HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Staff Reporto
PROJECT INFORI'IATION AND STAFF
o
COMMENTS
PROJECl.' NA}{8:
OWNERS:
SDEIS REPORT PREPARATTON:
LOCATION:
RifIe to San Juan' 345-KV
Transmission Line SuPPlemental
Draft Environmentaf ImPact
Statement (SDEIS)
Col-orado Ute Electric Association,
Inc. ; V9estern Area Power
Administration (IJAPA) ; Public
Service ComPanY (PSC)
Rural Electrication Administration
(REA) i Bureau of Land Management
(BLI,l) ; and Burns and McDonneII
Ihe project will extend from the
Rifle substation located south of
Rifle to the Grand Junction
Substation in D'lesa CountY' The
entire proPosal would extend a 345
KV transmission line from Rifle to
San Juan, New Mexico - a total of
275 miles.
The proPosal
s ingJ-e -c ircu
transmiss ion
A/R/RD
o/s
A/t
R/L
project is a
it 345 KV electric
1ine.
I.
SITE DATA:
EXISTING ZONES: *
* The appropriate zone is dependent upon which alternative is being
cons idered
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COIT1PREHENSIVE PLAN:
Because the proposed project crosses a number of private and public lands
with the various alternatives, nearly every tyPe of man.gement district in
the Comprehensive PIan is inciuded. UtiIily Liansmission lines are not
specifiqally dealt with in the ComprehensivE Planr but the following
goals, policies, and performance slandards are relevant to the siting of
if,. nifle-San Juan 345 KV transmission line:
1. Encourage industrial development in areas where adequate
rransportation facilities ana punlic utilites are available' (#7'
Page J-2l
2. Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing
active farms and ranches. (#I, Page I7)
3. Ensure the minimum disturbance of slopes to reduce erosion'
sedimentation and runoff. (#Il, Page 29)
4. protect natural }andscape features by "fitting" the development to
the Iand. (#14, Page 29)
natural and scenic resources (unique vegetation,
tats. ) (#16, Page 30)5. Protect untque
major wildlife habi
6. The County shall guide new development to occur on lands having
moderate, min-or or no environmental constraints. In areas with
environmental problems, the county shall require developmen! to
perform to a slandarA which mitigltes or min-imizes the problem' (*2'
Page 30)
7. Those lands or geographic areas within the county which are
considered to be of scenic value or unique to the character of the
County sha1l be protected from negative effects caused by
devetopment. In such areas, specLal site design shall be requireO
which minimizes and mitigates aist,-,rbance of natural vegetation;
clearing and grading, blockage of views, and incompatibilities with
t;; gnn6rar ciaracter of the area' (#B' Page 31)
- 10.-
B.
andsite
The grading of aII
fill are kept to a
o
new development shall be designed so that cut
minimum and can balance within the project
o
a. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than
efficient stabilizatlon methods are utilized.
b. The proposed development shalI be designed in
demonstrates a."fit" wiln the existing topography
(#r B(5), Page 78)
b. No vegetation shatl be removed on slopes 2
otherwise approved by the County Commissioners
c. Vegetation stands a1on9 creekt ?t9.riverswhere these corridors have noted wildlife habi
Performance Standards:
a. Development construction shalI minimize the disturbance of
the existing vegetative cover.
2:l unless
a manner which
of the land.
:*
or over unless
should be retained
tats. (Page BI)
I0. Performance Standards:
a. ProPosed land uses shall be
mitigation of Potential imPacts
with all adjacent land uses'
b. An incompatible situation shall be solved before the proposed
develoPment will be aPProved'
1. Proposed land uses with a more intensive land use rating
than th; adjacent land uses shall reduce or alter all the
more intensive uses until- that proposed use is compatibre
with the adjacent property to the satisfaction of the County
Commissioners. (Page 89)
11. Any proposed land use may be deemed incompatible for the fol1owing
reasons:a. Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate
neighborhood or the entire community'
b. Impairi.,g the stability or value of existing adjacent
properties.
c. Adveise:-V affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent
residents.
d. Showing a lack of quality or function in site planning and
des ign.
e. Creating a Public danger or
f. Altering the basic character
entire communitY. (Page 90)
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: Within Garfield County there are eight (B)
alternative corridors considered. The alternatives cover a wide range of
different topographic features ranging from river bottom land to rugged
mountain terrain-
B. project Description: colorado ute Electric Association, Inc' proposed
to construct a double-circuit 345 KV transmission line in I979' that would
have extended from Rifle to san Juan, New I'lexico. PriOr to the issuance
of the Final EIS on that project, the Public utilities commission (Puc)
denied approval of a certificate of Public convenience and Necessity for
the proposed pi"iect. This resulted in the Final EIS not being issued'
Subsequently, Colorado Ute developed a coordinated ptan with !h9 9iestern
Area power Admi.nistration (h-ApA) ind Public service Company of Colorado
(pSC) to provide an upgraded power transmission line and associated
facilities to western and southwestern colorado. The three entities
propose to desigr, construct, operate and maintain aPproximately 275 miles
;i-;i'gre circuit 345 KV transmission line from colorado uters Rifle
substation to the San Juan Generating Station in San Juan, New I'lexico'
The Rifle to Grand Junction segment ot the proposed line will be
.pprori*ately 56 miles long .t6 owned.jointly by Colorado Ute (37'5t)'
wApA (37.5t) and PSC (25t): The remainaer oi the line will be owned
equallY bY Colorado Ute and WAPA'
- 11 -
required to- Provide adequate
Lo ensure maximum comPatibilitY
nuisance to surrounding areas'
of adjacent land uses or the
II.
,I
rh e\ ba s ic " ;"ili =;::u';. :n'; x:t' ;;: ;:::t"?".t::"] ::',lii, t::;::
. approxrmatell
approximately 900 sguare feet of land, with an average sPan of 1200 feet
between towers. This converts to approximately 4 or 5 towers per mile.
The right-of-way necessary for the transmission line is a minimum of 150
feet in width. The actual width would vary depending upon location, sPan
length and conductor sag.
Access roads would be constructed for construction and on-going
maintenance purposes. It is estimated that one mile of 14 foot wide
non-paved driving surface will be required for each mile of transmission
1ine. It is preferred by the proponents to keep the road grades less than
7-10 percent.
Construction is proposed to start in 1984, and be completed by 1986. ft
is estimated that the cost of the entire project will be $I21,000,000 with
the Rif]e-Grand Junction section costing approximately $L7,800r000 and
$\,730,000 in upgrading of the Rifle substation-
The Rifle-Grand Junction segment has eight alternative corridors for
consideration:
ALTERNATIVE A: This corridor paralleIs the existing PSC 230-KV
transmission
The corridor
River. The
56.0 miles in length.
ALTERNATfVE B: There
ffiexceptexisting PSC 230-KV I
The estimated cost of
length.
-1ine, except for a short section south of Battlement Mesa.
generally iollows along the lower mesas south of the Colorado
eitimated cost of this alternative is $18.5 million and is
is very Iittle difference between this corridor and
that this corridor does not diverge from the
ine, which passes directly through Battlement I'Iesa.
this alternative is $18.4 million and 55.8 miles in
ALTERNATIVE C: This corridor crosses the Colorado River five (5) miles
ffianacontinueswest,northoftheInterstate70corridorsto
a point just east of Debegue. At that point, the corridor would again
cross the I-70 corridor and Colorado River, then follow a corridor simil-ar
to Alternatives A and B. The estimated cost of this alternative is $19-5
million and is 59.0 miles in length.
ALTERNATIyES D, E, F, AND G: A11 of these alternatives are similar in
the Rifle substation to a point just south
of the Garfield County line and then west, southwest, through Collbran to
the Grand Junction substation. Alternatives D, E, F and G are estimated
to cost $21.4 mi11ion, $2I.6 million, $2L.4 million and $22.5 million,
respectively. The lines are 64.8, 65.3, 64.7 and 68.2 miles in length-
ALTERNATIVE H: This is the DEIS preferred alternative for the Rifle to
Crana .function segment. The proposed corridor is south of Alternatives A,
B and C, and follows along the base of the high mesa south of the Colorado
River. The estimated cost of this corridor is $I8.5 million ano is 56
mil-es in length.
r rf . SUMI"IARY COMMENTS :
A. Zoning:
The Garfield County Zoning Resolution treats utility facilities as a
special use in all zone districts, except those lands zoned O/S (Open
Space), which are federal 1ands. On those 1ands, a uti1-ity transmission
line is a conditional use.
B. Staff Comments:
Staff comments will focus on Alternatives A, B, C and H, since they have
more impact on Garfield County than Atternatives D, E, F, and G. It is
also apparent that one of the Colorado River corridors (A, B, C or H) will
be selected as the preferred corridor. The comments will be made in the
order presented in the SDEIS, with the most emPhasis directed toward
identified impacts:
%#::",:,":?:":}:":?:::Ii;ff:::=if:"::.ili1,.Itsub-surface g
is noted that seismic activity could trigger rock or land slides'
which might affect the transmi=sion toweii rf they are located in an
unstabl-e area. Each alternative crosses more stable areas than
unstabl-e areas. Alternative c crosses on g-9 miles (I6'58 of the
length) of unstable area, while Alternative F crosses 24'0 miles (378)
of unstable area. Alternative H crosses 78'2 miles (32t) of unstabl-e
area, and would be the most significantty impacted of the Colorado
River Basin alternatives. The major implct irom.geologic hazards on
the transmission line will be on the tower locations, which the
proponents state wiIl be avoided "where possible."
soits: soil conditions can present erosion hazards, limitations on
i#ii*"tior,-pot.ntial and "on=truction and operation limitations if
not dealt with properly. None of the altert'it1ves have high erosion
or major constriction ii*itations. Alternative H crosses the least
amount of land with poor reclamation potential (5'9 miles or 108) and
the most land with good reclamation potential (22'6 miles or 409')
AI1 other al-ternatives have more significant soil impacts. Potential
secondary impacts are increased stream sediment yield and airborne
soil purliclEs, both of which are termed temporary.
Water Resources: Potential stream water guality impacts are increased
ffi;.=;i.ofriverfordi'g,"ii.*ica1po1IutionaSaresu1tof spil1s or run-off from contaminated areas and increased human
acCeSS aS a result Of new access rOad creatiOn. Groundwater resources
are not expected to be impacted. Major river crossings are identified
as having a high potential for impacl. The crossing of perennial and
intermittent streams is not expecled to be a significant impact due to
the short spans crossed. The onfy alternative with major river-
crossings is C, which crosses the Colorado River twice between Rif1e
and Debeque. Alternative H crosses the second least number of
perennial streams and third least number of intermittent streams of
all alternatives. Alternatives A and B cross less perennial and
intermittent streams.
vegetation: Impacts to vegetation would include vegetation removal
;#iffir,;ming'a1ong Righls-of -way, access roads and staging areas'
Rights-of -[,lays will not ue clear-cut, except at structure locations
and for the most part vegetative removal is not expected to be
noticeaUte in mosl vegetitive communities. No pesticides or
herbicides will be "ppri"a to any of the Rights-of -t'Jay'
Al-ternatives B and c are identified as having the lowest potential
impact to natural vegetation overalI. Alternative H has the third
lowest potential impact on natural vegetation and the least impact on'
agricultural vegetation.
Secondary impacts as a result of vegetation removal and/or trimming
are increased erosion potential, loss of wildlife habitat and
increased potential foi invading weed species. Unavoidable adverse
i*prcts id-entif ied are the perminent disturbance of land at tower'
substation and access road io"-tions, and the trimming (feathering) of
trees along the Right-of-Way. Over t!" entire length of the project'
54 acres oi vegetation will be removed'
t{ildlife: The major potential impacts to wildlife are expected to
;ffiii"gtheperiods"i-"""=tiuctionandmaintenance.Itis
expected that the-se impacts will be stiort term in that the impact will
be negilible after construction and maintenance operations are
completed. The potential for disrupting muIe, d99r and elk wintering'
migration, fawning and calving peribas is identified and proposed to
be mitigated by the appropriaLe- scheduling of activities' Larger
birds such as ravensr €a91es, hawks, and turkeys are known to use the
transmission structures for ioosting, nesting and perching' The
potential for electricution wiIl be-mitigated by_ the appropriate
separations of the energized conductors. overall, the impact to
wilatife is expected to be minimal'
Alternative H crosses more big game critical winter range than A or C'
but less than all other alteri.Lir"=. Alternatives C and H cross more
fawning and calving area than any alternatives, however, these impacts
are to be minimized by proper schedulitg, also'
.: 13-
secondarv .^:3:IQ:.i:;.:il::: 3iu.?i,5":ilJ::"1:==,i5 :;i;ii13,,vegetative cc
open area could result in increased raptor activity with a subsequent
.increase in the birds hunting Pressure in those areas' The additional
access roads could result rn-increased hunting pressure during big
game seasons and the potential for unLawful hunting' Unavoidable
impacts will be the loss of some nests, cover and food resources.
I.Jet1ands@:t{eLIandsthatcou1dbeimpactedbythe
ffiarethoseareaSwithwidths9reaterthanI000feet
and may be too wioe to u.-=p""ned. The same rooo foot criteria was
applied to riparian areas --r-,a 100 year floodplains' Although it has
been determined that the placing oi structures in the 100 year
floodplain ".r, be done ,ilf,"rl ity signif icant impact if properly
constructed.
Alternative c is the only proposed corridor that has wetlands'
riparian area and 100 y.rr'iftoapfains *itn a width greater than 1000
feet because of the two areas that cross the Colorado River ' None of
the other alternatives r,ave any wetlands, riparian areas or 100
ifooapfains with a width greater than 1000 feet'-
Threatened and Endangered speqies: Plant species that are listed as
riiiffiendangeredipeciesarethespine1esshedgehogcactuS,unita Basin hookless cactu-s and the Mesa Verde cacti' The areas
identified as having these sPecies ygre avoided where practical and
those areas th;a mai be impaltea wirr be ?"tYtY:g-prior to
construction by a qualifiei botanist. Animal species on the federal
endangered list "r6 the eiackfooted ferret' bal-d eagles' and peregrine
falcon.TheColoradosquawfish'bontail-chubttdzorbacksuckerand
roundtail chub are listed as either federaliy or state threatened or
endangered species. In addition, the State i'f Colorado has listed as
endangered species the wolverine river otter and colorado River
cutthroat trout. Previously, the u.s' ri=n and l{iIdlife service made
a determination that there *irr be no "i;;ificant impact on threatened
or endangered species. This study has mide the same finding' subject
to the completi6n of a revised biological assessment.
Bald eagles and wolverines are the two species identified as being
potentially within the ptoo".a corridors between Rifle and Grand
Junction.ofthefourColoradoRiveralternatives,AlternativeHhasthe least potential impact on batd eagle concentration areas' AIl
four corridors have tv/o tii-*ir"s-or lotential wolverine habitat'
Secondary impacts are increased hunting area fol !h" raptors' with a
possible adverse impact as a result of increased human access'
Cumulative impacts are ''ot"J;; possibly being.?dy?rs€r- b":^"?:,
quantif icable-. fh"r" *uV-Uu =o*L slight '.rna.'oidable adverse impacts
as a result of disturbances to these populations'
Cultural Resources: Road and tower construction will result in ground
disturbance, miEE could result in damage to su5f icial and buried
cul-tura1 resources. Improved access "o,-rta result in damage to
previously identif ied cultural resources that I^'ere protected by their
inaccessibilitY.
state inventoried sites have been identified in the route corridors
for alternatives A and C. GeneraIIy though, the-corridors in'the
sections in the Colorado River basin have-been classified as low
densitY areas
Land use: Land use i.mpacts identified are transPortation facilities'
ffiffi"a I1.,"..r resou.""r, -
"o**"rciar timber and ag r icurture ' Low
flying aircraft could be affected by the transmission line at canyon
crossings. Various coal leasing areas and gas fields are crossed by
some corridors, but underground extraction of the resources should not
be affected by the transmission 1ines. There are no commercial
forests affected by the niiie to Grand Junction segment' O1::rnatives
AandBcrossoverfarmlandsidentifiedby!h959}lConservatlonService. Irrigated agricultural lands-""irfa be limited non-automatic
sprinkling systems.- Alternative H crosses significantly less
agricuttural land than any other "llgrnative, with 3'6 miles' with
Alternative A crossing th; next smaller amount with L2'5 miles'
Disturbance to agricultural lanos aPPears to be the largest potential
impact. It is proposed that the transmission line will be located
along property lines whet"-p.rcticar. . A9ricultul3l land removed- from
agricultural production "I ;-;;=uft "f t5wer footings is the only': ' .
- L4-
@,..i:p3".onhuman:::::.t:.:'::I"i':;.o.dingtoi@iry,1itf, ligf, density areas De rng a
residential and commercial-prrcel= oi less than B0 acres each and
recreation areas. Low aensity areas were public use areas including
BLt"l, Forest Service and state Iands, atong^ with.l"Y Population density
areas. In general, population centers *"i" avoided were possible'
The impact to iu.r"ulional areas is primarily visual-
Atternatives B and c have the highest potential impact on human
resources since they cross the eitttemlnt Mesa and Parachute/Debeque
areas respectively. Alternative H would have the lowest impact on
human resources, with only 4.3 milgs of high density area traversed'
It should be noted, though, that Alternative H crosses the proposed
Rifle Ski Area-
There are no identified secondary or unavoidable adverse impacts
identified for human ."=ources. This is due primarily to the
proponents intent to ptace facilities in the least obtrusive locations
possible and negotiations with landowners to mitigate any impacts'
Socioeconomic: Short-term economic impacts are
to landowners for land and easements and income
iio* the sale of goods and services to laborers'
the entire projecl wi1I take 24 to 30 months ' wi
workers Present at any one P1ace '
identified as PaYments
to locaI merchants
ft is estimated that
th no more than 50
Colorado Ute and PSC would have to pay property taxes on the
transmission tines and =uUst.tio., fici'fitiLs ' In Garf ield County '
these revenues are estimatei to be $I00'000' based on L9B2 dol1ar
value and a miII IevY of 77'L6L'
secondary impacts are the creation of indirect' Iong-term economic
effects by providing a capability to :upPly increased power for area
industrial, commercial ana-iesid-ential ".u-a=' There are no identif ied
unavoidable adverse imPacts '
Visual: Visual impacts were determined by the degree of impact upon
Erre t-andscape type and the;t;;i*ity of t-ne projelt to populated and
traveled areas. The tra.,smiision 1-ine would cause visual contrast to
visually sensitive areas "r-,"fr-.= major travel routes ' Ptimary highway
crossings, high guality scenic areas, communities and recreational
areas. The gieatest visual constrast to scenic quality of an area is
in undeveloPed areas '
Alternatives H and A both cross approximatery 33 mil-es of area with
high visual impact on ,orghiy-ssi'3t their t-otal lengths' Alternative
B and C cross approximateli-nO miles of area with high visual
sensitivity or rougly 808 6f their lengths', A1I. other alternatives
cross areas totalling ,orgniy-gsi of tileir lengths with high visual
sens it ivitY -
There are no secondary visual impacts identified' unavoidable adverse
impacts are the fact tf,ut tn. lrln=mission Iine will pass through
areas of high visual sensitivity, creating a horizontal and verLical
linear inLrusion on existing viiual. resouitu= and a contrast in color
anA Iine from soil and vegetation disturbance
Electrical: There are three electical effects identified; corona
afiaffii""tio=raric f ierd effects, and electromagnetic 5l:19,
effects.Coronaiselectricalbreakdownoftheairintochargedparticles "-,r="a by the "r""tiic"r field at the surface of the
conductors, which can cause radio and television interference' audible
noise and oxidant production. Field efiects are induced currents and
voltages and relatld effects that occur as a resu1t of electrical and
*ug.,"f.i" f ields at ground Ievel '
corona effects are significantly greater during wet weather' During
fair weather, corona should not aifect radio 'na television reception
for residences 300 feet or more from the transmission line' This
standard was developed by the FCC aS the distance necessary for
satisfactory reception. The audible noise identified is a hum a
freguencies of 120 hertz and a randum cracking or hrssing sound' The
noise effects have been t;;;.; ""giigible in ln" SDErs' The levels of
ozone and nitrogen oxides produceh by the transmission line corona are
too low to be measured at ground levels and would be below National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for oxidants'
- 15 -
'Electrostatic ri"rOdecrease with an incr.uTrn distance from the
line. Large metallic objects such as farm equipment, fences and
vehicles can conduct and transfer voltage and curre.nt. Based upon the
proposed design the induced current would not exceed 3.5 milliamps,
wfrich is above the human perception and bel-ow the accepted American
National Standards Institute standard of 5.0 milliamps. With proper
grounding of stationary objects, such as fences, there should not be
any electrostatic field effects.
Electromagnetic fields can create induced voltages in conducting
objects beneath the line. There are a number of factors that can
create a situation whereby intensity of the induced voltage is
dependent. In general, long conducting objects, such as fences
p"?u1le1 to the transmission 1ine, are subject to electromagnetic
induction. If properly grounded, there should be no electromagnetic
affect. AdditionaIly, farmers and equipment operators whose property
is crossed by the transmission Iine would be cautioned against
refueling diiectly under the 1ine. Persons operating irrigation
systems woul-d be warned that sections of pipe and solid streams of
water shoul-d not pass near the transmission l-ine conductors at the
time of Right-of-WaY aquisition
Cumulative electrical- affects are not expected to impact any radio or
television reception of residences over 3OO feet from the transmission
Iine. There are no anticipated harmful biological or health affects
as a result of putting in the transmission Iine.
Cumulative fmpggle: Cumulative impacts are the combined effects of
@deve1opmentthatwou1docCurduringtheperiodofconstruction and operation of the proposed project. Other Projects
identified are oi1 shale development, coal and mineral mines, water
storage Projects and pipelines. Due to the uncertainty of the
timelines for these projects, it is difficult to guantify the
cumulative impacts. It is noted that a second 345 KV transmission
line may be necessary at some future date and that it would parallel
the proposed transmission line, but be subject to a separate process.
Cumulative impacts are identified as being both beneficial and
detrimental to the environment of the area. Employment and increased
tax base are noted as being favorable impacts. But the increased
population growth could create unfavorable impacts to public and
ioliaf services and housing. The total estimated increase in
population to the region covered by the entire line is estimated to be
iA-,0O0 people by 1985, but this projection is based on indefinite
plans for expansion by existing energy projects, new projects,-ommunity expansion, etc. Overall, there would be a loss of area
vegetation and a reduction in the available wildlife habitat in the
region as a result of all- the potential projects.
]V. SUMMARY:
There wilI be a response to the Rural Electrification Administration
regarding the SDEIS by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
by Augusl Bt 1983. Prior to ttrat date, the Garfield County Planning
Commission will be making their comments to the Board of County
Commissioners for inclusion in the Boardrs comments-
The preferred corridor noted in the SDEIS is Alternative H. The proposed
mitigation measures generally address the environmental issues in the
SDEfS. Further details may be reguired at the time a special use permit
application is submitted to clarify the "where practical" and "where
possible" statement and other issues identified in the revi,ew of the
SDEIS.
Included for the Planning Commissions I benefit are comments received at a
. ) The northernSDEIS public scoping meeting. (See pages
route discussed in the letters is Alternative
Alternative H.
- 16 -
C and the southern route is
a
PU3:-IC SCOPfHG l'1::TIliG COlt{:}\'T FOI'M
iifle-San Juan 145 kV Transnission Line
Hep:'esenLing
Rifle Ski CorP
Name
I\Iar sh a1l T. Savage
Date
3hB/83
Ad dress
1332 Arabian Ave. , Rif1e, C0 eL650
Please provicie any eomnents relative to the P:-fle-San Juan 3t45 kV transnission
Iine oroject or .,h! enr.,:-rcn;reniai impacts of '"he proposeC project' Cornnenis
nay be sent to Mr. Wil]iam E. Davis, Di-rector, Wesre:-n Ar-ea'- Erectrie' Pural
El ectrification Lcrni ni stration, Agriculture south tsui-) ciing, Foom 33c'lj ' I"lashin6.ton,
D.C. 20250, wi"hin tuo weeks of this meeiing'
-Allow me to preface my comments by saying that r am in favor
r.f the constrl,etion of thi s line i and that J believe it would
be a sisnificant asset to our valIey '
.:
COLIBPAI{ ROUTE T h ave no real interest in the Collbran -loute
exceDt as an electricitY consumer rny f ellow consumers and
f nust ultimately pay for the substantial additiona] costs of such
e rouie, J would urge -.,hat *r,his route be rs53pved as a last resort'
SOUT}{3RJ{ ROUTE I'think this:route is uncesireable for a couple
of reasons. rirst it is unnecessarily long, and is located in
S ince
very Cifficult terrain. This wilf not only aoo greatlv to
line's cost, but will also necessitaie sisnificant disturbanc! of
e relatiVelv Plistine area.Second, f think the aesthetic im-
i*p"ct stucies lrresented at your public meetin9 all seemed to
nrr.*.= of this roule have been gras-E-I-Y-u-ll-d€restinated- The visu
P-', '.'
j,'i . T. Savaee C onir s on llrl l-e-5aR Ju2-.-^+trll uo
assume that the only vantage point of any importance
the fnterstate Hiehway corridor along the river ' I
CiI{TS.AL ROUTE I would
to this route, .whi-ch is
lands in this area are
to point out that our company has obtained prelimi-nary indica-
;'tions of approial of a Special Use'Pernit from the Forest Ser-
vice to construct a major destination winter resort area just
to the South of this route. The view from the ski area of this
route woul-d make the line very visible, and th? extensive net-
work of access roacs that will be necessary in that terrain
will make an exceedingly obtrusive and unsightly intrusion in
that environment . -A+-ifot=lrnor,#rom -the- 'pre1i-minary -plans -we-
otr', rti6 pl;an extensive residentia-l- de-
velocment on'the lands immediately to the North of this route'
This location of the line would create an unnatural a:rd unwel-
corle visual and psychological barrier between the resicents in
these areas and the nati-ve environment of the foresi service
lands to the South.
like to voice my strongest objection
completelY unaccePtable to us'
alreaoy burdened by the Public Service
\
line and cannot
1-qO foot swath
'.'rou1o comPri se
ollr lands i nto +.wo ef fectiwelv seoarated hol clrs' Although
n ll-ano s. !-L j,lE l-\Lru L-LlrE
YJas from
would like
possibly accept. the aodition of yet another
of total disruption' Together the two routes
abisection,thewidthofafootballfielo'slashing
tf, " =a
'l
I
I
.\,
lands are presently aEricultural
for their eventual developnrent.
, w€ have , es You h;row, Plans
disrupted by
through them.
on the basis
These plans will be severlY
the addition of another transmissron line running
Finally f would urge
of cost, since we will
the rejection of this route
undoubteoly fight for the
fu1I value of these
j';cSTHill.i 3cuT3
lands for their residentiaa potential.
I woul-d like to strongly urge that you adopt
There
the
th4s route for the construction of the transmission line '
are a number of reasons for this recommendation aside flom
nega'uive factors associated with the other proposeC routes'
First, I think this must be the cheapes route It seems to
be one of the shortest, and it is certa.inly sitr:-ated in the
:
most accessible and manageable terrain from a construction
standpoint. f thinlr that your assessment of the visual impacts
of this route are misleading.The studies Presented at the
meeting seemed to take into account on)-y-the nature of vegetation
and terrain when assessing the line's potential vi-sibilifi'
ff you
bi11ty
can be
'i.y to
will consult your i'v'ebster's you wilt find that visi-
is a measure of lot only -the extent to '*hic}. a- thing
seen, but also the extent to rvh ich it is obvious. The
the vrsual inpact of this line on this5oute is the ex-
._19_
.\
J I,l. T. Savase commJs, cont.
tent to rvhich it is or is not obvious. Cne of the more in-
portant factors which was not included in your visual impacts
study, is the extent to rvhich an area is already disturbed' and
the nature of that disturbarce ' As you know ^''he North sid'e
of the river is already highly disturbed by healry inoustrial
types of activity. i.luch of the area just i'iest of Rifle is
already crisscrossed by acceSS roads, and spot..ted with natural
gas we1}s. Additionatly, that side of the river j-s already
embelished with the inoustrial conplex at Anvil Points and' soon
will be further disturbed when Paraho moves its experimental
facilities out of Anvil Points and into the va11ey area' This
preexisting industrial disturbance has a couple of very.impor-
tant visua)- effects relative to the transmission line' First'
it reduces the effect of contrast createo when a' line is ='p"t-
imposed on an otherwise relatively undisturbed area' Sssentially
the presence of other incustrial disturbances in the area creates
a contezt into rvhich the line blends. Secondly, ttre preexisting
industrial infrastructure, esDecially insof,ar as it is oil shale
related, creates an expecta"ion of such iisturbances' The net
effect of the line 'oeing placed into such a preexisting indus-
trial context is that it becomes far less obvious to the minc,
ea/en if it is nore ..zisibIe to the eye. sinilarly, frorn a .}and-
use planning point of view, this route places the line in an
2nnr^nriatelv indtlstrial arla..ra_the_r than irnooslns it on a'
nt .,/
re sident :-al,/recr ional area
o
eat
To su:nnarize my commentsr the Collbran route is too expensive,
the Southern route will seriously impair the aesthetic experience
of both visitors to our ski area and residents in our associated
residential developments, the Central route is unfairly burden-
some to our developable lands and rvill seriously irnpair our
ceveloprnent pIans, and finally the liorthernroute is the most
economical and when viewed in terms of its iniustrial context
the least obtrusive location for the proposed l-ine.
Sincerely,
Iirarshall T. Savage
3o3) 525-2601
4
o:-h
Plt>, l:
ii fl e- Sa n Juar lx5 ki' Transnlssion Line
NeIDE
william
-
J..l4ou1ton, Manager
iepres eniing
Rif.le Ski CorPoration I'larch 23, 1983
Date
AC iress
PIease provioe a;ly connen'"s relative to tl:e PifIe-San Juan JIJ! kV transnission
line projeci or ^'he environrneniaL inpac-'S cl ti:e proposed project- Con:aenis
Eay be sent 'uo Mr. lJill-rap E. Davrs, Di:'eclor, llestern l-:'ea .- Flectric, Ru:-al
Eree',rifica'uion .0-o::iinistra+-ion, AEri,cul'"u:'e South Burlci- n5,, ioom :3C4, }.iashinglon,
D. C. 2OZ)0, ri"hin ii"o weeks of ',-his meetrng,.
Commen ts bv a l- terna ti ve :
1: Southern Alternative of the Colorado River Valley alternatives:
Colorado-Ute studv team. This proposed route crosses lands of the RifIe
This is the alternative selected as the preferred alternative by the
project -,:hich is a proposed nulti-use land Cevelopment iacluding a rnajo:
oestinatie,n site ski area The final Environ;aental Impact Statement,
r distributed by the USDA-Forest Service andRif1e Ski- Area., has been
-rh1s cocuments findinqs and the Record of Decision is favorable to tle
ski area. Preliminary land use plans of the Rifle Projec-u have been
iven to Colorado-Ute and they have been aware of L]tl:_ ifojeg! since
ea'r1y Fal1 of 1981 vrhen thq/ oroposed a l3B KV line traversing Project
lands- .This 1i'ne was not constructed- Obviously,the routing of a
345 XVI line along this southern al-ter:native poses a srgnif icant constraint
to the Rif1e Pro ^-LEL L,.In paiticular, 'the findinos of the stud team
;z;*
")s-:-uUFE
o
f oP.t"l--------.---.-..--
22. -
a'or,.2
related to.visual impact for this alternative are in error- It can
plainly be observed that existing utility Lines, roads, pipelines,
fences, trails, etc. located in the area of this a).ternative, or in loca-
tions simil'ar in nature, are highly visible. The reason being the
thicker and generally higher vegetative cover resulting from the much
greater annual precipitation arnounts. of the higher elevations- In
addition, Lhis southern alLernative would traverse general).y noith
facing slopes which ordinarily are.covered with denser vegetative cover
than south facing slopes- This results in highly yisibte slashes or
lines when the vegetation is removed for any purpose
2. Northern Alt,ernative of t'he Colorado River Vallew alternatives:
I disagree with some of the findings of the Colorado-Ute study ieam
resulting from their analysis'of this alternative- f[ is clear th"y
did not consider this route in tbe proper location this al-ternative
should follow. 'The route studied and then shorvn at tbe. scoping meeting
generally parallels I-70 at short distances avray frcra that structure
and from this the towers and fines would be obviousl-y noticeable. The
proper placem.ent' for this route.would be. further north along the toe
and foothills of the main ridge.. If . placed there wi-.-ir any design and
foresight at a11, and witb neutral.colored towers, tr.ey would blend in
weJ-1 against the variable colored escarpments and ba.r=en hiIIs. fn
addition, the sparse vegetation 'of that Iow elevation, south facing
slope would require only friinimal clearing anC thus help prevent the
oriinary visually prominent tangent -alignments- The reason f was
.\.:.EJ.:-ul!!ra-.(c,I1.I.$1.; ',! ]!' ', .' .:.*...3'!ii...{f,i,:
.- _ 5.^t 31'.r\s.l' l'. i- s
.r:a. -'])i.?. -..... ..\$ ..
\-/
-,si: ;
l,.cC(j J
;
given at the scoping meeting for not studying placing the 'tines in this
location was that major oil firms, such u; Mobi1 oiI, have their prop-
erties, which the. route would traverse, planned for oiJ- shale develop-
ment and don't want to be bothered by this very large po\rrer line even
though they will reouire =rt=tantial amounts of electric power in t}eir
own developments. ft would appear that once again l.arge, major companies
are deferred to while smaller parties are steamrolrered-h'1:at'better
place for this large line than in an area already zoned industrial,
where major Power uses are expected, and where significant developments
such as the B'ureau of Mines shale plant and mine, clrfieJ-d County 1and-
fill and road thereto, gas wel-Is, 9as pipelines and comDressor stations,
well roads, eguipment yards, etc. alreadv have impacted the land- I
strongly urge selection of this alternative
3- Iliddle Alternatives (A) ,and (B) of the Colorado Riwe.r Val1ey
alternatives:' ?he Pub1ic Service Company of Colorado's existing 230
Xv line which this alternative would paralle' is a classic exarnple of
a utility r.o-vr. which would not be fol-l-owed if rt we:re to be proposed
now. f t is high'l y vi sibIe, i t crosses good agricultu.ral. 1and and 1and
that coulo be easiiy deveioped. Alignment dio not take -,-isuaI. imoacts
or vegetative cover into consideration. . To place anot}.er J-ine. immed-
iately adjacent to this 1ine, particularly between Rii)-e and Battlement
.l'{esa, would iompound. the problem and be she.er fo11y- Designation of
this alternative as the route to be followed will result in a great
deal of opposition from 1oca1 residents
Pqge
,t
j o
4.
reason to
Plateau Cover
even consider
(ColIbran) Alternative :
this route.
There is no val-id
cc: Garfield County Planning Department
Colorado-Ute Electric Assn, Inc.Attn: Homer Sansom
P. O- Box I-149l,lontrose, CO 81401
I
-25-
*l
- /\--'. /-q,'
.\
-=*-4--*lA
.i: :
{
=\ti!-i
l--\ :
r /l -
: 16-.-.t
,r' .1. -
'.1
-t
I
I
I
j,.
- tor d:
I
I
a
i
:
:
;.r\
,_1/ t- -.1
I
/l/ri-
' ,')l^/-- *Ft
:/
-...=.--i 1-t
-li
l-zti :
a
;
- - r l_; )2.>.'.-. . rl :ri:tiY. \ 'Ji 'rn I
------ ;-' ---i -+-1--11q-("i i I '1uJo,
-
--i-=
- : ,
-t\,.'
f h- ._--_* _+3x_._;-. i)
o
*-<--'2(/o ^ n ./
/L fl"- 'A'd*iD
#)il2,*r-&^ai)-,
"1/-*
[:i] 0 7
*i?r,d[i, ufl.
GARiiLLi)
Hy:?'f ( !', -'''-// 0*" *'"*t4l/,"uaz-/r
g o''l 74- fr*-, ,,n*/l 1)f\
? r;-'-rl .^gfr"n.Y
AuG ii 01983
nn /ll-r // 2_zt4\ ---4LLc--7L-LL
"- F,llli-ii '-"- iz' L!)'l
ff*)Jr,or't
//
/2----,---,--' --z"v;* *-t'* t:2 -' -'-' -nil-"n-
BATTLEIGNT Exl4,/ 4
MESA Lars Larsen
Vice-President-Operations Manager
(303) 244-3900!NC.
743 Horizon Court
P.O. Box 3O8
Grand Junclion, Colorado 81502 September 8, I983
Public Hearing Sept. L2, 1983Rifle-San Juan 345-kv
Transmission Line
Board of County CommissionersGarfield County
Commissioners Annex
2OL Eighth Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81502
Gent-lemen:
We have received notification from Colorado-Ute Electric Association,Inc. concerning the proposed Rifle-San Juan 345-kv transmission line.
We have no objection to the proposed routing suggested by Colorado-Uteand in fact h,e believe it will provide the least visual potlution anddisturbance to the environment.
Although we support the Colorado-Ute proposed router w€ are adamantlyopposed to the alternate route which paralleIs the existing PubIicService Co. 230-kv transmission line south of Battlement Mesa. Theaddition of this line visually degrades the river corridor, and passesthrough prime development land. Such land is scarce in westernGarfield County, and should not be impaired needlessly.
As a significant land owner involved in Ehe alternate route we opposethis routing of the transmission line in as much as it will consumeabout 70 acres of prime developable land owned by us as welI asadditional developable land owned by others. The location of thealternate route will have a direct impact on residents of the area,and be offensive to visitors as weII, because of its visibility fromthe interstate highway.
Sincerely,
-J l'j??-t 14 &"<-eth=
Lars Larsen
LL:eab
c3 Ms. M. M. Chapman, Colorado-Ute
Mark t. Bean
bc: W.N. EkstrandR.A. Foster
W.E. Rasmussen
t
11 -.
i
t al/,/€
ii Aug u lru' '\[fufi o,,uu#- P rr,-^]",L cln .
,U"*rtaa >r,*,rnt W
%nrr,un),--q 1)* S:*, /*''* tl*il ea'*M,
.qt) a^ a-4-e-,>Lr# WLf U, obn ry*q atfr drrr^?!r- L,*-r"h;;*r;ry
l-, *r"p*,,-2r.r**, .u^
e )n-o,r+ Y-ld"xil +2 "-r.-*r'n, oo'"*iV^ J*4 to, fftff -;Jrr^b)
-qt"rA);* €r4,L/ ,";^lt^-r- ;r,* ovk Saantc,l<a
u.e-.a?,, {)*F*, -t;t*rrn- il-. P"*t )t**
e).nau-n 2/*t aruR ;,rrflrJra mlzrc*
il*; -P.rta, f,r"e./4,x- -ay'a'ilA l" c-'"W!t!
to f*""&d r*rr;'fziAe^f J?*^, {h% d'-"lJ
"lrl Ollrr.r*a t^o -arc^a.t iiw?,uYL a)Lal ""1'ZL
4ry d yry *P a-t/)LZ'1,4/'oaJ-<,
!l; 6"A; d- P-r-r.u,,o,o e,arzuZ,+X4. rta-fr,<n
d"* on-J ru& )"J.?J; -.0; ru a-^4
,tdr-rz.t€.L ,.tl)r,o.r^ +t*- )-^rr*-b -0r rr<- il^r-
,fn.ruriartn
Lt)r e-rh Hd>L 4 ff* U.$tt"l 4 ,
gh"rrln*t a :t " A-r".1 ?b ^/
* WrW*!*h'a p*r** L, "rf*.^f J-/-') !'"'"- U x-l; !"A;t*
-f"-* t),,* ,L 4A/;-f--bLL s-yfa^rr.iz Ld,L',-";{*il,
v "* ;P}^/ i
^-
7/* **
Wyz/'e' tI, M'Ax
o
grand junction-mesa county 559 white ave. rm. 60
STAFF REVIEW
c8 4-8 3Conditional Use - AFT Zone
Colorado Ute 345 KV Power LineJuan, N.M.Date:. 7 /2L/83
Date:
nM')@r>goN
-\_o
grand jct.,colo. B 1501
t303) 244- 1628I(rnen\
File No.:
Activity:
Project:
MCPC Hearing
MCC Hearing
- Rifle/San
a. Petitioner: Colorado Ute Electric Association
b. Location: Rifle to San Juan, New Mexico. fn Mesa County,ffim-he Garf ield County line to the DeBeque area, to pliteau
Creek, Orchard Mesa, Kannah Creek and the Delta County line.
c. Surrounding Land Use and Zoninq: National Forest, BLM 1and,
teau Creek, Kannah Creek,
numerous small creeks and water courses, grazing 1and,farmland, AFT zoning
d. $!Cff Qomments: Colorado Ute is proposing a major upgradingffirnCo1oradopowertianimission1inewiLhthisfacility. It will be the_J.argest and longest power line ofits kind ever--built in this part of the state and it is
designed to serve the six member power systems of the ColoradoUte system. The member system in Mesa County is the Grand
Va11ey Rural Power Lines. The proposed line will be shared byPublic Service Company and Western Power Administration, andwill provide a new source of power to the Grand Valley and
Mesa County via the Orchard Mesa Substation and itsinterconnection to the Grand Valley Rural Power Lines and
Pub1ic Service Lines. It will consist of approximately 48miles of power line in Mesa County out of the approximately
275 miles of power line. This project was proposed as adouble circuit 345 KV transmission line in 1981 with the
Western Area Power Administration and was denied approval of aCertificate of Public convenience and Necessity for theproposed project. REA decided not to issue a Fina1
Environmental Impact Statement.
This latest plan is a single circuit 345 KV 1ine. A
Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been
o
l3 :
'.1- i,:Jl
File c84-83Staff Review
Page 2
prepared since this proposal was fert to be significantlydifferent than the 1981 proposal.
The structures for this line would be steel lattice towersapproximately 115 feet in height and a base dimension ofapproximately 900 sguare feet. Typically there would be 4-5structures per mile with an average span of r2o0 feet. Theright of way width would be a minimum of 150 feet. Existingsubstatj-on expansion would encompass about 20 acres of landclearing.
construction would begin in r9g4 and be completed in 19g6.
Alternativse - Several alternatives have been considered,IIGTfr-Ing alternarive corridors.
fn the Rif1e to Orchard Mesa segrment two alternatives, 3e and3d fo1Iow the Colorado River and I-70 from Rifle to palisade.corridor 3c and 3i is farther to the south and would bevirtually invisible from t-70 and the river. This is thepreferred alternative of Colorado Ute and would have the leastvisual impact on Mesa County.
Route 3e is north of theDeBeque. This route has
(1) it would be the most
river and would cross the river atthe following disadvantages:
visually obtrusive;
(2) it would j-nvolve negative impacts on the floodplainvegetation in clearing and controlling the growth ofcottonwoods and other river treesi
(3) it could-have_a negative impact on farming by cuttingswaths through irrigated farmland in the iivEr valle!;
(4) it could have_a negative impact on DeBeque by crossingf-70, the railroad, and the river at this point.
llaior SegmentsMajor segrments of the route which may be of concern are:
Plateau creek crossing - The rine will cross plateau
creek above the valley floor, reducing its visual impact.
il
!
File No. C84-83Staff Review
Page 3
PalisadeffiE !lg=. The line will ring the Grand Mesa at anffina1ocationwithintnefoothi11swhichwi11makeit visible from Palisade and East Orchard Mesa. Becauseof the proposed location it will not be a major visualimpact here, however.
Orchard Mesa The line will link j.nto the existingOr;EarA Mesa Substation far to the south of the built-uparea of Orchard Mesa.
sz.,ar*Q!u4 ke!*"n
Kannah Creek - U.S. 50 The line
,. present line from the Orchard Mesa
12-{b r"{e,nt+ese County line. rt will bepoints along U.S. 50 and will be a
Kannah Creek and Landrs End Road.
The line will have positive economic and fiscal impactsincluding jobs, power availability and taxes ($fa2,OO0/year
estimated for Mesa County).
e. Staff Recommendation Summarv: Approval of the preferred
\- alternative for the following reasons:
,v)
LIIJ
" \i ''.of (I) the line represents a new major source of power in Mesa
\y il County to meet the requirements of the existing and,$ .$u.-0, future growth in power needs for Mesa County;$-".y\$N - 1-
' .l\ ,4, -d (2) the preferred alternative will have the least negative
^.ad .I,0 impact on Mesa County of visual, environmental, and land*
^*.. v rrd, use f actor;
-{ Jrfrg ) ttre line meets the draft transmission line policy of Mesa
., ill .\u" ,S CountY;
^ JS,r]|\\"\ and subject to:
Y
' (I) compliance with the requirements, standards, andrestrictions of the Supplemental Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement, June 1983;
(2) compliance with additional stipulations outlined in theCity of Grand Junction/mesa County Comprehensive Planning
Report.
will rcpd:aca theSubstationto thevisible at certainsignificant feature at
File No. C84-83Staff Review
Page 4
f.
9.
YqPC Recommendation: Approved subject to staff comments and@rridoi segments: Kannah creeki 5a andOrchard Mesa; and 3i, 3f, and 3h.
Beview Aqencv comments: Town of DeBeque, state GeotogicarSurvey.
REVIEW COI'IHENTS
C84-83 Conditional Use Colorado Ute 345KV Transmission Line
I.Both the project narrative and the SDEIS lack adequate data
onthebiologicalhazardstohumansaSsociatedwithhighvoltagetransmissionlines.Bothdocumentsaskustoaccept
theconclusionsofREAandColoradoUtethatnoadversebiologicalhazardsexist.SinceMesaCountyhasboththeauthority and responsibility to issue a permit allowing
construction of this proj""i' the County should "J=? be
provided the data o" Liological hazards to make their own
assessment on the effects 6t' the human population'
Table2-Iand2_2intheSDEISshowaprojec-ted_increasein
power and ".r".gy requirements for Grand Valley Rural Power'
AnnexationsbyGrandJunction,FruitaandPalisadewilltransfer areas served by Grand Valley to Public Service
Company as per their frlnchise' Have annexations been
considered for if,"=" projections? If sor what is the
rationare for increased power and energy demand? rf not, an
analysis of possible to=="s- Lo Public bLrvice should be
included.
Accordingtotheprojectnarrative,ColoradoUtewillown
37L/2*ofthecapacityoftheproposedlinefromRifleto
Grand Junction and 508 from Grind Junction to San Juan' With
minor acceptions (as noted above) colorado ute has specified
andprojectedtheirneedsfortheproject.But,therearenot projections or power and energy requirements -fot Public
ServiceCompanyorWesternAreaPoweraa*i.,istrafion.Thetotalcapacityandprojectedloadsofallthreeentitieson
this proposed- line if,oufa !e included in order to adequately
assess the total need fof'-ttris.proJect'
2.
3.
RECOMMBNDATIONS
Iftheabovedataissubmittedandfoundacceptable,thefollowing recommendations aPPIY:
1. The proposed alternative (H) is the most acceptable causing
theleastamountofimpacttoMesaCounty.
2.Sincethisprojecthasanestimatedlifeof35years,arecramatiln-;1;" should be submitted and approved by the
CountY Prior to abandonment'
3.AfterexactR.o.w.hasbeendetermined,towerlocationsand
access roads be approved by this Department'
4. County Road use Permits and limited access be required for
equiPment hauling'
e
4,
Review Comments
c84-83
Page 2
5. Each staging areas be subject to a Conditional Use Permit.
6. A meeting with Colorado Ute, BLI"I, USFS and Mesa County be
convened to discuss the possible use of R.O.W. and/or accessroads for possible recreation use.
7. Recommend that Mesa Countyrs portion of the estimated
$1121000.00 in property tax revenue be held in a special fundfor energy impact mitigation.
72,,u
/u
n;27,11,4/ xr#;-rl P- a.d dc-z-ax.+-to; fu f/4-/-U-/ -2^/
&+a-cJ #rfru ih,,o(q /ia-r ,*y/:,..ti-tZ,
{-, €,,r,*J /t4o,,.Y #??J:ai-"tr *,*,, f:, trs ltaU/n-/ a,4rrr.,o,J
IloqitI,,T
rer[;*?y*IJ:]nugT*" ave rm 60 sr,and icL,coro.B.,so1
[ -cE=f (so3) 244-1628 :
[ ':-
I emr'E DrrrrrPrd
I
srAFP REvrEw
II File No.: CB3-83 ,
I Activity: Conditional Use - AFT Zone
I Project: Gary pipeline Conditional Use permit
I MCPC Hearing Date z 7 /2L/Al
IrICC Hearing Date:
a. Petitioner:Gary Energy Corporation
b. Location: Right of way fromffi?ElFe to Gary Refinery
miles in Garfield County
Union Oil Shale Mine at29.1 miles in Irlesa County , 27 .9
c.Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning: Lower Va1ley:field crops, grazing; dryland hi11s, Bookcliffs,
Wash, Coal Gulch, Garfield Mesa, Ruby Lee Canyon,Spring, South Dry Fork, Dry Fork, Roan Creek
farms,Big Salt
McKay
d.Staff Comments: This is a major pipeline proposal
@Unionoi1Sha1eraLi1ityat-Paiachutewh1ch1sjust nearing completion with the Gary Oil Refinery at Fruita.
The pipeline would be an 8 5/8 inch to 10 inch di.ameter crudeoil line. The pumping rate of the line is 151000 barrels,/day
and the design capacity Ls-"25,000 barrels,/day. The pipellnewill be a pressurized system with a pump station at Parachute
and gravity flow from the Garfield Mesa area of Mesa County(elevation 7,760 feet) to the Gary Refinery (elevation 41250feet ) .
The total length of the pipeline is 55.6 mi1es. A 50'rightof way will be acquired on private lands adjacent to County
right of way and 35 feet of right of way will be acquired on
Federal (eLM) Iand.
Most of the right of way is adjacent to County Roads. Thepreferred alternative crosses U.S. 6 & 50 at the Gary Refinery
and proceeds directly north adjacent to t5 Road and the 15
Road section line to a point north of Q Road. 15 Road is agravel road in this segment, and parts of it are undevelopedentirely.
nG
O
*.31pt?I::r*_rg!!: *:: cutg acrola to t6 Road and coattauegry{su!:#-*:::-Ih:^PI.?l1Ir:: ^3"^f9:1". panauei; th; couaty:.1.:l:":ll_:91 lytch. to. the cariiert-u""" are.a ""i-;;;
in Garfield County to parachute.
The major concerns which may be addressed
1. Long !9* impact of the pipelineand oiI shale facilities.
I are:
on the Gary Reflncry
The proposed line establishes the first piperlne rtnkto the rich oil shale area of parachute creek and the9"Iy Refinery. This transportation linkr\s!rrrs!f/- r,rs Eransportatr-on r-ink puts the GaryRefinery in a good positio; to refine and ship manvehip manyoi1 shale operation!, not just Union;s.
2- Establishment of an "energy corridor" to theBookcliffs:
The choice of 15 Road over 1G Road or r7 Road issignifi-cant for other energy interests rooring-"t ttt"corridor Dorchester coal-&irre, chevron upgradeFacilityr and the Aquatrain pipeline
with the euair Ridge Golf course and residentialdevelopment approved on 16 and L7 Roads, the cholce of
3. Mitigation of impacts on county roads:
The constructionpart, take place
maintenance andinsure that thecondi-tion and tooccur.
4. Plan for accidental spi11s and emergiencies:
The proposal shouldwhich would detailshould an oi1 spi11
of this pipeline wi1l, for the most
ad jacent to Count:y Roads. Aperformance bond should be required toroad is maintained in its presentbond against any damage which might
include a spi1l emergency planwhat actions would be taken by whomoccur. A standby crew andequipment team could serve this funclion. Anyshould be immediately contained and not arrowed
spi 1 1sto
Xo. C83-83
Bcvlcr
3
enter existing drainage or irrigation systems. litodernoi1 spiIl prevention measures should be investigated
and a plan devised for such a contingency.
e. Staf f Recommendation Summarv , Arry/yarr*L ,*b;rr+ L,- -,
1. t road damage performance bond to cover poteitiat damageto County roads in the vicinity during construction of thepipeline. The amount of the bond shall be set by the HesaCounty Road Department and the Mesa County Engineering
Department, and the bond agreement shall be approved bythe Mesa County Commissioners.
|(cP"tq(1-2. A road usage and maintenance k for all County roads,bridges, and road rights-of-way in the vicinity topartially cover the cost of maintaining these roads. The
road usage and maintenance fee will be assessed on an
annual basis. The road fee agreement and fee amount shall
be set by the County Road Department and County
Engineering Department and signed by the County
Commissioners.
3. An emergency management plan for accidental oi1 spillsoutlining who would respond to an emergency, the equipment
that would be available, the procedures which would be
used to abate any oil spil1, and all procedures which
would be used to abate the spiI1 (including response time,location of emergency response stations, etc. ).
This plan-must be su6"rn'-iltea and accepted by the County
Commissioners within 60 days of the approval of the
conditional use permit.
4. Approval subject to approval of the project by the Bureau
of Land Managrement.
f.Review Agency Comments:See attached
g. Mesa County Planninq Commission: Approv:rl subject to staff
iecommendations and conaitionea upon approval of the project
by the Bureau of Land Management.
ADOPTING
CONDITIONAL USE
}'ACILITIES
RESOLUTION NO.
A DECISION ON REQUEST IIOR
PERMIT_PIPELINES AND APPURTENANT
BY MESA COUNTY COMMISSIONEI{S
use permit in the
on the following
State of Colorado
WHEREAS ,Gary Energy
AFT Zone for
Corp. sought
pipelines and
si-tuated in
to have a corrditlonnl
appurtenan t l'ac l l t t tol
described land
, to-vrit:
the County of I-lesa,
See At tached
the hearing before the Board of County
held and;
the Board considered the evidence presented
the zoning maps and regulations of the County
and;
WHEREAS ,
Commissioners \^ras
I^IHEREAS,
at the hearing and
and finds:
1. That the hearing \^/as held af ter proper notice.
That the Mesa County Planning Commission rccommended
approval of the application with certain conditions.
3. That the Mesa County Planning Department recommended
approval of the application subject to certain conditions.
4. That said conditional use permit is in the best
interest of the publ.ic peace, health and safety.
5. That the conditional use permit is found to be in
thcconformance with the Mesa county Land Use Policies, subj ect Eo
following additional stipulations:
a.In the event the pipeline is placed in Countv
road right-of-way, there sha11 be issued a license to
occupy public right-of-way, which license sha11 incltrdc
terms for reimbursement for use of CounEy right-of-way
and payment of a road usage and maintenance fee for all
County roads, bridges, and road rights-of-way in the
)
vicinity to partially cover the cost of maintaining
or reclaiming the same. Fees will be assessed on an
annual basis, sha1l be set by the County Road Depart-
;
ment and County Engineering Department, and shal1 be
approved by the County Commissioners.
b. lA road damage performance bond shall be
secured and rnaintained to cover potential damage to
County roads in the vicinity during construction of
the pipeline. The amount of the bond sha11 be set
I
Iby the Mesa\ County Road Department
I
County Engineering Department, and
ment sha11 be approved by
prior to construcEion of
and the Mesa
the bond agree-
the Mesa County Commissioners
the project.
c. An emergency management plan for accidental
oi1 spi1ls sha11 be prepared by the applicant outlining
who would respond to an emergency, the equipment that
would be available, the procedures which would be used
to abate any oi1 spi11, and all procedures which would
be used to abate the spi1l (including response time,
location of emergency response stations, etc. ) .
\ ff,is plan must be submitted to the County
Commissioners prior Eo construction and accepted by
the County Commissioners prior to testing or use of
the pipeline.
d.Approval is subj ect to approval of the proj ect
by the Bureau of Land Management.
e. Socioeconomic informaEion sha11 be submitted
to the Mesa County Planning Department quarterly on the
Department I s standard reporting form, attached as
Exhibit A.
A11 work areas, such as pipeline route, accessf.
-2
-l
tr',*.
H
H.
$
&
ru
p
hr
H
h
roads and staging areas sha1l be stabilized with
water or other approved methods. The applicant
shall secure any permits required by the Colorado
Department of Health.
C. Applicant sha1l
applicable lreview agency
Grand Va11ey Rural power
River Extens ion.
with all other
, specifically
Service, and Tri
comply
comments
h. The condi EionaI use permit shal1 become
i
Ivalid only upon certification of o\^,nership of the
right-of-w3y to the Mesa County planning Department
by Gary Energy Corporation.
i. That the applicant restore any and all
agricultural land including topsoil and agricultural-
related pipes, ditches and other irrigation devices
to their prior condition.
N0}tr, THEREFoRE, BE rr RES0LVED By the Board of counry
Commissioners of the County of Mesa:
That the application of Gary Energy Corp. for
a conditionar use permit in the AFT zone for pipelines
,l
and appurtdnant facilities on the within described
property be approved, subject to the stipulations.
, Public
Maxine Albers, Chairman Mesa County
Board of County Commissioners
ATTEST:
Earl Sawyer
Mesa County Clerk and Recorder
il
-3
MESA COUNTY
DEMOGRAPHTC DATA
FOR
TABLE 2
HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION
Current
Residence
Fruital
Grand .-LrJUnCtLOn
PalisadeI
CollbranI
1DeBeque-
Number
of
Workers Spouse
Other ChildrenAdults Under 5
Grades GradesK-6 7-9
Average
Grades Family
10-12 Size
Fruita,
Area-
Grand Jct.
Area-
Clifton^
Areaz
DeBeque,
-LArea
Collbran^
Areaz
Whitewater
Areaz
Glade Park/
Gatewayz
Redlands2
TotaI
lwitnin city Limits
'See Attached Map
I.{ESA COUNTY
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
FOR
TABLE 3
AGElSEX
lrlale FemaIe TotalAqe
18-2 0
2l-25
26-30
31-3s
36-40
4I-45
46-50
51-55
46-60
61-65
Over 65
Total
o
frnr,,lH'
2J August L9B)
aL34 Jo3 rload
,rarachu Ee , CO Bt85
T,arry Velasquez
gox 640
Glenwood Springs, C0
Dear Sir,
BL602
We have just Iearned that the Colorado Ute Electric is
planning to come through the middle of our ranch and divide
there. The Gardner ranch has been used as one unit to raise
cattle an6 horses for seventy years and stlll is. This ilrcludes
the land owned by Mona and George Gardner and Wayne Payton.
We understand statistics show large po$rer lines have an effect
on abortion and heart diseases. Or..rr livestock will feed along
this line. The ranch is our livelyhood and we live here.
The Ietter said that Garfield Planning Commissioners decided
that our ranch was the place for this line. This was never
mentioned to us. Ute's letter said there were meetings. We
did not know about these meetings. It Seems strarige that Some-
thing as important to us as this electric Iine is done without
our knowledge. There is government land to the south of us and
the utility company has a right of way to the north of us through
Battlement Mesa, Inc. We appreciate that Exxon does not want
the power for southwest United States going through their property.
We feet the Sarne way. Ncw, our land is quite valuabre for homes,
etc. No one in his right mind would buy our }and near this
power line, which would. make our land. worthless on the market.
Why wasn't the line put on the government land?
f r* r-\'-"lJ
AUG 2 6 ls8j
UAii;-; cl-.;
@lrn c0Mlt{t ssior,tEBs
2.
we know the joys of a rlght of way. The gas company put
a line in many years ago on our property. The right of ways
are not only an ugly open scar on the land but an open invitation
to motor eycles and foir wheel drives. The gas company tried
to block off their right of way but we are still having trouble.
There is no way of stopping this short of posting guards.
For years we had the problems of our fences being ripped out,
livestock on the road. and. government land, plus the shooting
and killing of tivestock near the gas line. The power lines
are }eft open for maintence and these routes would cut the
ranch up until- we woul-d.n't have a chance of protecting our
livestock and property.
Very truly yours '
*T*- Q*7*
n
*1 ot 303 &-Jl
,L,rFnL/**
/'-\ l, tu
V "rta-<rY'r'"Y'"-
/13e 3az P.r'
t/ ) -,t /i , r*r/ 2..V.21-24-{) el ((C't''
,tt'1
, I I n,'?- fr-,,-'-)' M ,it' I L;x)
/.1 /- 7cJ i,n.ol.
/-)n)-
, 'A.-fi(l:itL.
PROJECI,' NAME:
OWNERS:
SDEIS REPORT PREPARATIQ{:
LOCAT]ON:
SITE DATA:
EXISTING ZONES: *
* The aPProPriate zone
cons idered.
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
Rifle to San Juan' 345-KV
Transmission Line SuPPlemental
Draft Environmental ImPact
Statement (SDEIS)
Colorado Ute Etectric Association,
Inc.; t{estern Area Power
Administration (WAPA) ; PubIic
Service ComPanY (PSC)
Rural Electrication Administration
(REA) ; Bureau of Land l"lanagement
(BLIvl) ; and Burns and McDonneII
The Project will extend from the
RifIe substation located south of
Rifle to the Grand Junction
Substation in ltesa CountY' The
entire ProPosal would extend a 345
KV transmission Iine from Rifle to
San Juan, New Mexico - a total of
27 5 m:-les.
The proPosal Projectsingle-circuit 345 KV
transmission 1ine.
A/R/RD
o/s
A/I
R/L
isa
electr ic
I.
is dependent upon which alternative is being
RELATIONSHIP TO :
Because the proposed project crosses a number of private and publrc
with the various alternatives, nearly every tyPe of.management distr
lands
ict in
notw I l-11 ulls v q! r!
the comprehensive PIan is included' utt1l-tl :Iii=*l::i:l^tl:::^:,::
;::ii:'ilii:i;:;-;.;^J.'i"'*ance slandards are relevant to the sitine:;:";;T:;ii;";;;i.'*iir,-;"-t;;-co*p'.r'en3lv!-113ll^:::.tl: I::t:Yl?:of
[f,. nifle-San Juan 345 KV transmission Iine:
I. Encourage industrial development in areas where adequate
transportation facilities ana punlic utilites are available'
Page L2)
(#7 ,
2. Ensure the compatibility of deve
active farms and ranches. (#I, Page
3. Ensure the minimum disturbance of slopes to reduce erosion'
sedimentation and runoff' (#II, Page 29)
4. protect natural landscape features by "fitting" the development
the land. (#14, Page 29)
resources (unique vegetation,
30)
Iopment ProPosaIs with existing
L7)
to
5. Protect unique natural and scenic
major wildlife habitats') (#16' Page
6. The CountY shall
moderate, minor or no
environmental Problemsperform to a standard
Page 30)
guide new development to occur on lands having
environmental constraints' In areas with
, the county shaII require development to
which mitigites or minimizes the problem'(#2,
7. Those }ands or geographic areas within the county which tle
considered to be of scenic value or unique to the character of
County shall be protected from negative effects caused by
r 1 l-^;:;:i;r;;;;: ";"';;;;-;;;"=; speclar site desisn sharl be requi
-c -^L..-^1 i'^^6{-=l.inn;;l:;""-T;i;ir"" and mitisates aist,rrbance of naturar veeetation
! . r r 1 : !.: ^^
clearingandgradinglblockageofviews,andincompatibilities
t;; gen6ral "f,..acter of the area' (*8' Page 31)
the
reO
twith
-32-
o
B.
andsite
The grading of all
fiII are kePt to a
a. cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2z
new develoPment shatl be designed
minimum and can balance within the
efficient stabilization methods are utilized.
b. The proposed development shall- be designed in
demonstrates a "fit" wilh the existing topography of
so that cut
pr oj ect
1 unless
manner which
the land.
(#r B(5), Page 78)
9. Performance Standards:
a. Development construction shalI
the existing vegetative cover.
minimize the disturbance of
b. No vegetation shal] be removed on slopes 25* or over unless
otherwise approved by the county commissioners.
c. Vegetation stands along creeks and rivers should be retained
where these corridors have noted wildtife habitats. (Page 81)
10. Performance Standards:
a. proposed land uses shall be required to provide adequate
mitigation of potential impacts to ensure maximum compatibility
with alt adjacent land uses.
b. An incompatible situation shall be solved before the proposed
develoPment witl be aPProved.
1. proposed l-and uses with a more intensive land use rating
than th; adjacent land uses shall reduce or alter aII the
more intensive uses until that proposeo use is compatible
with the adjacent property to the satisfaction of the county
Commissioners. (Page 89)
11. Any proposed land use may be deemed incompatible for the following
reasons:a. Adversely affecting the desirability of the immediate
neighborhood or the entire community'
b. i*puiring the stability or value of existing adjacent
properties.
c. Adveir"rv affecting the quarity of rife of existing adjacent
residents.d. showing a lack of qualiLy or function in site planning and
des ign.e. creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas'
f. erteiin6 th; basic character of adjacent land uses or the
entire communitY. (Page 90)
II. DESCR]PTION OF PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: Within Garfield County there are eight (8)
alternative corridors considered. The alternatives cover a wide range of
different topographic features ranging from river bottom land to rugged
mountain terrain.
B. project Description: Colorado Ute Electric Association, Inc. proposed
to construct a double-circuit 345 KV transmission line in L979, that would
have extended from Rifl-e to San Juan, New l"lexico' Prior to the issuance
of the Final Ers on that project, the PubIic utilities commission (PUC)
denied approval of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for
the proposed pi"iect. This resulted in the Final ErS not being issued'
Subsequently, CoJ-orado Ute developed a coordinated plan with the h'estern
Area Power Admi'nistration (WAPA) lnd Public Service Company of Colorado
(PSC) to proviae an upgraded power transmission line and associated
facilities to western and southwestern co10rado. The three entities
piopor. to design, construct, operate and maintain approximately 275 miles
;;-;i"gf. circuit 345 KV transmission line from Colorado Uters Rifle
substation to the San Juan Generating Station in San Juan, New l"lexico.
The Rifte to Grand Junction segment of the proposed line will be
uppr""imately 56 miles long arrd owned. jointly by Colorado Ute (37'5t),
wiira (37.5t) and psc (25t): The remainder of the line will be owned
equally bY Colorado Ute and WAPA'
-33-
The basic transmissiofinu structures would be O"1 lattice towers
approximately 1I5 feet-in height. The base of thE towers wiIl cover
ubbroximately 900 square feet of land, with an average span of L2O0 feet
between towers. This converts to approximately 4 or 5 towers per mile.
The right-of-way necessary for the transmission line is a minimum of 150
feet in width. The actual width would vary depending upon location, sPan
length and conductor sag.
Access roads would be constructed for construction and on-going
maintenance purposes. It is estimated that one mile of L4 foot wide
non-paved driving surface wiIl be reguired for each mile of transmission
Iine. It is pt.i.rred by the proponents to keep the road grades less than
7-10 percent.
Construction is proposed to start in L984r and be completed by 1985. It
is estimated that the cost of the entire project will be $121,000r000 with
the Rifle-Grand Junction section costing approximately $I7,800r000 and
$1,730,000 in upgrading of the Rifle substation.
The Rifle-Grand Junction segment has eight alternative corridors for
cons iderat ion :
ALTERNATIVE A: This corridor
tranEmGsfon line, excePt f or
The corridor generallY follows
River. The estimated cost of
56.0 miles in length.
ALTERNATIVE B: There is very Iittle difference between this corridor and
ffiexceptthatthiscorridordoesnotdivergefromtheexisting pSC 230-KV line, which passes directly through Battlement Mesa.
The estimated cost of this alternative is $18'4 million and 55'B miles in
length.
ALTERNATfVE C: This corridor crosses the Colorado River five (5) miles
ffianacontinuesweSt,northoftheInterstate70corridorsto
a point just east of Debeque. AL that point, the-corridor would again
cross the I-70 corridor and Colorado River, then follow a corridor similar
to Alternatives A and B. The esLimated cost of this alternative is $19.5
million and is 59. 0 rniles in length.
ALTERNATIVES D, E, F, AND G: A11 of these alternatives are similar in
m the Rifle substation to a point just south
of the Garfield County Iine and then west, southwest, through Collbran to
the Grand Junction substation. Alternatives D, E, F and G are estimated
to cost $21.4 mi11ion, $21.6 milIion, $Zt-.4 million and $22.5 mi11ion,
respectively. The lines are 64. B, 65.3, 64.7 and 68.2 mil-es in length.
ALTERNATIVE H: This is the DEIS preferred alternative for the Rif1e to
Crand .funEtion segment. The proposed corridor is south of Alternatives A,
B and C, and fol-l-ows along the base of the high mesa south of the Colorado
River. The estimated cost of this corridor is $f9.5 million and is 56
miles in length.
III. SUM.N{ARY CO}4IVIENTS :
A. Zoning:
The Garfield County Zoning Resolution treats utility facilities as a
special use in all zone disLricts, except Lhose lands zoned O/S (Open
Sbace), which are federal lands. On those 1ands, a utility transmission
line is a conditional use-
paraI1e1s the existing PSC 230-KV
a short section south of Battlement Mesa'
along the lower mesas south of the Colorado
this itternative is $18.5 million and is
B. Staff Comments:
Staff comments will focus on Alternatives A,
more impact on Garfield County than Alternat
also apparent that one of the Colorado River
be sel-ected as the preferred corridor. The
order presented in the SDEIS, with the mosL
identified imPacts:
B, C and H, since theY have
ives D, E, F, and G. It is
corridors (A, B' C or H) will
comments will be made in the
emphasis directed toward
-34-
Geoloq ic HazardF : ]one. or the alternati::.: 3:i?-:f f ect the
sub-surface geology or be affected directly f "tismic activity' It
is noted that seiiiic activity could trigger rock or land slides,
which might affect the transmission toweii if they are located in an
unstable area. Each alternative crosses more stable areas than
unstable areas. Alternative c crosses on 9.9 miles (I6'5t of the
length)ofunstablearearwhileAlternativeFcrosses24'Omiles(379)
of unstable area. Alternative H crosses t8'2 miles (32t) of unstabLe
arealandwou]dbethemostsignificantlyimPactedoftheColoradoRiver Basin alternatives. -tne"ma jor imp-act f rom. geologic hazards on
the transmission line wiII be on the tower l0cations' which the
proponents state will- be avoided "where possible'"
soils: soil conditions can present erosion hazards, Iimitations on
iEElamation potential and .o-n=truction and operation Iimitations if
not deatt with proPerly. None of the alternttives have high erosion
or major .on"lr',rction ii*itutions. Alternative H crosses the Ieast
amount of land with poor reclamation potential (5'9 miles or 108) and
the most land with good reclamation potential (22'6 miles or 40t')
A11 other al-ternatives nave-*or" sigi-rif icant soil impacts ' Potential
secondary impacts are increased stream ledimelt_I-t_'Id and airborne
="irpu'.ti.I-.=,bothofwhicharetermedtemporary.
Water Resources: Potential stream water quality impacts are increased
turbidity as i=r.r"it-"f river fording, cliemical pollution as a result
of spills or run-off from contaminated areas and increased human
access as a result of new access road creation' Groundwater resources
are not expected to be i*pu.ted. Major river crossings are identified
as having a high potential for impact. The crossing of perennial and
intermittent streams is not expecied to be a significant impact due to
the short spans crossed. The only alternative with major river
crossings is ct which crosses the colorado River twice between Rifle
and Debeque. Alternative H crosses the second least number of
perennial streams and third least number of intermittent streams of
all alternatives. Alternatives A and B cross less perennial and
intermittent streams.
VegetatiOn: Impacts to vegetation would include vegetation removal
#:7rr m;*irg'iro.g Righ[s-of-way, access roads and staging areas'
Rights-of-Wayi will iot Ue clear-cut, except at structure locations
and for the most Part vegetative removal is not expected to be
noticeable in most vegetative communities. No pesticides or
herbicides wili i" "pif i"a to any of the Rights-of -g'Jay'
Alternatives B and c are identified as having the lowest potential
impact to ,,.t,rr.i vegetation overalt. Alternative H has the third
lowest potential impact on natural vegetation and the least impact on'
agr icultural vegetation'
Secondary impacts as a result of vegetation removal and/or trimming
are increased erosion potential, loss of wildlife habitat and
increasea poteniiaf foi invadini weed-species' Unavoidable adverse
impacts ia""tiii"J are th9 perminent diiturbance of land at tower'
substation and access road locations, and the trimming (feathering) of
trees along the Right-of-Way. Over the entire length of the project'
ia acres oi vegetalion will be removed'
Wildlife: The major potential impacts to wil-dlife are expected to
occur Auring the periods of constiuction and maintenance' It is
expected that the-se impacts wiII be short term in that the impact will
be negilible after constrr"tiot, and maintenance oPerations are
completed. The potential_ior disrupring mgle, 9g:r and elk wintering,
migration, rurning and .ur"ing peri-oas. Is identif ied and proposed to
be mitigated by the appropria[e-scheduling of activities' Larger
birds such u=-i.rr.DSr -eag1.=1 hawks, and iurkeys are known to use the
transmission structures ior ioosting, nesting and perching' The
potential tor-ei"ctricuti"" *iff be-mitigated by the appropriate
separations of-the energized conductors. overaIl, the impact to
wiiatite is expected to be minimal'
Arternative H crosses more big game criticar winter range than A or c'
but less than all other alterirli,r"s. Alternatives C and H cross more
fawning and calving area ifru" any alternatives, however' these impacts
are to be minimized by proper schedulitg' also'
-35-
Secondary impactsle identif ied as the qr.C..:l^1"=t of existing
vegetative cove. , -i"tting s ites, and f ood re;6urces ' The additional
open area could result i; increased raptor activity with a subsequent
.increase in the birds hunting pressure in those areas' The additional
acgess roads could result in-iircreased hunting pressure during big
game seasons and the potential for unlawful hunting' unavoidable
impacts wiII be the IOSS of some nestsr coV€r and food resources'
Wetlands and Floodplains: Wetlands that could be impacted by the
-_---.--.---i-..transmrsslon line are those areas with widths greater than 1000 feet
and may be too wioe to ne spannea. The same fbOO foot criteria was
applied to riparian areas .na 100 year floodplains' Although it has
been determined that the placing oi structures in the 100 year
floodplain can-ne done wilnout ity significant impact if properly
constructed.
Alternative c is the only proposed corridor that has wetlands'
riparian area and 100 y".r'itloaprains with a width greater than 1000
feet because of the two areas that cross the Colorado River ' None of
the other alternatives fr.rr.-i.ry wetlands, ripar ian areaS or 100
floodplains with a width greater than I000 feet'.
Threatened and Endangered Species: Plant species that are listed as
iiiiz;ffiendangeredSP;ciESarethespine1esshedgehogcactuS,Unita Basin hookless cactui and the l"Iesa Verde cacti' The areas
identified as having these species were avoided where practical and
those areas th;a mai be impaltea will be surveyed prior to
construction by a qualified botanist. Animat ipecies on the federal
endangered Iisi ".6 the eiackfooted ferret, balb eagles' and peregrine
falcon. The colorado squawfish, bontail chub t tdzorback sucker and
roundtail chub are listed is eiiner federaliy or state threatened or
endangered species. In addition, the State i'f Cotorado has listed as
endangered species the wolverine river otter and colorado River
cutthroat trout. Previousry, tr," u.s. Fish and wildlife service made
a determination that there rirr be no significant impact on threatened
or endangered species. This study has mide the same finding' subject
to the completiLn of a revised biological assessment-
Bald eagles and wolverines are the two species identified as being
potentially within the proosed corridors between RifIe and Grand
Junction. of the four colorado River alternatives' Alternative H has
the least potential i*pa"t-orr-u.ra eagle concentration areas' AlI
four corridors have two til *itt" of potential wolverine habitat'
secondary impacts are increased hunting area fol !h" raptors I with a
p"==ib1e-advlrse impact as a result of increased human access'
cumulative impacts are ,,o[.a as possibly being.?dy?fs€r but not
quantificable. there *.y-n" "o*l sfighl t'navoidable adverse impacts
as a result of disturbances to these populations'
Cultural Resources: Road and tower construction wilI result in ground
ffi-"ourJresuItindama9etosu5ficia1andburiedcultural- resources. Improved access couta result in damage tO
previously identified cultural resources that were protected by their
inaccessibilitY.
State inventoried sites have been identified in the route corridors
for alternatives A and c. Generally though, the-corridors in the
sections in the col0rado River basin have been classified as low
densitY areas -
LandUse:LanduSeimpactsidentifiedaretransportationfacilities,
ffi"aii,,"ratreSou'""=l-"o**"rcia1timberanda9ricu1ture.Lowflying aircraft could be affected by the transmission line at canyon
crossings. Various coal teasing areas and gas fields are crossed by
some corridors, but underground extraction or the resources should not
be affected by the transmission Iines. There are no commercial
forests affected by the niife to Grand Junction segment' Alternatives
A and B cross over farmlands identified by the s911 Conservation
service. Irrigated agricultural lands "o',rla be limited non-automatic
sprinkling systems. Alternative H crosses significantly less
agricultural land than ant other alternative, with 3'6 miles' with
Alternative A crossing tha next smaller amount with L2'5 miles'
Disturbance to agricultural lanOs apPears to be the largest Potential
impact. It is proposed that the transmission line will be located
along property lines *n"r"-practi9al. - Agricultul3l land removed- from
agricultural production "=
'i-iesult of t6wer footings is..tfe only ', '
unavoidable u^drrat"a impact' : '
'-'-,
Human Resources, 'n impact on human resou"O u'u= rated according to
ffii.,,..''iir,.highdensityareaSbeingareaswithresidential and commerciaf-p"t".i= of less than B0 acres each and
recreation areas. Low density areas were public use areas including
BLI"1, Forest Service and state'lands, along- with.1"Y Population density
areas. In general, populatiOn centers *.i" avoided were possible'
The impact to- iecrealionat areas is primarily visual.
Alternatives B and c have the highest potential impact on human
resources since they cross the gitttement lt{esa and Parachute/Debeque
areas respectively. elternaLive H would have the lowest impact on
human resources, with o.,rv'-a. i miles of high density area traversed '
It shoutd be noted, though, that Alternative H crosses the proposed
Rifle Ski Area.
There are no identified secondary or unavoidable adverse impacts
identified for human ..=o"i".=. This is due primarily to the
proponents inLent to place-;;;ititi"= in the least obtrusive locations
possible and negotiations with landowners to mitigate any impacts'
Socioeconomic: Short-term economic impacts are
to landowners for land and easements and income
i.o* the sale of goods and services to laborers'
the entire proj".[ wilt take 24 to 30 months' wi
workers Present at any one Place '
Colorado Ute and PSC would have to pay property taxes on the
transmission lines and =unslitio., tacifitiEs' In Garfield County'
these ,.rru.,tr"t are estimatJ;-'; u" $r00'000' based on L9B2 dorrar
value and a mill IevY of 77'L6L'
secondary impacts are the creation of indirect' long-term economic
effects by providing a caoability to supply increased power for area
industrial, "o**"rcl.aI and residantial "1"-a=' There are no identified
unavoidable adverse imPacts '
Visual: Visuar impacts were determined by the degree of impact upon
Erre ranascape type and the;t;;i;ity of t-he proje-t to populated and
traveled areas. The transmission line would cause visual contrast to
visually SenS itive areas ",.r.fr- ut ma j or travel routes ' PL imary highway
crossings, high qua}ity scenic areas, communities and recreational
areas. The gieatest visuai constrast to scenic quality of an area is
in undeveloPed areas '
Alternatives H and A both cross approximately 33 miles of area with
high visual impact on ,o,rghiy-ss*'Lr their t-otat lengths' Alternative
B and C cross approximatery-'aO-mires of area with high visual
sensitivity or rougly 8OS -"r their lengths ' AII other alternatives
cross areas totalling rorghiy-g5* of tieir lengths with high visual
sens itivitY.
There are no secondary visual impacts identified' unavoidable adverse
impacts are the fact lf,at the transmission Iine will pass through
areas of high--visuar sensitivity, creating a horizontal and vertical
Iinear intrusi.on on existing viiual. tu=oui"t= and a contrast in color
;;a Iine from soil and vegetation disturbance'
identified as PaYments
to local merchants
It is estimated that
th no more than 50
Electrical: There are three electical effects identifiedi corona
,^^r i n fi a'l rlHtrffii.".;;:;.;;; ii"ra errecrs r and erecrromasnetic rierd
-c LL^ -i- in{-n nharr:P:li::::: 'iil:l:'i:"Ji"iiIi""r breakdown or rhe air inro chareed
i - ! LL^ ^,' -f =na nf t-heilliili;= ::;;:; ;; ;;;-;i;;tiicar rield at the surrace or the
- -^-r:^ --,{ }a'larrici.tn inteffefgnce,:3:5]:i:: =:";;;:r,'l.l"Iu;;:';;;;;-';J- i're" i s ion inte r re rence ' audible
.: --1 ,'naA nrrrronlq and::H:'::5=;"I!]I'J illlu""[i"": Fierd eti."ts are induced currenrs and
^,r'rr- nf o'lor-f rir: al and[i::r::".;;';:'il.5u"Iii;;!; rlar occur as a resurt or electricar and
*ug.,.[.i" f ields at ground level '
corona effects are significantly greater during wet weather' During
fair weather, corona shoutd not aifect radio ana television reception
for residences 3oo feet or-*or" from the transmission line' This
standard was developed by the Fcc as the distance necessary for
satisfactory reception. The audible noise identified is a hum a
frequencies of L2O hertz and a randum cracking or hrssing sound' The
noise effects have been t"r*.a ""grigibre in [r," sDErs. The levers of
ozone and nitrogen oxides proaucei bt the transmission line corona are
too low to be measured at irouna levels and would be below National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for oxidants'
-37 -
Electrostatic fields decrease with an increase in distance from the
line. Large metaltic objects such as farm equipment, fences and
vehicles can conduct and transfer vol-tage and curre.nt. Based uPon the
proposed design the induced current would not exceed 3'5 milliamps'
which is above the human perception and below the accepted American
National standards Institute standard of 5.0 mitliamps. i/\jith proper
grounding of stationary objects, such as fences, there should not be
any electrostatic field effects.
Electromagnetic fields can create induced voltages in conducting
objects b6neath the 1ine. There are a number of factors that can
create a situation whereby intensity of the induced voltage is
dependent. In general, long conducting objects, such as fences
paiallel to the transmission Iine, are subject to electromagnetic
induction. If properly grounded, there should be no electromagnetic
affect. Additionaifyr-firmers and equipment operators whose property
is crossed by the transmission line would be cautioned against
refueling diiectly under the line. Persons operating irrigation
systems would be warned that sections of pipe and solid streams of
water should not pass near the transmission line conductors at the
time of Right-of-WaY aquisition.
Cumulative electrical affects are not expected to impact any radio or
television reception of residences over 300 feet from the transmission
Iine. There are no anticipated harmful biologlcal or health affects
as a result of putting in the transmission line.
Cumulatiffg ImP-C.ggg: Cumulative impacts are the combined effects of
ffideveIopmentthatwouIdoccurduringtheperiodofconstruction and operatioir of the proposed project' Other projects
identified are oil shale development, coal and mineral mines, water
storage projects and pipelines. Due to the uncertainty of the
timelines for these proJects, it is difficult to quantify th9
cumulative impacts. It is noted that a second 345 KV transmission
Iine may be necessary at some future date and that it would parallel
the proposed transmiision line, but be subject to a separate process'
Cumulative impacts are identified as being both beneficial and
detrimental to the environment of the area. Employment and increased
tax base are noted as being favorable impacts. But the increased
fopulation growth could create unfavorable impacts to public and
social ""rrri""= and housing. The total estimated increase in
population to the region covered by the entire line is estimated to be
aOl OOO people by 1985, but this projection is based on indefinite
plans for L*p..,iiot by existing energy Projectg, new projects,
Lo**urrity ex-pansion, .t". Overall, there would be a loss of area
vegetat.i6n ana a reduction in the available wildlife habitat in the
."!io. as a result of all the potential projects.
]V. SUII4MARY:
There will be a response to the Rural Electrification Administration
regarding the SDEIS by the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
by"Augus[ B, 1983. piior to trrat date, the Garfield County Planning
Commi6sion will be making their comments to the Board of County
Commissioners for inclusion in the Board's comments.
The preferred corridor noted in the SDEIS is Alternative H- The proposed
mitigation measures generally address the environmental issues in the
SDEIS. Further details *ay Le reguired at the time a special use permit
application is submitted ta clarify the "where practical" and "where
p;;=ible" statement and other issues identified in the review of the
SDElS.
Included for the Planning Commissions' benefit are comments received at a
. ) The northernSDEIS public scoping meeting. (See pages
route discussed in the letters is Alternat
Alternative H.
-38-
ive C and the southern route IS
\,o
;- ..
I
,. l
Date
3hB/83
Name
IUarshall T Savage
o
PUs:-IC SCOPfNG M::TI}iG CO}T{:NT FORM
Rif1e-San Juan 345 kV Transnission Line
Bep:-es enting
Rifle Ski CorP
Ad dress
1332 Arabian Ave. , Rifl-e, Co 8t650
Please provicie any comrnents relative to the H:-f]e-San Juan 345 kV transnission
]j-ne oroject or '"hi en'.rircnnenial impaels of the proposeC project' Cornnents
nay be sent to Mr. Wit]iam E. Davis, DirecLor, Wesre:'n A:'ea - Electri'c, Rural
ELectrification Lcrn:nrstratj-on, Agriculture South tsui) ciing, Foom llCI r 1"'ashin6."on,
D.C. 20250, within two weeks of Lbis meet'ing'
be a sisnificant asset to our va11ey '
.:
COL],BPAJ.I ,?OUTE'I have no real interest in the collbran -10ute
Allow me to preface my comments by--:ayrng that f
excePt as an electricitY consumer S ince fe1Iow consumers and
f nust ultimately pay for the substantial additional costs of such
e rouie, f would urge -'hat this route be reserved as a last resort
s0uTl{3Rj{ ROUTS r think this:route is undesireable for a couple
of reasons. First it is unnecessarily Iong, and is located in
very C if f i cuI!_ f, ellgin This will not onl-v aoo greatlv to the
line's cost, but will also necessitaie sianifjsan-! disturbance of
e relativelv pristine area Second, f think the aesthetic lm-
r-tr:of thi route have been gros deres ed. The visual
irnpac t s-r,ud i ES pre sented ?--r. yoUf ublic meeting all seemed to
Srg-atu:'e
T. Savage Conr\rents on llif ]e-San Juan Iri.ns' Line Routing
assume that the on)-y vantage point of any irnportance vJas from
thernterstateHiehwaycorridoralongtheriver.Iwouldlike
to point out that our Company has obtained preliminary indica-
tions of "pprovrl of a special use Pernit from the Forest Ser-
vice to construct a major destination winter resort area just
to the South of this route. The view from the ski area of this
route would make the line very visible, and thg extensive net-
wor:< of access roacs that will be necessary in that terrain
will make an exceedingly obtrusive and unsightly intrusion in
that environment . -As-ifotHrnouf-4rorn -the-'preli mlnary plans -we-
o1+'l Ai6 plan extensive residential de_
velopment on the.lands immediately to the North of this route'
This location of the line would create an unnatural and unwel-
cone visual and psychological barrier between the residents in
these areas and the native environment of the foresi servi-ce
lands to the South.
CZNTRAL ROUTE I would like to voice my strongest objection
to this route, .which is completety unacceptable to us,' our
lands in this area are alreaoy burdened by the Public service
\
possibly accept the aodition of yet another
of total disruption. Tolether the two routes
a bisection, the width of a football f1e1o,
+.wo ef f eeti vel-v seoarated bo'l eks ' Although
Iine and cannot
150 foot swath
l.roulo compri se
orlr lands into
slashing
these
,I
I
I
\-.:..-.
L4T Savage Uo;nment,s, uonr.
lands are presently aFricultural , se haver &S you krrow, plans
for their eventual development. These plans will be severly
disrupted by the addition of another transmission 1'ine running
through them. Finally I would urge the rejection of this route
on the basis of cost, since we will undoubtedly fight for the
fu1l value of these lands for their residentiaa potential.
i';C:1TH;}lI SCUT; I would like to strongly urge that you adopt
th4s route for the construction of the transmission 1ine. There
are a number of reasons for this recommendation aside -from the
negative factors associated with the other proposeC routes'
First, I think this must be the cheapes route. It seems to
be one of the sho.rtest, and it is certainly situated in the
:
most accessible and manageable terrain from a construction
standpoint. I thinl< that your assessment .of the visual irnpacts
of this route are misleading. The studies presented at the
meeting seemed to take into account on)-y.the nature of vegetation
anC terrain when assessing the l-ine's poten-,,ia'l visibility'
f f you will consult your :,'f ebster's you will f ind that visi-
bility is a measure of not only tthe extent to which a' thing
can be seen, but also the extent to rvhich it is ob'ri-ous' The
.i"y to the visual inpact of this line on this:coute is the ex-
::, \i
I,,1. T. Savase Com{ts , Cont .
teni to rvhich it is or is not
portant factors which was not
study, is the extent to rvhich
the nature of that disturbance
obvious.
inc lude d
vaI1 ey
preexisting industria] disturbance has a couPle of
tant visual- effects relative to the transmission
it reduces the effect of contrast createo when a
area.
very
This
impor-
First,1ine.
Iine
imposed on an otherwise relatively undisturbed area.
the presence of other industrial disturbances ijl the
a context into rvhich the line blends. Secondly, the
effect of the
trial coniext
even if it is
use planning
2'rr..rr^r)riptplv
line -oeing placed into such a preexisting
is that it becomes far }ess obvious to the
nore .risible to the eye. Sinilarl-y, front
point of view, this route places the line
i nriustri a1 aree. rather -uhan i-rnoosing it
i
o
o
Cne of the more in-
in your visual imPacts
an area is alreadY disturbed, and
. As you know -.-he North sioe
of the river is already highly disturbed by hearry industrial
types of activity. i.1uch of the area just ','jest of Rifle is
already crisscrossed by access roads, and spot.ted wi-th natural
gas wel1s. Additionally, that side of the ri-ver is already
embelished with the inoustrial complex at Anvil Points and soon
will be further disturbed when Paraho moves
facilities out of Anvil Points and into the
its experi-mental
industrial infrastructure, esDecially insofar as it 1s oiI shale
related, creates an expecta-uion of such iisturbances 'The net
1S Super-
Fssentially
area creates
preexisting
indus-
minC,
a 't ano-
nan
na
-'/--
t,'o o
-tre sident tal/recreational area.
?o su:nmarize my commentsr the Collbran route is too expensive,
the Southern route will seriously impair the aesthetic experience
of both visitors to our ski area and residents in our associated
residential developments, the Central route is unfairly burden-
sone to our developable lands and rvill- seriously irnpair our
cevelopr,rent plans, and f inaI1y the I'iorthern route is the most
economical and when viewed in terms of its iniustrial context
the least obtrusive location for the proposed 1ine.
Sincerely,
I.rarshall- T. Savage(3o3) 525-z6oL
.<-/-=::'{-
't
..\.11,\,
o
J...l4ou1ton, Manager
\ ]::-
O-------a
01
Pr-:::-l c
ii fl e- Sa e Jua:r lll5 kit Transnisslon Line
-------_
-_--.-..-
Fils -1
DaLE
Harch 23, 1983
Nane
wi 11i am
iepres en'ulng
Rif.le Ski CorPoration
Ad aress
Please provide any connents rela"ive to tbe Piile-San Juan 3!5 kV transnission
line project oi tle environrnenLaf i*.;ac"s cf the proposed project. Corlnen'us
nay be sent io Mr. lJ:lLram E. Davj-s, Di:'ecLor, l{estern }-:'ea .- trleetric, Ru:-al
Eiee'"rj.fica'uion Lci:nrnistration, AEr:-cu1iu:'e South Bui).ci:ng, loom:3Cq, HashingLon,
D.C. 20250, t"'i'"hin tuo ueeks of 'uhis meeting.
Comments a 'l terna ti ve :
1. Southern Alternative of the Colorado River Valley alternatives:
This is the alternative selected as the preferred alternative by the
Colorado-Ute study team. This proposed route crosses lands of the Rifle
Pro j ect i,,'h i ch is a proposed multi-use land Cevelopment including a majo=
destinat,i-uin site ski area. The final Environinental Impact Statement,
distributed by the USDA-Forest Service andniile ski .P-rea., has been
thrs iocurnents findinqs and the Record of Decision is favorable to tl.e
ski area- Preliminary land use plans of the Rif1e Project have been
iven to Colorado-Ute and they have been aware of this Pro ect since
ea'r1y Fal1 of 1981 when thqyproposed a 138 KV line traversing Project
1ands. This 1i'ne was not constructed. Obviously,the routing of a
345 XVI line along this southern alternative poses a srgnifican-t- constraint
to the Rifle Pro fn oaiticular,'the finCinqs of the stud team
,)
-44-
i.. .,Page o2
related to visual impact for this alternative are in error- It can
plainly be observed that existing utility 1ines, roads, pipelines.
fences, trails, etc- located in the area of this alternative, or in loca-
tions simil'ar in nature, .f" highly visible. The reason being the
thicker and generally higher vegetative cover resulting from the much
grreater-annual precipitation arnounts. of the higher elevations- In
addition, this southern alternative would traverse generally noith
facing slopes which ordinarily- are,covered with denser vegetative cover'
than south facing slopes- This results in highly visible slashes or
lines when the vegetation is removed for any purpose
2. Northern Alternative of the Colorado River Va1ley alternatives:
I disagree with some of the findings bf the Colorado-Ute study i.eam
resulting from their analysis of this alternative. ft. is clear they
did not consider this route in the proper location t}.is alternative
should foilow. 'The route studied and then shorvn at tbe scoping meeting
generally parallels I-70 at short distances aetay frou that structure
and from this the towers and lines would be obviously no-'iceable. The
proper placem.ent for this route would be. further nort}. along the toe
and foothills of the main ridge.. If. placed tirere wiih any design and
foresight at all, and with neutral.colored towers, they would blend in
weJl against the variabl-e colored escarpments and ba.r=en hi11s- In
addition, the sparse vegetation of that 1ow eleva''ion, south facing
slope woulC reguire only minimal clearing and thus help prevent the
oriinary visually prominent tangent alignments- Ttre reason I was
...r.::.
-45-
'---:,-. ..,r a-'. -i- -- *t-
:"'
-P,sge 3
given at the scoping meeting for not studying placing the Lines in this
location was that major oiI firms, such "= Mobil oil, have their prop-
erties, which the. route would traverse, planned for oiJ- shale develop-
ment and don I t want to be bothered by this very large porrer line even
though they will reguire =rt=tantial amounts of electric power in their
own developments- It would appear that once again J-arge, major companies
are deferred to while smaller parties are steamrollered. Irtrat'better
place for this large line than in an area already zoned industrial,
where major Power uses are expected, and where significant developments
such as the B'ureau of Mines shale plant and mine, GarfieJ-d County land-
. fill and road thereto, gas welIs, gas pipelines and comoressor stations,
well roads, equipment yards, etc. alreadv have impacted t}.e land- I
strongly urge selection of this alternative
3. I'lidd1e Alternatives (A) and (B) of the Colorado River Valley
alternatives:' The Public Service Company of Colorado's existing 230
xv line which this alternative would parallel is a cJ-assic example of
a utility r.o.vl. which would not be followed if it were to be proposed
now. It is highl.y visible, it crosses good agricultural J-and and. Iand
that coulo be easiiy developed. Alignment did not take -,-isual i:apacts
. or vegetative cover into consideration. . To place another J.ine immed-
Mesa, would iompourid. the problem and be sheer foIIy- Designation of
this alternative as the route to be followed will result in a g.reat
deal of opposition from Ioca1 residents
.a
' ?age
\
o4
4. Plateau Cover (Co1Ibran) Alternative:
reason to even consider this route.
cc: Garfield County Planning Department
Colorado-Ute Electric Assn, Inc.Attn: Homer Sansom
P. O. Box l-149Montrose, CO 81401
o
There is no rzal-id
I
1...*,- *I .- |r \. [i-lri 'ril!i+, 'l s,
kr i't,:' IiI*. l;i_ \)/ il\__ ' \ I ,\ : t:l:\
!'\:,i_t -0
\l
J,*'"'i^'.lf'" -
=l
r I 'lrr=-l). '7 '-J
I I t rr
H#r
! r.
I <-
' ', tJ i',. '(".l-
\__
s
:
..t
,l
i
F
)-
/
1I
I
Ir
I
Ir
I
t.r
I
!
2
!,y
tq-
L'is') -
)o)
-'/ 1
I{ *,'
-\ t't(/'at-
1
,,1._/ 1 :,4^
/n
(
./'':
I a
i.- \
I
!
i
I
- +l)a1
I
1
I
I
I
r;
,: !:
I
i
+-
I
I
_\!
il -:,n/,\l-
(
{
o\r
r-
----_5
)
li
,l
rl
I
'jf;*+
-t-l
l-
Il,
I
"i.+
't *
lr,l .
9
I
- (,.)
t* ttJ.i.t.
rl
-_ll, :
i. ,t :
-f ..--
'.-j -
f'I
r ,''l t=\
I