The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About770248.tiff li g -, >�2 piEva 3 E 3 - zilit EE 8 ;J .f H r :1 'ia3 I t • eg` ® .s w E get$ mi Nit�l ' Fli 'HMI; €'24, CO Q 3 N '� a 3 1,...O de. w0 p E8 i Z.. 4.„ i l E l$ IIIIII ,� ffl g eue ` '( �� - - YYi 352-Y I W F� `ee a 8t} S` „.„,„. rr .. t ,-___ W �IIa.`�mm 0 Mg • J rj I C ,...... J.1 vr,--J tit g 41A9 :::, r, ,::: tai _ R1r w f11- -- ₹ X a n` ga.7 i .3 .a2 r / - 8 . 5 -8 -$EE Y -° ., —�_ :o s - m _g _e ��- 3 l Li i$ F' ,zJl�- as8b�oS 1,,,,_cw,t..isi— I. ':(. :/i7: a 1 O Eili=tr-N ;O= F..1.:•.: ,b ,,) 1 / i ,I i , -, . . e 2 iii .1t2.1 t...s:e . i • — /- —�u-2' —vl / C —es'�e2* `esea�E EE ay 1 . ' o =igEEililic€'5 o'i.Va5 ) �r /, i of@E`s.-i.,8°e,ss sce'dsm¢`'z'bw O , \ N A .0 d w d al tl 0 r �,. -Th " , 9 e ! MOOT --6 nsczlt e 66200 rac-rr a'9 —. ....lief • T RESOLUTION RE: GRANT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF AN ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE TO PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on February 9 , 1977 in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado for the purpose of hearing the petition of the Platte River Power Authority, William Slimak, Director of Engi- neering, 3030 South College Avenue, Fort Collins , Colorado, re- questing a Special Use Permit for the location of an electrical transmission line in a corridor approximately two (2) miles wide by eight (8) miles long bound by the Fort Saint Vrain I Atomic Power Plant on the East, North side of Weld County Rd. No. 36 on the North, Weld County Road No. 32 on the South, and the proposed Longs Peak Substation (two miles West of Mead) on the West, involving the following Sections of land: Sections 1, 2, 3 , 8, 9 , 10, 11, 12, 13 , 14, 15 16, and 17, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of of the 6th P.M. , and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9 , 10, 15, 16, 17, and 18, Township 3 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, petitioner was present, and WHEREAS, Section 4-4 (A) (4) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter requires that the placement of utility transmission systems, be reviewed by the Weld County Planning Commission, and the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has considered all the testimony and statements of those present, and has studied the request of the petitioner, and has studied the recommendations of the Weld County Planning Commission, and having been fully informed and satisfied that the requested use complies with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com- Ji missioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application of Platte River Power Authority, 3030 South College Avenue, Fort Collins , Colorado, for the placement of an electrical transmission line in the above described corridor, also known as the "drainage route" , be and hereby is granted subject to the Development Standards contained in the Special Use Permit, and subject to PL0600 ? ` ��,, w 770248 i Ilk applicant' s consultation with land owners West of Interstate 25, in order to determine the most appropriate route. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 9th day of February, A.D. , 1977. The above and foregoing Resolution was read into the record and signed on the 16th day of February, A.D. , 1977. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS D COUNTY, COLORADO ' l N : .-22,0- ---r-v\-ot, 8-46:-/). ATTEST: Weld County Clerk and Recorder and Clerk to the B. d - / Deputy Coun Clerk ,LDAAS TO FORM: C_ DO County Attorney -2- BEFORE THE D COUNTY , COLORADO PLANNI COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No . S U P # 326:76:31 Date 12-21-76 APPLICATION OF Platte River Power Authority A DD RES SWilliam Slimak, 3030 S. College Ave. , Ft, Collins, Colo. Moved by J. Ben Nix that the following resolution be��— o �, cf, introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission : �, r › Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that ire ' ° application for site approval of Tr • 9 c o ? o covering the following described property in Weld County , - C1� � m A Colorado , to-wit : o — N o r ° o O Sections 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 , 16 T3N, R68W n eta Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 18 of T3N, R67W _ a iji t0 that the drainage route be recommended ( favorably ) tEONEKKOON1Qd to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons : 1. The least impact to cultivated agricultural land will be made along this route, both to actual land disturbed and value and damages of land impacted. 2. The least impact to residential use and existing development will be felt along this route. 3. The least aesthetic impact will be felt along this route as a result of a low profile of drainage pattern. 4. The Town of Mead Planning Commission recommends the drainage route as it appears to have the least impact on the community and the surrounding agri- cultural land. The following standards are required for locations of the route and structures: a. No towers located in the drainage route shall be placed on cultivated land east of the Town of Mead (Co. Rd. 7) b. Where the line is adjacent to Public Service property (Section 13, T2N,R68W), no towers will be located off the Public Service property unless the poles will Motion seconded by Bette Kountz (continued on Sheet 2) Vote : For Passage Bette Kountz _ Against Passage F. Ben Nix Ron Heitman Chuck Carlson Percy Hiatt The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings . Sheet 2 of RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION be located out of cultivated lands. c. Where towers are located along County Road ROW (Road 342 between Co. Rd. 7 and 5), a minimum clearance of 12 feet from the inside face of the pole to shoulder of County Road will be required. See Co. Eng. memo dated 12-7-76. Towers will be located on the north side of Co. Rd. 342. d. County permits will be requirred at any time the transmission lines cross County ROW. See Co. Eng. MEMO dated 12-7-76. e. Towers located along property lines (E2 Sec. 8, T2N, R68W) shall be located in the fence row not in the field. f. Towers located in open field locations (W2 Sec. 8, T2N, R68W) shall be located with perpendicular orientation to N-S and E-W. g. Reseeding of the drainage route shall be completed as per SCS recommendations. See SCS letter dated 11-26-76. h. Geologic and soils investigations will be submitted for approval prior to final design for individual towers. The investigation is to be submitted subse- quent to Board of County Commissioners route approval. i. Final review of route locations, where the line crosses or parallels State Highway ROW, is to be made by State Highway Dept. An Interstate Utility Crossing Permit will be required. See State Dept. of Highways letter dated 11-23-76. j. Subsequent to Board of County Commissioners route approval the route location will be submitted on a 24" x 36" mylar. The document shall also include certification to be completed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and a Certificate of Responsibility to be completed by the applicant. The standards and limitations approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall be affixed to the document. Upon completion of the document and signatures, the document shall be filed with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The following comments have been received: 1. The Town of Platteville has no objections. 2. The Weld County Agriculture Council supports the drainage route and does not desire diagonal crossing. 3. One letter of objection from Peter K. Kintz dated 1124-76. 4. If negotiations for necessary aquisition for ROW for tower placement along the north side of Co. Rd. 342 are not successful, the matter may be brought before the Planning Commission for reconsideration of alternate placement of ROW. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I , Bev Gerhardt , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission , do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County , Colorado , adopted on Decanter 21, 1976 V and recorded in Book No . of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission . Dated t h e 29th d a y o f Decanber 76 19 Secretary ! BEFORE THE D COUNTY , COLORADO PLANN] COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Case No . SUP # 326:76:31 Date December 7, 1976 APPLICATION OF Platte River Power Authority ADDRESS malr g STCellege Ave ,fit_ C'Oll ;nom_ CO Moved by Percy Hiatt that the following resolution be introduced for passage by the Weld County Planning Commission : Be it Resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for site approval of Transmiss;nn Line Nlocation covering the following described property in Weld County , Colorado , to-wit : MXXXXXX Sections 1,2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of T3N, R68W and Sections 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 18, of T3N, R67W TABLE be recommended XX14XX1X)b4XgMAXXXX to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons : NNEXXXXXXXMN to make necessary adjustments as recommended in staff recommendations. Motion seconded by Marge Yost Vote : For Passage Ben Nix _ Against Passage Chuck Carlson Marge Yost Bette Kountz Percy Hiatt The Chairman declared the Resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this case to the Board of County Commissioners for further proceedings . CERTIFICATION OF COPY I , g Pat Rymer , Recording Secretary of the Weld County Planning Commission , do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County , Colorado , adopted on DP 'emb.er 7, 1976 and re- corded in Book No . 5 _ of the proceedings of the said Planning Commission . Dated the 10 day of December _ 19 7A C 3 la* Secretary The Weld County Planning Commission held a luncheon meeting on Tuesday, December 21, 1976, at the Holiday Inn, Greeley, Colorado at 11:30 A.M. Those present were: Ron Heilman Chuck Carlson J. Ben Nix Bette Kountz Percy Hiatt Also present were: Terry Trembly, Assistant Water Quality Planner Norman Carlson, Weld County Commissioner Kay McEver, Assistant County Attorney Tom Honn, Zoning Administrator Terry Trembly gave a presentation on the 208 program. The Weld County Planning Commission held a scheduled meeting on December 21, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. , in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. Roll Call was as follows: Chuck Carlson Present Bill Elliot Absent Percy Hiatt Present Harry Ashley Absent Bette Kountz Present J. Ben Nix Present Ron Heitman Present Tim Weigand Absent Marge Yost Absent As a quorum was present, the meeting proceeded as scheduled. Approval of minutes. APPLICANT: Platte River Power Authority ` \ l' ' (' A CASE NUMBER: SUP 326:76:31 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Sections 1,2,3,8,P,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,and 17, T3N, R68w and Sections 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, 15,16,17, and 18, T3N, R67W LOCATION: 9 miles traverse between Long's Peak Sub- station (2 mi.W. of Mead) and the Ft. St. Vrain Power Plant (2 mi. W. & 1 mi. N. of Platteville) SUBJECT: Transmission Line Location APPEARANCE: Brian Blakely DISCUSSION: Brian Blakely, attorney for Platte River Power Authority stated that the route now proposed is the southern drainage route; it incorporates the three suggested changes of the Staff as proposed two weeks ago. Mr. Blakely brought to the Commissioner's attention that a lattice tower would be placed on the Hick's property rather than poles as originally proposed; that PRPA was trying to accommodate Mr.Kintz who objects to the route but PRPA feels that something can be worked out; that PRPA had spoken to Public Service who wants to keep the route as far north and as far east as possible of the area that was planned for development; that Public Service was not in agreement with the Staff's request the PRPA jog around the dam site so PRPA lines would go straight across at that point. The final point the Mr. Blakely made was in regard to a suggestion of a slight change in the route by Public Service because of the instability of the land and the flood plain; lattice towers might be required along this area due to this instability of soil. Tom Honn read the Staff's recommendations that were presented at the previous Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Jerry Bagley, engineer with PRPA, stated that they would use steel poles wherever possible and agreed to meet requirements that the poles not be located on cultivated land as well as all other recommendations as specified. RESOLUTION: Be it therefore resolved to recommend to the County Comnissioners approval subject to the specifications and stipula- tions written by the Planning Staff with the stipulation that if the PRPA cannot negotiate with Mr. Kintz satisfactorily, then PRPA would reappear before the Commission for a decision as to where to place the pole. Motion made by J. Ben Nix. Seconded by Bette Kountz. A vote of "aye" by Mr. Heitman, Mr. Carlson, Mr. Nix, Ms. Kountz, and Mr.Hi_att. Motion carried. APPLICANT: Continental Pipeline Company t` '( < ` L CASE NUMBER: SUP 324:76:29 LOCATION: 22 miles W. and mile N. of Ft. Lupton LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Pt. of Section 2, T1N, R67W SUBJECT: Crude Oil Storage Tank APPEARANCE: Rick Hamm DISCUSSION: Rick Hamm, District Manager of Continental Pipeline Company in Cheyenne stated that as discussed at the last meeting their intentions were to build a 10,000 barrel tank, addi- tional storage facilities at their spindal station. Mr. Hann presented a graph of what the oil production has been in that area since January of 1974. There has been approximately 5,000 barrels a day, then in 1975 there was a slight increase but in April, 1976 they were at about 7,000 barrels a day, and in December of 1976 they are producing approximately 20,000 barrels a day. They expect the field will peak at about 22,000 barrels a day in 1977. Then it will remain this way for approximately 6 months and then decline at about 15`;0 per year. Mr. Hamm then presented an Excerpt from the National Transportation Safety Board. It concerned statistical data for Transportation type Freight transportation fatality rates for 1963 to 1968. This is the most current information available. He read from the data which stated that the most safe method of transportation is pipelines and the least safe is surface transportation. This is to emphasize that pipelines are the safest method. • Planning Commission December 7, 1976 " \ )( APPLICANT: Platte River Power Authority (0-) -1 LOCATION: 9 mile traverse betwwen Long' s Peak Substation (2 mi . W of Mead) and the Ft. St. Vrain Power Plant (2 mi . W & 1 mi . N of Platteville. SUBJECT: Transmission Line Location APPEARANCE: Bill Slimak, Director of Engineering with PRPA DISCUSSION: This proposed lineisrmededto complete the transmission loop for their requirements and it will connect the Long ' s Peak substation with the Public Service Company of Colorado Ft. St. Vrain Power Plant. Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk was hired to look into all the possible routes and determine which would be the route of least impact to the community. This report was given to the Planning Commission for their study. A public information hearing was held in Mead on November 18, 1976. The analysis performed on segments of the proposed routes corporated a number of factors; these in- cluded agricultural and irrigation system impacts, the imped- ence of urban growth and development particularly around the Mead area, various ownership patterns between the two terminals, the proximity to any power line proposed segment to residences, the need for removal or topping of trees along proposed seg- ment, the construction cost of a proposed segment , other con- .-- tingencies which include conflict with autos, the potential for accidents near roads. In construction costs, the basic cost of the line itself is estimated to be approximately $200, 000 a mile. Every time a turn is made an additional cost is made due to special poles other than the normal poles. Joe Sarsenski briefly discussed the different segments as to why they were or were not considered as a possible route, and their impacts on the surrounding area. He discussed the fact they they now have narrowed it down to three routes and the more imput they have, the more they will know which of these is the most acceptable. The North route is the favored route because it is the shorter, it has the least acreage of agricultural land to be affected and it would cost the least from PRPA standpoint . The drainage route is a very favorable route although it does cost approximately a of a million dollars more and does effect more agricultural acreage. PRPA is kind of leaning toward the drainage route at this point . The southern route has received opposition from land owners at the westery end of it . There are approximately 6 or 7 poles per mile with approximately /." 800 foot span between poles. These would be a single pole structure wherever possible for a straight line or angles up to about 25° with no guy wires. Any angle between 25 and 55° would require either two of these kind of poles or one of the four-legged latice steel towers. Any angle over 55° including 1 Planning Commission December 7, 1976 a 90° angle would require one of the four-legged lattice steel towers. The right-of-way for the county road was discussed and Mr. Frank Smith from the County Engineering Office stated that they do not have 100 foot right-of-way; they have 60 foot right-of-way. Tom Honn read the comments as follows : The Weld County Planning Commission staff recommends that this request be approved for the drainage route for the following reasons : ( 1) The least imapct to cultivated agricultural land will be made along this route, both to actual land disturbed and value and damages of land impacted. (2) The least impact to residential use and existing development will be felt along this route . (3) The least aesthetic impact will be felt along this route as a result of a low profile of the drainage pattern. (4) The Town of Mead Planning Commission recommends the drainage route as it appears to have the least impact on the community and the surrounding agricultural land. The following standards are required for location of the route and structures : (a) Adjustment of PRPA proposal as follows: ,-'' 1) The eastern location is to be adjusted as displayed on the attached map and referenced #1. The reason for the ad- justment is that the given route crosses cultivated land - the proposal does not, numerous trees would be required to be removed, the line would be constructed in the St . Vrain floodplain contiguous to the St . Vrain River. 2) The central location, Section 13, is referenced as #2 . This location is the site of the new Public Service dam. The adjustment keeps the line off cultivated land and on related use property. 3) The western location is to be referenced as #3 . The adjustment allows for the necessary safety and utility for aerial crop dusting activity. (b) No towers located in the drainage route shall be placed on cultivated land east of the Town of Mead (Co. Rd. 7) (c) Where the line is adjacent to Public Service property (Sec. 13, T2N, R68W) , no towers will be located off the Public Service property unless the poles will be located out of cultivated lands. (d) Where towers are located along County Road ROW (Road 34z between Co. Rd. 7 & 5) , a minimum clear- ance of 12 feet from the inside face of the pole to shoulder of County Road will be required. See Co. Eng. memo dated 12-7-76. (e) County permits will be requried at any time the trans- mission lines cross County ROW. See Co. Eng. memo dated 12-7- 76. (f) Towers located along property lines (E- of Sec. 8, T2N R68W) shall be located with perpendicular orientation to N-S and E-W. (h) Reseeding of the drainage route shall be com- pleted as per SCS recommendations . See SCS letter dated 11- 26-76. The following items are comments regarding the pro- posal: 1) Final comments have not been received from the r r Planning Commission December 7 , 1976 ditch companies involved. These comments will be in re- gard to location of towers near ditch ROW and vertical clearance above ditches. These matters should be cleared prior to the Board of County Commissioners approval and be a part of the above standards. (2) Geologic and soils investigations will be submitted for approval prior to final design for individual towers. The investigation is to be submitted subsequent to Board of County Commissioners route approval . (3) Final review of route locations, where the line crosses or parallels highway ROW, is to be made by State Highway Dept . An Interstate Utility Crossing Permit will be required. See State Department of Highways letter dated 11-23-76. (4) The Town of Platteville has no objections. (5) The Weld County Agriculture Council supports the drainage route and does not desire diagonal crossing. (6) One letter of objection from Peter K. Kintz dated 11-24-76. (7) Subsequent to Board of County Commis- sioners route approval the route location will be submitted on a 24" x 36" mylar. The document shall also include certification to be completed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and a Certificate of Responsiblity to be completed by the applicant . The standards and limit- ations approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall be affixed to the document. Upon completion of the document and signatures, the document shall be filed with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. Tom Honn made the suggestion that prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation that if they feel the drainage route be the best alternative that prior to making a specific final determination that PRPA make a study of that public service area on what limitations or what availablibity crossing that property may be. Also to take a look at the proposed route that the staff has made if the Planning Commission feels that that is a justified request and have them evaluate what angles and structures would be needed. Comments from the audience were asked for. • Harvey Fishner stated that on the drainage route that they would be going through one 10 acre hay field and one 5 acre hay field as shown on the map. Tom IIonn clear up the point that this recommendation for approval of the drainage route that that is a generalized conception, and does not necessarily follow the exact route as proposed. Mr. Fishner also objected that his view had already been ruined by the Public Service dam and he did not want to look at any more "ugly". �-, Ray Runyon, living on the south route, stated that coming across his land and across the neighbors land would mutilate good agricultural land. Bob Burch stated the southern route would cut across the middle 1977 . v Planning Commission December 7, 1976 of his property. Ed Moorhouse stated that on the proposed route marked S that that would put approximately 3 poles right through his prime agricultural land. James Johnson stated that they were definately for the proposed route as suggested by staff , and would object to any other route. Mr. Balinger was concerned with the drainage route. Stated he felt that the route should be along the utility easements . • That is what they are established for. Robert Graham, living on the North route right by the railroad track. He would object to this route as his house would be almost directly under this route. MOTION: Mr. Percy Hiatt to table until staff can get with PRPA for further study on the proposed route, (December 21, 1976) drainage route with modifications. Seconded Ms. Kountz. A vote of "aye" Mr. Nix, Mr. Carlson, Ms . Yost , Ms. Kountz, and Mr. Hiatt . Motion Carried. Date: December 21, 1976 CASE NUMBER: SUP 326:76:31 LOCATION: 9 mi. traverse between Long's Peak Substation (2 mi. W. of Mead) and Eggilpgymmiligg the Ft. St. Wain Power Plant (2 mi. W. and 1 mi. N. of Platteville) REQUEST: Transmission Line Location NAME: Platte River Power Authority THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE the drainage route for Approved FOR4THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The least impact to cultivated agricultural land will be made along this route, both to actual land disturbed and value and damages of land impacted. 2. The least impact to residential use and existing development will be felt along this route. 3. The least aesthetic impact will be felt along this route as a result of a low profile of the drainage pattern. 4. The Town of Mead Planning Commission recommends the drainage route as it appears to have the least impact on the community and the surrounding agricultural land. The following standards are required for location of the route and structures: a. No towers located in the drainage route shall be placed on cultivated land east of the Town of Mead (Co. Rd. 7) b. Where the line is adjacent to Public Service property (Section 13, T2N, R68W), no towers will be located off the Public Service property unless the poles will be located out of cultivated lands. c. Where towers are located along County Road ROW (Road 342 between Co. Rd. 7 5), a minimum clearance of 12 feet from the inside face of the pole to shoulder of County Road will be required. See Co. Eng. Memo dated 12-7-76. Towers will be located on the north side of Co. Rd. 342. d. County permits will be required at any time the transmission lines cross County ROW. See Co. Eng. Memo dated 12-7-76. e. Towers located along property lines (E2 Sec. 8, T2N, R68W) shall be located in the fence row not in the field. f. Towers located in open field locations (W"- Sec. 8, T2N, R68W) shall be located with perpendicular orientation to N-S and E-W. g. Reseeding of the drainage route shall be completed as per SCS recommendations. See SCS letter dated 11-26-76. h. Geologic and soils investigations will be submitted for approval prior to final design for individual towers. The investigation is to be submitted subsequesnt to Board of County Commissioners route approval. i. Final review of route locations,where the line crosses or parallels State Highway ROW, is to be made by State Highway Dept. An Interstate Utility Crossing Permit will be required. See State Department of High- ways letter dated 11-23-76. j. Subsequent to Board of County Commissioners route approval the route loca- tion will be submitted on a 24" x 36" mylar. The document shall also include certification to be completed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and a Certificate of Responsibility to be completed by the applicant. The standards and limitations approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall be affixed to the document. Upon completion of the document and signatures, the document shall be filed with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The following comments have bccn received: 1. The Town of Platteville has no objections. 2. The Weld County Agriculture Council supports the drainage route and does not desire diagonal crossing. 3. One letter of objection fran Peter K. Kintz dated 11-24-76. 4. If negotiations for necessary aquisition for ROW for tower placement along the north side of Co. Rd. 342 are not successful, the matter may be brought before the Planning Commission for reconsideration of alternate placement of ROW. Date: December 7, 1976 CASE NUMBER: LOCATION: 9 mi _ traverse between Long' s Peak Substation (2 mi. W of Mead) & pamxpggiggypnws the Ft. St. Vrain Power Plant (2 mi. W & 1 mi. N of Platte- ville) REQUEST: Transmission Line Location NAME: Platte River Power Authority THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE Approved FOR/`THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The least impact to cultivated agricultural land will be made along this route, both to actual land disturbed and value and damages of land impacted. 2. The least impact to residential use and existing development will be felt along this route. 3. The least aesthetic impact will be felt along this route as a result of a low profile of the drainage pattern. 4. The Town of Mead Planning Commission recommends the drainage route as it appears to have the least impact on the community and the surrounding agricultural land. Cj The following standards are required for location of the route and structures: p( Adjustment of PRPA proposal as follows: 2* 1) The eastern location is to be adjusted as displayed on the attached map and referenced #1. The reason for the adjust- ment is that the given route crosses cultivated land - the proposal does not, numerous trees would be required to be removed, the line would be constructed in the St. Vrain flood- plain contiguous to the St . Vrain River. /\ 2) The central location, Section 13, is referenced as #2. This location is the site of the new Public Service dam. The ad- justment keeps the line off cultivated land and on related use property. , 3) The western location is to be referenced as #3. The adjust- ment allows for the necessary safety and utility for aerial crop dusting activity. a.114. No towers located in the drainage route shall be placed on cultivated land east of the Town of Mead (Co. Rd. 7) 10, x. Where the line is adjacent to Public Service property (Section 13, T2N, R68W) , no towers will be located off the Public Service property unless the poles will be located out of cultivated lands . , �. 4' Where towers are located along County Road ROW (Road 342 between Co: Rd. 7 & 5) , a minimum clearance of 12 feet from the inside face of the pole to shoulder of County Road will be I ' required. See Co. Eng. memo dated 12-7-76. --r. - C:: L_ t)' k ' 841 y J C-; t. .(_ , County permits will. be required at any time the transmission lines cross County ROW. See Co. Eng. memo dated 12-7-76. `AN,. Towers located along property lines (EZ Sec. 8, T2N, R68W) shall be located in the fence row not in the field. , li. Towers located in open field locations (WZ Sec. 8, T2N, R68W) shall be located with perpendicular orientation to N-S and E-W. ,4qL. Reseeding of the drainage route shall be completed as per SCS recommendations. See SCS letter dated 11-26-76 . T e following items are comments regarding the proposal : Final comments have not been received from the ditch companies involved. These comments will be in regard to location of towers near ditch ROW and vertical clearance above ditches. These matters should be cleared prior to the Board of County Commissioners approval and be a part of the above standards. 40 Geologic and soils investigations will be submitted for approval prior to final design for individual towers. The investigation is to be submitted subsequent to Board of County Commissioners route approval. ) Final review of route locations, where the line crosses or parallels?highway ROW, is to be made by State Highway Dept . An Interstate Utility Crossing Permit will be required. See State Department of Highways letter dated 11-23-76 . �f , L 1 ,, 4 4) The Town of Platteville has no objections . 5) The Weld County Agriculture Council supports the drainage route and does not desire diagonal crossing. s 6,) One letter of objection from Peter K. Kintz dated 11-24-76. Subsequent of Board of County Commissioners route approval the route location will be submitted on a 24" x 36" mylar. The document shall also include certification to be completed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commiss- ioners and a Certificate of Responsibility to be completed by the applicant . The standards and limitations approved by the Board of County Commissioners shall be affixed to the document . Upon completion of the document and signa- tures, the document shall be filed with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. " � � I DATE: January 5, 1977 TO : Th,> I3o'ird of County Commission _rs Weld County, Colorado FROM: Clerk to the Board Office Commissioners : If you have no objections , we have tentatively set the following hearing for the 9th of February, 1977 at 2:00 P.M_ Platte River Power Authority, SUP, Transmission•Line Location • OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TIUE BOARD BY : C� Deputy The above mentioned hearing date and hearing time may be scheduled on the agenda as stated above : 1'OARD OF COUNTY CONNI SSIONERS •'ELD COUNTY, COLORADO Licxy-yuc—t-ri P/C)-( PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY 10 TIMBERLINE & HORSETOOTH ROADS • FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80525 Telephone (303) 226-4000 Board of Directors November 22, 1978 Cable 'PLATTRIVER" J D Bilderback Stanley R Case Robert L Dekker Jear M Marchand E George Patterson,Jr Jack E L Russell Harry B Tregent Jerry Trotter Mr. and Mrs. John Fiechtner General Manager Route 1, Box 272 Albert J Hamilton Longmont, CO Re: Structure #31 Long's Peak-to-Fort St. Vrain Transmission Line Dear Mr. and Mrs. Fiechtner: This letter's purpose is to set forth Platte River Power Authority's position with regard to your request of October 23, 1978, that we change the location of the first structure on the west side of your property (Structure #31 ) . Please note that we have forwarded a copy of this letter to the Weld County Planning Commission so that they, too, may be aware of our position. As you know, Platte River's work on the siting of this line began in the summer of 1976. As we progressed through the review process, one of the conditions attached to approval of the route was that no trans- mission structures (east of the town of Mead) were to be placed in cultivated land. The line was designed to meet that requirement and, as you know, the structure in question was designed to be placed in a marshy, uncultivated area of your property. Over a period of many months, Platte River worked long and hard to successfully negotiate an easement with you on that basis. Many times during the months of siting studies and easement negotiations we requested that you assist us in locating the line across your property. You consistently refused to discuss the line's design. During the later stages of our negotiations you requested we investigate several alterna- tive routes for the line around your property, but you would not consider with us the structure placements on your land. Our meeting on April 3, 1978, at which our lawyers were present, was the first time you mentioned that you were considering filling in this marshy area and that a pole there could have an impact on your future plans for use of this land area. We discussed this and you will recall that your lawyer told you that our structure siting met the Weld County guidelines and that we had the right to put the pole there. It was with this under- standing that you executed the easement. Nevertheless, after you signed the easement with us, you brought in fill dirt and proceeded to plant a hay crop in the area where the pole was designed to be located. You then asked us to investigate the feasibility and costs of moving the structure 20 feet to the south. We have investi- gated this, and - as I reported to you at our last meeting (November 1) - the relocation is feasible but will cost $3,500. It will also require a PLATTE RIVER Mr. and Mrs. John Fiechtner POWER November 22, 1978 AUTHORITY Page 2 new easement from you. (The $3,500 cost is attributable to several factors. The structure will have to be specially weighted to handle the new, more severe angle; another structure would have to be moved; and there are additional legal , design, and engineering costs which would be incurred. ) While Platte River has no legal obligation to relocate the pole, we are anxious to cooperate with you in minimizing the impact of our line on your use of the land. We therefore, are taking this opportunity to reaffirm our willingness to share the costs of relocation of the structure in question. You have previously (at our November 1 meeting) responded to this offer by stating that you were not willing to contribute anything toward relocation of the structure. If that is your final position, we have no choice but to locate the pole where it was originally designed and where the easement you sold us permits us to place it. If, however, you have re-thought your position and wish to contribute toward the costs of re-locating the tower, we will be happy to share those with you on a 50-50 basis. You should know that construction of the line is already underway; the contractor will begin drilling the hole for the structure in question within the next two weeks. Therefore, we can only await your response until November 30. If we have not heard from you by that time, we must assume you have not changed your position and the structure will be located as designed and planned. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Very truly yours, PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY PM9 N, Pcri . Phillip H. Porter Planning Engineer /sb cc: Weld County Planning Commission Chuck Huddleson, Esq. Fischer, Brown, Huddleson, and Gunn ��222324?S26c, $' N0V 1978 ' VC,D CD CCull/Ouq v Playing CON7T i ' 8 L9 N\ R VERE LONGS PEAK-FORT ST VRAIN POWER AUTHORITY TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES Platte River Power Authority ("Platte ultimate benefit of the customers of both River") is a municipally-owned electric systems. utility and a political subdivision of PROJECT DESCRIPTION Colorado supplying at wholesale the elect- rical energy requirements of Fort Collins, To accomplish the goal of completing Loveland, Longmont and Estes Park. In its electric system interconnection, order to meet the energy requirements of Platte River is planning to construct a these four cities beyond 1978, Platte 230 kV transmission line between Fort St. River is constructing transmission lines Vrain power plant and the proposed Long's from the Yampa power plant near Craig, Peak Substation west of Mead, Colorado. Colorado to Ault, from Ault to Fort Single tapered steel poles will be Collins, from Fort Collins to Loveland, used for the entire length of line wher- and from Loveland to northeast of Longmont ever possible. Average spans will be 800 at the planned Long's Peak Substation. feet and minimum ground clearance will be The final link in Platte River's local 28 feet. Easements for right-of-way will transmission system requires construction be 100 feet wide. of a line to connect the Long's Peak Sub- COORDINATION station with the Public Service Company of Colorado's system at the Fort St. Vrain Platte River's efforts to identify power plant. Completion of this vital link the most feasible route included a will : detailed analysis of all potential align- 1. provide alternate delivery of ments and discussions with numerous electric service in the event the officials in the area. A complete report Craig to Ault line is temporarily has been prepared and presented to the out of service; Weld County Planning Commission staff. 2. provide reliability for the local Copies of this report are available from transmission system between Fort Platte River. A copy may be reviewed at Collins, Loveland & Longmont; and the Weld County Department of Planning 3. enable Platte River and Public Services in Greeley or at Fry's General Service Company to interchange Store in Mead. electric power as required'for the MAP OF ALTERNATE TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES NORTH ROUTE SOUTH ROUTE— AAAAA DRAINAGE ROUTE-0 . • • 0 O in N A? a FORT roC-:—)HI GHLAN LAKE D P ,4' POWER W COUNTY ROAD 36 ¢ PLANT )- N , LONGS COUNTY RD. ;�, C Z �`� • PEAK 34N :_:• :: o SUBSTATION .� COUNTY ROAD 34 U AAAA 'MEAD AAA AAAAAA A A� �A•� • �•A• A •• • A• A• , 1 IRD f ALTERNATIVE ROUTES A two step process was followed the "Drainage" route on segments in to determine the best route. First, over ' common with the "North" route. 30 individual route segments were analyzed The "South" route received only one and segments with significant adverse im- objection, that from the landowner at pacts were rejected from further consider- the extreme west end of the line. Every- ation. one who expressed an opinion seemed to Among the more significant factors recommend the "South" route, especially considered in analyzing the potential East of 1-25 where it has an alignment in route segments were the impacts of each common with the "Drainage" route. Platte on: River is, therefore, strongly considering . prime agricultural land this "South" route for its proposed line. . residences It is depicted on the map by triangles . growth and development of Mead and by triangles and circles where it . construction costs joins the "Drainage" route. . aesthetics PUBLIC HEARINGS Favorable segments were then linked to- gether to form alternative transmission Two additional public hearings will line routes. Four alternative routes be held by Weld County officials regard- were defined by this process. These ing this transmission line route. alternative routes were further evaluated The first of these will be held by examining the total overall impact of December 7 at 2:00 p.m. before the Weld each. County Planning Commission in the County A public hearing was held in Mead by Commissioner's Hearing Room, 1st floor, Platte River's Board of Directors on Centennial Center in Greeley. (Please November 18 to discuss the four routes. verify this before traveling to Greeley As a result, one route was eliminated. since there is the possibility that the The three remaining routes are shown on hearing may be postponed to December 21 the accompanying front page illustra- if all referrals are not in from other tion, labeled North, South and Drainage local government agencies. Contact the routes. (The fourth route, the so-called Weld County Department of Planning "Interstate" route, was discontinued from Service, phone number 356-4000, further consideration because of object- extension 400, for the exact date, time ions from the State Highway Department. ) and place. ) A summary of the more significant Upon a recommendation of this impacts of the three alternative routes is Planning Commission, the Weld County presented in the table below. Board of County Commissioners will hold a hearing about a month later at a time Platte River's public hearing in Mead and place to be announced. received a large number of comments regarding problems with the "North" route, Platte River hopes you will attend including conflicts along County Road 34N, these meetings and express any concerns its nearness to Mead, and proximity to two you may have about the route selection. residences at the intersection of County We are interested, as we know you are, Road 36 and the Great Western Railroad. in selecting the route for this trans- mission line which will cause the least Several negative comments were also environmental impact in this area. received regarding the western 22 miles of Summary of Significant Impacts Acres of Alternative Impacted Value and Damages of Agri- Construction Route Miles Agriculture cultural Land Impacted Cost North 8.38 72 $13,871 $1,770,000 South 9.07 109 16,429 2,000,000 Drainage 8.96 101 9,433 2,010,000 PLATTE DIVER POWER AUTHORITY 4. 3030 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE • FORT COLLINS,COLORADO 80521, January 3, 1977 Telephone: (303)493-5520 Board of Directors Cable "PLATTRIVER" J. D. Bilderback Stanley R.Case 4 5 6 leg Robert L. Dekker Jerry Trotter �� General Manager J cl4 �;� Albert J. Hamilton ' 5 on ��' Mr. Peter Kintz • 167 Amherst Place N.W• `sue, �Co��ss�oo czig4 Atlanta, Georgia 30327 CeG≤� 0V�\ � Dear Sir: On December 29 you telephoned me with regard to the action taken by the Weld County Planning Commission in approving the "Southern Drain- age Route" for Platte River's Long's Peak-Fort St. Vrain transmission line. You were particularly concerned with a newspaper article by Jay Bouton which paraphrased your objection as "not want(ing) the power authority to install a pole in the corner of (your) property near Mead." At the time of your call I had not seen the article in question, but I tried to recount as accurately as I could the hearing before the Planning Commission. Since then I have had a chance to review the article and I wanted to put down in writing for your benefit and the Commission's my statement that the article is inaccurate. I stated to the Commission at least twice that you objected to any route, including the Southern Drainage Route, that passed by your property. I never stated that your objection was to the location of only one pole -- I could not have done so since, as I told the Com- mission, Platte River is not yet far enough into the design of the line to allow us to pinpoint exact pole locations. The reporter's misunderstanding, I suppose, arose when I expressed some optimism to the Commission that Platte River might be able to reach an agreement with you, since your main objection to the route was the potential impact upon your irrigation ditch. I then pointed out that as tentatively designed only two poles would affect the ditch. The impact of one, a hundred feet east of the intersection of County Roads 5 and 34N, would be unavoidable, but the other could possibly be placed in the corner of your pie-shaped field to minimize interference with your farming operation. I only intended these remarks to the Commission to be illustrative of the willingness of Platte River to work with impacted landowners and the types of alternatives available to us in so doing. I did not in- tend that my statements be taken as designating final pole locations, I 1 PLATTE RIVER TRANSMISSION LINE POWER AUTHORITY ROUTE Platte River Power Authority ("Platte PROJECT DESCRIPTION River") is a municipally-owned electric To accomplish the goal of completing utility and a political subdivision of the interconnection with Public Service Co., Colorado supplying at wholesale the elect- Platte River is planning to construct a rical energy requirements of Fort Collins, 230 kV transmission line between Fort St. Loveland, Longmont and Estes Park. In order Vrain power plant and the proposed Long's to meet the energy requirements of these four cities beyond 1978, Platte River Peak Substation west of Mead, Colorado. accompany- is constructing transmission lines from the The proposed route, shown on the Yampa power plant near Craig, Colorado to ing illustration, will exit the north side Ault, from Ault to Fort Collins , from Fort of the substation and travel east along Collins to Loveland, and from Loveland to County Road 34N, traversing the half-sec- northeast of Longmont at the planned Long' s tion line to the Great Western Railroad. Peak Substation. It will parallel and overlap the railroad right-of-way to County Road 36. From here, The final link in Platte River's local the line will follow County Road 36, over- transmission system requires construction lapping the road right-of-way as much as of a line to connect the Long' s Peak Sub- possible, to the natural drainage pattern station with the Public Service Co. of just east of County Road 15. At this point Colorado' s system at the Fort St. Vrain the line will leave the roadway, following power plant. Completion of this vital link the drainage southeast across the St. Vrain will : River and into the Fort St. Vrain power 1. provide alternate delivery of elec- plant. tric service in the event the Single tapered steel poles will be Craig to Ault line is temporarily used for the entire length of line wherever out of service; possible. Average spans will be 800 feet 2. provide reliability for the local and minimum ground clearance will be 28 transmission system between Fort feet. Easements for right-of-way will be Collins, Loveland and Longmont; and 100 feet, overlapping existing county road 3. enable Platte River and Public Ser- and railroad rights-of-way wherever possi- vice Co. to interchange electric ble in order to minimize the need for power as required for the ultimate right-of-way on private land. benefit of the customers of both systems. MAP OF PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE (u`° �o� a FORT * v o ST V RAIN LAKE HIGHLAND POWER �� PROPOSED ROUTE . -(4/ PLANT 0-p( COUNTY ROAD 36 r � z ) COUNTY 0 ,CP RD 34N • 4 LONGS PEAK < > COUNTY ROAD 34 SUBSTATION MEAD to N H • 1 0 COORDINATION l there are only mllor variations in impact;\ Platte River's efforts to ident- among the four alternative routes, ify the most feasible route included The North Route (selected route) was a detailed analysis of all potential align- selected as the best route because it would ments and discussions with numerous offi- !affect at least 23 percent less agricult- cials in the area. A complete report has jural land than any other alternative. The been prepared and presented to the Weld ;value and damages of that land is less County Planning Commission staff. Copies of ; than all other alternatives but the Drain- this report are available from Platte River. age Route. However, the Drainage Route is In preparing the report, several dis- almost 0.6 miles longer and would cost cussions were held with the Planning Com- the selected route is also significantly $240,000 more. The construction cost of mission staff, Great Western Railroad, the Mayor of Mead, the Colorado Division of less than any other alternative. Wildlife, and the Weld County Engineering Other significant advantages of the Office. Input from these sources was most selected route include: helpful in selecting the best route. . least impacts on growth & aesthetics . fewest ownership splits It is timely now for a public hearing to consult the people of the area. l▪ east potential for tree removal and topping ALTERNATIVE ROUTES . least directional changes • no north-south segments A two step process was followed to de- termine the best route. First, over 30 in- . maximum utilization of existing dividual route segments were analyzed and rights-of-way segments with significant adverse impacts ▪ no water crossings except St. Vrain River were rejected from further consideration. . minimal ecological impacts Among the more significant factors ( PUBLIC MEETING considered in analyzing the potential route segments were the impacts of each on: This is a summary report which we hope . prime agricultural land will give you an idea of what Platte River . residences is planning to do. Certainly it does not . growth and development of Mead provide all of the detailed analysis. But, . construction costs Platte River is concerned about being a . aesthetics good neighbor and meeting the electrical Favorable segments were then linked togeth- energy needs of the people it serves. er to form alternative transmission line Other issues will undoubtedly arise routes. These alternative routes were which interest and concern the public. As further evaluated by examining the total these issues develop, Platte River will overall impact of each. continue to fulfill its responsibilities to Four alternative routes were defined all of its neighbors. Platte River hopes by this process. A summary of the more sig- you will attend the public meeting in Mead nificant impacts of these four alternatives and express any questions or comments you is presented in the table below. may have. The new transmission line is SELECTED ROUTE necessary to provide future energy, but without continuing interaction, the energy Except for the impacts on agriculture challenge cannot be answered. Platte River and construction costs presented above, is interested, as you are, in developing the right answer, for now and the future. Summary of Significant Impacts Acres of Alternative Impacted Value and Damages of Agri- Construction Route Miles Agriculture cultural Land Impacted Cost North (Selected) 8.38 72 $13,871 $1,770,000 South 9.07 109 16,429 2,000,000 Drainage 8.96 101 y 9 2,010,000 Interstate 10. 14 94 19,996 2,240,000 4 PLATTE , IlkRIVER POWER LONGS PEAK-FORT ST VRAIN AUTHORITY TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES Platte River Power Authority ("Platte ultimate benefit of the customers of both River") is a municipally-owned electric systems. utility and a political subdivision of PROJECT DESCRIPTION Colorado supplying at wholesale the elect- rical energy requirements of Fort Collins, To accomplish the goal of completing Loveland, Longmont and Estes Park. In its electric system interconnection, order to meet the energy requirements of Platte River is planning to construct a these four cities beyond 1978, Platte 230 kV transmission line between Fort St. River is constructing transmission lines Vrain power plant and the proposed Long' s from the Yampa power plant near Craig, Peak Substation west of Mead, Colorado. Colorado to Ault, from Ault to Fort Single tapered steel poles will be Collins, from Fort Collins to Loveland, used for the entire length of line wher- and from Loveland to northeast of Longmont at the planned Long's Peak Substation. ever possible. Average spans will be 800 feet and minimum ground clearance will be The final link in Platte River's local 28 feet. Easements for right-of-way will transmission system requires construction be 100 feet wide. of a line to connect the Long's Peak Sub- COORDINATION station with the Public Service Company of Colorado's system at the Fort St. Vrain Platte River's efforts to identify power plant. Completion of this vital link the most feasible route included a will : detailed analysis of all potential align- 1. provide alternate delivery of ments and discussions with numerous electric service in the event the officials in the area. A complete report Craig to Ault line is temporarily has been prepared and presented to the out of service; Weld County Planning Commission staff. 2. provide reliability for the local Copies of this report are available from transmission system between Fort Platte River. A copy may be reviewed at Collins, Loveland & Longmont; and the Weld County Department of Planning 3. enable Platte River and Public Services in Greeley or at Fry's General Service Company to interchange Store in Mead. electric power as required for the MAP OF ALTERNATE TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES NORTH ROUTE SOUTH ROUTE— ♦ ♦ ♦♦ ♦ DRAINAGE ROUTE-• • • • • • o O 0 P 0 FORT HIGHLAND N �� o ST VRAIN ci-) LAKE HPCC J4/ POWER /) COUNTY ROAD 36 PLANT ESIEIN N R�a1 W H 4 ♦•♦0111 LONG'S COUNTY RD. z A PEAK 34N :?_ c :• . • ••• • o o SUBSTATpN COUNTY R AD 34 0 � q MEAD • AA AA • 4 ...0. 6.• AAA AAAAAA ♦ ♦♦•�• ♦•1 •♦•♦• ♦ •♦ • ♦• ♦• ill litr ALTERNATIVE ROUTES A two step process was followed the "Drainage" route on segments in to determine the best route. First, over ' common with the "North" route. 30 individual route segments were analyzed The "South" route received only one and segments with significant adverse im- objection, that from the landowner at pacts were rejected from further consider- the extreme west end of the line. Every- ation. one who expressed an opinion seemed to Among the more significant factors recommend the "South" route, especially considered in analyzing the potential East of 1-25 where it has an alignment in route segments were the impacts of each common with the "Drainage" route. Platte on: River is, therefore, strongly considering . prime agricultural land this "South" route for its proposed line. . residences It is depicted on the map by triangles . growth and development of Mead and by triangles and circles where it . construction costs joins the "Drainage" route. . aesthetics PUBLIC HEARINGS Favorable segments were then linked to- gether to form alternative transmission Two additional public hearings will line routes. Four alternative routes be held by Weld County officials regard- were defined by this process. These ing this transmission line route. alternative routes were further evaluated The first of these will be held by examining the total overall impact of December 7 at 2:00 p.m. before the Weld each. County Planning Commission in the County A public hearing was held in Mead by Commissioner's Hearing Room, 1st floor, Platte River's Board of Directors on Centennial Center in Greeley. (Please November 18 to discuss the four routes. verify this before traveling to Greeley As a result, one route was eliminated. since there is the possibility that the The three remaining routes are shown on hearing may be postponed to December 21 - the accompanying front page illustra- if all referrals are not in from other tion, labeled North, South and Drainage local government agencies. Contact the routes. (The fourth route, the so-called Weld County Department of Planning "Interstate" route, was discontinued from Service, phone number 356-4000, further consideration because of object- extension 400, for the exact date, time ions from the State Highway Department. ) and place. ) A summary of the more significant Upon a recommendation of this impacts of the three alternative routes is Planning Commission, the Weld County presented in the table below. Board of County Commissioners will hold a hearing about a month later at a time Platte River's public hearing in Mead and place to be announced. received a large number of comments regarding problems with the "North" route, Platte River hopes you will attend including conflicts along County Road 34N, these meetings and express any concerns its nearness to Mead, and proximity to two you may have about the route selection. residences at the intersection of County We are interested, as we know you are, Road 36 and the Great Western Railroad. in selecting the route for this trans- mission line which will cause the least Several negative comments were also environmental impact in this area. received regarding the western 21/2 miles of _ Summary of Significant Impacts Acres of Alternative Impacted Value and Damages of Agri- Construction Route Miles Agriculture cultural Land Impacted Cost North 8.38 72 $13,871 $1,770,000 South 9.07 109 16,429 2,000,000 Drainage 8.96 101 9,433 2,010,000 446 i er 0 '�, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES WELD COUNTY CENTENNIAL CENTER ""M 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 II GARY Z. FORTNER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ® PHONE (303) 356-4000, EXT.400 • COLORADO November 30, 1976 George Landers Supply Irrigating Ditch Co. Box 209 Longmont, Colorado 80510 Re: Referral from the Weld County Planning Commission on the application from Platte River Power Authority for approval of the location of overhead transmission lines between the Fort St. Vrain Power Plant and the proposed Long's Peak Substation two miles west of Mead. Dear Mr. Landers: To date I have been unable to reach you by telephone and,therefore, I am sending this follow-up letter to request a response from the referral sent on November 17, 1976. The Weld County Planning Commission will review the request from Platte River Power Authority on Tuesday, December 7, 1976, and we would request receiving a response prior to that date so that we are able to incorporate the ditch company's comments into our comments to the Planning Commission. If you have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, 7,s O i i/ )z./-<f1;�t4/�ti1/1._i Ken McWilliams Assistant Zoning Administrator KM/bg WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GLENN K BILLINGS VICTOR JACOBUCCI ROY MOSER NORMAN CARLSON JUNE STEINMARK :_ DErMRTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES • i Vy�,,' 9 sue— WELD COUNTY CENTENNIAL CENTER 4411y.,- o 915 10th STREET GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 GARY Z. FORTNER ' r` DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 0 PHONE (303) 356-4000, EXT.400 COLORADO November 24, 1976 Albert J. Hamilton, General Manager Platte River Power Authority 3030 South College Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Re: Route location for the 230 KV transmission line between the Fort St. Vrain Power Plant and the planned Long's Peak Substation Dear Mr. Hamilton: Your submission of the route location and the environmental report for the above described transmission line has been received and is currently being processed by our office. I have tentatively scheduled the hearing by the Weld County Planning Commission for December 7, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. The hearing will take place in the County Commissioners Hearing Room, First Floor, Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. - - It is recommended that you and/or a representative be present to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have with respect to your submission. Additionally, the route location and environmental report will be reviewed by the Weld County Utility Coordinating Board on December 2, 1976, at 10:00 A.M. The meeting by the Utility Board will take place at the Greeley Gas Co. , Blue Flame Room, 1200 11th Ave. , Greeley, Colorado. Once again, it is important that you and/or a represent- ative be present to answer any questions that the Utility Board might have. If you have any questions with regard to these matters, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, R ,�` ~- / / Ken McWilliams Assistant Zoning Administrator KM/bg WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GLENN K BILLINGS VICTOR JACOBUCCI ROY MOSER NORMAN CARLSON JUNE STEINMARK HENNING, CHAMBERS AND MABRY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2200 CENTURY PARKWAY, N E, SUITE 825 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30345 EDWARD J HENNING TELEPHONE 325-4800 EUGENE P CHAMBERS JR E SEEER MABRY III PETER K KINTZ November 24, 1976 WALTER B MCCLELLAND WILBUR C BROOKS / • CHARLES M HAYDEN,JR -� RONALD ARTHUR LOWRY �£', ERVIN H GERSON t j V✓ . LAWRENCE J HOGAN l-i / 1 a1 Mr. William J. Slimak Director of En -gineering Platte River Power Authority 3030 S. College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 RE: Location for 230kV transmission lines Ft . St . Vrain/Mead Dear Mr. Slimak: I was in attendance at the meeting on November 18, 1976 at the Mead Junior High School regarding the proposed routes for the 230 kV power line between the Ft . St . Vrain Substation and the Longs Peak Substation. Your company ' s presentation was highly impressive and indicative of the time and money spent in research of the available alternatives. However, I must go on record in opposition to both the North Route and the Drainage Route . These routes affect our farm along the "P" segment and the "FF" segment . In particular, the "FF" segment appears to go to the north of the county road 342 which has a 40 foot right of way in the area where it' borders our farm. Osten- sibly, your power poles would go to the inside of our concrete irregation ditch and complicate further the present problems we have with the drainage of that field. Unfortunately, the distance between Georgia and Colorado makes it nearly impossible to attend further meetings had in connection with your proposed routes and the aforesaid segments. I would greatly appreciate your consideration in this matter and your acceptance Mr. William J. Slimak November 24, 1976 Page 2 of this letter to voice my opposition in lieu of my personal appearance should I be unable to attend further meetings. With kindest regards, I am Yours -ery r ly, i 4 . PETER K. KINT PKK/dcz / CC: /Mr. Tom Honn Weld County Planning Commission Weld Centennial Center • 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Mrs. Bruce Fickel Berthoud, Colorado 80513 Mr . J. M. Pierce Route 2 Box 113 Platteville, Colorado 80651 Mr. Norman Carlson Weld County Commissioner Johnstown, Colorado PLATTE RI'V R POWER AUTHORIT` . 3030 SOUTH COLLEGE AVENUE • FORT COLLINS,COLORADO 80521 Telephone: (303)493-5520 Board of Directors October 25, 1976 Cable: "PLATTRIVER" Stanley R.Case Robert L.Dekker Don W.Hataway Jerry Trotter General Manager Albert J.Hamilton Weld County Planning Commission 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Attention Gary Fortner Gentlemen: Platte River Power Authority is pleased to submit this Route Location and Environmental Report for the 230 kV Transmission Line between Fort St. Vrain Power Plant and the planned Long's Peak Substation for your consideration. The Study Corridor is an east-west strip of land St. Vraiatply wplantmiles onwide the east eight and PlattelRive bounded planned the Long'sFort St. Vrain power p Peak Substation on the west. The report contains a description of the existing environment in the Study Corridor and an analysis of a number of potential transmission line segments which, when linked together, would complete the required circuit between the two terminals. Significant elements considered by this report include the impact of the proposed trans- mission line on: -▪ Prime agricultural land • Residences . Future growth of the Town of Mead ▪ Construction cost ▪ Aesthetics Many line segments were eliminated from further consideration because of significant adverse impacts. Favorable segments were then linked together to form alternative transmission line routes. These alter- native routes were further analyzed by aggregating the impacts of the various links comprising each route. After considerable analysis of these alternative routes, Platte River's consultant has recommended the following as the best overall transmission line route. CASE #: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: r '' APPLICANT: 7 /J � tai;,.•— }�n�.,�,� ,— REQUEST: ,4),,-,,,, ri % I TIME DATE I INITIALS SPENT APPLICATION RECEIVED ///b72/ 77:7-71-/ / FILING FEE RECORDING FEE APPLICATION REVIEWED J%l�' -Its-'1 1.!?_ APPLICATION INCOMPLETE/ O�f1PLETE ,;/_ 7 J 1' "y P. C. HEARING DATE (? 1 1 / 7-7,„;% /2>7, 7 VII APPLICANT NOTIFIED REFERRALS LISTED /17/7i 7' ;// 1/)� SENT TO EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 07/7/, FILE ASSEMBLED/REFERRALS MAILED tvrrk ,61Z. PUBLICATION NOTICE SENT TO DRAFTING DEPARTMENT /11/9' `. SIGN FOR P.C. MEETING PREPARED - l� SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS 4 , - AIRPHOTO/VICINITY MAP 2 -' SENT TO COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVAL OF COUNTY ATTORNEY �� /4/ - -- PUBLICATION BY: 426„2/--1,;, SIGN POSTED BY: /,/ Posted: ,J; ,A! SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS NOTIFIED BY: Af-,r At' , -2 - - FIELD CHECK AND REPORT REFERRALS: COMPLETE/INCOMPLETE COMMENTS PRELIMINARY STAFF COMMENTS STAFF CONFERENCE STAFF COMMENTS P.C. HEARING ACTION: P.C. RESOLUTION CASE SENT TO CLERK TO BOARD SIGN POSTED C.C. HEARING ACTION C.C. RESOLUTION RECEIVED \C's 1 HISTORY CARD COMPLETE C.C. RESOLUTION SENT TO DRAFTING I k) DRAFTED ON MYLAR frZe 7Y??' DOCUMENT SENT TO CLERK & RECORDER �,P.C. MINUTES --)\~\ _ � CASE/FILE COMPLETE 4 NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Complex, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. All persons in any manner interested in the Special Use Permit are requested to attend and may be heard. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the text and maps so certified by the Weld County Planning Commission may be examined in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld County Complex, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. Docket No. 77-2 Platte River Power Authority William Slimak, Director of Engineering 3030 S. College Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Date: February 9, 1977 Time: 2:00 P.M. Request: Special Use Permit, Transmission Line Location The proposed alternative route selections for the transmission line falls within the study corridor which is an east-west strip of land approximately two miles wide by eight miles long bound by the Fort St. Vrain Atonic Power Plant on the east, north side of Weld County Road 36 on the north, Weld County Road 32 on the south, and the proposed Long's Peak Sub-station (2 miles west of Mead) on the west. The study corridor involves Sections 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, T3N, R68W and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 18, T3N, R67 W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Rita Jo Kummer, Deputy Dated: January 5, 1977 Published: January 7, 1977 and January 28, 1977 in the Greeley Booster `; Srr l 10 POSTMARK 3 Platte River Power Authority srr,L EW, Wld.am Slimak, Dir. Engineerin 3030 S. College Ave — — 0 'ATr tiro iIr• cac"_ Ft. Collins CO 80521 Cr) (PM',V (.1_'AILS i, l FLrs nr7crrj 1, !'J,,; to vih':-i ri:i Oct, dclivcr0' 15@ csj rc :; •r n" dol._. c G, c cror 650 c I ' is c 1 urn;lo Ilc,hcrc1I 35C SI r,,,irr, i th do .e-,,_ ."•''irrssc^cols E5( E5( �ELly_! 10 til)' iESS- Ci,I Y 50C ® �r L O'LIV 2Y (t : — r "' llflG4� (Soo othar tido) D0C 77-2 0 • SENDER Complete items I,2,and i Add your address in the "RETURN TO space on reverse 1. The following service is requested (check one). © Show to whom and L_te delivered 15¢ Show to whom, date, & address of delivery.. 35¢ N RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom and date delivered- _- - 650 J RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to whom, date, and address of delivery 850 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: 27 Platte River Power Authority William Slimak, Dir Engineering 303'1 S. College Ave rnn 3. ICLIC® fl 0-8-0521 REGISTERED NO CERTIFIED NO INSURED NO. 283551 i (Always obtain signature of addressee or agent) rn I have received the article described above. m SIGNATURE " ,�d�j,,.,,•11' o - _; :luthoun d agent DATE OF DELIVERY " POSTMARK O D _ G 5 ADDRESS (Complete only if requested) O m 6 UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE- CLERK'S G INITIALS D ,o February 9, 1977 I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated January 5, 1977, duly published January 7, 1977 and January 28, 1977 in the Greeley Booster, a public hearing was held on the Platte River Power Authority request for a special use permit for a transmission line location. Testimony was heard from the proponents and opponents of the power line. After discussion, Commissioner Carlson made the motion to approve the special use permit request for the proposed "Drainage Route" with the Planning Commission's development standards as read into the record and with the stipulation that Platte River Power Authority work with the land owners to make the impact of the line as comfortable as possible. Second was made by Commissioner Dunbar. Commissioners Carlson, Dunbar and Jacobucci voted aye and Commissioner Roe and Chairman Steinmark voted no. The motion did carry. -7 �� ' C RMAN B ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO i lai.Aitgliw4ethemitet;ti ATTEST: /J WELD COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD eputy County Clerk Tape #77-14 & 15 I I It NOTICIC OF PUBLIC HEARING I PR PA lAeet1ng Set The Weld County Planning Com- mission n ill conduct a public hear- GREELEY — The Platte 1 ing on December 7, 1976 at 2 00 P.11, to re\ic\\ the route location River Power Authority's Ifor a 230 icy overhead tian'niis- proposed power plant will be tile» line for Platte Rixer Power the main topic at a meetin Authority g The proposed alterua DI.c route scheduled for 7 p.m. Thur- selections for the transmission sday, Dec. 2, at the First lino falls w Rhin the study con I- dol- ..hi(h is an east-w est strip Methodist Church in Greeley. of land approximately two miles Sponsored by the Colorado wide by eight miles long bounded hn the I''ort St \'lain Atomic Puss- Open Space Council (COSG), en Plant on the east, north side the state wide environmental cf Weld County Road 36 on the nor th, Weld ('aunty Road 32 on coalition,meeting leaders will the south, and the proposed be Norman Brown, vice Long's Peal( Sub-station (2 miles ..(tit of \I cad) on the \\est The president of the Weld County study i orridor ins olves Sect ons 1, Agricultural Council, and I S, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, a 7, 16, andi'o, 'I'3N, 1-1.68W and Sç.tions Gary Simpson of the Power I, 6, 7, 9, 9, 10, 15, 6, 17, Plant Information Group. The ,tied 1`,'1'3N, P,(I5\W 6th I' \l, Weld Counts, Colorado This discussion will center on pupil( healing b\ the Weld ('oun-, possible effects of the Nunn L. I t inning• coniii,l'.'-iiin will he rnndu(ted in the Weld County location of the proposed plant Cornnili-suinrs' Hearing Room, I and a study of the need for [list Floor, Weld comity Centen- nial Center, 91J 1010 Street, l;ree- power. le!, Colorado Continents or objec- Also on the evening's lions related to this matter should he submitted in writing to the schedule is an update on \\'c lit County Pepar tinent of flan- uranium mining in Weld iiiug Services, 915 10th Street, Gr eeley, Colorado se631 before the County and its effects upon the .iba\e dote ni Iii'ented at the Pawnee National Grasslands. Public hearing on December 7, An energy facility siting policy I'opies of the Route Location for COSC will be considered and Nii.iron nom Li1 Report are also. avaliable tar public nispec Lion in the Delia ntment of Planning tier- Themeetingisfreeandopen vices, Room 310, \\eld county (len- to the public. First Methodist tennial ('enter, 913 10th Street, t'I;r')e1e`' Color ado (356-4000 ext Church is located at 917 10th Avenue. R 1:1.11 ('O1 N'I'Y PLANNINO COMMISSION Ronald ITeitm:us, Cha)ruian I'u ulished November 26, 1976, in The ('reelev Booster .Qa) ._. O O C y c CC G Y O..,., O 61 p c... C ai • 'z O ^�.C '�. p ^ ? n 7 L w ao 7 o a-' � as ,� 5 E C4 a L V L O C� N'p w alv • .L ;r▪ it• '�'r;,. > CO Y •.••1 O:= .,, C PE.C p O.L,, O CII. s. Q, a) CC• N U .. C 'C1 c L C.'.4 U ca CC Y„1 L' Cn Y aIL a 'D •-1 b > p, Y .0.' U 5 0' _C- .7'u)'' L c,..cC O r0 h A ..o O O y a''40- Q)b b.0•. `u-1°'b a)y-_. K30 `° c.0 w ✓.C a, C) c acu o�o a a ...coY d a r>~iI.G 3 a y.«.- 7~Cj=_ om o a Pc "C > Q) w 5 b 7..... Lc") CO RC b U CI1 CO .--1 L L L Ce a) a�.acoC cab000 CU o5c .C CU 0c7Cn000- 3' u 0 CC.Q F-.""' rn a)Sy cC.C rn.0."O rR O Y al .p. C U G,C LO'� VI if, Q'4l?, C .1 CO C<trc 0) ..�.C y•Y L rn v) 7 6) L a„ CC CJ L ` C ,� O F ,= = G'0-. CC x a 5) ;:z CCs C'cz a)Y Q: CYJ ,7-4;x c...)...., o0 —.,121-- ' C., .�•..',•+ .>Y YY cCY cC 0, C.... 5 o c, L L,.'B .. . . . cC vIr O .0.' C Y ACC bL t,b .O c @ 0 Q) 0 c C V •s.h 6. 0 L.vs 4'.+ VI c C O a L 0 .aC 3 5 cc Y CO•C~`. 3 .. QC' iiiU c 0 p• 0 U.O di a) cC L a) O 0 G L CC CC •-+""',•. 4I) Y a C L y L m.,Cca Eg.Y..�.-=..- y„= •c C G au , a O a u c o� Q ..= a y w o u td) 0 u 0 0 CU c + .- 0 L L 0 >.4-3 o�Cc Co c �, c o•�m C-1,.0 LO pLp p.°'.' _•0a c01 'X y.�.• y.pU O rn0 . :D bLO co' O tom CO 0 O cu o ' o°o oY o -,0 > •o u c a_ •-• 0 o c c L1L.r.q a) C L CB Q. Y '� 1>.Y Cl) L C. C6 [n Lb a) CCC " a) C b c a, c L y 3 ti; CA o ow C c CC -5 . w-000 ° ,`',3 (� E L.. c•O w y O y y !,.._. -.. O U f"' _r.5 .'.' r... y 7 p U 0 C. .. 70 CC F" 000000 b P. p .0"0'b G 0 CO✓wg o.- ow 3 C) .•O a_ Lcy.CL al O C.r 0 U . C.•-. 0 •'� O [C^ G 1>a 0 CO C)., 7 "W L a).C bL 0 C,x 0 aci moo " L. C.I.u o a a)G d ;-• C c L. Cn c.a)'`-r a cC c u CC 0.1 a)Y o...c o F 0 7c C).- > y a E-1 QI o o'o.�•C O ,4, a ca .- y p .,c vl O V aV L,„ .J; 0 CLC c.'o c w vs- Cca..,7).;O 0Om .0 Y•0•0 •P. 0 O 7 6)Y 0 7 L a).=,0�„1 • Y p .c.. y y CO C cu p pap' Cn =-0 a.O. pan bA [ O w O C,,, +-1 a) 0 0 7 L.'O 0 a T CO 3'a C aCi 0 5 7 C•a".^o_. 3 a) 0 0 C70•r> UY 0 Cr:63 o 0..0o� to C 0, y C 5 5 �'.-.p..'�s w 0.5) Ewa)a) .d v1 a a) 6, a) L. aJ Y U C • O.5 L 0 2.0 �' a) L.L.1 a.p a)w`''- CO. y .. 0 y 7.r 7 0 y > 0 • a) in ..y L-, .� 0 • q›^ap)y'-' a Y Q,'CC- 0 .�0 ate) -.•�-1 ›.. 0 o'w 'ao` L: i.. p a�^. .,, cu o co G o c,.- v m a) a) G - Ca C0C O,CC O «.,00= =.0 L;G C 0"-p,,$ .-o o vp `Y° —�+y Lm 0 C p V a�L C '-':a C a. C- 02—0 c, O G r/I ., a) O CQ.d c C' C Y a) c .p CC .C. v 3 C.0 CC C - p p co... 7 > c O 0-0.C° o O.-›"-,. O �O O 'Z1 U a) 0 G.0 c. h.,. 0 y-...+ c„ = ..'.C: •C O 'xtfi. i 6)•y-v Y U+-' QI a Y .�X p b 67 C O a) bL a, L CC Y c U �. '' CJ1:1•uc'". 4C.Y'.' � � muLawoxg Laca) x� 7caoxti "� pco 0.x... >~ a� y.C n ,_.0 7. !w U•u 0 o CO o a) 0() c/a= O 0 0 0 I�tz F 0 C) o c cc4 cL E tie c o O2 w Y y .+ O L�-..C rn v S Cl. bL'D Y L.C ,- Cam. L 0.17 Y CC CC 0..4-, aC- C)) . CMS cri a) • ' . 6.00 o,b a) 0,'o �;•o w�a ro c 'e x•cs..4 •- >,c c c CL0 a Z3 CZ CC c o CC)U o c."a'o C rn ro ~ 0 yC�„ CC) U CU y 0 y 0 cn CC Yma�.� o'" c `'`�� c .- 0300= �, c 0 o y c c A - c^- W"0--'o ban PLC. rn p cC::, 0 o td)u Lo.Y y .- • i-. 7•VI.0 0 CC a).5 C o..(1'•,.O 4- •p W'D Y c .9 U O- CU O ..`...1•0 O C c c c F" c•E,0 a' c a..-y 0 O O ;03 _, CC CC C 0}'.x CP ..0 0 CC'4-'U.x m •C 3 O CC=t0 .byY O C 0 - 0,o c..0 co a) Ell C) cw c.rp-' MI c a) .0 p U.� ca a CC•Cu o•Y O L h rn 7.0 .O.' O.... C Y cu.-, CZ Y Ql CO'L7 CC U .'�, Y CC C'd r.L" C N L rn c O a O CC.� C) C] U L CC c a U b u pq a, O rn 0 0 6) 7.C b �^ a, Q)'O (1).0 a, 0 0 c • c C,1 O .> a-1 Y 7 •a).�.C) b.C 4, U L 0.CU..0 U'i7 Y'c L. 3 r.. Cn CC a 0 .SL'.' ...1 1. a).... a) p Y•.-1 0 u)ea -' rn Y 6) a) CC VI L'cci�7 O 0 0.cp �0 u"1 Vl..•.Y C... o Vl .C.d (71.° °. „- a) c a) O C •+-' ) U Y O C, a) 0-a a vI 7 C ''' 7�a 0 7 L •3 b cC 7,x.x .O._ vI w CC rn'O 7 CC X 7 0.c-. ccCb c'cU c' L O 0 cu 0:1 u u C a u c Cn E- u rn 7 o O.0 c a) CC 6)Y CC C CC 0 L CC CC o.C O a) CC Cu p 0 0 O.0 m rn o Ocn U Y 0...•. L Y L rn.0 0. C- CO 5•")..0...1.0'0 U 0 .0 a C.,Y '> C C Cl) >.'O a) CC m 6) a).c a) .>a L 0 a) a)+-' L•p 0 .1) 0 ›,4-4. 0 .""„1 X 0 CC .... 0 Y.= .0.CtS'C... O y 0 O Y:s y....1 '3 CC �y O L LO •o fa.'C 0.i. 1.! �+ a 3 P"= F c y O a) L0.w U c o aLi a�i C(a, a.~ cu a) .0 c Lp•.o .. L. O Y CC O CC VIM O•.-4 C 1>. 0 T.w N w y • 0.'�-.....C CC 0"p .. O O rn 0 7 i...'""' • >,:—• ,,,,,-..4."'LJ 7 O 0 'O. p L itiC a Q.' O w P. ,>. C a) Q)G o cO C .0 a ) L 3 ca u c, .5600. N,� L c 0•C- Y a c.Q .> 7 6) " OW 4••' > c yp,1 L C) >'O C) OFw 0 0 a1) Cb CnCU .. c. pU vUi-000.1 R'�.0•- •tl 0) C �+0 0 5 0''.�..' L ✓a Cn a) 7 U U a) 8 G ca L U CA w y. L. L.,Y 7•a 0 CO. a c >a^ CO U... tr.""~ 0 �+ 73a) acF- CCy . C1. cab > MP. cou •.-..0 a.O0Yp-''m aw a) Q4.-. 0 O 3 a, c L Y o w a a)y C a>,a E^ o o o u y 0,--• y'-,ca'v w c 0 ti'"7 P. R.a7 O 6, 7 Y r" N Y .f] 4,. CC Q'i. C a)Y CC;_, CC Cl.) CJ+CC _ > °V L U•.. m >.C� C1 .0 y O 0 Y CC r. C.) O._. c„ O :C.c 0 CU C a,P.Y:� a) ›up.'�.a -r.T.10s_.0 � a` C . L°). 3a, o '- cCr0nuc o > o .a`�i ^ccr4. P ..,—.0'orpn cz c cup.,•�.c C o a) as 0 A ..J 2 as u ='a ,n 6J r'; a— ,. 4 Q o r L. ?Rai Q) ¢1 0 i-1 3 L G 0 .- > 0 CC O ...C C-' ,▪ 7� , :n.'J —CC a7) Cu 5 'fl fr Q" L°1. 3 U 0 0.d 0 �.0'C znn P.p 0. 'c C . _ x as 0 AFFIDAVIT OF rdBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO, ) )ss. / COUNTY OF WELD. ) ' Loren A. Walling being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. That he is the Owner and Publisher of The Greeley Booster NOTICE a weekly newspaper printed andpublished in the City of Greeley. I'"'``_a1.,et of the , lays of 3 the State Colorado, a public County of Weld and State of Colorado, which has been admitted hearing will he held in the Cham- to the United States Mails as second class matter under Act of hers or tl-e Board of County Com- missioners of Weld County, Colo- Congress, of March 3, 1879. rado, Weld County Complex, 911 2. That the said The Greeley Booster is printed and published 10th Street, Creeley. Colorado, at at regular intervals, one time each week, on Friday, and that it the time rsp interested t all persons in e- an� wanner in the Spe- has a general circulation in the County of Weld, and elsewhere r,al l'se Permit aie requested to 3. That the said The Greeley Booster was established and has attend and may he heard. BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the been printed and published in said county uninterruptedly and ti xt and maps so certified by the continuously during a period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks Weld County Planning Commis- smn may be examined in the Of- next prior to the first issue thereof containing said fu, of the Clerk to the Board of C,'tin t ' Commissioners, located in Notice the WtId County Complex, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colo- lado a copy of which is hereunto attached. I Platte River Power Authority 4. That the said The Greeley Booster is a weekly newspaper I William Slimak, Director of of general circulation, and is printed and published in whole or inI Engineering 3030 S College Ave Fort Collins, Colorado s0:,^1 part in the said County of Weld in which said DOCKET NO 77-2 Notice i DATE Febi uary 9, 1977 TIME 2 00 Pll, is required by law to be published, a copy of which is hereto at- REQUEST. Special Use Permit, ,Transn-issbon Line Location tacked. The pri posed alternative route 5. That the said The Greeley Booster is a weekly newspaper Is,le,Irons for the transmission within the meaning of "An Act Concerning Legal Notices, Adver- I line falls within the study cor- tisements and Publications and Fees of Printers and Publishers ridoi which is an east-west strip of land s pp Thereof and to Repeal all Acts and Parts of Acts in Conflict withd aide by eight tely two miles miles long bound the Provisions of this Act," being Chapter 139 of the Session Laws by the Fort S. train Atomic Pow- of Colorado of 1923 as amended by Chapter 113 of the Session ET Plant on the east, north side Laws of Colorado of 1931, and later amended by Chapters 155 to it Weld ;d ty Road a on the n ,north, Weld County Road 32 on 156 of the Session Laws of Colorado of 1935. ,th' south, and the proposed Long's I Pea It Sub-station (2 miles west of Mead) on the west The study 6 That the said annexed - rot r,dor involves Sections 1, 2, Notice a, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, T:3N, Rb8W and Sections 3, 4, 6, 7, S, 9, 10, 17, 16, 17, and was published in the regular and entire edition of The Greeley i s, 'rLN, 1167W of the 6th I'M, Booster, a duly qualified weekly newspaper for that purpose,with- ' Wt Id County, Colorado in the terms and meanings of the above named Acts. Dated January 7, 1977 .� THE BOARD OF 7. That the said annexed COUNTY COMMISSIONER i WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Notice By: Mary Ann Feuerstein, , County Clerk and Recorder is a full,true, and correct copy of the original which was regularly and Clerk To The Board , published in each of the regular and entire issues of said news- I By. Rita Jo Kummer, paper, a legally qualified paper for that purpose, once each week, I Deputy 1-ubli,he,i Ianuaii 1977 and on the same day of each week, for successive weeks Ianuaiy- 2S, 1977 in the i1ieeiey , by Two insertions and that the first publication thereof Booster 'I was in the issue dated Jan....7.-9..-YI97 and that the ublicatioi was m t e issue 977 Subsc ib and sworn to before a this ...,,,,:g-4-4-� ,/Lida 197-7 i ��'Ic r" DISTRICT CCJZ7, of ...L ',� "� / G y VVeldi Cou�ty, Coiur,Itlo C I/rr,E7� f i WEte CVYFi grirSIlrat 11' FEB , GREL"LE'Y. COLD, f ROUTE LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT • 230 kV TRANSMISSION LINES FORT ST. VRAIN/MEAD PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY NELSON, HALEY, PATTERSON & QUIRK, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL -R441 041 I Ci CONSULTANTS TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title Page SUMMARY I INTRODUCTION I-1 II EXISTING ENVIRONMENT II-1 III POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS AND IMPACTS III-1 IV ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED ROUTE IV-1 REFERENCES APPENDIX A: Land Use Policies Weld County, Colorado APPENDIX B: Weld County Zoning Use and Density Schedules Agricultural Zone Districts I LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page II-1 Soils Capability Unit II-6 II-2 Soils in Study Corridor and Capability Class II-7 II-3 Water Quality of the St. Vrain River II-10 II-4 Comparison of Land Values Per Acre II-14 III-1 Agricultural Land Values III-7 III-2 Impacts of Potential Route Segments III-15 IV-1 Impacts of Alternative Routes IV-3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title Page I-1 Location of Study Corridor I-3 I-2 Typical Pole Configuration :-4 III-1 Power Pole Location in County Road Right-of-Way III-3 III-2 Railroad Right-of-Way Alignment III-5 III-3 Preliminary Alternative Route Segments and Land Use Features III-14 IV-1 Alternatives and Recommended Route IV-2 SUMMARY The Platte River Power Authority, a municipally owned electrical utility, is planning to complete its transmission system requirements by constructing a 230 kV power transmission line between the Fort St. Vrain Power Plant and the proposed Long's Peak Sub-station west of the Town of Mead. After an analysis of all potential segments of that proposed line and an evaluation of four alternative routes, the North Route (see Figure IV-1 ) was selected as the best overall alignment because it will minimize the impacts on agriculture and other elements of the environment. The North Route follows the half-section line east from the Long's Peak Sub-station to County Road 5. From here it overlaps the north side of the County Road 34N right-of-way to County Road 7. A short segment from this road, each along the half-section line, brings the route to the Great Western Railroad. From here the route follows and overlaps the Great Western Railroad right-of-way northeast to County Road 36. It then overlaps the right-of-way of County Road 36 on the north side to a point east of County Road 15, where it leaves the road and travels south- east through a natural drainage pattern, across the St. Vrain River and into the Fort St. Vrain Power Plant. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY The Platte River Power Authority ("Platte River") is a municipally- , owned utility and a political subdivision of Colorado supplying at wholesale the energy requirements of the four municipalities of Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, and Estes Park. Platte River presently receives all of its energy for resale to these cities from the Bureau of Reclamation. However, this energy resource will supply the requirements of the four municipalities only until 1978. In order to meet the energy requirements of the four cities beycnd that date, Platte River is participating with three other utilities in the construction of a coal-fired power plant near Craig, Colorado. This power is being delivered to the Front Range of Colorado over a 345 kV trans- mission line presently under construction from Craig to a major sub-station near Ault, about 14 miles east of Fort Collins. From this Ault Sub-station, Platte River has constructed a transmission line to Fort Collins and from Fort Collins to Loveland. During late 1976 and early 1977 an additional line will be constructed from Loveland 70 interconnect with the transmission system northeast of Longmont. The final link in Platte River's local transmission system requires construction of a line to connect this Ault-Fort Collins-Longmont trans- mission line with the switchyard at the Public Service Company of Colorado 's Fort St. Vrain Power Plant. Completion of this final link will satisfy I-1 three very important requirements. First, this interconnection with Public Service Company of Colorado will provide for the alternate delivery of Platte River's share of energy from the Craig power plant in the event the 345 kV line from Craig to Ault Sub-station is temporarily out of service. Secondly, it provides reliability for the local transmission system between Fort Collins, Loveland, and Longmont such that power can be delivered to all customers during the outage of any one transmission line section. Finally, this interconnection with Public Service Company of Colorado will enable Platte River and Public Service to interchange electric power and energy as required for the ultimate benefit of the customers of both utilities. PROJECT DESCRIPTION To accomplish the goal of completing the circuit to the Ft. St. Vrain Power Plant, Platte River proposes to construct a 230 kV transmission line I between Ft. St. Vrain Atomic Power Plant and the proposed Long' s Peak Sub-station west of Mead, Colorado. The Study Corridor, illustrated in Figure I-1 , is an east-west strip of land approximately two miles wide by eight miles long bounded by the Power Plant, the Sub-station, and County Roads 32 and 36. Tapered steel poles similar to the pole illustrated in Figure I-2 will be used for the entire length of line wherever possible. Maximum spans of 800 feet will yield minimum ground-wire clearance of 28 feet in accordance with the National Electric Safety Code. Easements for right-of-way will be acquired along the line. A total of 100 foot I-2 >- I- = ' O GREELEY J W GILCREST STUDY CORRIDOR F . ST. VR IN PO 4ER PLA T MEAD PLATTEVILLE oo FIGURE I-1 S'S ' ~ LOCATION OF ce STUDY CORRIDOR >- NFT. LUPTON U W J W 3 W F- F- Q J o_ 1-3 it=o� 9.9 9'_ I i6=3 lb'-3 19-9 9 9 MIN 0 2 "I JI d 3 d I W i — N V 23 4 • 2 If 4 O FIGURE I-2 TYPICAL POLE CONFIGURATION I-4 easement is required but overlapping existing county road and railroad rights-of-way will minimize the need for right-of-way on agricultural land. ROUTE SELECTION This report contains a description of the existing environment in the Study Corridor and an analysis of 34 potential transmission line segments which when linked together would complete the required circuit between the Long's Peak Sub-station and the Ft. St. Vrain Power Plant. Among the more significant factors considered in analyzing the potential segments were the impacts of each on: . prime agricultural land . residences . growth and development of Mead, Colorado . construction costs . aesthetics Some line segments were eliminated from further consideration because of significant adverse impacts. Favorable segments were then linked together to form alternative transmission line routes. These alternative routes were further analyzed by aggregating the impacts of component segments. The description of the existing environment is contained in Chapter II . Chapter III is a presentation of the types of impacts considered and the analysis of each segment. Final alternatives and the recommended route are discussed in Chapter IV. I-5 CHAPTER II EXISTING ENVIRONMENT HISTORIC BACKGROUND As recently as 150 years ago the Study Corridor was subject to the cultural patterns and life styles of the Arapaho, Cheyenne, and Kiowa Indian tribes. These cultural groups roamed the Great Plains region, hunting and gathering food for survival , but did not develop the land resources for agriculture. Development and expansion westward of fur trading during the 19th Century marked the end of Indian dominance in the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains. Fur trading and, later, cattle ranching were the predominant business activities of the region during the early 1800's. Historic Fort St. Vrain was one of the many trading posts in the area. Resource development and utilization quickly occurred with more sophisticated technology and the demand for products. The Gold Rush of 1849 spurned people westward, encouraging the "selling of the west" which previously had been described as the Great American Desert. Agricultural colonies soon began to be organized by eastern agents. The National Land Company, in Chicago, was one such group which was instrumental in settling the Longmont area. A charter establishing the terms and rights of membership in the Longmont Colony was adopted in 1870. By May 1871 , 400 members had enrolled. Five principal reasons determined the location of the Longmont Colony: . good soil which could be irrigated from perennial streams . proximity to timber in the mountains II-1 . availability of coal . proximity to other towns and mining camps providing a market for agricultural products . adequate railroad transportation. The Longmont Colony was favored by geographical circumstance and good management. The most serious problem became the inadequate provisions for irrigation. The colony structure of the settlement dissolved within a few years , but the town began to grow and prosper on its own (1 ) . Homesteading occurred throughout the area. Mr. Martin Mead originally homesteaded the area near the existing Town of Mead in 1886. The Town of Mead was later founded in 1906 when the Great Western Railroad located a terminal station in the area. Mead was incorporated in 1908 (2) . Today the region is a prosperous, productive agricultural area. The ' plowing of the native grasslands and irrigation have eliminated most of the original vegetation and wildlife that thrived during the early periods of Indian influence. NATURAL SYSTEMS Climate The regional climate of the Front Range area of Colorado is influenced by the proximity of the Rocky Mountains. Low relative humidity, light rainfall , warm summers , cold winters , considerable wind, and variations of precipitation from year to year characterize climatologic conditions of the Front Range and plains regions of Colorado. Within the Study Corridor annual precipitation averages between 12 to 14 inches (3) . II-2 The major precipitation occurs in the form of rain from April through September. Distribution is often erratic and prolonged dry spells can occur during the growing season. These variations make dryland farming difficult, thus contributing to the development of water resources for irrigation. Thunderstorms are a frequent event during the summer and can be associated with locally severe hail . Generally, however, these storms are less severe and extensive than farther to the east where thunderstorms originating in or near the mountains and moving eastward have more time to develop. Major precipitation bearing frontal systems move over the area as a result of moist unstable air which is brought up from the Gulf of Mexico (4) . The Front Range and plains areas of Colorado experience seasonal variations in temperature and wind. Summer temperatures can exceed ' ' 100°F while winter temperatures frequently fall below 0°F. The typically level terrain, east-west orientation of hydrologic basins , and the treeless character of the plains tend to contribute to the high wind velocities on the plains. Winds prevail from the west and are typically dry. Warm "Chinook" winds occur in the early part of the year and can reach velocities over 100 miles per hour. These winds are noted for the damage they cause and the psychological effect they have on people. Occasional cold artic fronts move through the area from the north, disrupting the normal westerly wind circulation. These are usually of short duration but can bring abrupt drops in temperature. II-3 Physiography The Study Corridor is in the Great Plains Physiographic Province. The plains region east of the Rocky Mountain foothills is also referred to as the Colorado Piedmont (4) . Land forms include broad rolling plains, irregular drainage basins, and low rounded hills. The St. Vrain River is the primary drainage system in the Study Corridor. General surface topography of the area is a consequence of weathering and erosion of the surficial rock strata of the Piene Shale formation. This geologic formation is oriented with a slight east-northeast dip, extending away from the foothills. Erosional processes of this formation have resulted in the evolution of a series of low ridges and valleys. These features are oriented northwest-southeast and create the drainage basins tributary to the St. Vrain River. These shallow basins were created by wind scouring out the fine-grained loess materials of these areas (5, 6) . Elevations in the Study Corridor vary from 5,150 feet above sea level ' to 4,790 feet near the Fort St. Vrain Power Station to 4,770 feet in the St. Vrain River floodplain. Slopes throughout the Study Corridor vary from 40 to 80 feet per mile. Water Resources The water resources of the Study Corridor comprise the most signifi- cant element of the agricultural based economy of the area. Some of the larger water bodies in the area are: . Highland Lake . Lake Marie . Lake Thomas . St. Vrain River. II-4 In addition, there are numerous man-made water supply and irrigation reservoirs, irrigation ditches and canals , and numerous small farm holding ponds. A large reservoir is being constructed by Public Service Company as a support facility for the St. Vrain Power Plant. When completed this reservoir will be the largest impoundment within the Study Corridor. Generally within Weld County most of the available water supply is used for agricultural purposes. Nearly all of the cultivated lands within the corridor are augmented by irrigation (7). This condition is not expected to change significantly in future years. Soils The soil characteristics in the Study Corridor are a significant factor in the area's agricultural productivity. The agricultural capabilities of the soils found in the Study Corridor have been classified by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (8) . The classification system is briefly described in Table II-1 . Using this soils capability classification system, it is possible to aggregate the various soils that occur in the Study Corridor by their capability unit classification for use in irrigated and dryland agriculture. This grouping by capability class of the soils in the Study Corridor is presented in Table II-2. The majority of the land currently being used for agricultural production is on soils of Wiley-Limon Complex and the Richfield clay loam. The remaining soils presented in the Table typically occur along and in the lower areas of the drainage basins. II-5 TABLE II-1 SOILS CAPABILITY UNIT Capability Classes Limitations for Most Field Crops I These soils have few limitations that restrict their use. II These soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. III These soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants , require special conservation practices , or both. IV These soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants, require very careful management, or both. V These soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove, use limited to pasture, range, woodland or wildlife. (None in Study Area. ) VI These soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuited to cultivation and limit their use largely to pasture or range, woodland or wildlife. VII These soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuited to cultivation and that restrict their use largely to pasture or range, woodland, or wildlife. II-6 TABLE II-2 SOILS IN STUDY CORRIDOR AND CAPABILITY CLASS Irrigated Dryland Soils Name I IV Olney sandy loam Colby loam II - Richfield clay loam Wiley-Limon complex II III Weld loam Nunn Clay loam II IV Colby loam III - Atvan loam Wann loam Wiley-Limon complex III III Dacono Clay loam III IV Colby loam IV - Thedlund loam Nelson Fine sandy loam IV VI Colby loam Bankard loam VI - Winn loam/Wet loamy soils VI VI Tassel sandy loam VII VII Sandy Breaks and Terrace Faces II-7 Ecosystems Although the natural vegetation has been displaced by agricultural crops, the vegetal ecosystem of the Study Corridor can be characterized from pre-agricultural conditions , climate, soils, and topography. The Study Corridor is within an ecotone region of grassland plains. This ecotone can be considered as the area where the grasslands of the plains and the grasslands of the foothills come together to form a transition zone. The dominant grass of the plains region is blue grama while the grasses of the foothills consist of wheatgrass , needlegrass , sand reed, bluestem, and blue grama intermixed with areas of shrubs. Along principal watercourses and irrigation canals , the area is capable of supporting cottonwood trees and willows. Due to stress and pressures created by residential , industrial , and agricultural development, much of the native wildlife of the Study Corridor has been reduced or eliminated (9) . This is particularly true of the larger mammals such as deer and antelope. Smaller mammals such as squirrels , rabbits, raccoons, and muskrats still tend to be found in greater frequency as large areas of natural habitat have been reduced. The black-footed ferret, listed as a rare species, historically was associated with prairie-dog towns. The prairie-dog was the ferrets primary food. No cold water fish occur within the Study Corridor's watercourses. It is likely that several warm water species may be found in the irrigation reservoirs and in the St. Vrain River. However, these bodies of water provide a marginal environment for fish life because of fluctuations in water levels during the irrigation season and their tendency to freeze due to their shallowness. The St. Vrain River probably provides the best aquatic habitat for fish in the Study Corridor. This stream has an II-8 average annual streamflow of 145,600 acre-feet of water per year. Water quality data have been collected near the mouth of the River but are limited to six parameters. The average maximum and minimum values for these six parameters are presented in Table II-3. Agricultural development has contributed to a diverse environment for birdlife within the Study Corridor. Production of various grains and impoundments for irrigation have been major contributors to a varied bird population including pheasant, snipe, mallards, Canadian geese, chuckar, and bob white (10) . Bald eagles , an endangered species , have been observed during the winter. CULTURAL SYSTEMS Significant land use features are illustrated in Figure III-3 and are discussed below. Land Use and Agriculture Agriculture represents the predominant use of land within the Study Corridor. Agricultural field crops such as beans and sugar beets are raised for human consumption, while corn, alfalfa, feed grains, and pasture grasses are grown for animal consumption. A few small feedlots and dairies are located within the Study Corridor and create a partial market for these field crops. However, larger feedlots located elsewhere in Weld and Larimer Counties create a significant demand for contract feeding and thus support a segment of the local crop production. Nearly all of the farmland is irrigated. The only significant dryland acreage lies on the extreme west end of the Study Corridor. Here approximately 300 acres lie above irrigation ditches and are planted to dryland crops. Approximately 40 acres of this total will eventually be acquired and developed into an electric sub-station by the Platte River Power Authority. II-9 TABLE II-3 WATER QUALITY OF THE ST. VRAIN RIVER Average Average Probable Parameter High Low Influencing Factor Total Dissolved Solids 1 ,280 mg/1 550 mg/1 Irrigation returns Dissolved Oxygen 8.8 mg/1 7.3 mg/1 Seasonal Ammonia Nitrogen 2.3 mg/1 0.0 mg/1 G. W. Sugar Co. in winter months Phosphate 2.6 mg/1 0.5 mg/1 G. W. Sugar Co. in winter months Temperature 21°C 4°C Seasonal Total Coliform 585,000 2,200 None identified MPN/100 MPN/100 II-10 The St. Vrain River and its adjacent floodplain are a major feature in the east section of the corridor along with the St. Vrain Power Plant. In addition to the river floodplain which is typically pastureland, three small tributary creeks feed into the river. These creeks are also typically bounded by pasture area. Transportation in the form of railroads and highways is also a pre- dominant feature. The Union Pacific and Great Western Railroads traverse the Study Corridor. Neither are main lines, for they primarily serve the farm communities along their respective routes. Interstate 25 traverses north-south through the area near the center of the Study Corridor. This route serves the communities along the Front Range as well as substantial interstate travel . Land devoted to urban use is limited mainly to the Town of Mead, a small housing area adjacent to Highland Lake, and a few scattered non-farm residences. Mead, the largest of the urban concentra- tions has approximately 60 acres of urbanized land (2) . The construction of a school and a few residences indicate that there is some expansion activity occurring within the community. The 1970 population of Mead was 195 persons. The Highland Lake area in the northwest corner of the Study Corridor contains 11 houses , a church, and a lake related commercial recreation facility. Growing population occurring in the communities along Interstate 25 has created greater pressure for the conversion of agricultural land to housing and other non-agricultural uses. While the Study Corridor has not II-11 been noticeably impacted in this manner, there are an estimated 130 residences scattered throughout the area. Relative percentages of land uses in six categories are presented below: irrigated farmland 81 .6% dry farmland 2.9% residential/commercial use 1 .6% water surfaces and floodplain 8.4% (not including new Public Service reservoir) institutional land 0.2% transportation right-of-way 5.3% TOTAL STUDY CORRIDOR 100.0% Land Values and Agriculture "The value of agricultural land varies significantly, with the primary determinant being the individual site, water rights , replacement value to the farmer-seller, and only minimally, productive capacity of the parcel ." (6) Due to increased urbanization along the Front Range, many land sales are based more on speculation for urban use than on maintaining the land for agricultural purposes. Because land conversions have not occurred to any great degree in the Study Corridor, it can be assumed that most lands are still selling at agricultural prices. However, the scattered non-farm home sites represent a departure. "The most dramatic disparities occur with the low 'actual value' pastures and waste lands --- of between $3.33 and $10 per acre which would probably command $1 ,000 per acre because of high residertial value based on scenic location. " (6) II-12 The values of agricultural land can be further defined from the analysis of tax records and sales on similar lands in Larimer County in 1974 (11) . These relative agricultural land values are presented in Table II-4. Although it has not been documented, it appears likely that recent planning, zoning, and subdivisions policies and legislation of Weld County have a stabilizing affect on land values. The County's policy to maintain and promote agricultural development, while at the same time encouraging urban growth to occur within and adjacent to existing towns, seem to make land conversions from agriculture to urban uses difficult. With the use of zoning and subdivision regulations to enforce this policy, any profusion of residential development seems unlikely. Planning and Zoning The Study Corridor is totally located within the planning and zoning jurisdiction of Weld County, Colorado. Weld County greatly expanded its planning efforts in the early 1970's and completed a Comprehensive Plan in September 1973. The key issue of the program was agricultural pre- servation as illustrated by the following quote: "Weld County ranks first in agricultural productivity of all counties in Colorado and second of all counties in the nation." (12) With the location of new industry in the County such as Eastman Kodak and others, population growth surged and the conflict between urban and agricultural land increased. Thus the County became increasingly concerned about the loss of prime agricultural land to housing. The resultant policies were pro-agricultural support, II-13 TABLE II-4 COMPARISON OF LAND VALUES PER ACRE Type of Land Tax Base Range Recent Sales Report Irrigated $200-300 $1000-1500 Dryland 75-100 375- 500 Sub-irrigated Meadow 40- 60 200- 400 Dry Native Pasture 10- 20 50- 150 Source: Claude L. Fly and Associates (11 ) . Based on analysis of tax records and sales on similar lands in Larimer County in 1974. II-14 basically intended to discourage conversion of good agricultural land to urban use. Present policies designed to protect the agricultural base of Weld County are presented in Appendix A. Zoning and subdivision regulations were amended to support these policies. For example, land zoned for agricultural use cannot be divided into parcels less than 80 acres in size if the land is irrigated and less than 160 acres if its dryland. Changing the zoning classification to some use other than agricultural requires a thorough evaluation and justification that the rezoning will not have an impact on the agricultural economy. Rezonings of this nature are quite infrequent. Virtually all of the land within the Study Corridor is zoned A-I or A-D (Agricultural District) . The exceptions are the St. Vrain Power Plant and a few small parcels adjacent to the Town of Mead along the Great Western Railroad which are zoned I for Industrial District (13) . The actual application of A-I or A-D depends on the County Assessor's classi- fication of the land. A-I is applied on the irrigated land, and A-D on the lands classified as dryland. In either of the two agricultural districts the prime uses permitted are agriculture and related uses. Public utility mains, lines, and sub- stations are uses also permitted by right. See Appendix B for an abstract of agricultural zoning regulations. Population According to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan (12) , the 1970 population of Mead was 195 persons. Although no recent population data II-15 are available for the Study Corridor, the 1976 population of the Corridor, including the Town of Mead, is estimated at 750 persons* based on 218 dwelling units and an average family size of 3.2 persons per unit. OF this total , approximately 256 persons (34 percent of the total ) currently reside in Mead. This represents an annual growth rate of 5 percent for lithe Town of Mead between 1970 and 1976. The Weld County Comprehensive Plan (12) indicates a doubling of the County's population by 1990. If it is assumed that the Study Corridor will realize this level of development, the 1990 population of the Corridor will be 1 ,500 persons. Based on Weld County land use policies (Appendix A) and current zoning regulations (Appendix B) , it must be assumed that much of that growth will be in the Town of Mead. Mayor Robert Clark of Mead has indicated that 50 homes have been proposed directly west of Mead and that growth will be generally westward but will also occur north to County Road 34N (14) . Economy The economy of the Study Corridor is almost entirely agriculturally based. A few exceptions exist in Mead where a couple small manufacturing facilities are located. The remaining commercial and industrial facilities in Mead, such as the grocery store, gas station, feed mill , etc. , are all agricultural support services and facilities. Crop, animal production, and dairy production dominate the agricultural scene. Irrigated farming techniques are applied throughout the Study *Includes 76 residents of Country View Care Center that are not included in dwelling unit count. II-16 Corridor. This agricultural predominance is expected to continue in the foreseeable future. There is no indication of any likely change. Historical and Archaeological Resources Several formally designated historic and archaeological sites exist in Weld County (15) . However, no sites are known to exist in the Study Corridor (16) . II-17 CHAPTER III POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS AND IMPACTS INTRODUCTION With the construction and operation of any significant linear facility such as the Ft. St. Vrain/Mead transmission line, a major consideration is finding the shortest distance between two points. However, the economics of distance must be modulated by other significant factors to minimize the adverse impacts of the line. Other factors to be considered include: . agricultural production and irrigation systems . impedance of urban growth and development . ownership patterns . proximity to residences . removal of trees and other line obstructions . construction costs . various potential contingencies including conflicts with autos, floodplains, etc. . highway crossings . stresses on ecosystems. Each of these impact considerations is discussed in the next section. In order to completely analyze every potential route and to minimize the complexities of various alternative routes sharing some common segments, a preliminary analysis was conducted for every potential unique segment. Segments with significant adverse impacts were eliminated from further consideration and alternative complete routes identified by linking favorable segments together. The remainder of this chapter is a pre- sentation of this segment analysis. III-1 IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS Agriculture Because of the agricultural base of the Study Corridor, the impacts on agriculture must be considered of prime importance. Identifiable agricultural impacts include: . loss of productive land at pole locations . crop disruption during construction . increased operational costs caused by line and pole location. Pole locations will not be determined until final design at which time Platte River Power Authority will coordinate with individual land owners to minimize impacts on farm operations to the extent possible. Potential route segments were located to minimize these impacts by giving priority to the following alignments: 1 . county road and other established rights-of-way 2. fence lines 3. other natural barriers between fields. County roads offer the advantage in overlapping rights-of-way with the required 100 foot right-of-way for power lines. As illustrated in Figure III-1 poles and lines set at the edge of the county road 100 foot right- of-way gain a 50 foot overlap with the road right-of-way and thus require only 50 feet of agricultural or other land use. Some concern has been expressed over the potential for auto collisions with poles (17) ; however, the configuration illustrated in Figure III-1 would provide a 33 foot setback between the edge of shoulder and the pole. The Great Western Railroad spur line located in a northeast-southeast alignment through Mead offers another potential right-of-way overlap. The III-2 F- cn 3 O 7 � CI CI W Q Q U >- , J z w O J O U W C W ri O Z 50' 50' FIELD < •1 100' COUNTY ROAD ROW FIGURE III-1 POWER POLE LOCATION IN COUNTY ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY II1-3 railroad has between an 80 to 100 foot right-of-way, but requires at least 16 feet between the centerline of track and any easement (18) . As illustrated in Figure III-2, this alignment would require between 66 to 76 feet of agricultural land to complete the required 100 foot transmission line right-of-way. Additionally, the railroad is concerned in granting any easement which would provide for maintenance vehicles within their right-of-way (18) . Fence lines are a second priority location where utilization of existing rights-of-way is impossible. Although such a location still re- quires 100 feet of agricultural or other land use, ownerships would be split thus requiring only 50 feet of right-of-way from each owner, but more importantly, the right-of-way would be at the edge of the field, thus minimizing the interference with agricultural activities. The use of other natural barriers between fields in the Study Corridor is limited to natural drainage topography and/or man-made irrigation ditches. The latter is deemed to be an inappropriate location because it could hinder the operation and maintenance of irrigation systems. Natural drainage configurations have the advantage of placing poles in low terrain thereby minimizing visual impacts , but require crossing fields during construction. If a pole must be placed in a productive field, land lost to crcp production can be expected to be (11 ) : . irrigated land: 200-600 sq. ft. . dryland: 100-400 sq. ft. . hay land: 80-100 sq. ft. . meadow or range: 64 sq. ft. III-4 W >- V) Q O 3 J 1 () L.L. O p I W I— I— S Q C'3 U I--4 O CC J 1] W Q J O O = IZ J CC Q -I W ce 3 O O IZ I— . 50' , - 50' ��16'y I TRACK FIELD 80' -100' RR ROW FIGURE III-2 RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALIGNMENT III-5 Compensation can be based on the value of these lost lands plus damages for lost crops. A study was made of these values for the Loveland/Longmont power line (11) . Using these data, unit acquisition and damage costs were estimated for the various potential line segments. These unit values are presented in Table III-1 . It must be noted that the data in Table III-1 are only estimates to be used for comparison among alternatives. Numerous other factors must be considered when actual right-of-way negotiations occur before a final price can be determined. Among these factors is the fact that, where possible, construction will occur from the road right-of-way, thus minimal crop damage will be realized even during the growing season. Another agricultural impact which should be considered is the interfer- ence with aerial spraying. Although there has been some concern over this issue during the planning of other lines , it appears that varying flight patterns and ground spraying of small areas minimize any impact on agriculture. Urban Growth/Development Urban growth and development in the Study Corridor is limited to the Town of Mead although the Highland Lake area offers some potential for development. It is virtually impossible to place a dollar value on the impedance of growth created by the construction of a transmission line. Significant factors to be considered include the division of neighborhoods or entire towns created by the line and the aesthetic disharmony of power lines in urban areas. Although a subjective judgment, it seems likely a north-south line creates a more significant aesthetic impact because of the mountain view than does an east-west line which imparts only a lateral obstruction to mountain viewing. In some cases (Denver is a good example) power lines have severed residential neighborhoods creating a natural barrier to otherwise adjoining backyards. III-6 TABLE III-1 AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUES1 Agricultural Land Value Damages Land Type ($/acre) ($/mi)2 Irrigated 250 109 Dryland 87 20 Pasture 15 0.2 1Derived from Basic Factors Affecting Agricultural Impact, Vol . I , Claude L. Fly and Associates, August 1975. 2Assumes full crop damage at pole site and 6.6 poles/mile. Actual damages could be between 0-100% of crop value depending on time of year and construction from existing rights-of-way. III-7 Ownership Patterns The impact of power transmission lines on ownership patterns is briefly discussed under Agriculture. Where existing rights-of-way cannot be used, fence lines , which occur normally at property ownership boundaries, should be considered a priority route. It is felt that a division of the right- " of-way between contiguous land holders minimizes the impact to any one . land owner. Additionally, fields are not split, thus limiting the potential cost of extra farming operations. Aesthetics It is difficult to place a monetary value on the aesthetic impact of power transmission lines. Certainly a power line or pole directly in line with a view of the mountains or open farm land is a significant impact on a resident or one travelling through the area. Any segment which directly obstructs the westerly view of the mountains must be considered to have the most significant aesthetic impact, while north-south segments along road- ways away from urban development will probably have less impact. East- west segments , particularly through rural areas, will have the least impact. Proximity to Residences The proximity to residences can be a significant impact element. During construction, dust, noise, and the movement of heavy equipment can create problems near residences. After the completion of construction, a power line near residences can have an aesthetic impact and may create potential losses in property values, although no data are available to prove this claim. Additionally, proximity to residences may cause electrostatic interference with TV and radio reception. III-8 For purposes of this analysis, the impact on residences was divided into homes within 200 feet of the line and those within 200 to 1 ,000 feet with the greater impact assessed to the first category. No residential impact was assumed for houses greater than 1 ,000 feet from any potential line segment. Tree Removal/Topping and Other Obstructions The determination of tree removals or toppings cannot be made until the final design. However, field survey was conducted to estimate the number of trees which may require removal or topping along each potential segment. The loss or topping of a tree may have adverse aesthetic impact to a residential land owner where trees are close enough to a house to offer a view, shade, etc. Other obstructions are considered to be primarily telephone and electric distribution lines. Traditionally, where these lines must be removed, they are buried by the owner-utility with the cost being borne by the power line owner. In this respect, other obstructions become an additional cost of construction. Construction Costs The cost of constructing the proposed power transmission line is an obvious economic impact borne by the consumers of Platte River Power Authority. Total cost of the line is influenced by the length of line required and the special tower configurations required for directional changes and extra height crossings. A typical tangent pole was illustrated in Chapter I. This pole will suffice for spans up to 800 feet while meeting the Federal requirements III-9 of a minimum wire clearance (at the low point in between towers) of 28 feet. The tangent pole will also sustain the stresses created by directional changes up to 25°. If greater spans, heights , or directional changes are required, a more costly pole configuration must be used. The cost of constructing a nominal 230 kV transmission line utilizing tangent poles and 800 foot (maximum) spans is approximately $200,000 per mile (19) . A heavy angle pole (similar to the tangent pole) can be used for directional changes between 25° and 55° and costs approximately $13,000 more than a tangent pole. For turns between 55° and 90° a lattice tower can be used, but this costs approximately $36,000 more than a tangent pole. A double heavy angle pole could be substituted with each pole carrying a single circuit, but this configuration costs approximately $47,500 more than the tangent pole. The need for extra span lengths and pole heights together with the additional costs cannot be evaluated until the final design. Potential Contingencies As used herein, potential contingencies include conflicts with autos, floodplain crossings, and water crossings. As indicated previously, a concern exists over the potential for automobile accidents involving power poles located along road right-of-way. The configuration illustrated in Figure III-1 would provide a 33 foot set back between the edge of shoulder and the poles. Unfortunately, no data exist to evaluate the potential accident impact at this distance. Crossing the floodplain of the St. Vrain River (Figure III-3) can present a potential contingency in terms of future floods damaging or III-10 knocking a pole down. During final design, poles may be placed to avoid all but the most serious floods and revetments can be constructed to protect the poles from on-rushing debris. Thus, crossing the floodplain is deemed to create minimal problems. Water crossings offer a potential problem from a construction and accident perspective. Crossing any large water body creates extra span lengths and wire stringing techniques. However, crossing small water bodies near the edges (typical for segments in the Study Corridor) creates no particular construction impacts. The accident potential from a downed- wire near water is also minimal because the system is designed with circuit breakers to cut power off should a circuit be severed. Floodplain and water crossing problems associated with ecosystem impacts are discussed under Ecosystem Stresses. Highway Crossings Extra tower heights and longer spans will probably be required when crossing I-25 at elevated grades such as at the intersection with County Road 34 or the railroad crossing. Required minimum wire clearance over State highways is 22 feet, but Federal requirements of 28 feet clearance supersede this value. Other State requirements include no poles in the median strip and pole locations outside of the right-of-way. Ecosystem Stresses Two types of ecosystem stresses must be considered. Primary impacts are associated with stresses during construction and secondary impacts are created over the life of the structure by its physical presence. III-11 Construction of any power line segment will not cause measurable changes in the water quality or flow regime of the St. Vrain River. Potential exists for some soil erosion near structure sites and along temporary access roads, but proper control measures will minimize this impact. Slightly greater erosion potential may exist for segments con- structed in natural drainage patterns. Impacts on soils will occur at structure sites and along access ways. These effects will principally consist of some displacement and changes in structure and fertility. Soils in this instance are taken to mean topsoils rather than subsoils as little disturbance at a depth greater than one foot can be expected. The operation of construction equipment will be restricted within the right-of-way and mostly to a ten-foot-wide access way and structure sites which are approximately 60 to 80 feet in diameter. Little grading will be required for gaining access or leveling structure sites. Access ways will generally remain grass-covered in noncultivated areas, thus requiring little restoration. Compaction on slopes which could encourage erosion will be treated with soil stabilizing techniques. In so much as some soil disturbance will accompany construction, segments along ex4sting rights-of-way offer an advantage over those traversing fence lines and fields. Larger mammals , except for white-tailed and mule deer, rarely remain in areas of continuing man-caused impacts in the plains areas. A discussion of probable effects on wildlife is therefore limited to small mammals and birds, particularly waterfowl and raptor species. III-12 Smaller mammals , such as chipmunks, raccoons , opossums, and fox squirrels, frequent drainages affording limited vegetation cover. 0:her areas which are undeveloped such as land where soils are unsuitable =or agriculture, fence rows and rights-of-way along railroads and canals are also important habitat. Habitats within and adjacent to the right-of-way will be temporarily disrupted by construction activity, but no habitat will be significantly degraded. Based on this segments crossing fields, through natural drainage, and across the floodplain, it can be expected to create greater primary wildlife impacts than those utilizing the county road right-of-way. Waterfowl habitats in the area are predominantly irrigation reservoirs and the St. Vrain River. Because transmission lines can affect the use of adjacent or spanned lakes by waterfowl and because collisions on landing and takeoff may cause some mortality, segments adjacent to or crossing watercourse have a higher waterfowl impact. Because the natural vegetative cover has been largely replaced by agricultural crops , vegetative impacts are limited to agriculture anc tree cutting, both of which are discussed elsewhere. POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS All of the Study Corridor potential route segments are illustrated in Figure III-3. The associated impacts based on the discussion above are presented in Table III-2. A code letter has been assigned to each segment to assist in locating the segments. The following is a discussion of each segment. III-13 TABLE III-2 IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS Impact Potential Segments Category Type of Impact A B C D E Agriculture Acres of Impacted Land (1) Irrigated 7.75 5.99 20.24 12.39 2.33 Dryland 0 0 0 0 0 Pasture 0 15.34 11 .29 42.69 6.19 Total 7.75 21 .33 31 .53 55.08 8.52 Impacted Land Value, $ (4) Irrigated 1 ,938 1 ,498 5,060 3,098 583 Dryland 0 0 0 0 0 Pasture 0 230 169 640 93 Total 1 ,938 1 ,728 5,229 3,738 676 Agricultural Damage, $ (5) Irrigated 140 54 412 111 42 Dryland 0 0 O . 0 0 Pasture 0 0 0 0 0 Total 140 54 412 112 42 Urban Development Impact on Growth (6) N N N N N Ownership Patterns No. of Ownerships Split 0 2 1 6 0 Aesthetics Impact on View (6) N N S N M Proximity to Residences within 200 ft. 0 0 14 0 1 Residences (7) Residences between 200-1000 ft. 1 1 4 2 0 Trees & Other Trees Removed/Topped (8) 10 5 44 8 1 Obstructions Mi . of Existing Lines Altered(8) 0 0 0.68 0 0 Costs Length of Line, mi. 1 .28 1 .76 4.71 4.60 0.90 Directional Changes 25°-55° 0 2 2 6 0 55°-90° 0 0 0 0 2 Basic Line Cost,$1000 (9) 256 352 942 920 180 Directional Change Costs, $1000 (10) 0 26 26 78 72 Total Line Cost, $1000 256 378 968 998 252 Potential Miles of Road ROW 0.81 0 4.03 0 0.45 Contingencies Miles of Floodplain Crossing(11) 0 0.68 0.85 1 .25 0 Miles of Water Crossing (12) 0 0 0 0.28 0 Highway Extra Height Required No No No No No Crossing Extra Span Required No No No No No Ecosystem Erosion Potential (6) N M N M N Stresses Wildlife Impacts S M S M M Waterfowl Impacts S M M M M III-15 TABLE III-2 (Continued) IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS Impact Potential Segnents Category Type of Impact F G H I J Agriculture Acres of Impacted Land (1) Irrigated 14.46 7.23 0 7.57 29.63 Dryland 0 0 0 0 0 Pasture 3.44 1 .27 15.15 0 0 Total 17.90 8.50 15.15 7.57 29.63 Impacted Land Value, $ (4) Irrigated 3,615 1 ,808 0 1 ,893 7,407 Dryland 0 0 0 0 0 Pasture 52 19 227 0 0 Total 3,667 1 ,827 227 1 ,893 7,407 Agricultural Damage, $ (5) Irrigated 130 130 0 136 266 Dryland 0 0 0 ' 0 0 Pasture 0 0 0 0 0 Total 130 130 0 136 266 Urban Development Impact on Growth (6) N N N S N Ownership Patterns No. of Ownerships Split 4 4 1 0 1 Aesthetics Impact on View (6) N N S S S liProximity to Residences within 200 ft. 0 0 0 10 1 Residences (7) Residences between 200-1000 ft. 3 3 0 9 2 Trees & Other Trees Removed/Topped (8) 1 1 0 0 12 Obstructions Mi. of Existing Lines Altered(8) 0 0 0 0.05 0 Costs Length of Line, mi. 1 .47 1 .47 1 .25 1 .36 2.44 Directional Changes 25°-55° 2 2 3 0 0 55°-90° 0 0 1 0 0 Basic Line Cost,$1000 (9) 294 294 250 272 488 Directional Change Costs, $1000 (10) 26 26 75 0 0 Total Line Cost, $1000 320 320 325 272 488 Potential Miles of Road ROW 0 0 0 1 .36 0 Contingencies Miles of Floodplain Crossing(11 ) 0 0 0 0 0 Miles of Water Crossing (12) 0 0 0.08 0 0.11 Highway Extra Height Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Crossing Extra Span Required No No No Yes No Ecosystem Erosion Potential (6) N N M N S Stresses Wildlife Impacts M M M S M Waterfowl Impacts S S M M M III-16 TABLE III-2 (Continued) IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS li Impact Potential Segments Category Type of Impact K L M N 0 Agriculture Acres of Impacted Land (1) Irrigated 2.06 0.96 6.47 0 1 .10 Dryland 0 0 0 5.5(2) 1 .37(3) Pasture 0 1 .79 0 0 0 Total 2.06 2.75 6.47 5.52 2.47 Impacted Land Value, $ (4) Irrigated 515 240 1 ,618 0 275 Dryland 0 0 0 479 119 Pasture 0 27 0 0 0 • Total 515 267 1 ,618 479 394 Agricultural Damage, $ (5) Irrigated 37 9 58 0 20 Dryland 0 0 0 - 0 0 Pasture 0 0 0 0 0 Total 37 9 58 0 20 Urban Development Impact on Growth (6) N S N H H Ownership Patterns No. of Ownerships Split 1 2 0 1 0 Aesthetics Impact on View (6) N S N H H liProximity to Residences within 200 ft. 0 2 1 7 8 Residences (7) Residences between 200-1000 ft. 5 10 7 66 41 Trees & Other Trees Removed/Topped (8) 0 2 2 0 6 Obstructions Mi. of Existing Lines Altered(8) 0 0 0 0 0.22 Costs Length of Line, mi. 0.34 0.26 0.60 0.45 0.45 Directional Changes 25°-55° 0 1 0 0 0 55°-90° 0 0 0 1 0 Basic Line Cost,$1000 (9) 68 52 120 90 90 Directional Change Costs, $1000 (10) 0 13 0 36 0 Total Line Cost, $1000 68 65 120 126 90 Potential Miles of Road ROW 0 0 0.05 0 0.45 Contingencies Miles of Floodplain Crossing(11) 0 0 0 0 0 Miles of Water Crossing (12) 0 0 0 0 0 Highway Extra Height Required No No No No No Crossing Extra Span Required No No No No No Ecosystem Erosion Potential (6) N M S N N Stresses Wildlife Impacts M M M S S Waterfowl Impacts S S S N S III-17 TABLE III-2 (Continued) IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS Impact Potential Segments Category Type of Impact P Q R S T Agriculture Acres of Impacted Land (1) Irrigated 7.24 6.19 3.21 6.27 7.30 Dryland 2.57 0 1 .17 1 .25 0.96 Pasture 0 0 0 0 0 Total 9.81 6.19 4.38 7.52 8.26 Impacted Land Value, $ (4) Irrigated 1 ,810 1 ,548 803 1 ,568 1 ,825 Dryland 224 0 102 109 84 Pasture 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2,034 1 ,548 905 1 ,677 1 ,909 Agricultural Damage, $ (5) Irrigated 65 56 58 56 66 Dryland 4 0 4 2 3 Pasture 0 0 0 0 0 Total 69 56 62 58 69 Urban Development Impact on Growth (6) S H s N N Ownership Patterns No. of Ownerships Split 1 1 0 3 2 Aesthetics Impact on View (6) S H M M M Proximity to Residences within 200 ft. 0 0 4 0 0 Residences (7) Residences between 200-1000 ft. 1 1 4 1 0 Trees & Other Trees Removed/Topped (8) 2 0 6 4 6 Obstructions Mi. of Existing Lines Altered(8) 0 0 0.51 0 0 Costs Length of Line, mi. 0.81 0.51 0.76 0.62 0.82 Directional Changes 25°-55° 1 0 1 3 3 55°-90° 0 0 0 0 0 i Basic Line Cost,$1000 (9) 162 102 152 124 164 Directional Change Costs, $1000 (10) 13 0 13 39 39 Total Line Cost, $1000 175 102 165 163 203 Potential Miles of Road ROW 0 0 0.76 0 0.28 Contingencies Miles of Floodplain Crossing(11 ) 0 0 0 0 0 Miles of Water Crossing (12) 0 0 0 0 0 Highway Extra Height Required No No No No No Crossing Extra Span Required No No No No No Ecosystem Erosion Potential (6) s s N S S Stresses Wildlife Impacts M M s M M Waterfowl Impacts M S M M s III-18 TABLE III-2 (Continued) IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS Impact Potential Segments Category Type of Impact U V W X Y Agriculture Acres of Impacted Land (1) Irrigated 3.44 12.70 0 2.34 4.13 Dryland 0 0.69 0 0 0 Pasture 1 .92 0 5.92 0 0 Total 5.36 13.39 5.92 2.34 4.13 Impacted Land Value, $ (4) Irrigated 860 3,175 0 585 1 ,033 Dryland 0 60 0 0 0 Pasture 29 0 89 0 0 Total 889 3,235 89 585 1 ,033 Agricultural Damage, $ (5) Irrigated 31 228 0 42 37 Dryland 0 2 0 ' 0 0 Pasture 0 0 0 0 0 Total 31 230 0 42 37 Urban Development Impact on Growth (6) N N N M N Ownership Patterns No. of Ownerships Split 1 0 3 0 1 Aesthetics Impact on View (6) N S M S N Proximity to Residences within 200 ft. 1 4 0 0 0 Residences (7) Residences between 200-1000 ft. 0 3 1 10 5 Trees & Other Trees Removed/Topped (8) 0 2 0 0 0 Obstructions Mi. of Existing Lines Altered(8) 0 0 0 0 0 Costs Length of Line, mi. 0.45 2.21 0.51 0.41 0.34 Directional Changes 25°-55° 0 0 0 0 0 55°-90° 0 0 0 0 0 Basic Line Cost,$1000 (9) 90 442 102 82 68 Directional Change Costs, $1000 (10) 0 0 0 0 0 Total Line Cost, $1000 90 442 102 82 68 Potential Miles of Road ROW 0.13 2.21 0 0.41 0 Contingencies Miles of Floodplain Crossing(11 ) 0.10 0 0 0 0 Miles of Water Crossing (12) 0 0 0 0 0 Highway Extra Height Required No No No No No Crossing Extra Span Required No No No No No Ecosystem Erosion Potential (6) S N M N N Stresses Wildlife Impacts M S M S M Waterfowl Impacts M S M S S III-19 TABLE III-2 (Continued) IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS Impact Potential Segments Category Type of Impact Z AA BB CC DD Agriculture Acres of Impacted Land (1 ) Irrigated 2.34 0 2.75 8.55 3.21 Dryland 0 0 0 0 0 Pasture 0 7.57 11 .70 0.73 0 Total 2.34 7.57 14.45 9.28 3.21 Impacted Land Value, $ (4) Irrigated 585 0 688 2,138 803 Dryland 0 0 0 0 0 Pasture 0 114 176 11 0 Total 585 114 864 2,149 803 Agricultural Damage, $ (5) Irrigated 24 0 25 154 58 Dryland 0 0 0 0 0 Pasture 0 0 0 0 0 Total 24 0 25 154 58 Urban Development Impact on Growth (6) N N N N H Ownership Patterns No. of Ownerships Split 1 2 1 0 0 Aesthetics Impact on View (6) N N N H H Proximity to Residences within 200 ft. 0 0 0 1 2 Residences (7) Residences between 200-1000 ft. 0 1 0 0 1 Trees & Other Trees Removed/Topped (8) 0 5 5 1 1 Obstructions Mi. of Existing Lines Altered(8) 0 0 0 0.38 0.53 Costs Length of Line, mi. 0.22 0.62 1 .19 1 .53 0.53 Directional Changes 25°-55° 0 2 2 3 1 55°-90° 0 0 1 0 0 Basic Line Cost,$1000 (9) 44 124 238 306 106 Directional Change Costs, $1000 (10) 0 26 62 39 13 Total Line Cost, $1000 44 150 300 345 119 Potential Miles of Road ROW 0.22 0 0 1 .53 0.53 Contingencies Miles of Floodplain Crossing(11) 0 0.51 0.68 0 0 Miles of Water Crossing (12) 0 0 0 0 0 Highway Extra Height Required No No No No No Crossing Extra Span Required No No No No No Ecosystem Erosion Potential (6) N M M N N Stresses Wildlife Impacts S M M S S Waterfowl Impacts S M M S S III-20 TABLE III-2 (Continued) IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS Impact Potential Segments Category Type of Impact EE FF GG HH Agriculture Acres of Impacted Land (1) Irrigated 3.03 2.73 6.18 5.52 Dryland 0 0 0 0 Pasture 0 0 2.75 0 Total 3.03 2.73 8.93 5.52 Impacted Land Value, $ (4) Irrigated 758 683 1 ,545 1 ,380 Dryland 0 0 0 0 Pasture 0 0 41 0 Total 758 683 1 ,586 1 ,380 Agricultural Damage, $ (5) Irrigated 55 49 56 99 Dryland 0 0 0 0 Pasture 0 0 0 0 Total 55 49 56 99 Urban Development Impact on Growth (6) M S N N Ownership Patterns No. of Ownerships Split 0 0 0 0 Aesthetics Impact on View (6) H S S S Proximity to Residences within 200 ft. 0 0 0 4 Residences (7) Residences between 200-1000 ft. 1 0 0 1 Trees & Other Trees Removed/Topped (8) 0 0 0 10 Obstructions Mi. of Existing Lines Altered(8) 0 0 0 0 Costs Length of Line, mi. 0.50 0.45 0.74 0.91 Directional Changes 25°-55° 0 0 1 0 55°-90° 0 0 0 0 Basic Line Cost,$1000 (9) 100 90 148 182 Directional Change Costs, $1000 (10) 0 0 13 0 Total Line Cost, $1000 100 90 161 182 Potential Miles of Road ROW 0.50 0.45 0 0.89 Contingencies Miles of Floodplain Crossing(11) 0 0 0 0 Miles of Water Crossing (12) 0 0 0 0 Highway Extra Height Required No No No No Crossing Extra Span Required No No No No Ecosystem Erosion Potential (6) N N M N Stresses Wildlife Impacts S S M S Waterfowl Impacts S S M M III-21 TABLE III-2 (Continued) IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ROUTE SEGMENTS FOOTNOTES: 1 . Calculated at ROW Width x Segment Length 2. Industrial Land 3. Residential Land 4. Acres x $/ac (from Table III-1 ) 5. Miles x $/mi (from Table III-1) 6. N - Negligible S - Slight M - Moderate H - Heavy 7. Estimated from Aerial Photos 8. Field Estimates 9. $200,000 x Line Length (mi) 10. $13,000 for 25°-55° $36,000 for 55°-90° 11 . St. Vrain River Floodplain 12. Not including St. Vrain River III-21a Segment A Segment A is located in the northeast part of the Study Corridor in the right-of-way of County Road 36. The total segment length is 1 .28 miles, 0.81 miles of which is along the county road. The total acres of agri- cultural land impacted by this route is limited to 7.75 acres because of the utilization of part of the County right-of-way. Total agricultural land value and damages are estimated to be $1 ,623/mile. The construction cost of this segment is $200,000/mile. There appear to be no outstanding negative impacts associated with Segment A, although an estimated ten trees may require removal or topping. However, Segment A cannot be evaluated separately from Segments B, U, Z, AA, and BB because Links A-AA-U-Z, A-BB-Z, and B-U-Z are alternative routes into the St. Vrain Power Plant from the north. Agricultural and con- struction impacts of these links include: Impacted Land Value Construction Link Miles Acres and Damages, $ Cost, $ A-AA-U-Z 2.57 23.0 3,721 540,000 A-BB-Z 2.69 24.5 3,576 600,000 B-U-Z 2.43 29.0 3,311 512,000 From this perspective, Segment A should be rejected from further consideration because the link containing Segment B creates less agricultural impact and would cost less to construct. Segment B Segment B is located in the northeast corner of the Study Corridor and is part of the linkage to connect a northern route with the St. Vrain III-22 Power Plant. This segment is 1 .76 miles long and follows a natural drainage over part of its length. Total agricultural area affected by this route is 21 .33 acres, however 15.34 acres (72 percent) is in pasture and only 5.99 acres (28 percent) is irrigated. Total agricultural land value and damages associated with the segment are estimated to be $985/mile. Con- struction cost is approximately $215,000 because of the directional changes. Two ownerships are split by this route segment, but the drainage already provides a natural barrier. Five trees would probably have to be removed or topped and construction activities may affect wildlife and waterfowl . These negative impacts are not deemed to be serious constraints, and when Segment B is linked with Segments U and Z, it provides the best route for a line along County Road 36 with the Power Plant (see discussion for Segment A) . z Segment C Segment C serves a portion of the middle of the Study Corridor, connecting the St. Vrain Power Plant with other segments near Interstate 25. The total segment length is 4.71 miles, all but 0.68 miles of which is partially in the county road right-of-way. The line would run east- west along the north side of County Road 34 to a point east of Lake Marie where it would cross to the south side. This alignment would minimize the impact on trees , residences, existing distribution lines, and La<e Marie. A total of 31 .53 acres would be impacted, 64 percent of whicn is irrigated, with estimated agricultural land value and damages of $1 ,198/ mile. The construction cost would be $205,500 with two directional changes requiring special attention. III-23 This segment presents some significant impacts because of the rural development along the route. Fourteen residences would be within 200 feet of the line and four more would be between 200-1000 feet of it. Forty- four trees may require topping or removal and 0.68 mile of existing electrical distribution line would have to be replaced. Notwithstanding these significant impacts , Segment C was not rejected from further consideration because it represents a key segment of a centralized alternative. Segment D ' Segment D, in a natural drainage south of County Road 34, was evaluated in spite of the priorities of road locations because the visual advantages of a low natural drainage area. The total length of Segment D is 4.60 miles costing $217,000/mile because of the need for six significant directional changes. Total agricultural land affected is 55.08 acres; ' however, 42.69 acres (78 percent) is pasture land. Total agricultural land value and damages are estimated to be $837/mile. Six ownerships would be split, most of which would occur in the natural drainage. Eight trees may require removal/topping, but only two residences are within 1000 feet. Additionally, the proximity of the natural drainage to reservoirs may cause up to 0.28 mile of water crossings with some disturbance of wildlife and waterfowl habitat. Except for the utilization of a low priority right-of-way, the negative impacts above are not deemed significant enough to warrant exclusion of Segment D from further consideration. The segment was retained for further evaluation as a key element of a southern route which would minimize visual impacts. III-24 Segment E Segment E was included as part of Link E-HH to provide an alternative to utilization of the Great Western Railroad line (Segment F or G) as part of a northern route. This segment begins just east of Interstate 25, crosses the Interstate and follows County Road 34 to the half- section line. From here a 90 degree turn takes Segment E south to the railroad. The total length of the segment is 0.90 mile, half of which is along the north half of the county road right-of-way. Utilizing this right-of-way limits the agricultural land impacted to 8.52 acres, only 2.33 acres (27 percent) of which is irrigated. The estimated agricultural land values and damages are $798/mile and construction cost is $280,000/ mile. Only one residence is within 200 feet and only one tree may require topping or removal , but the impact on the mountain view was deemed moderate because of residences to the east and the Interstate. Wildlife and water- 1 fowl impacts were also deemed moderate because of the natural drainage. Segment E cannot be fully evaluated separately from Segment HH because the two provide an alternative to Segment F or G. Agricultural and con- struction impacts of these alternative links include: Link/ Impacted Land Value Construction Segment Miles Acres and Damages , $ Cost, $ E-HH 1 .81 14.04 2,197 434,000 G 1 .47 8.50 1 ,957 320,000 F 1 .47 17.90 3,797 320,000 III-25 IIObviously, Segment G is preferable to Segment F or Link E-HH. However, no firm commitment has been received from the railroad relative to the use of their right-of-way. Should the railroad right-of-way not become available, Segment F would follow the line outside of the right-of-way. Under this situation , a tradeoff exists between Segment F and Link E-HH. IIFor the present both Segments F and G are perceived preferable to Link E-HH, thus Segment E was excluded from further consideration. Segment F Segment F connects the western end of Segment V with Segments M, Y, or K by following the railroad outside the right-of-way. The total length of Segment F is 1 .47 miles and the construction cost is $218,000/mile. IThe agricultural area impacted is estimated to be 17.90 acres with value and damages totalling $2,583/mile. Other significant impacts are limited to four ownership splits. However, these occur along the railroad right-of-way. As discussed under Segment E, this segment represents a viable alternative to Segment G, but was Iexcluded from further consideration until and unless Segment G proves infeasible. I Segment G Segment G parallels and overlaps the Great Western Railroad right-of- way. The total length and cost are identical to Segment F (1 .47 miles Iand $218,000/mile, respectively) , but agricultural land impacted is less Ibecause of the right-of-way overlap. Agricultural land impacted is 8.50 acres with estimated value and damages of $1 ,331/mile. Other impacts are similar to Segment F. III-26 Segment H Segment H utilizes natural drainage and is aligned east-west between County Road 34 east of I-25 and the Great Western Railroad. Total segment length is 1 .25 miles. Agricultural land impacted is limited to 15.15 acres of pasture. The estimated value and damages of this land is $182/mile. Construction cost is approximately $260,000/mile because of four directional changes. There appear to be no outstanding negative impacts associated with this segment, except for the "non-road" alignment. Because this segment is a key element in what is described elsewhere as the "Drainage Route," it was retained for further consideration. Segment I Segment I parallels and overlaps the County Road 34 right-of-way on ` the south side from Lake Marie to County Road 7. The estimated construction cost is $200,000/mile for 1 .36 miles. Only 7.57 acres of irrigated land is affected, the value and damages of which are estimated to be $1 ,492/ mile. A total of 19 residences are within 1 ,000 feet and the western end of the segment infringes on the Town of Mead. This and the problems associated with crossing Interstate 25 at a major intersection appear sufficient to exclude Segment I from further consideration. Segment J Segment J is a major element of a southern route utilizing natural drainage and fence lines. The segment is 2.44 miles long reaching from Interstate 25 on the east to west of County Road 5. Approximately 29.6 III-27 acres of agricultural land would be affected with value and damages of $3,143/mile. Construction cost is estimated to be $200,000/mile. By utilizing fence lines only one ownership is split and visual impacts are minimized. Three houses are within 1 ,000 feet of the lire and 12 trees may have to be removed or topped. Additionally 0.11 mile of water would be crossed. Wildlife and waterfowl habitat impact is deemed moderate. These impacts together with the use of fields and high damage costs combine to make Segment J unattractive. However, because it is a vital link in the southern route, it was retained for further evaluation. Segment K Segment K follows and overlaps the Great Western Railroad right-of-way for 0.34 mile as a continuation of Segment G. This segment would be required if the railroad alignment was used through Mead. However, Mayor Robert Clark (14) of Mead indicated a concern for the harm such a route would cause to the Town. Primarily for this reason Segment K was not considered further. Segment L Segment L follows natural drainage northeast from the Great Western Railroad to County Road 34N for a length of 0.26 miles at a construction cost of $250,000/mile. Approximately 2.75 acres of agricultural land would be affected, 0.96 acre (35 percent) of which is irrigated. The estimated value and damages of this land are $1 ,062/mile. Segment L splits two ownerships and comes within 1 ,000 feet of 12 residences. Two trees may require topping or removal . Additionally, the segment would offer some visual disadvantages if Mead developed northward. III-28 Because Segment L is a key element of the "Drainage Route," it was retained for further consideration. Segment M Segment M is located on the half-section line between the Great Western Railroad and County Road 34N. It is approximately 0.60 mile long and impacts 6.47 acres of land, all of it irrigated. The construction cost of the seg- ment is $200,000/mile and agricultural land value and damages are estimated to be $2,793/mile. No other outstanding impacts are apparent except the proximity of eight residences. Thus, Segment M was retained for further consideration. Segment N Segment N follows the Great Western Railroad alignment through Mead. Because of the significant impact of severing Mead (see discussion for Segment K) , this segment was not considered further. Segment 0 Segment 0 parallels and overlaps County Road 34 on the south side from County Road 7 to the half-section line west of the school . Total length is 0.45 mile and construction cost is $200,000/mile. Land impacted is estimated to be 2.47 acres. True value is difficult to assess because of the school property. Significant other impacts are apparent on this segment. Besides the new school , the line is within 1 ,000 feet of 49 residences or businesses and dix trees would have to be removed or topped. Negative impacts on future growth would be great as would visual impacts. For these reasons, Segment 0 was not considered further. III-29 Segment P Segment P is aligned east-west on the half-section line south of Highland Lake and terminates at the proposed Long's Peak Sub-station. Construction cost is $216,000/mile for 0.81 mile. Because the segment crosses fields, the total agricultural land affected is estimated to be 9.81 acres. The value and damages of this land are $2,596/mile. No other apparent significant impacts exist on this line. Concern has been expressed over the potential visual impact and impedance of growth around Highland Lake, but these problems are considered much less than the impacts associated with other segments (Q and DD) serving to conrect the northern route with the sub-station. Hence Segment P was retained for further evaluation. Segment Q Segment Q follows the half-section line just west of Mead between County Roads 34 and 34N. Because this segment would significantly hinder the future growth of Mead, it was not considered further. Segment R Segment R parallels County Road 34 between County Road 5 and the proposed Long's Peak Sub-station. Total length is 0.76 mile, all over- lapping the road right-of-way. Construction cost is $217,000/mile and agricultural land value and damages are estimated to be $1 ,272/mile for 4.38 acres of impacted agricultural land. Four residences are within 200 feet of the line and four more are within 1 ,000 feet. Six trees would have to be topped or removed and III-30 0.51 mile of existing electrical distribution line would have to be replaced. These negative impacts are sufficient to exclude Segment R from further consideration. Segment S Segment S is 0.62 mile long and follows fields southeast of the proposed Long's Peak Sub-station to the western end of Segment J. Total construction cost is $263,000/mile because of the numerous directional changes. Approxi- mately 7.5 acres of agricultural land is impacted, the value and damages of which are estimated to be $2,798/mile. Three ownerships would be split and several residences to the east might have their mountain view affected. Four trees may have to be removed or topped. Additionally, wildlife and waterfowl habitat could be moderately impacted. The impacts of Segment S must be compared with the impacts of Segment T because they are alternative elements of a southern route. Significant agricultural and cost impacts of each are presented below: Impacted Land Value Construction Segment Miles Acres and Damages, $ Cost, $ S 0.62 7.52 1 ,735 176,000 T 0.82 8.26 1 ,978 203,000 It is apparent that Segment S should be considered and Segment T disregarded. Segment T Segment T is an alternative to Segment S from the proposed Long's Peak Sub-station southeast to Segment J. Because of higher construction costs and more impacted agriculture (see Segment S) , this segment was not considered further. III-31 Segment U Segment U is located west of the St. Vrain Power Plant and serves to connect various other segments with Segment Z into the Plant. Segment U is 0.45 mile long and would cost $200,000/mile. A total of 5.36 acres of agricultural land would be affected, 64 percent of which is irrigated. Agricultural land value and damages are estimated to be $2,044/mile. No other significant impacts are associated with Segment U, thus, it was retained for further consideration. Segment V Segment V parallels and overlaps the north side of County Road 36 • between the Great Western Railroad and the intersection of Segments A and B. The estimated cost of Segment V is $200,000/mile for 2.21 miles. Because the segment overlaps the road right-of-way, agricultural land affected is limited to 13.39 acres, 12.70 acres (97 percent) of which is irrigated. Agricultural land value and damages are approximately $1 ,568/ mile. Although four residences are within 200 feet of the line and three more are within 1 ,000 feet, no other impacts are deemed significant. Based on this, Segment V was considered further. Segment W Segment W is aligned northwest-southeast, starting at County Road 34 and ending at the intersection of Segments J and D. The total length is 0.51 mile and is estimated to cost $200,000/mile. Because the line follows natural drainage, affected agricultural land is limited to 5.92 acres of pasture valued at $175/mile. III-32 Three ownerships are crossed, but these occur in the natural drainage. Wildlife and waterfowl impacts are deemed moderate because of the drainage habitat. These impacts are not considered sufficiently severe to exclude Segment W from further consideration. Segment X Segment X parallels and overlaps County Road 34N on the north side for 0.41 mile. Agricultural land impacted is limited to 2.34 acres. Agricultural land value and damages are estimated to be $1 ,529/mile and construction cost is $200,000/mile. There may be some concern for the view northward as the Town of Mead grows. There are already ten residences within 1 ,000 feet. Other than these issues, no other significant impacts were noted, thus Segment X was considered further. Segment Y Segment Y is identical to Segment K except it is located outside of the Great Western Railroad right-of-way. As was the case for Segment K, Segment Y was not considered further because of the rejection of Segment N. Segment Z Segment Z connects the St. Vrain Power Plant with all incoming segments. Its length is 0.22 mile, and cost is $200,000/mile. A total of 2.34 acres of irrigated farm land is impacted. The agricultural land value and damages are approximately $2,678/mile. No other significant impacts are associated with Segment Z. III-33 Segment AA Segment AA traverses the St. Vrain River floodplain from Segment A to Segment U. This segment must be evaluated together with Segments A, B, U, Z, and BB because Links A-AA-U-Z, A-BB-Z, and B-U-Z are alternative routes into the St. Vrain Power Plant from the north. Based on the analysis presented for Segment A, Segment AA was rejected from further consideration. Segment BB Segment BB is part of the most northerly loop connecting Segment A with the St. Vrain Power Plant. Based on the analysis presented for Segment A, Segment BB was rejected from further consideration. Segment CC Segment CC extends from Segment GG along the frontage road of I-25 to Segment HH on County Road 36. It was conceived to take advantage of some of the features of both the north and south routes. Segment CC is 1 .53 miles long and is estimated to cost $225,000/nile. Because the segment overlaps the frontage road right-of-way, only 9.28 acres of agricultural land would be affected. The associated land va'ue and damages are $1 ,505/mile. Because this segment would be along the Interstate, visual impacts . are rated severe. Although only one residence is within 1 ,000 feet, 0.38 mile of existing electrical distribution line would have to be replaced. Additionally, routing around the interchange may require special design features. III-34 Notwithstanding the above disadvantages , Segment CC was retained for further consideration in order to evaluate the overall impact of a route which utilizes parts of both a northern and southern alignment. Segment DD Segment DD follows the right-of-way of County Road 5 between County Roads 34 and 34N. Because Segment R was rejected, no useful purpose is served by further consideration of Segment DD. Segment EE Segment EE connects Segments 0 and R. Because both these segments were rejected, Segment EE was not considered further. Segment FF Segment FF parallels and overlaps County Road 34N on the north side between County Road 5 and Segment X. Its estimated construction cost is $200,000/mile for 0.45 mile. A total of 2.73 acres of irrigated cropland would be impacted. Agricultural land value and damages are estimated to be $1 ,627/mile. No other impacts were deemed significant along this segment, thus it was retained for further consideration. Segment GG Segment GG connects Segment J just east of Interstate 25 with Segment D. The total length of 0.74 mile traverses agricultural land, following property ownerships as much as possible. Approximately 8.9 acres of III-35 agricultural land are affected, valued at $2,219/mile. The construction cost is estimated to be $218,000/mile. Except for moderate impacts to wildlife and waterfowl , no other significant impacts were determined. Segment GG was , thus, retained =or further evaluation. Segment HH Segment HH parallels and overlaps the north side of County Road 36 between Interstate 25 and the Great Western Railroad. The construction cost is estimated to be $200,000/mile for 0.91 mile. Because of the utilization of a part of the county road right-of-way, only 5.52 acres of agricultural land are expected to be impacted, all of it irrigated. Land value and damages are estimated to be $1 ,625/mile. Segment HH would pass four residences within 200 feet and one more within 1 ,000 feet. Up to ten trees may have to be removed or topped. Although these are reasonably significant impacts, Segment HH was retained for further consideration because it forms a vital link with Segment CC to take advantage of some features of both a northern and southern route. III-36 CHAPTER IV ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED ROUTE ALTERNATIVES By eliminating those segments with significant adverse impacts and linking the remaining segments together in logical sequences , four preliminary alternative routes were identified. These route designations and component segments are: North: P - FF - X - M - G - V - B - U - Z South: S - J - GG - D - U - Z Drainage: P - FF - X - L - H - W - D - U - Z Interstate: S - J - CC - HH - V - B - U - Z They are illustrated on Figure IV-1 . In order to analyze these alternative routes, the impacts presented in Table III-2 and discussed in Chapter III were aggregated to form total alternative route impacts. These are presented in Table IV-1 and discussed below. North Route The North Route follows and overlaps the north side of County Road 34N right-of-way and after traversing the half-section line out of the Long's Peak Sub-station, traverses the half-section line to the Great Western Railroad. It follows and overlaps the railroad right-of-way northeast to County Road 36. From here it follows/overlaps the road right-of-way to just east of County Road 15 where it proceeds southeast through the natural drainage, across the St. Vrain River floodplain and IV-1 • LJ moo. VRAII\ - -i POk,I1ER _ __ - RLANT C LONG'S REAM SUBSTATION FIGURE IV— I ALTERNATIVES AND RECOMMENDED ROUTE Recommended Route (NORTH) TABLE IV-1 IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES °' a) CO CD 4-3 b N S= S C i Impact s = '� +; Category Type of Impact z N o ,. Agriculture Acres of Impacted Land (1 ) Irrigated 50.48 60.25 31 .44 74.44 Dryland 3.26 1 .25 2.57 1 .94 Pasture 18.53 47.36 67.47 17.99 Total 72.27 108.86 101 .48 94.37 Impacted Land Value, $ (4) Irrigated 12,622 15,063 7,861 18,611 Dryland 284 109 224 169 Pasture 278 710 1 ,012 270 Total 13,184 15,882 9,097 19,050 Agricultural Damage, $ (5) Irrigated 681 544 331 912 Dryland 6 2 4 4 Pasture 0 1 1 0 Total 687 547 336 916 Urban Development Impact on Growth (6) N N S N Ownership Patterns No. of Ownerships Split 9 12 15 8 Aesthetics Impact on View (6) N S S S Proximity to Residences within 200 ft. 6 2 3 11 Residences (7) Residences between 200-1000 ft. 25 5 24 8 Trees & Other Trees Removed/Topped (8) 12 24 12 34 Obstructions Mi. of Existing Lines Altered(8) Q 0 0 0.38 Costs Length of Line, mi. 8.38 9.07 8.96 10.14 Directional Changes 25°-55° 7 14 14 11 55°-90° 0 0 1 2 Basic Line Cost, $M (9) 1 .676 1 .814 1 .792 2.028 Directional Change Costs, $1000 (10) 91 182 218 215 Total Line Cost, $M 1 .767 1 .996 2.010 2.243 Potential Miles of Road ROW 3.47 0.35 ` .21 4.98 Contingencies Miles of Floodplain Crossing(11) 0.78 1 .35 " .35 0.78 Miles of Water Crossing (12) 0 0.39 0.36 0.11 Highway Extra Height Required Yes Yes Yes No Crossing Extra Span Required No No No No Ecosystem Erosion Potential (6) S S S S Stresses Wildlife Impacts P 1 M M M Waterfowl Impacts S M M M IV-3 TABLE IV-1 (Continued) IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FOOTNOTES: 1 . Calculated at ROW Width x Segment Length 2. Industrial Land 3. Residential Land 4. Acres x $/ac (from Table III-1 ) 5. Miles x $/mi (from Table III-1) 6. N - Negligible S - Slight M - Moderate H - Heavy 7. Estimated from Aerial Photos 8. Field Estimates 9. $200,000 x Line Length (mi ) 10. $13,000 for 25°-55° $36,000 for 55°-90° 11 . St. Vrain River Floodplain 12. Not including St. Vrain River IV-3a into the St. Vrain Atomic Power Plant. The total construction cost is estimated to be $1 .77 Million for 8.38 miles of line. Total agricultural land affected is 72.3 acres, 50.5 acres (70 percent) of which is irrigated cropland. The total agricultural land value and damages are estimated to be $13,871 . Nine ownerships would be crossed and 31 residences are within 1 ,000 feet. Growth and view impacts are deemed negligible. No existing electrical distribution lines would require replacement. This route utilizes existing rights-of-way over 59 percent of its length. In all probability extra height towers would be required to cross Interstate 25 at the railroad. Ecosystem stresses are deemed slight to moderate. South Route The South Route leaves the Long's Peak Sub-station, traversing fields to the southeast. It then follows the half-section line just south of County Road 34, crossing Interstate 25 south of the Mead intersection. It bends east by northeast to circumvent Lake Thomas and the new Public Service reservoir under construction. From here it follows a natural drainage pattern, crossing the St. Vrain River floodplain and north to the St. Vrain Atomic Power Plant. Total length of the South Route is 9.07 miles which is estimated to cost slightly less than $2.0 M. A total of 109 acres of agricultural land would be impacted, 60 acres (55 percent) of which is irrigated. The value and damages of the agricultural land is estimated to be $16,429. Because this route traverses fields and follows natural drainage patterns, 12 ownerships would be crossed and 24 trees may have to be IV-4 removed or topped, but only seven residences would be within 1 ,000 feet. The visual impact is rated slight, but growth impact is negligible. Only 0.35 miles or four percent of the total length of line follows/overlaps existing rights-of-way so that no existing electrical distribution lines require altering. A total of 0.39 miles of water would be crossed. This and the routing through agricultural land may cause moderate wildlife and waterfowl impacts. Drainage Route The Drainage Route leaves the Long's Peak Sub-station along the half- section line and follows/overlaps the north side of County Road 34N to just west of County Road 7. From here it follows a natural drainage pattern south and east, crossing the Great Western Railroad and Inter- state 25. The Interstate crossing is just north of the Mead intersection. After this, the route continues to follow natural drainage patterns , first moving southeast across County Road 34, then east along Lake Thomas and the Public Service reservoir, crossing the St. Vrain River floodplain and into the Fort St. Vrain Power Plant. Total estimated construction cost is $2.01 M for 8.96 miles of line. Total impacted land is equal to 101 acres, 31 acres (31 percent) of which is irrigated cropland. The value and damages of this land is estimated to be $9,433. Growth and visual impacts are slight. Fifteen ownerships would be crossed and 27 residences would be within 1 ,000 feet. Twelve trees may require removal or topping, but no existing electrical distribution lines would be altered. Existing right-of-way utilization would be 14 percent IV-5 of line length, all at the western end. Wildlife and waterfowl would suffer moderate impacts because of 0.36 miles of water crossings and use of the natural drainage patterns. Interstate Route The Interstate Route leaves the Long's Peak Sub-station crossing fields to the southeast. From west of County Road 5 it follows the half- section line to just east of Interstate 25. At this point the route travels north, following and overlapping the frontage road right-of-way to County Road 36. It then follows/overlaps the right-of-way of County Road 36 on the north side to just east of County Road 15. From here the route proceeds southeast following a natural drainage pattern, across the St. Vrain River floodplain and into the St. Vrain Power Plant. The total length of the Interstate Route is 10.14 miles, estimated to cost $2.24 M. A total of 94 acres of agricultural land would be affected, 79 percent (74 acres) of which is irrigated. Agricultural land value and damages are estimated to be $19,966. Because of the proximity to Interstate 25, the visual impacts are rated slight. No growth impact is perceived. Eight ownerships would be crossed and 19 residences would be within 1 ,000 feet. A total of 34 trees may require topping or removal . Utilizing the existing road right-of-way over 49 percent of the line length would require alteration to 0.38 miles of existing electrical distribution lines. Wildlife and waterfowl impacts would be moderate because the line crosses 0.11 miles of water and some agricultural land. IV-6 RECOMMENDED ROUTE There are only minor impact variations among all alternative routes except in terms of agricultural affects and construction costs. These significantly different impacts are summarized below: Value and Acres of Damages of Agricultural Construction Alternative Impacted Land Impacted Cost Route Miles Agriculture ($) ($M) North 8.38 72 13,871 1 .77 South 9.07 109 16,429 2.00 Drainage 8.96 101 9,433 2.01 Interstate 10.14 94 19,996 2.24 The Drainage Route offers the least agricultural land value and damages although significant more acreage is affected. This is because of the high utilization of pasture land as opposed to irrigated cropland. However, the construction cost of the Drainage Route is high. More importantly, this route does not utilize road rights-of-way in contradiction to Weld County's desire. Both the South and Interstate Routes have high construction costs and affect more agriculture with high value and damages. The North Route is the best overall route and, thus , is recommended for approval . It would affect at least 23 percent less agricultural land than any other alternative. The value and damages of that land is less than all other alternatives but the Drainage Route. However, the Drainage Route is almost 0.6 miles longer and would cost $240,000 more. The con- struction cost of the North Route is also significantly less than any other alternative. IV-7 REFERENCES 1 . Brown, Ralph H. , "Historical Geography of the United States," Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. , New York, 1948. 2. Future Development Plan Mead, Colorado, Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, June, 1972. 3. U. S. Department of Commerce, Climatology of the United States , No. 60-5, Climates of the States: Colorado, Joseph W. Berry, Environmental Science Services Administration, April , 1968. 4. Paddock, Mark W. , "Climate and Topography," Natural History of the Boulder Region, University of Colorado Museum, 1964. 5. Comprehensive Water Quality Management Plan, South Platte River Basin, Colorado Department of Health by Engineering Consultants , Inc. , Denver, Colorado, 1974. 6. MacPhail , Donald D. , "Land Use Patterns, Practices , and Problems in the Poudre Triangle of Northern Colorado," University of Colorado, 1972. 7. Larimer-Weld Regional Open Space Study and Comprehensive Plans, Larimer-Weld Regional Planning Commission, October, 1973. 8. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, "Soil Survey of Survey Areas 617 and 618," February, 1976. 9. Personal Communication, Dan Shrupp, Colorado Division of Wildlife, 19 October 1976. 10. Maslin, Paul T. , "Amphibious and Reptiles , Natural History of the Boulder Region," University of Colorado, 1964. 11 . Basic Factors Affecting Agricultural Impact, Volume I , Claude L. Fly and Associates, August, 1975. 12. Weld County Comprehensive Plan, Weld County Planning Commission Staff, September 1973. 13. Official Zoning Map Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Planning Commission Staff, September 10, 1976. 14. Personal Communication , Mayor Robert Clark, Mead, Colorado, 8 October 1976. 15. Environmental Report, 230 KV Transmission Lines , Ault/Fort Collins and Loveland/Longmont, for Platte River Power Authority by Commonwealth Associates , Inc. , March 1975. 16. Personal Communication, Dave Stuart, State Archaeologist Office, 22 October 1976. 17. Personal Communication, Gil Olsen, Utility Coordinator, Weld County Engineering Office, 7 October 1976. 18. Personal Communication, J. W. Kelly, General Manager, Great Western Railroad, 13 October 1976. 19. Personal Communication, William Slimack, Director of Engineering, Platte River Power Authority, 12 October 1976. APPENDIX A LAND USE POLICIES WELD COUNTY, COLORADO The following land use policies for the protection of agriculture in Weld County are quoted from the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, Weld County Planning Staff, September 1973. 1 . Agriculture is considered a valuable resource in Weld County which must be protected from adverse impacts resulting from uncontrolled and undirected business , industrial and residential growth. In order to maintain and promote this important segment of the county's economy, the cultural and human values associated with farm life and the overall benefits of an agricultural environment, any uses of prime irrigated farmland for uses other than agricultural will be critically reviewed to insure the proposed development will not adversely impact the agri- cultural interests of the county and that the development will positively contribute to the overall economy, environment and tax base of the county. 2. The expansion and development of agri-business and agriculturally oriented industry will be encouraged, provided these enterprises do not adversely affect the total economy or environment. 3. In order to minimize conflicting land uses and minimize the cost of new facilities and services to the taxpayer, industrial , commercial , business and residential development will be en- couraged to locate adjacent to the existing 27 incorporated towns and in accordance with the comprehensive plans and stated wishes of each community. Where new developments desire to locate in the rural areas away from the existing municipalities , they will be required to justify their development with a detailed plan (Planned Unit Development) accompanied by an economic impact statement and an environmental impact statement prepared by recognized experts, showing all details of how the proposed development would affect the local and county's economic base, the tax revenues and cost of public services such as schools, utilities, roads and health services, and the immediate and longterm impact on the existing environment. 4. Because adequate water supplies are essential for agricultural production, each nonagricultural development will be encouraged to obtain its necessary water from sources which are considered nonessential to the maintenance of agricultural production in the particular area. In support of this concept, highest priorities will be given to those developments that have low rates of water consumption. In pursuit of these objectives , A-1 it will be the policy to obtain comments from those ditch companies , water districts and other water resource agencies which maintain records and control the transfer of water properties in a particular area. 5. Because water, air and surface pollution are of vital concern to all residents of the county, the state and the nation, it will be the policy to encourage only those developments that can show that they will not contribute adversely to pollution; or if they do contribute to the pollution problem of the area, that they are prepared to either build appropriate control devices at their own expense or will pay sufficient revenues to the existing pollution controlling districts or agencies to insure proper treatment without increasing the cost to the existing users of the system. 6. In order to promote the agricultural economy and to enhance and maintain the quality of life and environment in Weld County, developments that utilize nonproductive rural land and water surpluses will be encouraged, particularly where productive irrigated farmland can be preserved as agricultural greenbelts and open space. Construction in flood plains, seep areas , geological fault areas and other dangerous or undesirable building environments will be discouraged. However, development of these same areas as parks , recreation areas , water and land reclamation areas, sand and gravel sources , commercial feed lots, and areas for hunting, fishing and other activities which contribute to the economy or improve the environment will be encouraged. A-2 • APPENDIX B WELD COUNTY ZONING USE AND DENSITY SCHEDULES AGRICULTURAL ZONE DISTRICTS The use and density schedules for agricultural zone districts it Weld County presented on the following pages were excerpted from Official Zoning Resolution, Weld County Colorado, Office of the Planring Commission, December 1973. B-1 USE AND DENSITY SCHEDULES SECTION III 3 . 1 Reference The following schedules of regulations applying to the use of the land , and the use , lot area , lot width , height , yards , setback and floor area of and about buildings , and all other matters contained herein , as indicated for the various districts established by this Resolution , are here- by adopted and declared to be a part of this Resolution , and may be amended in the same manner as any other part of this Resolution . The regulations listed for each dist'-ict as designated read either from left to right or top to bottom of each schedule . 3 . 2 Listing of Uses The listing of any use in said schedule as being per- mitted in any particular district shall be deemed to be an exclusion of such use from a more restricted district , un- less such use is sper_ificalij permitted in the more re- stricted district under the language set forth in the schedule . 3 . 3 Uses Permitted in the A- I Agricultural Zone District A . Intent - The intent in establishing the A- I Agricultural Zone District is to allow all agricultural and related uses in those areas in which agriculture is and should continue to be the predominant land use . This district is intended to discourage encroachment of incompatible uses upon the agricultural land in the district , to encourage agricultural uses as the highest and best use of the land in the district as compared with other uses in conflict therewith , and to provide for the orderly expansion of urban growth in conformance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . B . Uses Permitted by Right 1 . Farming , Ranching and Gardening ; 2 . Farm dwellings or buildings reasonably necessary to the advancement of a farm use ; 3 . The following accessory structures and uses shall be permitted when they are appurtenent to the principal permitted use : a . Living quarters for persons customarily employed at the principal permitted use as listed in this Resolution . b . Office incidental to the operation of permitted use . c . Garage , parking area . B-2 USE AND DENSITY SCHEDULES d . Mobile homes subject to the additional requirements of Section 6 . 1 ( 2 ) of this Resolution . e . Roadside stands when the products are grown on the premises . Such stands shall be situ - ated not less than 50 feet from the public right-of-way . 4 . Cultivation , storage and sale of crops , vegetables , plants , flowers and nursery stock raised on the premises ; and temporary storage in transit of crops not raised on the premises and not for sale on said premises ; 5 . Cemeteries ; 6 . Grange Halls ; 7 . Grazing ; 8 . Oil Drilling Facilities ; 9 . Public parks , playgrounds and other public recre- ation areas owned and operated by a governmental or other non-profit agency ; 10 . Public utility mains , lines and substations . . . . where no public office and no repair or storage facilities are mainLained ; 11 . Truck farms , sod ( turf ) farms , greenhouses and nurseries including cultivation , storage and sale of crops , vegetables , plants , flowers and nursery stock raised on the premises , and temporary storage in transit of crops not raised on the premises and not for sale on said premises ; 12 . One-family dwelling on a parcel of land created under the provisions of Section 9 of the Subdivision Regulations of Weld County , August 30 , 1972 . C . Temporary Uses 1 . A temporary permit may be obtained from the Planning Department upon the filing of an application re- questing a temporary use and accompanied with a $10 . 00 application fee . Temporary stands , structures , motor vehicles and trailers shall be removed on the date of termination of the permit unless a specific date is stated herein . Temporary structures shall be shown to be so constructed as to not constitute a fire hazard or hazard to the health or safety of the public prior to issuance of the permit . Such temporary stands or structures shall not be con- structed of materials which are substantially de- teriorated , nor shall any of the above tempoary stands , structures , motor vehicles or trailers be allowed to deteriorate to the point where they shall constitute a fire or other hazard to the health , safety or welfare of the public . ( In those cases B-3 USE AND DENSITY SCHEDULES where a public hearing is required before issuance of a temporary use permit , the application fee shall be $25 . 00 . ) 2 . The following may be operated as uses by temporary permit and need not be enclosed within a building : a . Temporary construction yard or building for construction materials and equipment , mobile home for office use , and concrete batch plants , incidental and necessary for construction in agricultural zone districts . Each permit shall specify the location of the building , mobile home office , yard or batch plant . No area more than two miles distant shall be served by such temporary building , mobile home office or yard . Each permit hall be valid for a period cf not more than six calendar months and may be re- newed for three successive six-month periods at the same location . • b . Temporary office incidental and necessary for the sale of new construction by the permittee . Each permit shall specify the location of the office and the area within which such sales may be made . No area more than two miles distant from the office shall be served . Each permit shall be valid for a period of not more than six calendar months and may be renewed for three successive six-month periods at the same location . c . Mobile homes may be used for temporary living quarters incidental and necessary for the con- struction of a residence on the property , sub- ject to the additional requirements of Section 6 . 1 ( 2 ) of this Resolution . d . Temporary group assemblages subject to the addi - tional requirements of Section 6 . 7 of th- s Reso- lution . A public hearing will be required be- fore a permit for such assemblages can be issued . D . Conditonal Uses 1 . The Planning Commission is authorized to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval or denial of the following uses and to recommend re- quirements for the operation of said uses . Any ex- pansion or enlargement of a permitted conditional use shall be treated as a new application under the provisions hereof . 2 . The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following in making their determination in approving or denying a conditional use permit : Compatibility with the surrounding area , harmony with the character of the B-4 USE AND DENSITY SCHEDULES _ neighborhood and existing agricultural uses in the area , need for the pronosed use , its effect upon the immediate area , its effect on future develop- ment of the area , and the health , safety and wel - fare of the inhabitants of the area and the County . 3 . Before a permit for a conditional use permit is issued , the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall determine through hearings , that the following plans , methods and studies , which shall accompany the application for a conditional use permit , provide adequate pro- tection of the heath , safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the County . a . A certified boundary survey of the property for which application is made may be required . b . Plot plan showing location of all proposed buildings , parking areas , ingress and egress , waste disposal areas , other constructional features and landscaping . c . Description of proposed operation in suf'icient detail to indicate effects of operation in pro- ducing air and water pollution , odor , noise , glare , fire or other safety hazards and traffic congestion . d . Methods for disposal of sewage or other wastes in a sanitary and healthful manner . e . Methods for supplying water in such a manner as to be adequate in quantity , quality and de- pendability for the proposed use . f . Plan to show drainage and drainage facil ' ties . g . Plan showing traffic circulation . h . Plans for improving roads and methods of fi - nancing road improvements in those cases where roads to be maintained by the County are below County standards . i . Soil Study of the site . j . All plans or plot plans , as required , must be submitted to the Weld County Planning Depart- ment for its study and recommendations at least 20 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date . k . Application fee of $25 . 00 . 1 . Any of the above requirements may be waived by the Planning Commission or its authorized agent . 4 . The following uses are permitted upon the granting of a conditional use permit by the County Commision- ers : — --- - — - -a . Administrative Offices , Agricultural Organizations ; b . Animal training center , pets ; c . Churches and church schools ; d . Fairgrounds ; B-5 USE AND DENSITY SCHEDULES e . Firewood production f . Fish Hatchery g . Fur Farm h . Golf Course i . Guest Lodge j . Guest Farm k . Institution for aged 1 . Institution for children m. Pipeline Terminal n . Private air landing strip o . Public and private schools p . Riding stable q . Reformatory r. Television transmitting , relay station s . Wild game production t . Veterinary Hospital u . One-family dwellings other than those permitted under Section 3 . 3 ( B ) of this Resolution , sub- ject to the additional requirements of Sectiog 6 . 6 of this Resolution . E . Special Uses 1 . The Planning Commission is authorized to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval or denial of the following uses and to recommend con- ditions and requirements for the operation of said uses . Any expansion or enlargement of a Special Use shall be treated as a new application under the provisions hereof . 2 . The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following in making their determination in approving or denying a special use permit : Compatibility with the sur- rounding area , harmony with the character of the neighborhood and existing agricultural uses , need for the proposed use , its effect upon the immediate area , its effect on future development of the area and the health , safety and welfare of the inhabi - tants of the area and the County . 3 . Before a permit for a special use is issued , the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall determine through public hearings , that the following plans , methods and studies , which shall accompany the application for a special use permit , provide adequate protection of the health , safety and welfare of the inhabi - tants of the area and the County . a . A certified boundary survey of property for which application is made may be required . b . Plot plan showing location of all proposed buildings , parking area , ingress and egress , B-6 USE AND DENSITY SCHEDULES waste disposal areas , other constructional features and landscaping . c . Description of proposed operation in sufficient detail to indicate effects of operation in pro- ducing air and water pollution , odor , noise , glare , fire or other safety hazards and traffic congestion . d . Methods for disposal of sewage or other wastes in a sanitary and healthful manner . e . Methods for supplying water in such a manner as to be adequate in quantity , quality and dependa- bility for the proposed use . f . Plan to show drainage and drainage facilities . g . Proposed number of shifts to be worked and maxi - mum number of employees . h . All plans or plot plans , as required , must be submitted to the Weld County Planning Depart- ment for its study and recommendations at least 20 days prior to the Planning Commission hearing date . i . Soil study of site . j . Application fee of $25 . 00 . 4 . The following uses are permitted upon the granting of a special use 2 rmit by the Board of County Commissioners: a . Airports b . Asphalt plants c . Batch plants ( concrete ) d . Cattle feedlots and the raising of sheep , swine , rabbits and other animals for commercial use subject to the additional requirements of Section 6 . 1 (4 ) of this Resolution . • e . Dairies f . Dog Kennels subject to the additional require- ments of Section 6 . 1 ( 10 ) of this Resolution . g . Fertilizer (organic ) storage and sale where the fertilizer is stored for longer than one ( 1 ) year , subject to the additional requirements of Section 6 . 1 ( 5 ) of this Resolution . h . Junk yards i . Outdoor shooting ranges subject to the additional requirements of Section 6 . 1 ( 6 ) of this Reso- lution . j . Poultry production (chickens , ducks , geese , turkeys ) subject to the additional requirements of Section 6 . 1 ( 7 ) of this Resolution . k . Salvage yards 1 . Sand and gravel pits , quarries and open mining operations subject to the additional requirements of Section 6 . 1 ( 3 ) of this Resolution . B-7 USE AND DENSITY SCHEDULES m . Sanitary land fill ( solid waste disposal sites ) subject to the additional requirements of Section 6 . 1 ( 8 ) of this Resolution . n . Sewage systems ( pumping stations , sludge drying sites ) subject to the additional requirements of Section 6 . 1 ( 9 ) of this Resolution . o . Slaughter houses and packing houses p . Storage tanks F . Listed Uses Permitted by Right , Temporary Uses , Condi - tional Uses and Special Uses - As defined by Section 6 . 1 ( 1 ) of this Resolution , all Uses Permitted by Right , Temporary Uses , Conditional Uses and Special Uses listed in this Resolution are representative and are not all inclusive . Unlisted uses of a similar nature to those listed herein are subject to review to the same extent as those listed . G . Minimum Lot Area - 80 acres - Variance from this mini - mum lot area shall be considered a Conditional Use subject to the provisions of Section 3 . 3 ( D ) of this Resolution ; or a Special Use subject to the provisions of Section 3 . 3 ( E ) of this Resolution . H . Building Permits - No building permit shall be issued for any construction on any parcel of land in th' s zone which is not a "Legal Lot" as defined in Section 12 . 2 of this Resolution; or unless the building permit is to be issued in connection with a legal non-conforming use pursuant to the provisions of Section VII of this Reso- lution ; or in connection with a legal Conditional Use pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 . 3 ( D ) of this Resolution ; or in connection with a legal Special Use pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 . 3 ( F ) of this Resolution . I . Vehicular Access to County Roads - Vehicular Access to county roads will be limited to one per lot ; location of the access subject to the approval of the Weld County Public Works Director . ( Rev . 12/26/73 ) 3 . 3 ( I ) Uses Permitted in the A-D Agricultural Zone District A . Intent - The intent in establishing the A-D Agricultur- al Zone District is to allow all agricultural and re- lated uses in those areas in which agriculture is and should continue to be the predominant land use . This district is intended to discourage encroachment of in- compatible uses upon the agricultural land in the district ; to encourage agricultural uses as the righest and best use of land in the district as compared with other uses in conflict therewith ; and to provide for the orderly expansion of urban growth in conformance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan . B-8 USE AND D E N SI T_Y SCHEDULES B . Uses Permitted bL Right - All uses listed as Uses Permitted by Right in the A- I Agricultural Zone District . C . Temporary Uses - All uses listed as Temporary Uses in the A- I Agricultural District . The requirements =or application , and all additional requirements specified for particular temporary uses in the A- I Agricultural District shall apply to temporary uses in the A-D Agricultural Zone District . D . Conditional Uses - All uses listed as Conditional Uses in the A- 1 Agricultural District . The requirements for application , and all additional requirements speci - fied for particular conditional uses in the A- I Agri - cultural Zone District shall apply to conditional uses in the A-D Agricultural Zone District . E . Special Uses - All uses listed as Special Uses in the A- I Agricultural District . The requirements for ap- plication and all additional requirements specified for particular special uses in the A- I Agricultural District shall apply to special uses in the A-D Agri - cultural Zone District . F . Listed Uses Permitted by Right , Temporary Uses , Condi - tional Uses and Specia1_ Uses - As defined by Section 6 . 1 ( 17 of this Resolution , all Uses Permitted by Right , Temporary Uses , Conditional Uses and Special Uses listed in this Resolution are representative and are not all inclusive . Uilisted uses of a similar nature to those listed herein are subject to review to the same extent as those listed . G . Minimum Lot Area - 160 acres - Variance from this mini - mum lot area shall be considered a Conditional Use sub- ject to the provisions of Section 3 . 3 ( I ) (D ) of this Resolution , or a Special Use subject to the provisions of Section 3 . 3 ( I ) ( E ) of this Resolution . H . Building Permits - No building permit shall be issued for any construction on any parcel of land in this zone which is not a "Legal Lot " as defined in Section 12 . 2 of this Resolution ; or unless the building permit is to be issued in connection with a legal non-conforming use pursuant to the provisions of Section VII of this Resolution ; or in connection with a legal Conditional Use pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 . 3 ( I ) ( D ) of this Resolution ; or in connection with a legal Special Use pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 . 3 ( I ) ( E ) of this Resolution . I . Vehicular Access to County Roads - Vehicular access to county roads will be limited to one per lot ; location of the access subject to the approval of the Weld County Public Works Director . B-9 Impact Category Type of Impact Agriculture Acres of Impacted Land (1 ) Irrigated Dryland Pasture Total Impacted Land Value, $ (4) Irrigated Dryland Pasture Total Agricultural Damage, $ (5) Irrigated Dryland Pasture Total Urban Development Impact on Growth (6) Ownership Patterns No. of Ownerships Split Aesthetics Impact on View (6) Proximity to Residences within 200 ft. Residences (7) Residences between 200-1000 ft. Trees & Other Trees Removed/Topped (8) Obstructions Mi. of Existing Lines Altered(8) Costs Length of Line, mi. Directional Changes 25°-55° 55°-90° Basic Line Cost, $M (9) Directional Change Costs, $1000 (10) Total Line Cost, $M Potential Miles of Road ROW Contingencies Miles of Floodplain Crossing(11 ) Miles of Water Crossing (12) Highway Extra Height Required Crossing Extra Span Required Ecosystem Erosion Potential (6) Stresses Wildlife Impacts Waterfowl Impacts The following described lots or parcels of land situate, lying and being in the County of Weld , State of Colorado, to-wit: The W1 of the SE 1/4 and the SE 1/4 of the SE14 and all that part of the SW'4 of Section 10 , in Township 3 North of Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows : Beginning at the South quarter corner of Section 10 , thence West 1717 feet along the South line of said Section, thence North 340 feet, thence West 129 feet, thence North 460 feet, thence West 426 feet, thence North 9° 20 ' East 969 feet to the right of way of The Great Western Railway Company, thence North- easterly along the Southerly right of way line of The Great Western Railway Company 1100 feet, more or less on a curve to the right, thence North 75° 50 ' East 1171 feet along said southerly right of way line to the North and South center line of said Section 10 , thence South 2575 feet, more or less to the place of beginning , together with i of one share of the capital stock of the Highland Ditch Company and 160 shares of stock of the Highland Lake Reservoir Company and one share of the Highland Ditch Lateral Company. All of Blocks 2 and 4, in the Town of Mead , excepting from said Block 4, parcels as conveyed by Deeds recorded in Book 241, page 298, Book 254, page 1.49 and Book. 917, page 301 , Weld County Records , together with any and all other water rights appertaining to said land, located in Weld County, State of Colorado. except that portion thereof described as follows: 11 tract of land containing 5 .007 acres more or less , situated in the Southwest Quarter (SW14) of Section Ten (10) in Township Three (3) North, of Range 68 West of the 6th P. M. , Weld County, Colorado, described as follows : Beginning at a point on the West line of the Southwest Quarter (SW'4) of said Section Ten ( 10) from which point the Southwest corner of said Section Ten (10) bears South 540 feet , thence North 89° 15 ' East 964 . 1 feet to the true point of beginning; thence North 87°' 26 ' East 350 feet, thence North 17° 2L ' East 650 feet, thence South 87° 26 ' West 350 feet, thence South 17° 26 ' West 445 . 24 feet, thence North f.9° 53 ' West 225 .86 feet to the East line Fairbairn Avenue in the 'l'own of Mead , 2 4 / s Referrals Platte River Power Authority Approval of Loction of Transmission Lines November 17, 1976 Percy Hiatt Rt. 1, Box 225 Platteville, CO 80651 t/- County Engineer Soil Conservation Service State Office ./ 2490 W. 26th Ave. 0 P. O. Box 17107 Denver, CO 80217 Ag Council b/2205 1st Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 a Norman Brown Colorado Geological Survey ,j' 1313 Sherman Street Seventh Floor Denver, CO 80203 Mead Planning Commission Town Hall o Mead, CO 80524 Platteville Planning Commission L-P. O. Box 6 m Platteville, CO 80651 State Highway Department 4,- 1420 Second Street Greeley, CO 80631 Mead Lateral Eddie Mill Farmers National Bank Ault, CO 80610 Supply Irrigating Ditch Company George Landers Box 209 Longmont, CO 80501 ! i r A DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES fiq Rr. WELD COUNTY CENTENNIAL CENTER 'L 91510th STREET 4 GREELEV,COLORADO 80631 WI I GARY Z. FORTNER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OPHONE (3031 356.4000, EXT 400 COLORADO November 17, 1976 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Enclosed is an application from Platte River Power Authority for a Approval of Location of Transmission Line • This item will be heard before the Weld County Planning Commission on December 9, 1976 . If you have any comments or suggestions, may we please hear from you before November 29, 1976 . The loca- tion of the parcel of land for which this application has been submit- ted is Sections 8 , 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 , ON R68W and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, N, Ib7W Thank you. Enclosures WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GLENN K BILLINGS VICTOR JACOBUCCI ROY MOSER NORMAN CARLSON JUNE S1I NNARK ir 11 WELD COUNTY COLORADO For Action To Tom Honn Date December 7 , 1976 ,. For Info To Your Action Or Reply Is Required ., Subject: Platte River Power On Or Before Authority Transmission Line Request that a minimum clearance of 12 ' from inside face of pole or structure to shoulder of county road. This is based on a distance of 16 ' from centerline of road to the shoulder Vertical Clearance as indicated in the report (28' ) will be adequate . A permit will be required and the permit regulations must be adhered to.1/./1-a-,;z4hzz' &G. Frank Smith, Ji' mfm AGRIC TURE COUNCIL OF WELD _JUNTY "Progress Through Unity" DecenDer 111.; 76 Yr. Gary Fortner held County Planning Director Centennial Center 915, 16th NATIONAL Greeley, Colo. , 80631 FARMERS ORGANIZATION N Dear Sir; F COLLECTIVE O BARGAINING The Weld County Agricultural Councils policy on prop- osed transmission lines is that they snould be located fRocky Mountain where they will do the least disruption to agriculture. Farmers Union U Ue are on record as opposing aiagonal lines across ccun-- try that splits land into all kinds of oc6d pieces and WELD COUNTY FARM BUREAU _�,:._� shapes. We believe lines should be kept along county jf COLORADO p„ ':AF[IF;" road right of ways unless a natural area or feature makes annother route have less impact on the area. In view WELD COUNTY of this policy the route that/Appears to meet our gen- LIVESTOCK ASSOCIATION oral recommendations would be along the arainage route. WELD COUNTY This appears to offer less disruption to dwellings and TAXPAYERS' ASSOCIATION farming in general. «4' 1`*t P,�,, sincerely 'rr' ,' . --4-; :.„_..,.._ �+ _ l ,. ,, ,, :4, ,,;„...„,.._ ... J . Norman Brown Chairman Planning & Zoning Committee public Service Company CC®lurando P.O.BOX 840•DENVER,COLORADO 80201 December 17, 1976 Mr. Bill Slimak Director of Engineering Platte River Power Authority 3030 South College Avenue Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 Dear Mr. Slimak: In response to our meeting on December 14, 1976, in respect to your proposed power line from Fort St. Vrain to Longs Peak Sub across Public Service Company's land, we would like to submit to you the following: We are returning herewith air photos on which has been indicated a proposed route across Lake Marie, Lake Thomas and Fort St. Vrain land. This proposed route, as it affects Public Service Company's property, can be dis- cussed with Weld County Planning staff as being feasible, and we are hereby authorizing PRPA to survey and engineer the proposed transmission line for the route shown on the air photos. It is our understanding that you will follow property lines. Also, that when the route is surveyed, engineered and tower locations set, you will notify the Company so that this can be reviewed by our Engineering Department. It is also our understanding that we are not committing ourselves to a right-of-way or other matters such as cost thereof and that these things will be negotiated later. I hope this will be sufficient so that you can proceed with your planning, and we are awaiting hearing from you in regard to other aspects of this proposed location. Also, if there are any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, Manager Real Estate and Lan Use CAH:lg Enclosures _town o/ Mead Box 217, Weld County, Colorado 80542 VIRGINIA M. FREI, TOWN CLERK December 7, 1976 ROBERT A. CLARK, MAYOR 535-4400 535-4564 . ' /4 ?z J (._ Jan„1;%,1 G.�i `� - '9,-)c 9� - `-ley. P�_r. Ken ��c4�illiems r'?%7rj T eld County Ilanni.tr, Commission 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado Dear Ur. PTcU illiams: The Planning Commission of the Town of Lead met 1' onday, December 6 for the purrose of making a decision on the route which they felt would be best suited for the transmission line of the Platte River Tower Authority from the Fort St. Vrain power plant to the Lon J's Peak Substation. It was the decision of the Commission to recommend the drainage route as they felt this route would interfere with less people, would interfere with less land now used for agriculture and would not interfere with future rrrowth of the Torn of read. Sinc ely, O C2--(-- /1.e_, Virgi a F. Frei Town _,erk v / UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE 1228 Main Street, Longmont, CO 80501 November 26, 1976 - Mr. Ken McWilliams, Planner Department of Planning Services I', , Weld County Centennial Centers_, 915--10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Ken: The application by the Platte River Power Authority has been reviewed and the following comments are submitted: 1. The recommended route would affect less prime agricul- tural land. 2. The soils information is accurate and erosion hazards should be minimal if exposed areas are reseeded. 3. Reseeding should be compatible with the surrounding areas, but Smooth Brome grass at the rate of 15#/acre of pure live seed would be adapted to the entire area. 4. I feel the agricultural land values and estimates are much too low and unrealistic. 5. Based on recent experience with a power line built in southwest Weld County, I feel the county or some other agency rather than PRPA should retain control of final pole and guy wire placement. In the past these have been made often times without regard to irrigation systems, use of large farm equipment and farming at night. Sincerely, Carrol E. Hamon District Conservationist Weld STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYSI-25 County 25, N. of Mead JACK KINSTLINGER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Platte River itssld' t Power Authority DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS 230 kV Trans. DISTRICT 4 Line E N. HAASE r r DWIGHT M BOWER CHIEF ENGINEER ~r (S,NER01.' DISTRICT ENGINEER STATE OF COLORADO P O BOX 850-1420 . 2ND ST • GREELEY. COLORADO 80631 • (303) 353.1232 November 23, 1976 DOH FILE 04-41 Mr. Ken McWilliams � /✓0�. Planner 1 ,� F Weld County Planning Services Weld County Centennial Center 915 Tenth Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Mr. McWilliams: The Colorado Division of Highways has reviewed the application from Platte River Power Authority for an approval of Location of Transmission Line (230 kV Transmission Lines, Fort St. Vrain/Mead) and has the following comments. In reviewing the alternate routes, the route recommended in the environmental report is satisfactory to the Division (Route Interstate North) since it does take advantage of the railroad alignment giving double use of land. The Division would like to discourage lines of this type paralleling highway right of way as it would place economic restraints on widening of the roadway. Whichever alternate is selected, the Division would request that we be allowed to review the final plans where the proposed transmission line is crossing or paralleling highway right of way. Also, as Platte River Power Authority is aware, an Interstate Utility Crossing Permit is needed and is available through Mr. Dave Fraser, District Maintenance Superintendent, P. 0. Box 850, Greeley, Colorado 80631 . Thank you for allowing the Division to review the above. Very truly yours, DWIGHT M. BOWER DISTRICT ENGINEER Albert Chotvacs Assistant District Engineer AC: da cc: D. M. Bower Fraser-Rangel File: Graham w/encl . via Finch-Patrick-Crier 1 ,A RICHARD D LAMM IK , JOHN W. ROLD If ,� GOVERNOR Director SANE ryJN COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING - 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303) 892-2611 December 1, 1976 Mr. Ken McWilliams Weld County Planning Department 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Mr. McWilliams: RE: PLATTE RIVER POWER AUTHORITY/APPROVAL OF LOCATION OF TRANSMISSION LINE We have reviewed the application from the Platte River Power Authority Transmission Line approval. Two geologic factors could be significant to the planning, con- struction, and maintenance of this project. The floodplain of the St. Vrain River is adequately discussed in the report prepared by the Platte River Power Authority. We find, however, no comments regarding foundation suitability for the towers themselves in the proposed corridor. We recommend that the Platte River Power Authority include geologic and soils investigations as required prior to the final design for the individual towers. If we can be of further assistance at this time, please contact our office. Sincerely, David C. Shelton Engineering Geologist DCS/jp rtb Le-) Al t7,2. ylaori b�nty nntssi°p NL • GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES '°w WELD COUNTY CENTENNIAL CENTER ,�fi �� r, 915 10th STREET ;1\ S_ �?; GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 111 I GARY Z. FORTNER DIRECTOR OF PLANNING pe, PHONE (303) 356-4000, EXT 400 COLORADO NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Weld County Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on December 7, 1976 at 2: 00 P.M. , to review the route location for a 230 kv overhead transmission line for Platte River Power Authority. The proposed alternative route selections for the transmis- sion line falls within the study corridor which is an eas7,- west strip of land approximately two miles wide by eight miles long bounded by the Fort St . Vrain Atomic Power Plant on the east, north side of Weld County Road 36 on the north, Weld County Road 32 on the south, and the proposed Long ' s Peak Sub-station (2 miles west of Mead) on the west. The study corridor involves Sections 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, T3N, R68W and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, and 18, T3N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. This public hearing by the Weld County Planning Commission will be conducted in the Weld County Commissioners' Hearing Room, First Floor, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to this matter should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 before the above date or presented at the public hearing on December 7, 1976. Copies of the Route Location and Environmental Report are available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services, Room 310, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 1Cth Street, Greeley, Colorado (356-4000 ext. 404) Ron Heitman Weld County Planning Commission Published in Greeley Booster, Greeley, Colorado Published by November 26, 1976 Received by: �f / , 1( / � � WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GLENN K BILLINGS VICTOR JACOBUCCI ROY MOSER NORMAN CARLSON JUNE STEINMARK February 8, 1977 Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Weld County Courthouse Weld County, Colorado Dear Sir : I am Joseph R. Hickey, landowner in Weld County Colorado for the past fifteen years. My property is involved in a proposed transmission line corridor (legal description attachment #1) . I am offering several comments in opposition to the so-called "drainage route" recommended for approval by the Weld County Planning Commission in SUP #326:76:31, dated 12-21-76. 1. The notification procedures used in this case have been most unsatisfactory. Not ony was I not given proper advance notice of the date of the hearings, and information on the proposals, but further when I contacted the Platte River Power Authority and the Held County Planning Commission by mail and telephone ;see attachments #' s 2, 3 and 4) , I still failed to raise a response to my questions, requests for materials, and requests for advance notice of additional hearings and actions. 2. As part of the above, between the time that the original Route Location and Environmental Report (Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk) and the December 21 resolution, apparently there were modifications made in the drainage route, adjustments made in tower sizes and locations, and perhaps additional information compiled to justify this route over the two others being considered. Despite my written request for all relevant information, none of these modifications or supplemental data - which directly affect my land - were ever sent to me. 3. The summary of the Environmental Report (The Report) introduces the subject by stating that the Platte River Power Authority "is planning to complete its transmission system requirements by constructing a 230 KV power transmission line between the Fort St. Vrain Power Plant and the proposed Long' s Peak Sub-station west of the Town of Mead. " Note the underlined phrase; a 230 kv line is presumed to be a single circuit transmission unless stated other- wise. Nowhere in the report is it stated that this transmission corridor study involves anything but a single circuit 230 KV transmission. Yet in conversation with Mr. Hahn of the County Planning staff on February 3, 1977, he indicated that the towers are being constructed with additional transmission capacity. How much additional capacity? How many additional lines might be required? Too often we see utilities apply for a permit to construct a small utility line. This is the camel' s nose under the tent. Before you know it , they' re back with applications for additional lines or corridors or widening of existing corridors. This is a major failing in The Report for future needs and capacities should be considered directly. However, since no information of the kind was supplied, we can only respond to the information which was submitted, and examine the validity of the Planning Commission recommedation accordingly. Page 2 4, The Platte River Power Authority is to be congratulated on retaining a well qualified, reputable environmental consulting and engineer- ing firm (Nelson, Haley, Patterson & Quirk) to perform a corridor study and compile a route location and environmental report on this proposed project. As we know, this has not always been the case in Colorado utility decisions. We look through the table of contents and see an organized planning approach which documents the existing environment, examines potential route segments and impacts, and concludes with a discussion of route alternatives and a recommended route. The analysis methods and assumptions are clearly skated. Among the more significant factors in analyzing the potential_ segments were the impacts of each on: a) prime agricultural land; b) residences; c) growth and development of Mead , Colorado ; d) construction costs ; e) aesthetics. The four route alternatives selected were the North, South, ,Drainage and Interstate Routes. The North route was recommended by the consultant as "The best overall route, " when judged by the stated criteria. 5. While I support the general process, recommendation and findings of the Report, there are several issues I would like to point out which I feel were not handled well. The first is a neglect, to discuss any impacts on the environment and on agricultural land during the construction of the transmission line. Certainly this is an important consideration. Secondly, there is no documentation, in the form of an adopted Master Plan or Capital Improvements Program, to back up the statement made on page II-16 of the Report that "growth will be generally westward but will also occur north to County Road 34N. " This is an important consideration, -cut if the power lines go down my land, future growth will shy away. But if the lines were channeled along existing right of way, future growth could well occur to the east, as prospective buyers of my land (already platted) have indicated. 6. Finally, I would take issue with the County Planning Commission' s recommendation for the Drainage Route as counter to all documen— tation and stated policy I have seen. A) The resolution states that the Drainage Route entails the least impact to cultivated agricultural land. The Report states that 101 acres of agricultural land is impacted, the second highest of the four routes examined. 31% of this acreage is irrigated cropland. The North route on the ether hand affects 23% less agricultural land. In addition, the estimated value of land impacted in the Drainage Route is way too low, insofar as experience with my land goes. The "land disturbed" question is also important. With marshy, sandy conditions existing in the Drainage Route, it is more than likely, in my opinion, that the towers will have to be located on the shoulders of the drainage way. By moving these towers up onto firmer ground, the stated advantages of this route will be lost. I take strong exception to paragraph (h) Sheet 2 of the 12-21-76 resolution which states that geologic and soils investigations will be submitted for approval prior to final design for individual towers. The investigation is to be sub- mitted subsequent to Board of County Commissioners route approval, the resolution states. Because of the unstable soil conditions and potential adverse impact on all agricultural lands, the Commissioners should insist on this investigation Page 3 being carried out in advance of route location approval. B) The Resolution statesthat the Drainage Route offers the least impact on residential and existing land use. The Report indicates a total of 27 housing units within a distance of 1,000 feet of the Drainage Route. This is second highest of the four. As stated previously, there has been little attempt to look ahead for the 25 to 50 years these towers will be stand- ing, and to determine the location which will best serve the town of Mead. I believe a significant opportunity may be lost by closing off growth to the east. C) The Resolution states that the least aesthetic impact will be experienced through this route ' s location in the drainage way. Yet the Report calls for larger lattice towers to handle the sharper angles of the Drainage Route. The smaller towers pictured on page 1-4 of the Report would not be adequate. Further, due to the unstable soil conditions noted by the Platte River Power Authority engineer nt the December 21, 1976 meeting, larger four legged towers will probably be necessary. This can by no means be considered "The least' aesthetic impact. " D) Cost is not mentioned in the Resolution. Cost is significantly higher for the Drainage Route. E)Miles of Floodplain crossing and miles of water crossing are quite high along the Drainage Route. F) The Resolution recommends the Drainage Route as having the least impact on the community and surrounding agricultural land, when in actuality, the data supplied by their own Report contradicts this. The North Route is the overall best route and should be selected. Therefore, I submit that the Board of County Commissioners will be acting arbitrarily and capriciously if they follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The North Route should be selected. In spite of the deficiencies of The Report noted herein, it remains the only rational study of the problem, and careful documenta-Aon should be provided in disregarding the Report' s recommendation of the North Route. Without such documentation, the Board would be acting in bad faith. Sincerely yours, /JosPh R. Hickey/ ( ' Billings, Iiont. Decomb r 14, 1976 Platte iv-. P.o - r An thority 3030 �t. College Ave.rt. oolu k; , oo 00521 Z t behalf of the o: aers of a p-ioce of property adjacent to head., G 1orado, I received a notices fwr you on I otember 15 rcgardil.;; a proposed 230 NV power line for construction in the area now.: this property. Your first notice received en the date referred to above received by u� indicatit C a public '1'17';'��CrF�'�'.i�!.� .l 1'LC) �:It :.°�t11°n:C: C+J"i3:o rC:i:C.1.C�c.' , � L h'�•�s' :�'; o11.141 be ',"�hadulad. I reed 3ed a3 &CC L notice on Draw«3.1er 7 s^Nt.tiw; that as a result of a public Peering held Voinember 130 the props ed north route xi .s being abandoned in favor of the reutt to be discussed at: n hearing Pecfr„uber 7, .:;: •1r, I c al:e t the notice. I never rt'-^.rte\r�^c4 nc:t-Acc the �a:K Y C of the. first t dTiWt:laled hearing on 110 artier le. iir.C( the pureon to havv looking after tl.a prop rty i3 in Arizona t n.ct v .11 b.'.? for the reqtl ik.3rr of the wintro; , it is difficult: for vn •i:s, Tc(ep up with this project er to attend the I.e_^.ria', ;c unlesa c7;,.‘ 1!C VO pore cd,lunce. notIC . Frm your publication it would i ppe•aar that neither the north or Qout:h route meld direly effc!et:, the property. il,e cant.ral or drainsse router would Vii,dico a it direct effect, I woad ther:).foro Lade that w receive enough advance notice of any £utvre hCarinng:7 :,'n, I could TSB' in a,ttcszckaitco if it would You;. cosip ern.t<ion. will be greatly epprc..ciited. Yours very truly, .ua+e.a r^� J. K. uu.1.�:.f�,Y.� IIjte1 r.:. 59102 , Montano 1Y1„ .;t r l4•, 1076 Ca^ `c1411/7.1:11,10 ir.21 MIT .T.err yv I roset.,ro1 your notice of advertising with a copy Of the ad t:hi,, 'Surd f:r.:l. The only thing I could suggest including in your Ent:nre .C..J would bo the nub-divided lots and the earner adjacent to fat.: lIzteza7tange. ;ii ce these have boon strong potato of intarest, t'• ?5tk 4htey c.lould, be hoportant, la udditio:t to the e:4:c::r. I Lila also (A:cit,o.,z caplet:: of notice of a proposal pr uor 11re ti. :1clt ,ttre TA.J.:-a-;plc.nctory. i thought_ they inigilt ha of it.ta_rest toy o toy could hr.-Nu UOM3 diract or at l;Jst an .ire 'Lc �c c.2,:�tyt oi' Lhe place. The first n.�tice I rc.tceiv.:,d .L " to advi.sad of a for i:hcorti.n3 Statue Farm.. 1�;Cai¢)^aJf3iT'.�.� F; J'�` 't:�t rout of f7'itch `� �T3:� '1�C.ti':1 tto ftiC+1. T.33,c1 F3cs^,.{.+Ile{ totico. i C`' oiv'�: t 9.ibl .5th :4.'1-"' " 'r.Y :��lo 4c e rt )inoibi e chwic3 or a .c'"lt;[1 rcutc. I !"c.c,i.ivn th:.o oot: `.,Y'.: t!'c day of t:hc hhc•3ring or.. 7.i!, ULte. 7 Cr,3C, t;r,;t,1'J q�vy "ts:`��a i�l�i! ,g` to at 't;3. It . 7brJ:4i::t:R:, ti&C': ranch rJi%'l't-zt 1, in in /xi:7Jua !3) ^•oi?J.d 't:'9t hars 1ii!t1 .ttt:'�fit.= i:l c:.. SDr:7lttlfp If they should decidt1 Clan 1:11J,i:(1 Y_•;arin 1i*,"';, .4 C9i.��i..tda,� 7:01.to, it appears it cold t.l:'xec:l,y ffcr t the ;.4lrt I t writing f tiler tc^ ztdir sC, that 'ca T.Twild le:, to 1 1.�•".^.� G:iti.^.� 0322 t:Tl.e:ro h.'1`';rings. It i_o ,y thn-;�nllt yor. "ia.�l J l+J"K'1:2' 1 :o C'�t,e ' 7'ytl o . tt iG dli roL)P. .o7S to yo-c: 14)f.1":i.'t,";'e 5.`S' ,"1:9 jr1: jt.1".-+ '.11f2C_7"t:no c.,,•i boy: t:Llt: activity J. P.. TrIC1':i 12. 53102 l '7iJl.l J i q os w. • 4,,f!qE'.:.ry 12, i')17 ?1.Ztc t:)auS:a ty ?030 • y c“.n.-c3 r onJod with you trrllte.L 6,110 of r..,. .„',''l'-' 14 ?.t.1' re y:',t to dl ;.q:_'p s1Jed 230 MV pou'r 32. 12 E;Jtiu1:ru^.t:":d in the arca1 of .lel n! property 1 rej reDCTt.t f r IJ.JL00 .`_` n tt sale e oZh':r he.,L;'';:S, nel j acr:ut to Colorado. T C'11 C S L:c.r3 it )t ?.C'?n o1, he'1rin3s either ;A-16 not bum) ret.:o;i,.;ed or to t ha cam; of 'tvel 7.ecotvr:d t.TV SC M3 day of the henr!!.'Zt_;. I hove t1eora uc thing r4orl; .^-:Zr:G'C: th,"; +''Jr'!1;ibL hearin3 awl like Edo-o :?nfoif:ldtion to its S.'r'^r1l t:s to report to the hr'•i rc C7tJai s ,+Pi'::eciate a 1ett,:r from you CU"i. trl:t.n^ the stat:vo, the ro R1l:-s of any he,nr f ng`; and t r'Cne":ai up- �'.' t:4 on L',.f^ vrojoe . Arr. re7t.)11:e t' thin 3.n";73:1.i f v':1.:!l be i prcc 3.o i:ell. YC.ri'3 ve y •irltC' 1 73-1111.1.77, "^ J 'l' 'I' EN D' A NC ) E C 0 " I) Lipp 1 ican L : Platte River Power Authority •l me 2:00 P:M. Docket 77-2 Date : February 9, 1977 IZt,cluest ; SUP, Transmission Line Location NAME ADDRESS -B9aM 114I4 , hilt �Ii of a Oive r 3340 so Co [weG6k4A de:4J e,(,),--.7 41)are //)>f 1O,1ll /0/, t cicz X100 a 3 O o 8Zv P . oZc3 k/00- , Np-Pa 6 r--e&Z,e1 4'4 V e4---/ NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado, a public hearing will he held in the Cham- bers of the Boa of County Com- missioners of Weld County, Colo-i I ado, Weld County Complex, 915 I 10th Street, Creeley, Colorado, at the time specit a d All persons in any manner interested in the Spe- cial Use Permit are requested to 7 attend and may he heard BE IT ALSO KNOWN that the tcxt and maps so cm tified by the Weld County Planning Commis- sion may be examined in the Of- flee of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, located in the Weld Count— Complex, 915 10th • Street, Third F.00r, Greeley, Colo- rado. Platte River Power Authority 1\"illiam Slimak, Director of Engineering �� 3030 S College Ave Fort Collins, Colorado 50521 DOCKET NO 77-2 DATE February 9, 1977 TIME 2.00 P M REQUEST Special Use Pernm,t ' Transmission Line Location * The proposed alternatr%e route selections for the transmission line falls within the study cor- ridor which is an east-w est strip of land approx_mately two miles wide by eight miles long bound by the Fort S. Vram Atomic Pow- er Plant on tha east, north side of Weld County Road 36 on the north, Weld County Road 32 on the south, and the proposed Long's I Peak Sub-staticn (3 miles west of Mead) on the west The study ' con idor involves Sections 1, 2, 3 '3 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 n d 17, TIN, R68 W and Sections ., 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, sand 16, TJN, R67W of the 6th P Jl, Weld County, Colorado - Dated January .i, 1977 THE BOARD Oh` COUNTY COMMISSIONER S WELD COLNTY, COLORADO By Mary Ann Feuerstein, County Clerk and Recorder S and Clerk To The Board By Rita Jo Kummer, Deputy Published January 7, 1977 and ' Jamul 28, 1977 in the Greeley Booster . I Ia POSTMARK PRPA, William Slimak, Dir . (13f OR DATE --_1- n) rc, Tng± eering 3030 S . College Ave l i•C., S 1F ANT, Zf" — -- -- Ft. olo. 80521 2/17/77 r�a Ir�lrli.-,i �,'n l Collins,r, 6,"1 ALUMIFs:JUL rliLS — - - J. ., a.,n a t,',.;.1 c id ufto dclrocrcJ 5 - - R_Yl ] N I , 9 In:r1 to:dd.ct c only 050 c ;,l'r7 a,-'` '7t0 i"^Gi a0 Coli'vCIC'J 3&v I - II i r-ii,•ry to nddresccc Only Cs; o OL_IVt4 1a A0J'r_aa__' L',,Y _ - SOC..- 5' , ca ••Ir i� LIH-r,Y r—-.---a--- -, -Irr-' 0:1 AA—,e, 6-,,,,„,...„.„, L./2A_, z_,,,,_p a Y M 4 M 4 u• �. M LO O0C - ,,- N O r 1.5 _� W r0 n > Z a; ',J J, O. c, 6 ≥ N W CC y -O VP U ) O O ≥ 'O x . Lfl > a ti p S z x v U N C Z o o a �? o '6) p w C y > --I 0 , a ".• '' 6J 'O 1:4 "O Phi ,d VI O O L C m L) - ° d W • W v C N U Z m v r m 1` N. H - o .. ° r7la H LO w c) \ °.' W -o W a •H O UJ F d' r � t ?, m 'O .. C •U A <4 Q .O F- r1 U �". Z K m 10 E. H E o W E e, o to -H • H a c o< r- 11 a n ? N _ J a�', m 3 3 U 3 U 3 `� CA O v ' � r ,1w E 0 ' o a v \ l 'El, $ $ • oS U w Z a l O �? O < o F. < C O o a, 'v ` v c,_ I- ° 3 3 /1 3co �• O O O O W W M • W W /p N \,�,� 0 `o J P.+ talW {Q • --; N M d' H () .l' u, PS Form 3811, Jan 1975 RETURN RECEIPT, REGISTERED, INSURED AND CERTIFIED MAIL .r , • • U/'-e44fili>549-' t /644/41114_ r ! ( 1111 , it C�S �yZt,►�7S 61� - GEC°o b2tori $1: a dlati(LbC6‘4t. Bef eie C 'l F e (";;e:ss /4-4A(PSD Dom_ rs& k A) 7'7o - - 9 ) s I 11p: k •A r 1 / ` � � ,� . \ . . ,- k 1. ( . • • ( 7 . /��, I , + f -)J - k A„,./ ,) N _ --. -) ..:", -// 2 1' it2 ) t` s a / /ti b�' � � �. 4 P x r 0 Ai / f'(//''_, ',._-_,.., ?-.---0. ti."( czkl,-.. ' . if,',3,A.,..-./.. L.,.,- -,,. IA, ry, , (.V v , •V ,,tai _ ,/) ,_N•L« I _ Mall ,,.,li f re . -�. l ` ..'"/V, IJ e, / G�,'L c.may/1 t.4,ik_, —t-T- L',_ f 6. - ,_z,„,ki "U. - AO�, . Kz/1/ 7(' 1111 It i -- _ ';�- - g" P -( 4- --''A ( ) ` I I V i t t r (r i , ` ,- IT r r (.3,,, I--4' '\ yi 11)2 -7--e's 1- ' ,_-.\ , 66- c -t . r_ I -Nz-ty_f• -1--1 6 5 ff rV < . . ) 1 _ ; , ,�4- (47 ,1 1-) (cf-t( e- • '/(. • ' �� - >/ - is .( rz'r 1�'''�'4i ':' le,:.-- l; r. -. -,,tr , , ,), i At. ' ,i ,„,...-,...y, , __ , ,...,,, .. _e:::.•,?,,,.4 " t.,. _)_ :‘, 4_ e.- ,Iti , __ , ,,,,Le, „,..0 _,. _, "--4,'' el '''-- -,....;--e-/1_,...,, ri -7 tt7 -."; 1-f. C, //�, .('�-r C".f:t?,y/i,' r. Y'' -(7414, /6-1:<: ,:-• :� T.4 /e ----'i°2 Z.1-:---tt'''' _. ' ' 7M t it7_7et ,4r,'.d -il,'-:1-4/ ' ,c%1.-el'/Lt.-- iA / Oa -p, 1' It ( 77( ` s 1�ati 1/4A- /Ilk/ eflevo rA.Gle<-7 Orr- t!"-rte fivrA7 , /67‘ kbpie C7 ///71 )att-kt, 702( � € )0(' A1)1/j Pi -&--) -16°t4; s /low_ N CLERK TO THE BOARD CHECKLIST Hearing Title: , �t� 6J C,c1Z,Z - Received from Planning Department 45? - „:„ C1 - Hearing date approved /- 5- 7 7 Notice typed /-- q Notices sent to: Legal advertising Planning Department Health Department 1-7 Bulletin boar rocal newspaper Adjacent landowners Packets made /— Packets to Commissioners _9 _ /dam ri • • Hello