of Ozone concentrations Near Operatilig-Lines. IEEE Transmission on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol . PAS-74, 1974 . Rocky Mounta in Association of Geologists. Geologic Atlas of the Rocky Mountain Region. A. B. Hirschfeld Press, Denver, 1972. Singewald, M. L., O. R., and Kowenkoven, w. B., Medical Follow-up Study of High Voltage Linemen Working in AC Electric Fields. IEEE Transmission on Power Apparatus and Systems. Vol. PAS-92, No. 4, 1973. Soil Conservation Service. Lower Gunnison River Basin Wetland Inventory and Evaluation. 1979. Sprunt, A. The Bald Eagle. Symposium on Rare and Endangered Wildlife of the Southwestern United States. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Santa Fe. 1972. Stoddart, L. A., and Smith, A. D. Range Management. McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY, 1955. Todd, J. w., and Hansen, R. M. Plant Fragments in the Feces of Bighorns as Indicators of Food Habits. Journal of Wildlife Management, No. 37 , 1973 . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Flood Hazard Information, Colorado River, Palisade, Co., 1976. COLAPE.EA 5 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Flood Hazard Information, Colorado River and Tributaries , Grand Junction, Co ., 1976. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Flood Hazard Information, Animas River and Junction and~ Gulch Cr eeks, Du rango, Co ., 1977 . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Flood Hazard Information, Animas Rive r and Hermosa Creek, Hermosa, Co., 1977 . U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . Flood Hazard Information, Dolores River and Tributaries , Dolores and Montezuma Counties, ~, 197 8. U.S. Department of Agriculture . Transmission System. Env ironmental Criteria for Electric 1970 . U.S. De pa r tment of Agriculture. Perspectives on Prime Lands. 1975. -U.S . Department of Energy. Biological Effects of High -Strength Electric Fields on Small Laboratory Animals. Contract EY -76 -C-06 -1830. 1978 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . Noise Pollution. 1974. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration . Part 77 -Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace. 1971 • e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination That Echinocereus Triglochidiatus Var. is ~ Endangered Species. Federal Register 44:64744-64746. Inermis 1979. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Determination That Pediocactus Knowltonii is an Endangered Species. Federal Register 44:62244-62246. 1979 . ------ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. a Threatened Species. Determination That Sclerocactus Mesae-Verdae is Federal Register 44:62471-62474. 1979. U.S. Forest Service. Mount Emmons Mining Project. 1979. U.S. Forest Service. Roadless Area Review and Evaluation: Colorado Supplement to Draft ES. 1978 . U.S. Forest Service. The Dolores River, Colorado: Wild and Scenic River Study -Final ES, 1976. Udvardy, M. D. F. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds, Western Region. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., N.Y ., 1977. Upper Colorado Region State -Federal Inter-Agency Group . Upper Colorado Region - Comprehensive Framework Study. 1971 . Water and Power Resources Service. Dallas Creek Pro j ect, Co. -Final ES •• 197 6. COLA PE.EA 6 Water and Power Resou r ces Se r vice . Dolores Project , Co . -Final ES . 1977 . Water and Power Reso u rces Service. Dominguez Reservoir Project -Information Sh eet. 1978. Water and Power Resources Service. An imas -La Pla t a Pro j ec t -Draft ES. 1979. Water and Power Reso u rces Service. Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project, Paradox Valley Unit -Final ES. 19 7 9. Water and Power Resources Service . Grand Mesa Project -Information Sheet . 19 7 9. Whitford, G. W. Biotic Environments and Habitat Types, in Western Area Survey, Public Service Company of New Mexico, 19 78. COLA PE.EA 7 COLAPE.EA APPENDIX E SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR FI GURES Figure A. 1 • b • -1 Figure A.3.c .-1 Figure A.4 .a .-2 Figure A. 4 . b . -1 Figure A. 4 . c .-1 Figure A. 4 . f . -1 Colorado-Ute Electric Association , Inc . Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc . Fenneman , N. M. Physiography of Western United States. McGraw -Hill Book Co ., NY, 1931 . Hunt , c. B. Na tural Regions of the United States and Canada . W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco , 19 74 . Rocky Mountain Association of Geologis t s. Geo l ogic At l as of th e Rocky Moun tain Region. A. B. Hirsch field Press, Denver, 197 2. Colora do (R elie f) -Map, U.S . Geological Surv ey . New Me x ico (Relie f ) -Map , U.S . Geological Survey . Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists . Geologic Atlas of the Rocky Mountain Region . A. B. Hirshfeld Press , Denver , 1972 . Col orad o (R e l ie f) -Ma p , U.S. Ge ol ogic al Su rvey. New Mexico (R elief ) -Map, U.S. Geological Survey . Kirkham , R. M. and Rogers , w. P . Earthquake Potential i n Colorado : A Preliminary Evaluation-:-Colorado Geological Su r vey , 19 78. Alg e rm iss e n , s . T. , Sei smi c Ri sk Studies i n the Un i ted States . NOAA , 1969 .------ Compute r Report f r om the National Geophysical and Solar-Te rrestrial Data Cente r (NOAA), Boulde r, Colorado , 1979 . Base Maps, Bureau of Land Management Office , Denver, Colorado, 1979. Bu r eau of La nd Ma nagem ent . Grand Junction Resource Area -Draft ES, 1979 . 8 Figure A.4 .f .-2 Figure A. 4. g. -1 Figure A.4.h.-1 Figure A. 4. i.-1 Figure A. 4. i.-2 Figure A.4.j.-1 COLA PE.EA Bureau of Land Management. Uncompahgre Basin Resource Area Grazing -Draft ES, 1979. Soil Conservation Service. Land Use and Natural Plant Communities. Petrograph ics, Inc. Rocky Mountain Recreational Maps. Colorado Recreation Guides, Inc Colorado Recreation Guide. Colorado State Un iversity Experiment Station. Soils of Colorado, Bulletin 566S, 1977. New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station . Soil Associations and Land Classification for Irrigation, San Juan County, Research Report 25 7 , 1 97 3 . Bureau of Land Management. West-Central Colorado Coal-Final ES, 1979. Soil Conservation Service . Land -Use and Natural Plant Communities Maps, 1979 . Public Service Company of New Mexico. Western Area Survey, 1978 . Ecology Consultants, Inc. Biological Constraints Associated with Selecting the Colorado -Ute Rifle _!£ San Juan Transmission Line Corridor, 1979. Colorado Division of Wildlife. Essential Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in Colorado, 1978. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Handbook of Species Endangered in New Mexico, 1978. Ecology Consultants, Inc. Biological Constraints Associated with Selecting The Colorado-Ute Rifle to San Juan Transmission Line ------Corridor, 197 9. Colorado Lan d Use Comm ission. Existing Land Use, Denv er , 1974 . 9 Figure A.4.j.-2 Figure A.4 .m.-1 Figure A.6.a.-1 Figure A.6.a.-2 CO LAPE.E A Colorado (State )-Map, U.S. Geological Survey. Colorado Historical Society . File Search, 1979 . Bureau of Land Management . Wes t -Central Colorado Coal -Final ES. 1978 . Bureau of Land Management. Wilderness I nventory Handbook . 1978 . Bureau of Land Managem ent. New Me xico Wilde r ness Review. 1979. Bureau of Land Man agement. Proposed Wilderness Study Areas . 1980 . National Park Service. Colorado and Lowe r Dolores Rivers -Wild and Scenic ----River Study -Draft ES . 19 77 . National Park Service. Gunnison River Wild and Scenic River Study -Final ES. 197 9. U.S. Forest Service. The Dolores River, Colorado: Wild and scenic River Study -Fin~s-;-19 7 6. Petrographics, Inc. Rocky Mountain Recreat i onal Maps . U.S. Forest Service. Roadless Area Review and Evaluation: Colorado Supplement to Draft ES. 1978. U.S. Department of Agriculture . Perspectives _2.!! Prime Lands. 1975. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. Part 77 - Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace . 1971. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration. Denver Nav igation Ch art . 1979. Colorado His to rical Society. Fil e Search. 1979 . Colorado State University . Prime Farmland Maps. 197 9. 10 Figure A.6.b.-1 COLAPE.EA New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources . Min eral and Wat er Re so ur c es of New MexiCO:-1965 . Public Service Company of New Mexico. Western Area Survey. 1978. Boreck, D. L. and Mu rray, D. K. Colorado Coa l Reserves Depletion Data and Coal Mine Summ aries, Open File Report 79 -1. Colorad o Geological Survey, 19 7 9 . Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc . Water and Power Reso u rces Service. Dallas Creek Pro j ect , Col orad o-Fi nal ES. 1976 . Water and Powe r Resou r c e s Serv i c e. Dolores Project, Colorado -Final ES . 1977 . Water and Pow e r Resourc e s Se r vic e. Dominguez Reservoir Project -Information Sheet . 1978. Water and Powe r Resources Se r vic e. Animas -La Plata Project -Draft ES . 1979 . Wa t er and Power Resources Service. Colorad o Ri v er Basin Salinity Control Project, Paradox Valley Unit -Final ES . 1979. Water and Power Resources Service . Grand Mesa Project -Information Sheet . 1979 . Bureau of Land Management . Fruitland -Mesa Project -Final ES . 1977 . Bureau of Land Management. West -Central Colorado Coal -Final ES . 1978 . Bureau of Land Management . C02 Project - Final ES. 1 979. U.S. Forest Service. Mount Emm ons Mini n g Pro j ect. 1979 . 11 Table APP.F.-1 AGENCI ES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED Federal: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Darrell Arnold, Rodney Woods Federal Building, Rm. 320 400 Rood A venue Grand Junction , CO 81501 G. W. Probasco 650 Capitol Mall Sacramento, CA 95814 U .S.D .A . -Soil Conservation Service Steve Neville 424 N. Mesa Verde Aztec, NM 87410 Stan Bulsterbaum 2423 Mancos Road Cortez, CO 81321 Eldie Mustard P .O . Box 17107 Denver, CO 80217 David Anderson Department of Agronomy Plant S ci ence Building Colorado State University Fort Colli ns, CO 80523 Miles Weaver U.S .D.A . -Forest Service Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, Gunnison National Fo r ests 1063 Main Delta, CO 81416 Don Foth San Juan National Forest Box 210 Dolores , CO 81323 Dick Hepler San Juan National Forest 701 Camino Del Rio Durango, CO 8130 1 Stanley Woodyard P.O. Box 880 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Chuck Malone, Emery Johnson 4th and Rood Grand Junction, CO Ed Korzdorf er Courthouse Building Santa Fe, NM Dave Davies, Bob Butterey, Chuck Kershaw 11177 W . 8th Avenue Box 25127 Lakewood, CO 80225 James L. Mangan White River National Forest 1400 Access Road Rifle, CO 81650 John Nepp White River National Forest Glenwood Sp r ings, CO 81601 U .S.D.1 -Bureau of Land Management Robert Mood P.O. Box 6770 Albuquerque, NM 87107 Rod Lister , Doug Burger P.O . Box 568 Far mington, NM 87401 Andy Anderson, Harold Belisle, Bill Bottomly, Bill Daniels 1600 Broadway, Rm. 700 Denver, CO 80202 Bob Kline Environmental Coordinator Grand Junction, CO 81501 Henri Bisson, James Dean Highway 550 South Montrose, CO 81401 Billy Brody, Gene Schloemer Federal and Post Office Building P .O . Box 1449 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Table APP.F.-1 AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED (Continued) U .S.D.I. -Bureau of Mines Joseph Smith Chief, Intermountain Field Operations Center Denver, CO U .S .D.I. -Fish and Wildlife Service Jerry Stegman P.O . Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Danny Regan P.O. Box 25486 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Mr. Watham, Olin Bray 134 Union Blvd. Lakewood, CO Robert Shields Rm. 1426, Federal Building 125 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84138 U .S .D .I. -Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Robert Arkins Mid-Continent Region P.O. Box25387 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 U .S.D.I. -National Park Service Eugene Duhamel, Glen Bean, Chuck Adams, Richard Strait P .0 . Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225 U.S.D .I. -Water and Power Resources Service W. Martin Roche, Bryon Kellogg, John Brown Upper Colorado Region P.O . Box 640 Durango, CO 81301 Dale Jackson 1006 Municipal Drive Farmington, NM 87401 Frank Knell, N . W . Plummer, Harold Sersland Uppe r Colorado Reg ional Office P .O . Box 11568 Salt Lake City, UT 84147 U .S.D. T. -Federal Aviation Administration Kenneth Thomasson ARM-4 10455 E. 25th Avenue Aurora, CO 80010 Table APP.F.-1 AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED (Continued ) State -Colorado: Department of Higher Educatio n Karen Patterson, Betty Lefree, Arthur Townsend Colorado Historical Society The Colorado Heritage Center 1300 Broadway Denver, CO 80203 Division of Highways 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver, CO 80222 Department of Highways Harvey Atchison Division of Transportation P lanning 4201 E. Arkansas Ave. Denver, CO 80222 Department of Local Affairs lvo Roospo ld Division of Commerce and Development Fou r Corners Regional Commission 1313 Sherman, Rm . 500 Denver, CO 80203 Louis Camp bell, Bob Martinez Division of P lanning State Cartographer's Office 1313 Sherman, Rm. 520 Denver, CO 80203 Stephen Ellis Chief Planner 1313 Sherman, Rm . 520 Denver, CO 80203 Margie Kaminsky Division of Planning State Clearinghouse 1313 Sherman, Rm . 520 Denver, CO 80203 Ted Rodenbeck, Ch arles Jordan Divisi on of Planning Land Use Commiss ion 1313 Sherman, Rm. 520 Denver, CO 80203 Department of Natural Resources George Price Geological Survey 1313 Sher man, Rm . 715 Denver, CO 80203 William J . Kellep II Board of Land Commissioners 1313 Sherman, Rm . 620 Denver, CO 80203 Karst Pustmueller Natural Areas Program 1313 She rman , Rm. 718 Denver, CO 80203 Laren Morrill Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman, Rm . 823 Denver, CO 80203 Bob Carlson Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation 1313 Sherman, Rm . 618 Denver, CO 80203 Bill Mattern Division of Water Resources 1313 Sherman, Rm . 818 Denver , CO 80203 Gerald Craig Colorado Division of Wildlife 317 W. Prospect St . Ft. Collins, CO 80526 Bob Clark Colorado Division of Wildlife 711 W. Independent Ave. Grand Junction , CO 81501 Al Whitaker, Chuck Grand Pre, Donald Schrupp Colorado Division of Wildlife 6060 Broadway Denver, CO 80216 Table APP.F.-1 AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED (Continu ed ) State -New Mexico: Local: Kate Wickes, Cyn thia Rau Department of Finance & Administration S t ate P lanning Division 50 5 Don Gaspar Avenue Santa Fe, NM 87503 John Hubbard, Harold Olson, Gerald Gates Department of Game and Fish Vill agra Building Santa Fe, NM 87503 Dan Reiley Historic Preservation Program SHPO Office State Library Building Santa Fe, NM Richard Montoya Public Service Commission Bataan Memorial Building Santa Fe, NM 87503 Tom Scanlon State Highway Department 1120 Cerrillos Rd. Santa Fe , NM John Samuelson, Betsy Reid S tate P lanning Division 515 Don Gaspar Ave. Santa Fe, NM 87503 New Mexico State Forestry State Forestry Branch Office 804 Alarid Street Santa Fe, NM David M. Denton Montezuma County Administrative Office Montezuma County Courthouse, Rm . 302 Cortez, CO 81321 Duane Rehborg Rio Blanco County Dept. of Development Box 599 Meeker, CO 81641 Tim Sarmo San Juan County Land Use Administration Courthouse Silverton, CO 81433 Janie Chavez Natural Res ources Department Heritage Division Villagra Bu ilding Santa Fe, NM 87503 Ed Swenson Natural Resources Department So il & Water Conserva tion Div. 517 Gold Avenue Albuquerque, NM Leo Murphy North Centra l New Mexico Economic Development District P.O. Box 4248 Santa Fe, NM 87502 Charles Wood Energy Resources Board 113 Washington Santa Fe, NM Dale Patrick Environmental Improvement Div. Crown Building Sant a Fe, NM Robert White Aviation Division PERA Building Santa Fe, NM Dave Tabet Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources New Mexico Craig Roser LaPlata County Land Use Administration P.O . Box 1711 Durango, CO 81301 James Erickerson San Juan County Planning Office 112 S . Mesa Verde Aztec, NM 87410 Dallas R . Reynolds, Vice President Western Colorado Operations Phillips Brandt Reddick 965¥2 Main A venue Durango, CO 81301 Other: Table APP.F.-1 AGENCIES AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED (Continued) Judy McGowan San Miguel County Planning Dept. 305 W . Colorado A venue Telluride, CO 81435 Joanne Williams, Dora Mae Trampe Gunniso n County P lanning Dept. 200 E. Virginia Gunnison, CO 81230 Joe Dearing Montrose County Planning Dept. Courthouse Annex Montrose, CO 81401 Hope Roberts Garfield County Planning Dept. Glenwood Springs, CO 81101 Jean Cantu, Laurie Chisholm Public Service Company of New Mexico P.O. Box 2267 Albuquerque , NM 87103 Curtis F. Sc haafsma Laboratory of Anthropology Museum of New Mexico P.O. Box 2087 Santa Fe, NM 87503 Judy Pinnecoose, Bill Chatham Ute Mountain Tribe c/o General Delivery Towaoc, CO 81334 Glenn Fuhrman De lta County P lanning Commission Cou rthouse Annex Delta, CO 81416 Charles Rahm Ouray Land Use Administration 541 Fourth Street Ouray, CO 81427 John Ballagh Mesa County Planning Dept. Mesa County Courthouse Grand Junction, CO · Russell Goddard 175 E. Third Street Palisade, CO 81526 Donald Dodge, Charles Morrison Navajo Area Office Window Rock, AZ 86515 Everett J ohnson Empire Electric Ass oci ation 801 N . Broadway Cortez, CO 81321 W. J. Martin, Eli Yakich W. Howard Phillips Public Service Company of Colorado 5909 East 38th A venue Denver, CO 20207 ---------- Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc. ---·---------. -P. 0. Box-1149 ------- Montrose, Colorado 81401 May 11, 197 9 Mr. David Davies Utility Program Manager, Region 2 U.,S. D. A. Forest Service 11177-West 8th Avenue . P . · O. Box 2 512 7 Lakewood, Colorado 80225 Dear Mr. Dav ies: Rifle-San Juan 345 kV Transmission Line P r ojec t Colorado -Ute Electric Association, Inc., plans to con-· struct a 345 kV transmission line bet.ween Rifle, Colorado and the Colorado -New Mexico state border to deliver power and energy ;t9 major electric load areas in southwestern Colorado .· -·:public Service Company of New Mexico plans to e x tend the l i n e f r om the state bo r de r t o i t s San Juan gen erating statio n n ear Farming ton, Ne w Mexico. ~.:\. An information packet describing the purpose and need for the proposed project and illustrating pref erred and alternate corridors is attached. In accordance with Rural Electrification Administra- tion procedures, Colorado-Ute requests input from the U. S. Forest Service in its area of expertise and responsibility as to the suitability of the proposed corridors for a 345 kV transmission line. We are interested in obtaining information aboutthe locations and boundaries .of areas of concern within the affected National Forests that may be adversely affected by the proposed line .. Also attach ed is a list of agencies.we are contacting at thi s time . If you know o f othe r a g e n cies t h at s h o uld be contacted, please advise. '" _ __ Mr . · Davies _____ _ ( e . .. _____________ -:-2-:-_______________________ ~_ay _ J:_}., 1979 We would appreciate receiving your response to this letter by June 11, 1979. If you should have any questions or need further information, please contact me at (303)- 249 -4501. • • JAW/MAR :rbg Attachments • r~•. ~··• • .... · .-;..· .-: .. ~":: Very truly yours, b a woJL Jerry A. Walker Manager, Environmental Planning System Planning Division ...... . _k • ·e United States Department of the Interior HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE SOUTH CENTRAL REGION IN REPLY REFER TO: 5000 MARBLE AVENUE , N .E ., ROOM 211 ALBUQUERQUE , NEW MEXICO 87110 4170 Mr. Je rry A. Wa l ker Ma n a g er, Environmental Planning System Planni n g Division Colo rado -Ute Electric Association , Inc. P . O. Bo x 11 4 9 Montrose , Colo rado 81 40 1 Dear Mr . Walke r: May 2 4 , 1979 This responds to your request for our review of the proposed Rifle- San Juan 345 kV Transmission Line project . We are responding to this request on a technical assistance basis, and are restricting our review to that portion of the project within New Mexico. ~ The National Register of Historic Places lists six sites in San Juan County, New Mexico -three in the Farmington area, two near Fruitland, and one near Aztec. It does not appear that t11e proposed project will affect any of thes.e sites , especially since the proposed line would follow an e x isting t r ans mis sion corri dor . Howeve r, this off i c e does no t have si t e-s peci f ic i nfo r mation on t h es e his t ori c site s . Th e State His to ric Preserv ation Officer (SHPO) re t a ins s pec ifi c informa- tion on b oundaries, location s, etc. The SHPO (Hr. Thomas Merlan, al - ready on mailing list) may also a dvise you ':1 t h e probability of o c cur - rence of cultural resources in t h e study area. We t h eref o re recomm e nd t h at you maintain close coordination with t h e SHPO throughout t h e plan- ning process . Future plans or statements should include the SHPO's c omments . Thank you for the opportunity to provide co mm ents at an early planning stage . Please c ontact us if _you have any questions. cc: Mr . Thomas Merlan ·, ,, " /' -·------ ,J .. e ( ( UNITED STATES DEPA RTMENT OF AGR I CULTURE Mr. Jerry A. Walker FOREST SERV I CE Rocky Mountain. Regio11--- 11177 West E ighth Avenue, !3ox 25i27 Lakewood, Co lorndll 80225 . Manager, Environmental Planning System Planning Division Colorado-Ute [le~tric Association, Inc. P. 0. Box 149 Mon trose, Colorado 81401 Dear Mr. Walker : (- 2720 May 25, 1979 We have received the Rifle -S an J~arL.345 kV transmission line corridor informa- tion on your proposed project sent on May 18, 1979 . We will be unable to co mply with your June 11 date of supplying input , considering the very minimal information presented in your packet and the previous limited knowledge we had of the project . · The proposed transmi~sion line is a large undertaking and could possibly affect five National Forests (Grand Mesa , Uncompahgre , Gunnison , White River and San Juan), as well as Bureau of Land Management administered lat}ps and other public and private lands within the State of Colorado. · · We are concerned that a preferred corridor and an alternate cor~idor, on such a major project, have been selected without any prior involvement of or input from responsible Forest Service personnel. We feel that an environmental assessment must be made for the entire project. We suggest that your company set up a meeting with all federal, state and local agencies, as well as REA in Washington , to determine the scope of the project, develop coordination between the various federal agencies and con - cerned local govern ments. Once this task has been acco mplished, the process of input to the company's environmental assessment could proceed smoother . We feel this would expedite the project, and provide needed coordination between your co mp any and the other involved entities. 620 0-11 (I /69) i . I I r ! I I i . I i f~ United States (K £\l)) Department of r Agriculture So il Conservat i on Service Mr . Jerry ~~a lker Manager, Enviro nm ental Planning Colorado -Ute Electric Associati on P . 0 . Box 11 4 9 Montro se~ CO 81401 Dear Mr . Walker : Box 2007 Albuquerque, NM 87103 May 29, 1979 We have revi ewed the data supplied concerning t he Rifle -San Juan Trans mi ss ion Line Project . A study of t he small scale map provided s how s the proposed corridor in New Mexico would not i mp act on any known prime farmland , i mpo rtant rangeland, or protected forest areas. As pointed out in your information pa c ket, t he New Mexico sect ion of the corridor would follow the State Line -Shiprock transmission line. We can see no potential adverse effect on the aforementioned natural resources. Sincerely, ,// I ·1i/ ,, r· :· .. . l .. i ..... 1 ·-.· / /• C/L, ·-L·' I'[_( {. llt ,_,,. _.-ll--;..J · \._ A. W. Ham elstrom State Conservationist i l SPKED -W REPLY TO ATTENTION OF e DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SACRAMENTO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENG IN EERS 650 CAPI TOL MALL SAC RAM E NTO, CALIFORN I A 95814 Mr. Jerry A. Walker Manager, Environmental Planning System Planning Division Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc. P.O. Box 1149 Montrose, Colorado 81401 Dear Mr . Walker: 4 June 1979 This is in reply to your letter of 11 May 1979 requesting our comments for your consideration in locating a 345 kV transmission line between Rifle, Colorado, and the Colorado-New Mexico State border . Specifically, our conwients are focused on matters related to wetlands, flood plains, and wild and scenic river proposals in the vicinity of the alternative corridors. Wetlands have not been formally identif ied in the areas of your proposed alignment alternatives; however , a definition of wetlands, and regulations relating to wetlands , are described in the 19 July 1977 Fe deral Register, Volume 42, Numb er 138, Part 323.2, paragraph C. Regulations regarding placement of fill in wetlands and waterways are administered by the Department of Army through the Corps of Engineers in accordance with Section 404 of t1 ·~ Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Since the location of the corridors may involve wetlands or waterways, we suggest that you contact our Grand Junction field office for assistance . The contact and address are: Mr . Rodney Wood Corps of Engineers US Courthouse, Room 230 400 Rood Avenue Grand Junction, CO 81501 (303) 243 -1199 Flood plain reports that we have prepared in the area are listed below. Flood Insurance Study Mesa County, CO Unincorporated Ar ea Novemb er 1976 I. ! SPKED -W Mr. Jerry A. Walker Flood Insurance Study Garfield County, CO Unincorporated Area J une 1976 Flood Plain Information Report Colorado River and Rifle, Government, and Hubbard Gulch Creeks Rifle, CO April 1973 Flood Hazard Informat:i.on Report Dolores River and Tributaries Dolores, Mon tezuma County, CO Septemb er 1 978 Flood Plain Information Report Animas River and Tributaries Durango , CO June 1974 Flood Hazard Information Report :san Juan River and Tributaries Farmington , NM J une 1975 4 June 1979 These reports are available from the local county gover nmental off ices or may be obtained through ou r office. Three a dditional studi os .are being conducted in Mesa and Montrose Counties and should be available this summ er . These studies i n clude No rth Fork Gunnis on River, Gunnison River, and Uncompahgre River. Wild and Scenic River proposals of which we are aware include (1) Dolores River, for which a Wild and Scenic River Report (Revised March 1976) was prepared as a cooperative effort by Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the US Departments of Agriculture and Interior, and (2) a proposal involving 26 miles of Gunnh;on River from Smiths Fork confluence upstream to Blacks Canyon, which was studied by the US Department of Interior. We appreciate being informed of your investigation . Please let us know if we may b e of further assistanc e. Sincerely, ~~ ti.~E C . ~\ __ :~ ~Gh'ief, Enginee7ng Di((}sio n 2 TO: FROM: SUBJ ECT: DATE: Depa~ment of Local Affa~ Colorado Division of Planning Phi l ip H. Schmuck, Director M E M 0 R A N D U M Stephen 0 . Ellis, Colorado C~o~se Philip H. Sc hmu ck, Director o~ Rifle-San Juan 345 kV trans mi ssi on line project SR #79-22 June 7, 1979 Richard D. Lamm, Gover nor The Division of Planning has reviewed the above -referenced proposal and offers the following comment s: The Rifle-San Juan transmission li ne will make possible economic and population growth, but apparently it will not be the direct cause of any of that growth. It does not appear that the location of this trans- ·mission line will have any i nfluence on the location or type of development that might occur in the area. We further believe that most of the environme ntal and other impacts are significan t ly mitigated by the fact that the pr eferred route follows existing transmission lines for all' except three s hor t sections. Colorado-Ute Electric Association s hould be aware that it is the policy of the Department of Local Affairs to encourage growth in existing co mmun ities which are best capable to acco modat e t ha t growth. Conversely we are attempting to discourage isolated rural development and new growth in towns that are not well suited to accomodate the growth without sub- stantial state and federal investments and subsidies: Those communities along t he preferred route which have been identified as having strong growth potential include: Rifle, Pa6nia, Hotchkiss, Delta, Montrose, Nucla/Naturita, Cortez and Durango. Growth pressures in many of those co mmun ities are obvious and inevitable. There cou ld be furt her co mmun ities added to suc h a list as more detail~d investigation is conduct ed. r. • "' ,.._, ___ J_ (\(\')(\'} /11'\1\ QQ") ")'~£;1 I ------ STATE ~·· .. ~· ( ·,;·· LEPARTMENT OF JACK K I NSTLINGER a ... --. (-. P-•. GHWAYS D IVI S I ON OF H I GHWAYS E. N. HA .•.\SE C HI EF ENG IN EER COLORADO STATE PATROL COL. C. WAYNE KEITH, CHIEF S TAT E O F COLORADci.- 4201 EAST ARKANSAS AVENUE • DENVER . CO LORADO 80222 • < 303 > 757-901 t r. UU;[l June 7 , 1979 0/y . · 8;· • fJ,_~ :.9>r""I Mr. Phil ip 1:1. Schmu ck Director Colorado Division of Planning 520 State Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Mr. Schmuck: The Colorado Department of Highways has completed its review of the Corridor Information: for the Rifle-San Juan 345 kV Transmission Line and has the following comments. , /." /y -I,(. y .. .';-j/,. -•.1.1.,(,> The Department "!~~'two 6ngoing construction projects in this corridor area (Hotchkiss -Paonia Dam and Carbondale -East) which could be affected by the proposed transmission line. ....," We request that t he plans for.this proposal be coordinated with our District III Utilities Engineer, Mr. Don Goad, 606 South 9th Street, Grand Junction, 81501, 242-2862. Thank you for the opportunity to review this information. Very truly yours, Jack Kinstlinger Executi ve Director /") t . I I ' ,~ :/ •.. -/':' . '"i (d~. /7t-tid> £-.,1_,1'-/ ,. By Harvey R/ Atchison I,'~ o· __f'.;c1 ..._ irector----- (_) Division of Transportation Planning RG ,~ ... In Re ply Re f er To Jerry Walk er United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AREA OFFICE COLORADO -UTAH 1311 FEDERAL BUILDING 125 SOUTH STATE STREET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84138 Ju ne 11, 1979 Ma nager of Env ironmental Planning Col ora do-Ute Electric Association, Inc. P. 0. Box 11 49 Mon trose, Col orado 81401 Dear Mr. Wal ker: We hav e reviewed you r plan s to c on stru ct a 345 -kv tran smi ss ion line f rom Rifle, Colorado to the Colorado -New Mex ico border as reque s ted in your letter dated May 11 , 1979 . The endangered bald eagle i s primarily a winter resident of Colorado . Communal roosting eagles may be observed in deciduous trees along river bottoms and in semi-arid valleys from mid -November to mid -March. The transmission c.orrinor ~·.·~~'.!~ ';!"''.)$~ 1~p'.)!"t~r.t ba1d ::?agle Win°tC:" rV.:1ge V.lvi19 the ~~Or~;, ;-.... , ;.,_ u~ ~;IC Gunnison River from Paonia to Delta and along the Uncomphagre River near Montrose. Additional important winter range near the corridor includes Redvale , Basin , and Disappointment Creek s. The transmi ssi on cor r idor may a lso bi s ect hunting range of a pair of nesti ng ba l d ea gl es near Du ra ng o. The p~regrine falcon also nests in Colorado. Most eyries are loc~ted on large pro mi nent cliffs near streams and rivers . The transmission corridor may bisect peregrine hunti ng habitat near Dove Creek and Delta as well as nesting habitat near Durango. The transmission corridor will pass through historic black -footed ferret range near Hotchkiss . The following is a list of plant species proposed to be listed as endangered which may occur along the transmission corridor : Arabii gunnisonina, Echinocereus triglochidiatus var . inermis, Stellaria irrigua, Astragalus naturite nsis, Sullivanti purpusii, and Penste mbn retrorsus . The Great Basin Silverspot Butterfly proposed as threatened, occurs in Paradox Vall ey near the proposed 345 -kv lin e. The proposed project v;ould no t impact any national wildlife refuge; however , we operate a fish hatchery at Hotchkiss, Colorado. We expected the trans - mission li ne would avoid the hatc hery grounds thus no impacts are anticipated. The map i ndicates t he line will cross several major river and streams. Wet - lands often are associated with such watercourses and provide good wildlife habitat . Although we can not provide specific locations , we advise that t hese areas be avoided. Exec~tive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, is explicit in regard to protection of such areas . We suggest you contact the National Park Service and the U.S . Forest Service regarding wild and sce nic river proposals . We appreciate the opportunity to co mm e nt on t he proposed trans mission corridor . If we can be of furt her assis - tance, please advise us. Sincerely, .rflU#~ ~ h~ea Manaa er ' Area 5 · -I ST A TE OF COLORADO Ri cha rd D. La mm, Gove rnor DEPARTM ENT OF NATURAL RES OUR CES 91VISION OF WILDLIFE Jack R. Grieb , Director 6060 Broadway De n ver, Co lo r ado 802 16 (825-11 92 ) Mr . Tim A . Schaid Environmental Speeialist Burns & M cDonnell P. 0. Box 173 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Dear Mr . Schaid: April 1 8 , 19 80 A s per your request, please allow me to clarify the Colorado Division of Wildlife 1 s pos ition as it relates to Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagle nesting sites. To date it has been the policy of the Division of Wildlife not to release site specific nesting information on Bald Eagl es and Peregrine Falcons unless a documented need can be shown. Should nest site information be released, we requ est that this information not be published. We feel these policies are c o nsis t e nt w ith t h ose of the Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team and t h e U .S. Fish and W ildlife Service. The Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagle both are rare and sensitive wildlife species with unique and critical habitat requirements. The release· of important information relating to these species would greatly increase their v ulnera bility to various forms of human influence . This, we feel, would j eopardize their existence and not be consistent with national policies on protection of these species. If questions should arise regarding this issue or related issues the Colorado Division of Wildlife is available for assistance. We urge you to be sympathetic with our position and assist us in the protection of these important wildlife species. CJG:j s cc: SW Region NW Region USF&W S EPA fi l e ~ ...... /' , .- . /' .,. / ,,..-9 Senior Wildlife Biologist DEPARrMENT OF NATV RAL RESO U RCES , Harris Sherman , Ex ecut iv e Di rector • W ILD LI FE COMM ISS ION, M ich ae l H i gbee , Chairman -• ---v T--' H .. ...,h ... • V i>rnon c_ W illiams. M ember IN REPLY REFEK TO United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT COLORADO STATE OFFICE ROOM 700. COLORADO STATE BANK B UI LD I NG 1600 BROADWAY DENVER. COLORADO 80202 ·Mr. Jerry A. Walker Manager, Environ ment al Planning System Planning Division Colorado-Ute Electric Association; Inc. P.O. Box 149 Montrose, Colorado 81401 Dear Mr. Walker: JUL 1 3 1979 Your May 11 letter asked for information relating to preferred and alternate corridors for a proposed 345 kV power transmission line from Rifle, Colorado to the Colorado-New Mexico border. C0-931 2850 Neither corridor passes through public land areas that have been found to have characteristics that might require study for possible inclusion into the Wilderness System. As long as the corridors cross the Gunnison River north of the existing power line across the river, there would be no conflict with Wild and Scenic River designation in that area. Your preferred corridor may involve the Dolores River; we cannot determine the extent, if any, from the information pre~ented. The corridor would cause problems with unsuitability criteria for coal areas in the vicinity of Paonia. As to other more site-specific problems, we have not identified any at this time but you should expect to provide more detail about each corridor, probably by showing accurately the existing transmission lines the the preferred and alternate routes parallel. This can be done on our ~11 = 1 mile surface-minerals management landowner map series, avail - able in our Montrose office . I will expect your environmental assessment to realistically detail the impacts of the project, not only those such as visual, caused just by the presence of the towers and line, and construction, operation and maintenance, but also the offsite impacts of power transmission and distribution facilities that will derive from the project. Beyond that, I will also expect analysis of impacts that the availability of additional electrical energy will have, such as making additional mining, additional business development, residences, carbon dioxide production, etc. possible. I will also expect analysis of the source Save Energy and You Serve America! ,- I \ of fuels or power that will be used to energize the increased trans - mission capacity . ----I feel that past analy s is of these impact s has iri -------------- many projects fallen below the requirements of current regulation for implementing the procedural provi s ion s of the National Environmental Pol icy Act. I urg e you t o i nc lud e i n you r plann i ng adequat e provi s ion s to meet t hese e nv ironm e ntal assessment r equi reme nt s. Nearly all of this project is in our Montrose District and can t here- fore be handled locally so I would appreciate your maintaining a very close liaison with the District personnel. your s, --~-~v~~ Dale R. P\nd us -State Director I I • FEDERAL E N ERGY REG U LATORY COMM I SSI ON W AS HINGTON, D.C. 2 0 426 Mr. J. A. Walker Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc. P. O. Box 1149 Montrose, Colorado 81401 Dear Mr. Walker: July 25, 1979 I am replying to your request of May 11, 1979 to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for comments on the Draft Environmental Impact S'i::.atement for the Rifle-San Juan Trans- mission Line Project. This Draft EIS has been reviewed by appropriate FERC staff components upon whose evaluation this response is based. 7he staff concentrates its review of other agencies' environmental impact statements basically on those areas of the electric power, natural gas, and oil pipeline industries for which the Commission has jurisdiction by law, or where staff has special expertise in evaluating environmental impacts involved with the proposed action. It does not appear that there would be any significant impacts in these areas of con- cern nor serious conflicts with this agency's responsibilities should this action be undertaken. Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement. Sincerely, , . .. ·"' ~ _. / .... ·~ ·--~-·-- Jack M. Heinemann .Advisor on Environmental Quality e I · .... -. - '· Cc ·r1 -~ i Te.n y LJ«-1 \4,~ j 1~X\ United Sta,tes (~k~)); Department of ~ Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Box 2001 \) c ,, c; '-J F_ D A 1 buquerque ·,' 'hr'1' · -· · (~ lor«.J , -L i~ I 87103 ,,,~r; \!''"' 2 1 ~-~'' 9: 36 \~f J ~~.v.J Mr. Willi am E. Davis , Acti ng Director Western Area USDA Rural Electrification Administration Washington, DC 20250 Dear Mr. Davis : This ofice recei ved a co py of "Macro Corridor Study" for a proposed Rifle-San Juan 345 KV transmission line. Our review pertains only to that portion of t he proposed transmission 1 ine whi.ch \'-/ou1d be located in New Mexi co. The study indicates that this portion of the proposed line would follow a corridor already occupied by the State Line -S hiprock 115 KV line . As s uch , the on -s ite and off-site resource impacts would be minim al. Secti on C.3, Erosion Control, pre se nts information which indicates that adeq uate construction restrictions and reclamation procedures will be used to limit the extent and duration of erosio n. There is no prime farmland wi t hin the proposed corridor. There are no SCS projects which would be affected. When completed, we would appreciate receiving a copy of the Biological Studies part of the Environmental An alysis. Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this corridor study. Sincerely, ~tlVf&J·,~ A. ~J. rame 1 s tram · State Conservationist i ! I I I I I I I i ' i . --·---- NEW MEXICO Juhli.c ~cruic.c C!Io1n1nissiott ~antn Jr c, ~du J11cxi.co RICHARD P MONTOY A CHAIRMAN EILEEN GREVEY COMM ISSIONER PHIL R. LUCERO COMM ISSIONER Ms. Kate Wickes 87503 August 21, 1979 Department of Finance and Administration State Planning Division 505 Don Gaspar Avenue Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503 Dear Ms . Wickes: Referring to your August 15, 1979 Memorandum on the Macro Corridor Study for the Rifle-San Juan 345 Kv trans- mission line, this Commission 's functions include a broad range of statutory responsibilities. In the Public Utility Act 68 -7 -1.2, the Legislature provides for the supervision and control by this Commission of the location within this state of new plants, facilities and transmission lines for the generation and transmission of electricity for sale to the public . The judgment of this Commission shall be conclusive in all questions of siting, land-use, aesthetics and any other state or local require- ments affecting the siting. To construct a 345 Kv transmission line, application for approval shall be submitted to this Commission and dis- position made in connection with the application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity in accordance with the provisions of the Public Utility Act. This Commis- sion shall, after a public hearing and upon notice as this Commission may prescribe, act upon the application. RP M/ j b BRUC=: KlilC GOVERNJ;:l -----~H~l\j) / CI T Y AlllC COUNTY PL A NNING S OEVE L OP"1 H<T FRO CESSING -CiTY A NO CO:J NTY ~@lhJ.)({1)~~ fQ)@w@ll © ~ rnm @rftl ~ ©@(p>@a ~ffi @ rm ~ August 23 , 1979 Mr . Will i ar.i E. Da v is, Acting Director We ste r n Area - E l ectric US DA -REA , Ro om 126 8 -S Wash i n gton, D.C. 2 0 250 Re: Macro Corridor Study Rifle-San Juan 345 kv Transmission Line Dear Mr. Oavis, Thank you for the opportunity to review the corridor study. ,, Me s a County regu.lation s do identify essen tial public u til i ty and public s e r vic e installations as a llowed u s e s i n the Agri- cultural, Forestry Transitional Zone . ~he entir e route through Mesa County is in the AFT Zqning District . There are some points wh ich we ask be addressed in the EIS, wh en prepared . Particularly, t h ere is a cumulative effect caused by increased rail traffic to the North Fork Valley in Delta and Gunnison counties . That rail line only has one tie to the "outside world" and that tie happens to be in Gr and Junction . We , locally , are c i r ectly affected by e very incre a se i n c o a l tra i n traf f ic a n d industrial ra i l frei gh t g oin g to a n d c orn ing from the Delta-Montrose area. Attention to the c um ulative impact of increased rail traffic is requested. The Mesa County Health Department should be contacted concerning requirerne:1ts for sanitary facilities at any campsites ·which a!"e to be located in Mesa County. The burning of slash and solid waste disposal are also under the jurisdiction of the Mesa County Health Department. Finally, I add·a personal concern over the visual impact of a cleared right-of-way through heavily forested country. A beautifully ~aintained power line right-of-way is generally not too natural looking. If t h ere is any way t h is office may be of assistance, please contact us. Review of a d raft on final EIS wi l l be done in a time l y ma r..ner. •n;.,... r1 l..J .u •"'- e e United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF MINES c~PI -b..- sv1LDI!\G 20, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER "Te,·.· I vJ.,..\ \4,, DENVER, COLORADO 80225 Co \..:>,-,,)0 -:)Jc Intermount ain Field Op eration s Center Mr. William E. Davis, Acting Director Western Area -Electric USDA -REA, Room 1268-S Washington, D.C. 20250 Dear Mr . Davis: August 24, 1979 A copy of the Macro Corridor Study, Rifle-San Juan 345 kV Transmission Line, Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc., Colorado and New Mexico (ER-79/715), has been reviewed by Bureau of Mines personnel. From t he information given in t h is corridor study, no mi ning operations or sig- nificant mineral resources should be adversely affected. The private mineral sector of the economy probably would benefit from the increase in available power . \·Sincerely yours, ,J~~mith, ·· fnteri17~)Untain Field Operations Center ,. cc: Director, Office of Environmental Project Review, Washington, D.C. Regional Environmental !Officer, Missouri Basin Region, Denver, Colo. . · ':" ·-. -~-.. i I I . j ) I I I I ! I I j I . . : ' . S AT E Of-COLO RA DO Richard D. Lamm, Governor DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES i~.1;,i:~~e ~rF VJILDLIFE 6060 Broadwa y De nve r , Co lo ra d o 80 2 16 ( 825-11 92 ) TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 5, 1979 Margie Kaminsky Colorado Clearinghouse ,,. / Chuck Grand Pre /fi . .(;c~··l. Senior Wildlife Biologist Rifle-San Juan Transmission Line, Pre-Eis Scoping, EIS # 79-138. We at the Division of Wildlife view the Rifle-San Juan 345 KV trans- mission line proposal as an important issue. Co lo rado-Ute has indicated that deve l opment of this line is necessary base d on certain growth projections for the western slope of Colorado. We feel these growth projections need to be explored in detail. It must be determine d i f these growth projections are valid and whether or not "necessity" for development of this line truly exists. In the ev-e~t that approval for the line is granted and construction initiated, it is probable t h at the secondary effects of construction will have a far greater i _mpact upon wildlife than the line itself. If the line facilitates mining and urban development as predicted, the effects upon wildlife could be catastrophic. We, therefore, insist that all known secondary effects of the development of this line be investigated in full. We believe it important that all projected .impacts upon our wildlife resources resulting from the construction of this line be evaluated and that information be made available for public consumption. The new CEQ guidelines specifically state that several alternatives within a proposal ne e d to be evaluated in full prior to the selection of a final route. In addition, alternative methods of construction, materials etc. should be addressed. DEPARTMENT OF NATU.RAL RESOURCES, Harris Sherman, Executive Dir e ctor • WILDLIFE COMMISS ION, Mi c ha e l Higb ee, Chairman Wilbur Redden, Vice Ch.airman • Sam Caudi ll, Secretary • Jean K. Tool, Member • Vernon C . Williams, Member • -----,.. --~ .. L •• --L --... "--... 1.J c ___ ,.,. .... ,,, .... ~ AA ,,bo."""""''""°'"' • o;,..h~rrl niv ~lhf "( MP.mhPr Margie Kaminsky September 5, 1979 Page 2 The Macro-corridor Study .is a studyJlin brief''. It does not outline, in detail, preferred and alternative corridors, reclamation plans, constr_uction methods, materials and activities, time tables,, manage- ment objectives and maintenance activities. Therefore, the Division of Wildlife cannot respond specifica.lly as to the direct and indirect impacts of this line upon our state's wildlife resources . • As Colorado -Ute progresses in its exploration of this project we highly recommend that they actively solicit Division of Wildlife involvement - particularly during the period of environmental analysis. It is imperative that ilT'.portant wildlife resources be identified and evaluated. CGP:jb cc: Dr. Je rry Walker , Colorado -Ute NW Region SW Region file • ,' . e e United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAG >::M E NT C OLORADO S T A TE OFFI CE C0 -9 20 . 1193 . ROOM 700 . COL ORADO S T ATE SA.';K 8 U l l.C)i NG 16 00 BRO AD W A Y D E NVE R. CO L O R ADO 8 0 20 2 j --:.' ,· -1 (.,J...j \/,/' Mr. William E. Davis, Acting Director, Western Area-Electric U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Electrification Administration, Washington, D.C. 20250 Dear Mr. Davis: SE? u Room 1268-5 The Bureau of Land Managernent--Colorado--has reviewed the Corridor Study, Rifle tJ San Juan, 345 kV line, Colorado-Ute Electric Ass ociation, Colorado and New Mexico, and offer t he following c omme nt s. Ge ne r al Comm e nts: J Th e Ma c ro Cor r ido r Study do es not ref l ec t th e analy sis of al ternat iv e r oute s t hat will be requ ired fo r a n EIS. Th e do c um e ntat i on f or a n e nvironm e nt a l anal ysis s hou l d in c lude an anal y s i s of t he t ra de offs be twe e n res ou rce va lu es t hat mak es on e r ou te mor e des i ra bl e t han t he ot hers. This inc l udes a need for an analysis of t he vis ual, . biological, socio-econo mic, cultural, recreational, and other resource values. Until alternative routes are analyzed, designation of a proposed route is premature. As the new CEQ regulations require, the analysis of all feasibility and e~vironmental studies leads to identifying the preferred alternative. It is likely tha~ you will want to analyze the route proposed by Co 1 or ado Ute as one of the a 1 ternat i ves \'th i ch wi 11 be included in the environmental assess~ent process . The regional ·;mpacts of this proposal, along with the other major projects which are.proposed or under development on the western slope of Colorado, are interrelated and influence the cumulative impacts on socio-econo mic and other resource values. These aspects should be addressed as part of the en vi ronrnenta 1 study. The !•iount Er:-m1ons Project, MAPCO, She 11 COz, Do 1 ores Project, and other projects will affect, and be affected, by this power corridor. Save E nergy ar.d Y ou S er ve A me;icri! .e 2 The overall demand require~ents and relationships with propo~ed generating facilities should be addressed. Is electricity to be exported from Colorado? What are the fuel sources for new generating facilities? The cultural clearance requirements, including a literature search for existing sites affected by each route and on-site clearance of the . eventually-designated route, will need to be addressed. Si milar analyses for visual aspects of the project, flo-odp1ain intrusions, and river crossings must be analyzed carefully. Specific Co mments : Page A-1, paragraph 2 A construttion schedule of more detail than simply stating the "line is scheduled to be in service by 1983 11 would be helpful. Page A-3 A s our ce for the prediction of an overall increase in peak power requirements from the present 170 megawatt s to 503 megawatts in so uthwest Colorado is ne cessary for the tab l e. Page A-3, Statement 2 Where would the fut ure generating stations be located? What would be their size? What would be the fuel source and location? Page A-3, Statement 3 How far would the "regional interconnected transmission system" extend after construction of the 345 kV line and future generating stations? Would power be exported to other states--how far? Page A-4 In the predicted load for the Delta-Montrose Electric Association, it is stated that "major loads are developing in the North Fork Valley near Hotchkiss and Paonia .11 It also states that the North Fork Valley loads are primarily "coal -mining loads .11 In a scoping packet released recently by the Gunnison National Forest for the AMAX Mt . Em mon s Mining Project , that sing le project is predicted to have a total power requirenent of 72 rnagawatts. In an engineering report supplied by the AMAX, Inc. subcontractor, the electric pm12r is indicated to co me from a tie -in at the Paonia substation of the Colorado -Ute 345 kV transmission line from Rif l e to San Juan ge nerating station. The 72-megawatt load of that project alone represents over 42 per ce nt of the peak demand, at present , in southwestern Colorado. Where will 'i I i I I I I ! I • I I I 1 · I I I : I i I . ! . ' I 1. I • I .. 1 ·9 3 that pmver cor.1 e froin? Has that proj ect, and oth e rs identifi ed for th e Gu~ni s on Area, bee n f igur ed int o t he peak-loa d in crease pred i ct ion s? Page .1\-5 The She ll -Mobil C02 Project, Dolores Proj~ct, MJ,PCO Pipe1i ne, and 345 kV Po werl i ne Pr0jec~ al l coinc i d2 in predicted ti~e of constr uction . Socio-econom i c i mpacts of these fo ur projects must be e va lu ated i n a n Environmental Impact Statement. Is a new coa l -fired electric power generating plant pl anned fof the Cortez area? What will be its size? Page A-10 If new generating plants are constructed along the ro .ute of the 345 kV po werl i ne, wi 11 pm·1er be ex po rted as a conseq ue nce of these "co ntract ua l arrange me nts?" Pag e B-2 What will be t he size, ma t e rial compo s i t ion , and met hod of con s truction of the metal tower s ? Will the towers be built on -s it e, or will they be pre -c onstruct ed and carried in by helicopters? Table D-1 In t he res pon ses of fe deral a nd state agency s umm aries, the BL M is ide ntified as having no res pon se. In fact, I se nt a l etter to . Mr. Jerry Wa l ker of Colorad o-Ute, dated July 13, 1979. In the letter, BLM concerns and expectations of the environmental assess ment were outli ned. Of special concern was the enabling actions of the increased access to power made possible by the construction of the 345 kV pow e r 1 i n e • Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please co ntact Haruko Ishiyama at FTS 327-3515. Sincerely yours, Lr Dale R. Andr us State Director Ms . Ka te Wi ckes Planning Bureau Finance a nd Administration 505 Do n Gaspa r Avenue Santa Fe, Ne w i·i exico 87503 De a r l<.at e: -- Se p temb er 7, 1979 I hav e r ev i ewed t he Ma c ro Corridor Stu dy , Rifle-Sa n Ju an 345 kV Tra n s mission line and I h6v e the fol l ow ing co mm ents: There is no explanation in the st udy to ju s tify why the transmission I lne s h ou ld co me into New Mex i co. The pow er wil 1 be deve l oped in Co l orado a nd used in Co l ora::'o. Bring:::g t he line into ~Je~v Mexico seems to unneces sar ily increase the length of t ne 1 ine and resulting power losses in the transmission. In Ne•tt Mexico the p ropo..;ed 1 i ne ~vr 11 tra ve :· ~e deer range 1i-1h l c h w i l l be the greatest impact upon wild] ife. Norma ll y, transmission 1 l n es hav e s hort -term adverse effects upon v·f :;11 ifc, i:.,;_:t the lon~rtenn effects after revegetation a re not de t :· i r~en la l L ., i·-ii : d 1 i f e . Sinc~rcly, Haro ] d F. 0 1 son Dir ectur Cjited States ~J,l'~~artn;~~.~ ~1~·.1.e Interior · FISH ANIJ \v ILDLd· F .. '."'>f,R. v ,E AREA Ol'F!C'lc CCJLOit.\UU-L"TAH 1:111 FLDER,\L Bl'ILl.il NC · I ~.'i SUl.'.TH STATE STHEET SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84138 iN RF.PLY REFER 70: (ES) October 3, 1979 Mr . William E. Javis, Acting Director Western Area -Electric USDA -REA, Room 1268-S Washington , O.C . 20250 RE : Corridor St udy , Rifl e to San Juan 345 KV Line, Colorado- Ute Electric Association, Colorado and New Mexico (ER 79/715) Dear Mr. Davis: We have reviewed the subject statement as requested by Mr. Blanchard in his memo randum dated August 2, 1979 . Though we are unable to provide co mments on site specific issues for this macro -c orridor study at this time, we do believe comments pertaining to ger.eral fish and wildlife concerns are in ord er. Therefore, our comments address project issues in a general manner and when t he draft or negative declaration is sub- mitted for review, we will provide co mm ents on site specific issues if need arises. GENERAL COMMENTS Overall, we believe primary impacts on fish and wildlife will be mini~al as a result of this 275 mile transmission line project. However , seco ndary impacts such as the influx of people into the area as a result of supply- ing additional energy for ind ustrial and recreational development could have a se vere impact on fish and wildlife resources. This issue needs to be addressed. Elk calving and deer winter range should be identified and avoided if all · possible. If an el k calving area cannot be avoided, construction activities should be terminated during the calving season in that vic"inity. Though impacts resulting fro m construction activity on deer winter range may not be as significant, unless these animals are experiencing a severe winter, human activities that cause harassment should not be allowed. The Colorado Division of Wildlife, U.S. Forest Service a nd Bureau of Land Management may be able to assist in identifying these areas once the iinal alignment is se~ected. Over half of Colorado's wildlife s pec ie s ca n be found in riparian zo ne habita t, yet this habitat type represents less than one-half of one percent of the total land area in Colorado . If these areas mu st be crossed, support struct ure s for the transmission line should be built on the outside edgt cf these zones. If this is not possible, the use of Page 2 e helicopters to transport men and equipment should be considered. The construction of haul ro ads in these areas should be avoided whenever possible. This sa rile philosophy also applies to we t land s, stream cross-9 in gs and steep te rrain . Transmission 'ir ;;;s and s up port structures, while an attraction to many bird s pecies , can a lso be a hazard. Line s pac ing shou l d be such that perching and flying birds are not subjected to the hazard of electro- cution or collision. This is especially significant around wetlands and riveri ne habi:at where waterfowl have a tende ncy to co ngrega te during migration and large raptors, s uch as eagles, may overwinter. In most cases these areas can be identified by one of the various state or federal agencies. It is noted that new access or construction roads will be kept to a minimum and where pennissible, will be left to serve as pennanent roads for public use. We have no objection to this philosophy, however, care should be taken to provide for the passage of stream flews. Also, culvert place~ent needs to be such that they will not block fish passage ~ This is especially important during the spring and/or fall spawning seaso ns . At the request of REA we prepared a list of enda ng ered species that may utilize the propos ed corridcrs. An assessment of impacts on t hese species should be i nclu ded in the EIS. Last, we wish t o ooint out the ne ed for aircraft safety. The Colorado Division of \4i1dl ife and va rious Federal agencies do mak e game sur veys e in the area. We belie ve that it would be ~ppropriate to mark or provide some type of visual identification on stretches of lines that cross these survey routes. Route locations cculd be provided by the vJr~cus agencies involved in such survey work. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the subject document. Sincerely yours, Acting Area Manager .. ~ • e· ill~!\.ITA <;i·: C U '.\~l·:!{\':\TiON .\:\!! l~E\..:l{l·:ATIO>i .:-iEltVICE ~fID ·CON"f'I'.\' F.Yf EEC ION 1~: l(rTI .\' i (r:J-TH Tr1: 1202 -02a DSNVER. CC!LOH.ADO c 0'22:'i . i'o . ..:t ( lf~.·i· Bn x ;:1 ),..,7 ! 1L'il V t•r F1· lnni i ·,,ntl·r j ),•:n·r-r . c .. lc;:-.• d., ,'-1 11'~:_!.\ Mr.. William E. Davis, Ac tin g Di re ct or Western ArRa Electric USDA -REA, Koom 12 6 8 S Was h i n gton, D.C. 2 0 25 0 Dear Mr. Davis: This is in response t o yo u r J u ly 27, 1979, me morandum f o r t h e Colorado- Ute Rifle to Sa n Juan 345 kV Tran smission L ine. The Her itage Conserva t ion a nd Recreation Service (HCRS ) was not able to ~end a representative to th e s copin g meetin g f o r th is proje c t. However, t h e following cumr.1e nt s a r e submi tte d f or y ou r con sid er a tion i n d efinin g t h e scop e of t h e e n vir- on me n ta l and ad d i t i on a l s tu d ie s wh ich n eed to b e co r.i p let2d, a nd in determining th e n ee d for HCRS part i cip atio n in t h e s e stuJies . A r0view of t h e )!a e ro Corridor Study provided to us ear l ier t'!'iis y ear indi cates th at n e i t l1E:r t he p re f erre d n o r Lh e a lternate cor:cido r. wo u lC. affect an;· areas w-her2 fiC ?-5 h a s jurisdictio n ~~· l aw . I herefore, tl-cer e should be no need for HCRS to be a c ooperating agency for this project. HCRS has e;..-p e rti s e in a r.·ride range of natura l and ct.:ltural resource a r eas . Some cf tl:e mere spe c.i fie such areas and p r o g rams include outdoor r2 cre- ation, histori c a n d a~ch e olog i cal r esou r ces , th e Ka ti on a l Histor ic La n d ma rks Pr0gram, t h e Nati ona l Natura l i..andndrks P-:ogra<.·1, t he. Nati o nal Wild and S c enic ;uve r s System, a n d t h e :ifa tion a l Trai l s Syste m. We rec.ommend early and continued coordination with state and local par:c officia l s. This will a l low y ou to ident ify existing recreation Jrea3 in t h e ear l iest stages of project p lan ning, ,,,hich in turn will permit modi- fica~ion o~ the proposed project to minimize adverse effects and/or incorporate features t:o •=nh.:mce rec.rcation oppol·tanit:L,::;s. Several actions are r-ecommended to avoid ir..pacts to historic and archeolcgical resources. :he first step is consultation with the ~ational Register of Historic Places, an<l all ~a~thly supple~ents, LO d etermine if any .:.Jatic;-,al R;:.gister prnperties are loc<J.ted within any areas wh ich may t2 affected. In n~~ition, yoLl sho~lJ contact the Stace Historic Preserva::ion Officer (SHPO) and obtain an opinion on th.:: aGe- quacy o f p resent ~n owledge of c u l t ural reso u rc~s in t h e areas to be affected, as we ll as the type and l ev~l of cul l:ura l res o urce s u rvey that may be needed. If the SHP O indicates tlut a s u rvey is neL:ded, it s hou l d b e un d erta;-:e n as soon as p ossib l e, a nd f u l l discussion o f the E.;_,,d·ings :4911 .i h -.> inc lud c<l ill. t:1c draft ei ro 11r.-!ent.al s tate:nent, in <.1ccord;ir.cc witl , >· Ci7 1\ ~:.;uo.4. T 1:c :,t :itL:mC'nt sl.ould .:i.lsu include clcter- minaiinns of c :i .z .. ,:!J ilit y [or the :\at.i.·.rn.J.l Ec<:;istl:r of Historic PL1ccs purs:..i;u1t to J(i CFrz 63 . Th .2 Si iPO fo r Colorado is ~~r. Arthur Tmmse:nd, Colo r,1do Hcri t.:ige Ce nter, 1300 Broadway, De nver, Colorado 80203. e The review of : he ~lacro Corridor Study indicates that arer.i.s design.J.ted as N.:i.t i onal N.::i c ui:: j_ or Hi sto ric La n dmarks wo ll ld net be affected by either the preL·errcd or the alternate corridors. However, we not e that the pt·e ferre d corridor c rosses both the Dolore s and the Gunnison Rive rs . These riv~rs have been proposed for ~ddition to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Th erefore, we suggest that y ou give careful con - sider;i ti.on to the 0lte m a te corridor, 'd hi ch avoids the study sections of ::hes'" rivers. In addition, we recommend consultation with the National Park Service, which is responsible for t h e studies of these rivers . HCRS stands ready to provide such technical assistance as our manpower and finan cial reso u rces will allow. However, witl..,, t h e consultations and e n vironmental assessment by Federal and state agencies as described a bove, we would see little reason for involving our general expertise on a routine b asis in your planning and assessment process. Thi s s~ould not preclude y ou r seeking ou r technical assistance for ariy s pecial sit u - ation or project where yo u be lieve we could be of help, or f o r identifica- tion of special area~: where HCRS has program involvement. Therefore, if we can be of further assistance in reviewing subsequent aspects of the proposed p r oject , please do not hesitate to call upon this office . cc : :'.-lr . Arthur Townsend Sincerely, Robert J. Arkins Assistant Regional Di rector Land Use Coordination UN I TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF A GR I CUL. TURe: FOREST SERV I CE Rvcky i';iounta in ;izgiu11 11177 '/J~st ~ightn Av.;nua, J :)X 25i27 Lai;cwood , C.Jlorudu 30225 2720 September 21, 1979 William E. Davi s, Acti ng Dire ct or Western Area - El ectric USDA -REA , Room.1268-S Washington, D. C. 20250 Ccpj +or-&w,.,J c4--Mc Do,..o.iJ I D a. .... )-<-Ga. . ...c. -J Dear t1lr. Davi s: This is a followup of the Interagency Scoping meeting held at t he Bureau of Land ~anagement, Colorado State Office, on August 29, 1979, for the Rifle - San Juan proposed 345 kV transmission line by Colorado -Ute Electrical Association . We are pleased the REA is going to take an active part in this project, and A.1t1e affirm that REA will be the. Lead Agency as discussed at the Scoping me et ing . •The Forest Service, USDA, Rocky Mountain Region and USDI, Bureau of Land Management, Coloradb , will be Cooperating Agencies as set forth in t he CEQ Final Regulation s, Section 15 01.6 , and as REA reque sted at the Scoping meeting . At the Scopi ng meeting a number of issues, concerns and considerations were brought forth by various age nc i es. Thi s letter i s to iden t ify s ome issues and c on cer ns and to bring forth ot her factors that you as a Lea d Age ncy s hould consider in the preparation of the Environmental Assessment and the Environ- mental Imp act Statement. So me Major Issues to be Identified 1. One of the major issues we are concerned with is the lack of determining the range of actions, alternatives and impacts that need to be considered . The Final NEPA Regulations, Section 1508.25, which took effect July 30, 1979, state 11 to determine the scope of env i ronmenta 1 impact statements, · agencies s hall consider 3 types of acti on s, 3 types of alternatives, and 3 types of impacts ..•. 11 \1ie feel t hat the actions have not been identified (cumulative, similar and connected), and the alternatives have been treated very lightly. According to Sectio n 1502.14, it states 11 ••• , it s hould present the environ mental impa cts of the proposal and t he alternatives in co mp arative form (underlining added), th us s harply defining t he issues a nd providing a clear basi s f or choice among option s by the decisiorimaker and the public.11 In addition, it states 5200-11 (! /6 9 ) -·. .~ ... ~ .......... ,. - - 2 2. 1'(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alter - natives, and for alternatives which were e liminated f rom detailed study , br i efly di sc uss t he reas on s fo r t heir ha vin g bee n e l i min ated .11 He fee l in the 11 t·1a c ro Corridor Study 11 thi s was no t don e, or even attemp ted . Th ere wa s di sc uss ion by Colo r ado-Ute El ectr i ca l Assoc ia t i on on t he nee d fo r an add itio na l circ ui t in t he near f ut ure. It was di sc ussed t hat a doubl e c i rc u it mi ght be c0 ns id ered f or t hi s pr opo se d pro j ect. We t hi nk t hat not onl y a doubl e circu i t system be stud ied, but also a tr.ipl e c i r - cui t system be t horo ughly ana l yzed for t his pr oject to possib l y red uce t he pro l iferatio n of lines. The abo ve proposed iss ue, to be fully con - sidered, would requ ire t he coo rdi nation and cooperat i on of t he vari ou s ut il ities i n t he area . Consi derati on s houl d be made f or po ssib l e present a nd f ut ur e cro ss ties with t he ot her pow er c omp a ni es, suc h as th e Western· Ar ea Pow e r Adm i nistrat ion --DO E, Publ ic Se rv ice Comp a ny of Colo ra do , Tri- s tate Gener a tion and Tr a nsmiss ion El ec tr ica l Ass oc i ati on , a nd oth er electrical compani es in Colo r ado , l•Jyoming , and New Me xi co . We feel this issue must be resolved before Colorado -Ute 1 s consultant (Burns and McDonnell) get s locked in t o one area of s tudy. 3. Colorado -Ute presented some reasons for the need of the line . However, nb specific need has been identified as far as we can determine . This issue should be explored further and would be connected to the above issue. The only identification of a specific need was the possible co 2 project in southwe st Colorado . No mention was made of the po s sible need for pm·1er fo r the Mt . Emmon s projec t near Cr es t ed Butt e, whi c h c ould be 90 MH . Th e 11 Ma cro Corr i dor Study 11 mention s s om e broad nee ds of t he lin e, s uc h as 11 to de liv er pow er fr om futur e ge ner a t ing s tation s . in sout hi,.1est Colorado, 11 11\·Jil 1 transmit power and energy to serve ... , 11 11 \vi 11 in terco nnect wit h t he regi ona 1 i nterc on nected tran smi ssio n sy stem •••• 11 This is not very site specific a nd it is difficult to deter - mine t he act ual need of t he proposed line . The 11 Macro Corridor St udy 11 only disc usses the short -term (1 -2 years ) needs and not any lo ng-term needs. Your environmental assessment shoald project at least 10 year s for t he long -term effect of the proposal and any future proposals, such as double or triple circuiting . 4. The Forest Service received from Burn s and McDonnell a req uest for information on studies they are doing for a proposed 1500 MW power pl ant. We ass ume this is in addition to t he Craig Unit and t hat the pr opo se d 15 00 MW pl a nt co uld possib l y be tied t o the pr op osed tra ns - mi ss ion lin e. We fee l f ur t her di sc uss ion s s hould be mad e i n th e envi r onment a l a ssess me nt a nd envi r onm e nta l i mp act statement on ad di - tional generation 't hat migh t oc cur in th e long -te rm and its a f fect on the transmi s sion line . e ~I ..._,..,..,. ~·' . ' ......... : ... . ~ .... ·~ r.4 :~ " r-- i -· -~· e I -- a.i .. -,~,_ . f' ~ y ! k ~' t., • i . I e 5. An issue that need s to be addressed is the spinoffs of this major trans~ mission 1.ine , such as additional distribution lines and systems. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 . 11. 12 . Describe overall environmental impacts of the t ransmission line syst em (sub stati on s, distribution, etc.). Effect of crossing various Federal l a nd s, suc h as five Netional Forests, and Nation al Resource land s ad mini stered by BLM . Impacts of residential areas and people generally. Adv erse impacts on unique natural resources and the identification of the vi sual impact of the project. Project costs. Impacts of river crossings, such as the Dolores Wild and Sce ni c River classification below the Bradfield Bridge. (Proposed) We, as Cooperating Agencies, feel that we need to review your environ- mental assessment being prepared by Burns and McDonnell before a draft environmental impact statement is prepared . This could possibly prevent delays in the preparation of your draft environmental impact statement and assure better coordination of the project. To provide assistance as Cooperating Agencies, we would like you, as the Lead Agency , to consider the following c riteria for the corridor st ud ies: Broad Criteria 1. Ov erall environmental impact. 2. Overall visual impacts, including areas of high impacts. 3. Impact on commercial forest. 4. Conflict with special management areas and unique resources. 5. Overall impact on recreation sites and recreation uses. 6. Effect on fish and wildlife habitat, threatened and endangered species. -... ;..t. ~ . ....... · r .lt • - I f ; -· ptm"' r r f ; ; ' " (,J.~ ~"' ' .·· . ~ I l ! ' ·~ I · 4 7. Cul t ura l reso urce i mpact (arc heo l ogica l , hi storical an d pa l eo ntologica l ). 8. Effects on residential areas. 9 ~ Construction costs and methods . 10. Operation and maintenance costs. 11. Transmission corridor length . 12. Paralleling of existing transmission lines . 13. Project approval status under state jurisdiction . 14 . Implementation schedule. 15. Co mpatibil i ty wit h existi ng Federal, state and cou nty land use plans.· 16. Impact on energy c on servation. 17. Spe cific publi c comm ents or posit ion s. 18. Coordin ati on of ot her re l ated ener gy pr ojects, suc h as: a. She ll -Mobil co2 project b. MAPCO (pipe l i ne ) c. Dolores project d. Mt . Emmons project e~ Animas -La Plata project f. Oil s hale development g. Urad process (Slick Rock area) h. Paradox sali ne ·project i. Silverton-Lake City mine area j. ARCO mining k. Various potential coal mines (P aonia -Somerset, et~.) The following are so me specific criteria for corridor consi derations. Of course, the listing is an ideal situation which rarely occurs; 1. Has a variety of vegetative type c hange s, i.e., meadow s, un even-age d trees, grass and shrub cover. Change between vegetative types is very distinctive . - ,~ ~l, ~, ~ ... ~-. - r-- ( i I I i - • . . ~-.· ..... ; ; I . ! i I " t ~- 1. [' t • ... -._ --------------------------------------------------------------,_,,--========~,.,,,....,.,..,...,,.. ·=-·· ·e 2. 3. Terrain ha s variety , i .e., rolling, limited sharp edg es, and presen ts co ntra st. Ha s availab l e access or access ca n be obtained 1vit hou t exte ns iv e road construction. 4. Avoids even-age dense sta nd s of trees. (No variety ) 5. 6. Does not cross land form, but follows the natural form of the land. Terrain and vegetation availab l e to have t he c orrido r wide enough to route the actual alig nm ent around sensitive an d problem areas. Also, corridor wide enough to allow for variety in d~sign and al ign ment of the line, being a minimum of 2 mil es in width . 7. Corridor avoid s major air t ra vel r oute s, if possible. 8. 9. 10. 11. Corridor meets objectives of engin eer ing requirements, s uc h as: a. Long -s pans are limit ed b. Limited wet areas (structure placement) c . · P.I.1 s would not hav e excessi ve a ngle change d. Limited geological feat ur es, s uc h as (1) solid rock (2) land slides (3 ) clay and sandy soils (4) highly erosive soils (stability) e. Access available to install the conductor (good pull sites) f. Availability of fairly level structure sites g. Abililty to use conventional equipment to construct the line and maintain . Corridor has few steep (40 percent) areas. Corridor avoids recreation use areas, if possible. Corridor has limited interference i n the move ments or habits of wildli fe. -.. .... ..,.~ ..... -.~./ - . ·~-~ '-"",. .... , , .. r-,. i - . ~ . . :- - .... -- 6 12 . Corridor avoids major rivers, streams, or bodies of water (pond s, lak es, reservoirs). 13. Corridor will only cross in-the recreat io n portion of any \·1ild, scenic and recreation c l assification of a c la ss ified river . 14. Corridor avoids majo r ro utes of tra ve l a nd high density population, if pos si ble . 15. Corri dor meets objectives and goals of l a nd use reso ur ce man age ment planning. 16. Corridor meets t he objective of providing ser vi ce between t he supp ly point to t he vario us lo ad centers. 17. Corridor avoids high ha zard areas, s uch as s now avalanche, high fire hazard, mass in s tability, etc., if possible . At the Scoping meeting we were given the impression that only the preferred corridor and the on e alternative was only going to be st udied in the environ - mental assessment and presented in your dr aft environmental impact statement . We feel that more corridors are available from Rifle to San Juan . We are not saying the preferred corridor is not acceptable, but since Section 1502.14 of the CEQ Final Regulations for the NEPA process requires a comparison of viable alternatives, we think you need to include more alternative corridors in addi - t ion tci the one s pre se nted at the Sc oping mee t ing . Th e enc lo sed map shows s ome a l ternative corridors t hat s hould have an analy sis made, so a co mp arison between corri dor s ca n be don e. These corridors s houl d be presented in the environmental assessment as well as t he environmenta l impact statemen t. · The following is a brief location description of the alternate corridors as s hown on the map : Point A -Start of corridors-Rifle Substation Point B -Termius of corridors-San Juan Generation Plant Number 1 -Potential substation -Paonia area Number 2 -Potential substation-Montrose area Number 3 -Potential s ub stati on -Nu cla area Number 4 -Sub station-Lost Can yon - -· ....... - ~ 1-. , . • ; ,. i. '· L_ ·. ~· r f• i. t . ·.;. .. . , Alternate corridors (general locations, not specific ): la -Rifle -Grand Junction -Delta -Montrose -Lost Canyon -Towaoc, San Juan generating pl a nt, New Mexico . Thi s is a low elevation alternate corridor. 2a -Straight lin e between Point A-Rifle and Point 8-San Juan plant, New Mexico. Shor test distance between t wo point s. 3a -Rifle -Pao ni a-Montro se-Nu c la , Monticello , Utah to a point joining the existing 34S kV lin e, t hen s outh to the San Juan pl ant. Uti- li zes existing transmission lin e routes. 4a -Rifle -Pa onia -Montrose -Nucla -Lost Canyon-Durango, Aztec -F armington - San Juan plant, New Mexico . This i s Colorado-Ute 1 s preferred corridor . Sa -Paonia -Delta-Montrose ~near Placerville-Lost Canyon. This is Colorado -Ute 1 s a lternate corridor. A The fol10\'1ing are various alternatives of the above main corridors, many ~follow existing transmissiorr lines: lb -Paonia-Delta (same as Colorado -Ute 1 s alternate corridor). 2b Slick Rock -Dove Creek -Corte z south to San Juan piant . This takes off corr idor 3a. 3b Of f corridor 2b at Dove Creek to corridor la or corridor 4a and to San Juan plant. 4b -Paonia southwest to Montrose. Sb -Off corridor 3a or 4 a to alternate corridor la, through Collbran area and Plateau Creek . This avoids the canyon area on la out of Grand Junction . 6b -Off corridors Sa or lb south to Paonia -Cimarron southwest to corri - dor Sa (n ear Ho rsefly Creek). So me existi ng tra nsmi ssio n line . -.. .,... ~~- .' ~·, . .. ----...... - - i ' •· :· I r.- f l ,..... h I ! I . i 8 Also at the Scoping meeting, REA req uested fro m the agencies whet her t hey had any management concerns on Colorado-Ute's preferred corridor. The following is a list of some of our concerns . However, this list is not final and un ti l detailed studies are done~ the list is not co mple te: 1. Dolores River Crossing. It doesn't appear that the corridor can cross at the location shovm. This area is in the Dolores River, Wild, Scenic and Recreational Classification of the Dolores River. 2. North Fork area-near Paonia. The preferred corridor will be crossing coal lands, which could have an unsuitability criteria assigned (CFR 3400) if land is developed for a transmission line . 3. Man cos s hale near rtanccs, Colorado. Weak, unstable area. 4. Un sta ble soils in the Muddy Creek area north of Paonia, Colorado. 5. Near t he Paonia area and Bl ack Canyon area is the range of the golden and bald eagles and peregrine fa l co n habitats . 6. River otters are in t he Black Ca nyon area.· The coordi nator s for this project will be David J . Davies, Forest Ser vice (303-234-3811 ) and Bill Daniels of the Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Offic e (303-837-3515). Sincerely, CRAIG vJ . RU PP {O~· Regional Forester Rocky ~lount~in Region USDA, Forest Service . /• DALE R. ANCRUS Director ·/, ) / f I ( .. '-, . , Colorado State Office / . ,·, 1 I ltl, ·>t; ( /(,.' ,1.. (.. US01, Bureau of Land Management t -' ; :-./-·'t ·4<.'-' . ~.~ ... - ' .... - ..._.: . . . ' ... -r . ,. .. .· .. I t s.·-r r I. r t , ... v ~: t • r . ~·· l\ . ...:. UN I T!:'.:' STATES o=::P:'.'r1=::"!T cc-1".::;?1 SL'LTU?::: Colorado 46 Ute r::•L IR ~L ELECT>="~i::-iC/\TIO"--">[)io.. ..... 1..,;-;:;·p _..\T!C'·"'. \V·''S HINGTO~ D ::. 2c::·-e.~·, s:·a·Ecr Proposed Rifle to Sa n Juan 345 kV Transmission Pr oj ect To Mr . Davi d Ga i g e Burns & McDonn el 1 P.O. Box 173 Kan sas City, Missouri 64141 The Rural Electrificatio n Administration (RE A) in conj un ction with Colorado -Ute Electric Asso ciatio n (Colorado-Ute) held an interage ncy me eting on August 29, 1979, in Denver , Colorado, regarding t he proposed 345 kV transmission line from Rifle, Colorado, to the San Juan Generating Plant near Farmington, New Mexico. A mailing list of attendees is i ncluded as an enclosure. For the infonnation of those unable to attend the interagency meeting, as well as the attendees, REA has prepared the following brief s ummary of t he meeting. In addition , the co ncerns from several comment letters received after the meeting are summarized. Interagency Meeting Summary Opening rema rks were presented by Colorado-Ute attorney, Greg Haller. Howard Barnes {REA) described the REA role and responsibility with respect to financing. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS} will be prepared for any proposed generation facility of 25 megawatts or larger or any transmission system of 230 kV or larger . -REA will not release any funds nor pennit any onsite construction until the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council of Environ mental Quality (CEQ) requirements are met. Dennis Rankin (RE A) explained the-NEPA and CEQ requirements and discussed the EIS process. The roles of lead and cooperating agencies were also discussed. -REA was identified as the tentat i ve lead Federal agency disagreement, REA will assume the role of lead agency). Mr. David Gaige 2 A description of Colorado -Ute and its se rvice ar ea, a discussion of t he need for the pr oject, and a descri pti on of the physical facilities that will be constructed was pre se nted by Ray Kei t h (Colorado -Ute). -Colorado-Ute generates and transmits power to 13 co operatives . -The propos ed project will ree nforc e Colorado-Ut e existing system and transfer power from its generating stations to its members load areas. -By t he early 1990's, the existing load will exceed 700 megawatts (present load about 200 megawatts). -In addition to servicing the increased loads, t he line provides reenforced connections with the bulk power grid and surrounding states . -The proposed project will be about 286 miles of 345 kV line, however, it might be advantageous to plan and construct for a double circuit 345 kV line. Jerry Walk er (Colorado -Ute) discussed the environmental aspects of this project and t he corridor selection process . -The t hree basic criteria used in t he corridor selection process included: 1) line mu st transverse load areas, 2) env ironmental and engineering co nstraints s hould be avoid ed, and 3) existing transmi ssio n ~ corridors sho uld be utilized where practical. ~ The proposed corridor is 286 miles long with 86 miles on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, 75 mile s on Forest Service (FS) land, 16 mile s on Indian land, and 109 miles on private land. -Four national Forests would be affected . These include the White River National Forest, the Grand Mesa National Forest, the Uncompahgre National Forest, and the San Juan National Forest. Colorado-Ute would like to start construction about June 1981 and complete construction by September 1982 . Discussion Session Dave Davies (FS) asked about the role of cooperating agencies and was concerned about the availability of REA. Cooperating agencies will review all the documents and provide infonnation, when asked, in their areas of expertise. Early drafts of the Environ mental Analysis (EA) would be made availabl2 for review in order to resolve problems early in the process. Tentative cooperating agencies would include the FS, BLM, Corps of Engineers (COE) and U.S. Fish and ~ildlife Service. COL ORADO-UTE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION 34 5 KV TRANSMISSION LINE San Juan County, New Mexico LISTED SPECIES Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) Large nocturnal weasel, with raccoon-like eye mask and typically black-tipped feet and tail. Depends on prairie dog towns for food and shelter. Historic range coincided with prairie dogs, from the Dakotas south to Texas and west to Arizona. Current range in south- western states uncertain; most likely occurs with Gunnison and Zuni prairie d og s (Cyn omy s .&· gunn i soni and .£ . .&· zun ien sis ) in pinyo n- j unip er and pond e ro sa p i n e grassland s to 10 ,500' in no rthw estern New Me xico and no rtheas t ern Arizona. Le ss likely i n grasslands of Texas and Oklahoma . Ecological data from South Dakota indicate ferrets pref er well established towns great e r than 15 acres in size with complex bur row systems . Pr ey at night on pr airie dogs , pri marily juveniles, and probably on other small mammals inhabiting the towns. Ferrets leave distinctive trenches from burrows. During the day, prairi e dogs plug burrows inhabitated by ferrets. Four to five young born i n May -June , first seen above ground in July when half grown ; f emale seems to move t hem n i ghtly to new burrow s. Young disp erse in Augu st-Septemb er. How far t hey travel is unknown; mo s t records of ferrets outside dog towns occur durin g t h is season. Active all winter, leaving mink-like tracks t h rou gh the towns. Low po p u- lation density scattered over fragmented prairie dog habitat may make reproduction and dispersal difficult. In 1973, FWS estimated 98 % of original nationwide prairie dog acreage was gone, although dogs are still locally common in areas through original range. Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Medium sized falcon, slate gray above, dark head with "moustaches" below each eye. Habitat: Areas with rocky, steep cliffs, preferably near water where bird (primary prey) concentrations are high. Also found in forest and grassland areas. Historic Distribution: Breeding range from Canada and Alaska south into Baja California, central Mexican highlands, and northwest Mexico, including continental U. S. except s outh east quarter of t h e co untry. Mo st birds believ ed to winter in Central and South America. In Arizona and New Mexico, b ird s we re f oun d over en tire state and i nc l ud e d bo th resid en t a nd migrant birds . Pre sent Distribut i on : St i ll n:a y be found ove r both states at any time of year, either as residents or migrants. Breeding populations confined to the western U. S. and Canada, no breeding pairs east of the Rocky Mountains except Rio Grande area of Texas and Mexico. Extremely rare , numbers are gr eatly reduced . Reason for decline is reproductive failure due to pes t i c i des . Ba l d eag le (Hal i a eetu s leuco cephalus) Large rap tor (~-8 f oot wingspan), adults distinctive with white h ead s and tails. I mm ature plum age similar to golden eagle. On ce wid espread in riparian areas of t h e southw est, but never a bun dant as southwest is peripheral range. Currently, nests in southeast and c o astal Texas, central Arizona and Salt and Verde rivers, New Mexico near Gila National Forest and eastern Oklahoma. Migrants from north ern states congregate around large bo dies of water in winter, primarily in Oklah oma and Texas with fewer occurring in Ariz on a and New Mexico. Bulky nests, usually used y ear after y ear, f ound in tall trees, cliffs, or r o c ky pinn acles i n riparian a nd l acu strine area s. Size of n esting territo ries, variab le, ma y c on- tain severa l a lternat e n e s t site s. Toler ance o f human disturbance varies . Communal r oost trees s ometimes used in winter . Oppo r tuni s- tic predators and scavengers, taking fish , carrion, crippled water- fowl , and occasionally turtles and small mammals . Hunt while flying or from perches. Major threats in southwest : Disturbance of nests and roosts; modi -~ fication of riparian habitat by grazing and development, and pesti-~ cides . Colo r ado s qu awf i sh (Ptychocheilus luciu s ) Th e larg est minnow in t h e U.S., t he Co l orado squawfish once reach ed six feet and 80 pounds , and was widespread in Arizona and New Mexico in Colorado, Gila, Salt, and San Juan rivers. At present, extir- pated from the lower basin of the Colorado River only. One specimen taken in San Juan River in March, 1978, near Aneth, Utah, 20 miles downstream from New Mexico. Recovery plan calls for reintroduction into the Salt River (AZ) and San Juan River (Utah, NM). Colorado squawfish requires large, warm rivers. Predatory on fish after first year . Captive populations being maintained at Willow Beach, Hotchkiss, and Dexter NFH . Major threat is loss of habitat due to dams , and diversion of large rivers in Southwest. PROPO SED SP ECIES Ra zo r back s ucker (Xy r auchen t exanus ) A large (24 inch) olive-bronze sucker with ridge-like hump behind the head. Habitat: Quiet backwaters of large rivers . Historic distribution: All large rivers in the Colorado River Basin, espe- cially the Gila, San Pedro, Green, and mainstream Colorado rivers. Present distribution: In Arizona -the lower Colorado River in Yuma County and Lakes Mead, Mojave, and Havasu in Mojave County. Populations exist in the Green and Colorado rivers in Utah and the Colorado and lower Gunnison rivers in Colorado. May occur in San Juan River, New Mexico. Reason for decline is destruction of original riverine habitat. Individuals persist for several years in reservoirs. PLANTS Pediocactus knowltonii Type locality: Los Pinos River near La Boca, Colorado on the Colorado-New Mexico State Line. Range: Recorded collections are only from an area very near the Colorado-New Mexico border along the Rio de Los Pinos, San Juan County, New Mexico, from one to several miles south of La Boca. Some question exists as tb whether it actually occurs in Colorado. Habitat: Pinion- juniper hillsides overlooking the Rio de Los Pinos River. Sclerocactus mesae-verde None . Type locality: Cortez, Colorado ••• Type specimen deposited with Dudley Herbarium of Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Range: Northwest San Juan County, New Mexico, and Southwest Montezuma County, Colorado, boundaries of the known distribution of this pecies are: to the north, Cortez, Colorado and the Mesae Verde cliffs, extending southward to areas just south of Shiprock, New Mexico, eastward to areas adjunct to, "the Hogback." Habitat: Extremely dry hillsides of exposed Mancos clay with a few sturdy, halophytic, Atriplex spp . CRITICAL HABITAT ...,,;_,-/ • I ,.-ti .... 3 ;b;· e c..ce<e ~ 2 f===-4' c '* -"I -<J <) , \i...._ c I J)'S;>V< .,.,,,I?(.-, UN I TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICLJL 7URE ~ ~~-r z;i;;,...c.r FOREST SERVICE Rocky i'iiountain R i?gio 11 1~177 '/.Jest Eightr. Ava11ua, Jox 25 i 27 La:,ewood, Coloradv 80225 2720 September 26, 197 9 Mr. David Gaige Burns and Mc Donnell Post Office Box 173 Kansas City, Missouri Dear Mr . Gaige: 64141 As consultant to Colorado -Ute Electric Association, this is to infonn you that I have been designated as the Forest Service Coordinator for the proposed Rifle-San Juan 345 kV transmission line . As you are aware, the transmission line has the potential to cross the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison, White River , and San Juan National Forests. To avoid delays, having too many contacts, I request you first contact me if you need information from any individual or Forest. I will set up any necessary contacts for your company with the Forests. I am looking forward to working with you and Colorado-Ute Electric Associa- tion on this project. Please feel free to call at any time. My phone number is (303) 234-3811, and address is 11177 West 8th Avenue , Lakewood, Colorado 80225. Sincerely, Manager 6ZOG-11 (1 /69) ' .,_ l . i ! •• I . ; I .. i ; e Lr nited States Department of the Interior FISH A~D WILDLIFE SER VICE //IA/LING ADDRESS: Po.t Offia Bo:r U486 ~"w' Frrinal. Ccn.wr '"' "[Pl..V R(~[" TO. ~nwr, CcloNldo 80Zl4 FA/SE /REA~Transmission Line, · CO & NM (6-5-79-I-427) SEP ,. - '-' STREET LOCATION: JU Union Bll.!d. LAlwwood. Coloro.do 8C2U 1979 C.Of/ D11v.i:: G/:J;?" ~r j :!s 7 ... }~ c I ~ l;f.!! o;...ow~ ,')"'·' l McOc,,,,v,;I{ Mr. William E. Davis Western Area--Electric Rural Electrification Administration Washington, D.C. 20250 Dear Mr. Davis: This responds to your letter of September 7, 1979, in regard to the proposed transmission line from Rifle, Colorado, to San Juan, New Mexico. In accordance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act Amendments, we have reviewed your information and determined that the following species may be present in the Colorado portion of the project area. Region 2 has already submitted a list for the portion in New Mexico . Listed Species Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Proposed Plants Sclerocactus glaucus (ncn) Sclerocactus mesae-verdae (ncn) Astragalus humillimus (milkvetch) Astragalus naturitensis (milkvetch) Eriogonum pelinophilum (wild buckwheat) Aquilegia micrantha var. mancosana (wild columbine) Arabis gunnisoniana (rockcress) Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. inermis (hedgehog cactus, spineless) Atriplex pleiantha (saltbush) Penstemon retrorsus (beardtongue) Section 7(c) of the Act Amendments requires that you prepare a biological assessment to determine if the proposed project will affect the above species. If you determine that the project may affect any listed species, you should initiate formal consultation. Thank you for your interest and cooperation in conserving endangered species. If we can be of f u rther assistance, please contact us • yours, ·/??.4 tar.:-.. ': ---i:-, ~ Acting ~ional Director Save E~rgy and You Serve America! I • i .e MONTEZUMA COUNTY Administrc-itlve Office Montezuma Coun\y Courthouse Hm .• '3C2 Cortez, Colorado 81"~:!'!1 October 17, 1979 Jerry Walker Colorado-Ute Electric Assoriation P.O. Box 1149 Montrose, Colorado 81401 Re: 345 kV Transmission Line Dear Mr. Walker: A special thanks to you and your associates for being with us on October 9. _We felt the meeting was very helpful and should make the balance of th~ permit process much easier. Present for the meeting was the Montezuma County Planning Commission, a portion of the Dolores County Planning Commission, and two County Commissioners from Dol'ores County. Everyone accepted the need for additional capa- city into the area. This, then, leaves the decision of which route to the area is the best. For purposes of discussion, we will consider the two routes as follows: Route #1 is the Cahone route following the general 115 kV route. Route #2 is the U.S. route following the general route of the existing 230 kV line. Those present considered the economic aspects, the serviceability of the line, and the environmental considerations. As you noted, there were those that favored -one route over the other for various reasons. However, the final view was that we could support either alternate. It is further noted that whichever route is used, there will be special routing proble~s. In the agri- cultural areas, special considerations must be made for the cultivated sections. In the developing areas, routing to avoid development conflicts will be required. We have had informal discussions with the local Forest Ranger about the Dolores River and various ' •I Mr. Walker October 17, 1979 Page 2 / routings. He seems to have strong feelings about any changes that may be requested in the Dolores River designation. He also mentioned the Slick Rock route. The Rio Dolores group, organized to resist desig- nations on the Dolores, will meet soon to give us some direction ·on a position on the Dolores. To be dis- cussed will be a possible trade off on the Bradfield downstream section, and a couple of other considera- tions. Wh en the determination is made, we will advise you at the same time we contact our congressional delegation . We will look forward to working with you on all matters of routing and sincerely hope a final routing decision can be made soon. DMD/sd David M. Denton Administrative Assistant e · . -e . Delta Counly Development Department 9evc:~opment Coordination Phone 874-4848 Sanitation Phone 874-3 078 October 18, 1979 Dr. Jerry Walker Colorado Ute Electric Association, Inc. P .O . Box 1149 Montrose, Color ado 81401 Dear Dr . Walker : Courthouse Annex Delta, Colorado 81416 This letter is written to convey additional information to you regarding Delta County's continued interest in your Rifle -San Juan 345 KV Transmission Line. As your proposed project proceeds through the development process, our inputs will become more specific . I n the interim , hopefully the information in this letter will be of s om e a ss i s tanc e. Delta County is starting t h e preparation of a Resource Ma n a gem e n t Plan which will to some extent control all development under our jurisdiction . Certainly the extension or new location for a major . transmission line of a public utility will be covered by the system created under .this study. I expect the resulting review process., that will be required to receive authorization to install a major power line, will include at a mi n i mum th e fo l l owing as p ects: p rese n t ation of g ood a g ric ul t u ra l land; avoidance of e nvi r onmentally s en s itive l a nd s; di s tanc e fr om both built-up residential areas and rural residences adjacent to the power line alignment; any visual impact of the installation prox - imity to wildlife areas; avoidance of spec~al use areas such as schools, cemeteries, hospitals, airports, shopping centers, etc., will also be considered. I page 2 , I realize that the above information closely parallels the criteria you have been following. It is irnparative that our organizations work closely together as the project continues. ·I will keep you advised of the progress on our study, and certainly would appreciate information regarding your efforts. Glenn F. Fuhrman Development Coordinator GFF:cb 9 1 ( Burns & MC'Donnell Engineers-Architects-Consultants POST OFF I CE BOX 173 . TEL: 816·333-4375 TWX: 910-771·3059 KANSAS C I TY. MISSOUR I 64141 4600 EAST 63rd STREET U.S. Forest Service Mr. Da v e Davies 11177 West Eighth Avenue, Box 25127 Lakewood, CO 80225 December 11, 1979 Re: Colorado-Ute Electric Association Proposed Transmission Line Burns & McDonn e l l 78 ~069 -4 -00 1 Dear Dave, In response to our discussion on December 3 c oncerning visual resource classification on forest lands, we are proposing the following process subject to your approval. We would appreciate receiving your comments immediately so that work on the environmental assessment will not be delayed. We will be considering three fac t ors in classifying visual resources : landform, vege t a tion , and sens i tivity . We p r opose t o i dentify s ix broad land- f orm type s by u sing USG S 1:250,000 t opographic map s. Th e s e cat e gories a re mount a inous, cany on, mesa, cliff, bro a d v all ey, a n d river v alley. Ge n eral vegetation types will be derived from the County Land Use and Natural Plant Co mmun ities maps available from the Soil Conservation Service. Assessing landform in conjunction with vegetation will provide a basis for determining the degree of visual impact caused by a transmission line. A judgment will be made at this point as to the approximate visual absorption capacity (VAC) of each landform/vegetation type. The sensitivity of the area will be determined by the location of roads, campsites, and recreational areas. If a proposed corridor crosses a low VAC landscape and is visible from a populated or traveled area, that area would be deemed a secondary constraint. The assumption has been made that more mitigation would be required to place a transmission line through such areas. BRANCH OFFICES: M I AM I , FLOR I DA AND NEW YORK C I TY ' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Rocky Mountain Region 11177 West Eighth Avenue, Box 25127 Lakewood, Co lorado 80225 2720 December 17, 1979 C. David Gaige e· ~ · Project Coordinator -. Burns a nd McDonnel I P. 0. Box 173 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Dear David: Your _p ro posal for the visual resource in the st udy for the Rifle-San Juan trans mi ssion line appears to be in the right direction . We suggest t hat you co nsi der t he fol lowing additional detai Is for your st udy . Land Form C l assification -The Land Form Classification you described is not in itself an indicator of l and form diversity. We s ugg est an additional step is needed to de termin e t he amount of divers ity within the land form type, s uch as number of ri dge I ines , drainages, peaks , etc . Vegetative Types -This s hould be c l assified in some wa y to indicate amount of diversity , s uc h as lodg epole-s hrub , grass -low , juniper-h i gh , spruce-fir, etc. Sensitivity Levels -This shou ld reflect distance zones and unseen zones. It is our understanding that the Forests involved in this pro- ject wil I have, in about a month and a half, information needed to run the VIEWIT program on the corridor areas. This program wi I I give a composite readout of sensitivity/distance zones. ,,. The final analysis of this study should be in a format that gives an overal I indication of the visual impact. Enclosed for your information ls a study pre- pared by EDAW Inc. for Pacific Gas and Electric Company . This study is a good example of methodology that might be used . However, we are not endorsing EDAW's study as the only method to use . Also, I am interested in learning about the proposal discussed at the December 3rd meeting on extending the BLM Visual Resource Management Study onto National Forest lands. It appears this has been dropped. I hope the above wil I help in you r study. Please contact me if you have any que s tions . - I --:;;/ Manager UOl>-11 (l/H) Enc l osure , United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Farmington Resource Area P. O. Box 568 Farmington , New Me xico 87401 IN REPLY REFER T1 2800 (016) January 3, 1980 Bu rns and McDonnell P. O. Box 173 Kansas City, Missouri 64141 Sir: This is in regards to a request from Ralph Sena of the Albuquerque District Off ice to supply you with some information on the Visual Resource Management classes through which the proposed Rifle -San Juan 345 KV transmission line passes in New Mexico. Most of the proposed line in New Mexico is in a VRM Class III area. This is the portion from the Colorado state line south to Farmington. A portion of the proposed line west of Farmington is in a VRM Class II area. This is the portion close to Highway 550. The remainder of the proposed line west of Farmington is in a VRM Class IV area. Below is an explanation of t he various VRM Classes. Class I -This class provides primarily for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. Any contrast within the characteristic environment must not attract attention. It is applied to wilderness areas, some natural areas, wild portions of the wild and scenic rivers, and other similar situations where management activities are to be restricted. Class II -Changes in any of the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) caused by a management activity should not be evident in the characteristic landscape. A contrast may be seen but should not attract attention. Save Energy and You Serve America! Class III -Contrasts to the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) caused by a management activity may be evident and b egin to attract attention in t he cha racteristic landscape. However, the changes should remain subordinate to t h e existing characteristic landscape. Class I V -Contrasts may attract attention and be a dominant feature of the landscape in terms of scale; however, the change should repeat the basic elements (form, line, color, texture) inherent in the characteristic landscape. Class V -Change is needed or change may add acceptable visual variety to an area. This class ·-:applies to areas where the naturalistic character has been disturbed to a point where rehabilitation is needed to b ring it b ack into ch aracter with the surrounding landscape. This class would a pply to areas identi- fied in the scenic evaluation where the quality class has b een reduced because of unacceptable cultural modification. The contrast is inharmonious with the characteristic landscape. It may also be applied to areas that have the potential for enhance- ment, i.e., add acceptable visual variety to an area /site. It should be considered an interim or short-term classification until one of the other VRM class objectives can be reached through rehabilitation or enhancement. The desired visual resource management class should be identified . Structures located in the foreground distance zone (O-~ mile) in Classes II, III, and I V often create a contrast that exceeds the VRM class, even when designed to harmonize and blend with the character- istic landscape. This may be especially true when a distinctive architectural motif or style -is designed. Approval by the District Manager is required on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the structure(s) meet the acceptable VRM class standards and, if not, whether they add acceptable visual variety to the landscape. I hope the above information is of some benefit. Sincerely yours, Kr1~1 n~t:j/~. Robert R. Calkins p:' Area Manager