HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 Staff Report PC 8.10.83GCPC - gIIO/83
PROJECT INFORIVIATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT NAME:
REQUEST:
APPLICANTS:
SPECIAL USE PERIVI]T APPLICAT]ON
Rifle to San Juan 345-KV
Transmission Line
Special Use Permit
Colorado Ute Electric Association,
Inc.; Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA) ; PubIic
Service CompanY (PSC)
CoLorado Ute Electric Association,
Rural Electr ication Administration
(REA) ; Bureau of Land lvlanagement
(BLM); and Burns and McDonnell
Portions of Sections L4, 22, 23,
28, 29 and 32 of TownshiP 6 South,
Range 93 West; Sections 5 & 7 of
Township 7 South, Range 93 West;
Sections 7, B, 9, I0, tl & 12 of
Township 7 South, Range 94 West;
Sections ll, L2, L4, 15, 20, 2L,
29, 30 & 31 of TownshiP 7 South,
Range 95 West; Sections 7 & I8 of
Township 8 South, Range 95 West;
more generallY descrloed as a
corridor following the base of the
foothills in a southwesterlY
direction from the Rifle substation
to a point on the Garfield/Mesa
County line 6 miles south of
Parachute ano 9 miles northeast of
DeBeque.
Via private and Public access
easements off of CountY Roads 3L7,
320 , 325 , 329 | 301, 338, 302, 303,
300 and 306.
The proposed Project is a
singte-circuit 345 KV electric
transmission line aPProximatelY
20.6 miles in length in Garfield
County.
A/R/RD
o/s
PLAN:
LOCATION:
ACCESS:
SITE DATA:
EXISTING ZONES:
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVEI.
Because the proposed project crosses a number of private and public lands
wiLh the rrarioui alteinalives, nearly every type of management district in
the Comprehensive Plan is inciuded, except Districtg A and F. Utility
transnrission lines are not specifically dealt with in the Comprehensive
p1an, but the following goa1i, policiesr and performance standards are
relevant to the siting oi the nitte-San Juan 345 KV transmission line:
l. Encourage industrial development in areas where adequate
transportation facilities and public utilites are available. (#7,
Page L2)
2. Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing
active farms and ranches' (#1' Page L7)
3. Ensure the minimum disturbance of slopes to reduce erosion,
sedimentation and runoff. (#11, Page 29).
4. protect natural landscape features by "fitting" the development to
the land. (#I4, Page 29)
5. protect unique natural and scenic resources (unique vegetation,
major wildlife habitats.) (#16, Page 30)
-1-
o o ccPc-B/r}tg3
6. The County shall guide new development to occur on lands having
mode/ate, minor or no environmental constraints. In areas with
environmental problems, the county shaII require development to
perform to a standard which mitigates or minimizes 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 shall be protected from negative effects caused by
development. In such areas, special site design shall be required
which minimizes and mitigates disturbance of natural vegetation;
clearing and grading, blockage of viewsr dnd incompatibilities with
the general character of the area. (#8, Page 3I)
8. The grading of all new development shall be designed so that cut
and fill are kept to a minimum and can balance within the project
site.
a. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2zL unless
efficient stabilization methods are utilized.
b. The proposed development shall be designed in a manner which
demonstrates a "fit" with the existing topography of the land.
(#r B(5), Page 7B)
9. Performance Standards:
a. Development construction shall minimize the disturbance of
the existing vegetative cover.
b. No vegetation sha1l be removed on slopes 252 or over unless
otherwise approved by the County Commissioners.
c. Vegetation stands along creeks and rivers should be retained
where these corridors have noted wildlife habitats. (Page 8I)
10. Performance Standards:
a. Proposed land uses shall be
mitigation of potential impacts
with all adjacent land uses.
required to provide adequate
to ensure maximum compatibilit.Y
b. An incompatible situation shall be solved before the proposed
development wilI be approved.
1. Proposed land uses with a more intensive land use rating
than the adjacent land uses shall reduce or alter all the
more intensive uses until that proposed 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. Impairing the stability or value of existing adjacent
propert ies .
c. Adversely affecting the quality of life of existing adjacent
res idents .
d. Showing a lack of quality or function in site planning and
des ign .
e. Creating a public danger or nuisance to surrounding areas.
f. Altering the basic character of adjacent land uses or the
entire community. (Page 90)
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL:
A. Site Description: The proposed corridor will start at the Rifle
Substation southeast of Rifle and follow the existing Public Service
Company 230 KV line up Grass l,Iesa and then in a southwesterly direction
along the high mesas at the foot of Battlement Mesa. The terrain crossed
will be varied, with relatively flat mesa areas to fairly rugged hillside
terrain. Vegetation in the areas affected will vary from sagebrush in the
Iower valley to pinion-juniper and oakbrush in the higher areas. Of the
20.6 mi1es, 0.5 mile of irrigated farmland and I.0 mile of nonirrigated
cropland is proposed to be crossed.
-L-
o a GCPC-B/10/83
B. project Description: The proposed project is the first section of an
approximately 275 mile long 345 KV line extending from Rifle to San Juan'
Uew t'texico. In 1979, the project was proposed by Colorado Ute as a
double-circuit 345 KV line, but was denied approval of a Certificate of
public Convenience and Necessity by the PubIic Utility Commission of
Colorado. The project was revised to include a new participant (PubIic
Service CompanyJ, i new load center (Grand Junction) and reducing the size
of the project to a single circuit 345 KV line. Presently, there are
three participants in the project; Colorado Ute (37.58), Western Area
power Administration (37.5t), and PubIic Service Company (252). The
present apptication has not received approval of the Certificate of PubIic
Convenienle and Necessity at the time of the staff report being written.
The basic transmission line structures will be steel lattice towers 130
feet in height. Aesthetically pleasing single pole structures are being
considered ior visually sensitive areas. The base of the tower will
cover approximately 900 square 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 width will be a minimum of 150 feet in width, with
some areas being wider due to location, span length and conductor sag.
Rights-of-way witt not be clear cuts, selective cutting and feathering of
trees will be used to minimize the visual impact.
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
Iine. It is preferred by the proponents to keep the road grades less than
7-I0 percent. It is estimated that the total workforce will be a maximum
of I13 persons at any one time during the projected 1I month construction
schedule. The actual construction is projected to begin in the Spring of
1984 and end in 1985, with an estimated cost of $17r800r000 for the Rifle
to Grand Junction segment.
I]I. }'IAJOR ISSUES AND CONCERNS:
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 lands. On those 1ands, a
utility transmission line is a conditional use.
B. Staff Comments:
I. The special use permit application is for the preferred
alternative in the Rifte to San Juan 345 KV Transmission Line and
Associated Facilities Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (SDEIS). The SDEIS analyzed eight (8) alternative
routes for the Rifle to Grand Junction segment of the line. The
preferred alternative (Alternative H) has the least impact on
erosion hazard, reclamation potential, land use, visual resources
and human resources. Of the ten catagories of analysis,
Alternative H was ranked fift.h in impact on wildife due to mule
deer and elk fawning and calving area impacts and impacts on
winter range. Colorado Ute will consult with the Division of
Wildlife to schedule construction activities at times which will
not impact fawning and calving and winter range. With this
consideration, the impact on mule deer and elk should be
minimized. The remaining four catagories have lower rankings;
vegetation 3rd, riparian 3rd, geologic hazard potential 4th, and
cultural resources 2nd. Overall, Alternative H has less impact
on the environment than other alternatives.
Alternative C has been identified by some people as a viable
alternative route. This route would follow the existing Public
Service 230 KV line and then cross the Colorado River and I-70
corridor west of Rifle and follow a route north of the I-70
corridor to a point east of Debeque where it would cross back
over the I-70 corridor and the Colorado River. This alternative
has the least potential geologic impact, with only 9.9 miles of
potentially unstable geology. It is shown to have the greatest
impact on wildlife, due primarily to the impact to BaId Eagle
conceration areas. Alternative C is identified as having the
next worst reclamation potential and impact on human resources.
The human resources impact is due primarily to the Corridor's
location in relationship to Rifle, Parachute and Debeque. If
rankings for overall impacts would have been made, Alternative H
would have been ranked first and Alternative C would have ranked
fourth. (See staff report on SDEIS, pages 32-38
-3-
.)
Rifre ski "orpil.io,., representatives n"""Q.;;:t";:':Yt:he
various alternatives and expressed a preference for Alternative C
(the northern corridor). They question the visual resources
impact analysis. (see comments 7 pa$es qq-a8 . ) colorado ute
is presently meeting with the Ski Corporatlon representatives to
iry"ana ru=61rr" any concerns. Additionally, Colorado Ute has
st-ateA that they aie willing to utitize a single pole tower
design through ireas that are visually sensitive'
Ranchers in the western portion of the route in Garfield County
have met with Colorado Ute representatives to discuss the route.
Their concerns center around the impacts to irrigated and
nonirrigated cropland, wiIdIife, livestock, the creation of
another powerlinE through undeveloped lands and additional
vehicular access to undeveloped lands. Discussions with the
ranchers have brought up another possible route; Alternative H to
a point south and west of Battlement Mesa, where the line would
move back to a corridor adjacent to the existing Public Service
230 KV line. Overall, Alternative H will cross 0.5 miles of
irrigated cropland and I.0 miles of nonirrigated cropland' The
impait to witSf i.te has been discussed previousty, with the
exleption of the biological impacts. Biotogical impacts on
wilAlife are inconclusive, but Colorado Ute does not feel the
animals will spend much time grazing under the powerline, rather
passing under Lf,e line, which will have virtuatly no effect'
Cotorado Ute is investigating the suggested re-route noted
earlier and wiII report to the Planning Commission at the meeting
what they have determined.
Concerns about the fact that for each mile of powerline, one mile
of road access will be necessary, all access roads created will
be L4 feet in width. Colorado Ute has eight types of access
roads identified in their construction requirements, of which two
are identified as being temporary for the construction period and
revegetated and recontoured after completion of the
construction. In aIl areas where new access roads are necessary
over private lands, it is suggested that the roads be temporary,
with ievegetation and recontouring occurring as a part of the
overall reclamation plan. The Bureau of Land Management has
expressed a desire to have SOme new access roads become
peimanent, which wiIl be addressed in the BLM access agreements.
I\,Iesa County has reviewed the Special Use Permit application at
one hearing presently. The preferred alternative was tentatively
recommendedr- subject to a possible change in some areas to where
the visual impacl may be mitigated to a greater extent. The Mesa
County Board of Commlssioners will hold a public hearing on
August I6, I983.
Of the various alternatives, the preferred alternative wiII have
the least impact on private lands. Approximately 40 miles of the
total of 56 miles are publically owned lands. AII other
alternatives have a higher ratio of private lands involved'
IV. FINDINGS:
I. The application has been filed in accordance with Section 5.03 of the
CountY Zoning Regulations'
Z. That the hearing before the Planning Commission was extensive and
complete, that att pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted
and that aII intereited parties were heard at that hearing.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed special use
permit is consistent with the best interests of the health, safety,
morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of
Garfield CountY.
V. RECOMMENDATION
possible modification if
No. 3 proves to be a
minimum conditions should
2.
3.
4.
tr
6.
Approval of the requested corridor, subject to
tha new alternative discussed in staff comments
viable alternative. Regardless, the following
be imposed:
-4-
I.
2.
to 7-f
AII proposals of the applicant shall be considered
conditions of approval, unless expressly stated below;
That prior to j-ssuance of the subject special use permit,
the applicant shall obtain and submit to the Garfield County
oepari-ment of Development,/Planning Division copies of :
a. AIl permits from other governmental entities;
b. The -public Utilities Commission approved Certif icate of
Public Convenience and NecessitY;
c. The final easement description location of towers,
storage areasr and easement agreements with private and
pubfi6 land owners. Department of Development staff
wifl contact affected landowners and inspect easement
with the applicant prior to construction. Any changes
suggested by landowners and staff wilt be incorporated
into the final design.
That the applicant will post a bond for road maintenance as
deemed appiopriate by the Board and the County Road
Supervisor.
That the applicant will post a bond the equivalent to the
estimated cost of site rehabilitation of all private lands
affected in Garfield County. FurLher, that said bond may be
released upon approval of the affected landowner of the site
rehabil itation.
That upon an allegation by an affected landowner or
gorrertiental entiiy, the Board shall investigate compliance
iritf, the conditions of approvalr ds provided for in Section
9.01.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978r Ets
amended;
That the permit shall be reviewed annually for compliance
with the permit's conditions of approval until such time
that alI construction and site rehabilitation has been
accepted by the CountY.
That all access roads on private lands be described as
NAR-IC (temporary road to be revegetated upon completion of
construction) or NAR-ID (temporary road which wilI be
recontoured and revegetated upon completion of
construction), unless a different type of access road is
agreed upon by the landowner involved.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
-5-