Final environmental impact statement, Nucla-Telluride transmission line project

646 Pages·2001·50.9 MB·English

by  United States. Forest Service

Historic, Archive Document
Do assume
not content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT
Nucla-Telluride Transmission Line Project
FOREST USDI
VOLUME
SERVICE BUREAU OF I
LAND MANAGEMENT
DELTA, COLORADO November 2001
USDA
RAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE AND RURAL UTILITIES
UNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS SERVICE
United States
Department of
Agriculture
National Agricultural Library
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination on all its programs and activities on the
basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital
or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alterna-
tive means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) shou contact
USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write
USDA, Director
Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W
Whitten Building
SW
1400 Independence Avenue,
Washington, DC 20250-9410
or call [phone] (voice and TDD).
USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Nucla-Telluride Transmission Line Project
Montrose and San Miguel Counties, Colorado
November 2001
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service
Cooperating Agencies: USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
Responsible Official: Robert L. Storch, Forest Supervisor
Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests
2250 Highway 50
Delta, Colorado 81416
For Further Information:
Steve Wells Dennis Rankin Teresa Pfifer
USDA Forest Service USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Bureau of Land Management
Norwood Ranger District 14th and Independence Ave. Uncompahgre Field Office
P.O. Box 388 S.W. Bldg., Room 2244, Stop 1571 2505 South Townsend Avenue
Norwood, Colorado 81423 Washington, DC 20250 Montrose, Colorado 81401
Abstract: The Nucla-Telluride Transmission Line Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) describes the
affected environment and environmental consequences of constructing and operating a new 1 1 5 kV transmission
line between the Nucla Substation in Montrose County, Colorado and either the Telluride or Sunshine Substations
in San Miguel County, Colorado. The primary federal action entails whether to approve the necessary permits to
construct and operate the proposed project across federal lands administered by the USDA, Forest Service, and
the USDI, BLM. Decisions of the RUS relate to whether to provide federal funding for the project. The project is
being proposed by Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association (Tri-State) in order to improve the reliability
and quality of electric power service in the Telluride Area and surrounding communities, as well as alleviate system
overloads on the regional transmission grid.
The 1 1 5 kV transmission line would be approximately 45 to 48 miles long, depending upon the alternative selected.
Key issues include visual impacts to sensitive areas, including the Uncompahgre National Forest (UNF), the San
Juan Skyway Scenic Byway, the San Miguel River Canyon Special Recreation Management Area and Area of
Critical Environmental Concern, other public lands and trails valued for recreation uses and private residential areas
and developments. Key issues also include the need for a reliable source of backup power to the Telluride region
and surrounding project area communities due to both public health and safety reasons. Alternatives developed
in this EIS address the key issues raised during scoping. Transmission alternatives are organized by their physical
location between necessary substation interconnections. Between the Nucla and Norwood Substations, three
primary alternatives are evaluated: the Nucla-Norwood Northern Alternative, the Nucla-Norwood Central Alternative,
and the Nucla-Norwood Southern Alternative. East of the Norwood Substation, two primary alternatives are
evaluated: the Norwood-Sunshine Alternative and the Norwood-Telluride Alternative. The proposed transmission
project would entail combining one of the Nucla-Norwood alternatives with either the Norwood-Sunshine or
Norwood-Telluride Alternative. Each of the transmission alternatives also consists of modifications to San Miguel
Power Associations (SMPA) substations and distribution lines.
A number of subalternatives are also evaluated in the EIS, including minor routing and substation variations, and
an underground alternative across scenic portions of Beaver, Wilson, Specie and Sunshine Mesas. Other technology
alternatives to the transmission project are also disclosed, including three Distributed Generation (DG) scenarios.
In addition to the generator(s) and natural gas pipeline extensions, the DG Alternatives would require transmission
and substation modifications similar to the proposed 1 1 5 kV transmission project.

Table ofContents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME
I
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION S-l
PURPOSEAND NEED S-l
THE PROPOSEDACTION S-2
PUBLICSCOPINGAND DEISCOMMENTS S-3
PUBLICSCOPING S-3
PUBLICCOMMENTS ON DEIS S-3
RANGEOFALTERNATIVESCONSIDERED INTHEEIS S-4
PRIMARYTRANSMISSION LINEROUTINGALTERNATIVES S-6
TRANSMISSION LINEANDSUBSTATIONALTERNATIVES S-6
DISTRIBUTED GENERATION (DG)ALTERNATIVES S-7
NOACTIONALTERNATIVE S-9
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREDAND ELIMINATED FROM STUDY S-9
SUMMARYOFFINDINGS S-ll
COMPARISON OFOVERHEADTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES S-ll
COMPARISON OFOVERHEADAND UNDERGROUNDTRANSMISSIONTECHNOLOGIES S-34
COMPARISON OFTRANSMISSIONAND DGALTERNATIVES S-39
FEDERALDECISIONSTO BEMADE S-46
ENVIRONMENTALLYPREFERREDALTERNATIVE S-46
AGENCYPREFERREDALTERNATIVE S-47
1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.2 FEDERALDECISIONSTO BEMADE 1-1
1.3 PERMITSANDAPPROVALS 1-2
1.4 PROPONENTS PURPOSEAND NEED 1-3
1.4.1 Background 1-4
1.4.2 AlleviatingRegional System Overloads 1-5
1.4.3 Reliable PowerForTellurideArea 1-7
1.4.4 ImprovingTheQualityOfServiceTo Local CommunitiesAnd SurroundingAreas 1-10
1.4.5 Increased CapacityOfTheTransmission System 1-10
1.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESSAND ISSUES 1-10
1.5.1 Scopingand Identification ofIssuesand Concerns 1-10
1.5.2 Comments Received onthe DraftEIS 1-11
2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 OVERVIEWOFEISALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1.1 DEVELOPMENTOFTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1.2 DEVELOPMENTOFGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 2-3
2.2 DESCRIPTION OFACTIONALTERNATIVES 2-4
2.2.1 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS 2-4
2.2.1.1 DESCRIPTIONOFTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVESANDSUBALTERNATIVES 2-5
2.2.1.2 CONSTRUCTIONANDOPERATION PRACTICES 2-17
2.2.1.3 SCHEDULE 2-18
2.2.1.4 COSTS 2-18
2.2.1.5 ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION MEASURES 2-19
2.2.2 DISTRIBUTEDGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 2-19
2.2.2.1 BACKGROUND 2-19
2.2.2.2 DESCRIPTIONOFGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 2-26
2.2.2.3 COSTSOFGENERATIONALTERNATIVESANDCOMPARISONTOTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 2-33
2.2.2.4 SUMMARYCOMPARISONOFREGIONALBENEFITSASSOCIATEDWrTHGENERATION
ANDTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 2-34
2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDEREDAND ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 2-34
2.3.1 ROUTINGALTERNATIVES 2-35
2.3.2 ALTERNATIVEVOLTAGESANDSYSTEMS 2-36
November2001 TABLE OFCONTENTS
i
NUCLA-TELLURIDE TRANSMISSIONLINEPROJECTFEIS Volume
I
2.3.3 RENEWABLEENERGYSOURCES 2-39
2.4 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 2-41
3 THEAFFECTED ENVIRONMENTAND ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES OFTHEALTERNATIVES
3.1 ANALYSISAPPROACH 3.1-1
3.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1-1
3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.1-1
3.1.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.1-3
3.1.2.2 IMPACTFINDINGSOFTHEACTIONANDNOACTIONALTERNATIVES 3.1-4
3.1.2.3 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.1-4
3.1.2.4 POTENTIALMITIGATIONMEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.1-4
3.2 CLIMATEANDAIRQUALITY
3.2.1 AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT 3.2-1
3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.2-4
3.2.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.2-4
3.2.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.2-5
3.2.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATIVES 3.2-12
3.2.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.2-12
3.2.2.5 POTENTIALMITIGATIONMEASURES 3.2-12
3.2.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.2-12
3.2.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.2-18
3.3 GEOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY, MINERALS
3.3.1 AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT 3.3-1
3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.3-6
3.3.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.3-6
3.3.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.3-9
3.3.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATIVES 3.3-16
3.3.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.3-17
3.3.2.5 POTENTIALMITIGATIONMEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.3-17
3.3.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.3-18
3.3.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.3-19
3.4 SOILS
3.4.1 AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT 3.4-1
3.4.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.4-2
3.4.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.4-2
3.4.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.4-4
3.4.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATIVES 3.4-8
3.4.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.4-8
3.4.2.5 POTENTIALMITIGATIONMEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.4-8
3.4.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.4-9
3.4.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.4-9
3.5 WATER RESOURCES
3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.5-1
3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.5-2
3.5.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.5-2
3.5.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.5-4
3.5.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATIVES 3.5-10
3.5.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.5-11
3.5.2.5 POTENTIALMITIGATIONMEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.5-11
3.5.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.5-12
3.5.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.5-12
3.6 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES
3.6.1 AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT 3.6-1
3.6.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.6-14
3.6.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.6-14
3.6.2.2 IMPACTSCOMMONAMONGTHETRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.6-18
3.6.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.6-23
3.6.2.4 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATIVES 3.6-42
3.6.2.5 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.6-49
3.6.2.6 POTENTIALMITIGATION MEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.6-50
3.6.2.7 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.6-52
3.6.2.8 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.6-52
Page ii TABLE OFCONTENTS November2001
Table ofContents
3.7 CULTURALRESOURCES
3.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.7-1
3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.7-7
3.7.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.7-7
3.7.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.7-10
3.7.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATIVES 3.7-14
3.7.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.7-14
3.7.2.5 POTENTIALMmGATlON MEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.7-15
3.7.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.7-16
3.7.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.7-16
3.8 LAND USE
3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.8-1
3.8.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.8-14
3.8.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.8-14
3.8.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.8-18
3.8.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATIVES 3.8-32
3.8.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.8-34
3.8.2.5 POTENTIALMmGATlON MEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.8-35
3.8.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.8-36
3.8.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.8-37
3.9 RECREATION
3.9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.9-1
3.9.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.9-6
3.9.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.9-6
3.9.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.9-7
3.9.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATTVES 3.9-12
3.9.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.9-12
3.9.2.5 POTENTIALMmGATlON MEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.9-13
3.9.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.9-13
3.9.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.9-14
3.10 VISUALRESOURCES
3.10.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.10-1
3.10.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.10-8
3.10.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.10-8
3.10.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.10-11
3.10.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATTVES 3.10-26
3.10.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.10-28
3.10.2.5 POTENTIALMmGATlON MEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.10-29
3.10.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.10-32
3.10.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.10-33
3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS
3.11.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.11-1
3.11.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.11-11
3.11.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.11-11
3.11.2.2 IMPACTSCOMMONAMONGTHETRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.11-12
3.11.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.11-21
3.11.2.4 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATTVES 3.11-24
3.11.2.5 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.11-25
3.11.2.6 POTENTIALMmGATlON MEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.11-25
3.11.2.7 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.11-25
3.11.2.8 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.11-26
3.12 TRANSPORTATION
3.12.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.12-1
3.12.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.12-3
3.12.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.12-3
3.12.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.12-4
3.12.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATTVES 3.12-11
3.12.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFFECTS 3.12-11
3.12.2.5 POTENTIALMmGATlON MEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.12-12
3.12.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.12-12
3.12.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.12-13
November2001 TABLE OFCONTENTS
iii
,
NUCLA-TELLURIDE TRANSMISSIONLINEPROJECTFEIS VolumeI
3.13 NOISE
3.13.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.13-1
3.13.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.13-2
3.13.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.13-2
3.13.2.2 IMPACTSOFTHEPRIMARYTRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.13-4
3.13.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHESUBALTERNATIVES 3.13-9
3.13.2.4 CUMULATIVEEFECTS 3.13-10
3.13.2.5 POTENTIALMRIGATIONMEASURESANDRESIDUALEFFECTS 3.13-10
3.13.2.6 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.13-10
3.13.2.7 NOACTIONALTERNATIVE 3.13-10
3.14 HUMAN HEALTHANDSAFETY
3.14.1 AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT 3.14-1
3.14.2 ENVIRONMENTALCONSEQUENCES 3.14-4
3.14.2.1 ANALYTICALFRAMEWORK 3.14-4
3.14.2.2 IMPACTSCOMMONAMONGTHETRANSMISSIONALTERNATIVES 3.14-5
3.14.2.3 IMPACTSOFTHEGENERATIONALTERNATIVES 3.14-12
3.15 SHORT-TERM USESVERSUSLONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 3.15-1
3.16 IRREVERSIBLEANDIRRETRIEVABLECOMMITMENTOFRESOURCES 3.16-1
3.17 SIGNIFICANTAND UNAVOIDABLEADVERSEIMPACTS 3.17-1
4 LIST OF PREPARERS 4-1
5 REFERENCES AND CONSULTATIONS 5-1
6 GLOSSARY 6-1
7 DISTRIBUTION LIST 7-1
8 INDEX 8-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIXA-l DescriptionofEngineering, Design,Constructionand Maintenance Practices,Tri-State, 2001.
APPENDIXA-2 Tri-State’sPolicyNo. 113: UndergroundingHighVoltageTransmission Facilities
APPENDIXA-3 Tri-State’sPolicyNo.050: PolicyforPurchaseofCapacityand EnergyfromSmall
GenerationSourcesUsingRenewableEnergyResources
APPENDIXA-4 Tri-State’sStandard EasementAgreement
APPENDIXA-5 Nucla-TellurideTransmission LineProject, Underground CableSystems, PowerEngineers
September,2001.
APPENDIXB Biological Resources
APPENDIXC ElectricalCharacteristics, Nucla-TellurideTransmission Line, Radian International,July 1999,
revised October2001.
LISTOFTABLES
TableS-l SummaryofImpactFindings - Nucla-Norwood PrimarySystemAlternatives S-19
TableS-2 SummaryofImpactFindings - NorwoodtoSunshineSubstationAlternativeand NorwoodtoTelluride
SubstationAlternative S-26
TableS-3 SummaryofFindings- Opportunitiesand LimitationsforUndergroundingtheProposed Nucla-Telluride
115 kVTransmission LineAcrossPartsofBeaver,Specie,WilsonandSunshineMesas S-37
TableS-4 CostComparisonofOverheadVersusUndergroundXLPETransmissionConstruction S-38
TableS-5 SummaryofEnvironmentalandCostTrade-offsbetweenOverheadand Underground
Transmission LineTechnologies S-40
TableS-6 ComparisonofRegional Benefits S-43
Table 1.3-1 ListofPermitsandApprovals 1-2
Table 1.4-1 Transmission LineOutage Histories 1-5
Table 1.4-2 San Miguel PowerAssociation ProjectedAnnual and PeakLoads 1-8
Table 1.6-1 SummaryofScopingIssuesand EIS Readers’ Guide 1-12
Table2.1-1 115 kVTransmission LineCharacteristics 2-2
Table2.2-1 ApproximateAmountofPotential Land Disturbance byAlternativeandJurisdiction 2-7
Table2.2-2 SummaryofProjectAlternativesbyLinkand Mile Marker 2-8
Table2.2-3 CharacteristicsofOverhead 115 kVTransmission LineSubaltematives 2-13
Table2.2-4 Tri-State’sStandardand Committed Mitigation Measures 2-20
Table2.2-5 Watershed Conservation Practicesforthe Nucla-TellurideTransmission Line Project 2-24
Table2.2-6 Regional BenefitsComparison 2-26
Page iv TABLE OFCONTENTS November2001