resource plan compliance - tacoma-ames.comtacoma-ames.com/ames/study_reports/a-drft...

Ames Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 400

RESOURCE PLAN COMPLIANCE

Draft Public Service Company of Colorado

MARCH 2007

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page No. ACRONYM LIST ....................................................................................................AL-1 1.0 Introduction and Background ..........................................................................1 2.0 Description of Issue .........................................................................................1

2.1 Purpose of Study Plan ................................................................................................1 2.1.1 Field Methods and Data Collection .............................................................2 2.1.2 Analysis of Project Effects ........................................................................15 2.1.3 Discussion and Conclusions ......................................................................15 2.1.4 References..................................................................................................15

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page No. Table 2-1 Management Prescription 2B - Rural or roaded natural recreation

experience. ........................................................................................................10 Table 2-2 Management Prescription 2A - Semi-primitive motorized recreation

experience. ........................................................................................................11 Table 2-3 Management Prescription 6B – Livestock grazing and maintaining forage

composition. ......................................................................................................11

AL-iii

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph Title Page No. Photograph 1 Hope Lake viewshed. ..........................................................................................4 Photograph 2 Trout Lake viewshed...........................................................................................5 Photograph 3 Lake Fork penstock visual landscape..................................................................7 Photograph 4 Howard’s Fork diversion and penstock visual landscape. ..................................8 Photograph 5 Ames powerhouse visual landscape....................................................................8 Photograph 6 Galloping Goose Trail adjacent to Project elements...........................................9

AL-1

Acronym List Federal/State Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) Colorado Department of Natural Resources (CDNR) Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Colorado Department of Natural and Economic Resources, Division of Environmental Management

(CDEM) Colorado Department of Wildlife (CDOW) Colorado Division of Water Quality (CDWQ) Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer (CSHPO) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) National Park Service (NPS) National Weather Service (NWS) U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Other Entities Electra Sporting Club (ESC) Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) San Miguel Watershed Coalition (SMWC) Documents 401 Water Quality Certificate (401 WQC) American Disabilities Act Accessible Guidelines (ADAAG) Colorado State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) Colorado State Water Quality Standard (COWQS) Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) Environmental Assessment (EA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Forest Service Outdoor Recreation Accessibility Guidelines (FSORAG) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Notice of Intent (NOI) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment (PDEA) Programmatic Agreement (PA)

Acronym List

AL-2

Scoping Document (SD) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Laws/Regulations Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Clean Water Act (CWA) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) Endangered Species Act (ESA) Federal Power Act (FPA) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Terminology Cubic feet per second (cfs) Degrees Celsius (C) Degrees Fahrenheit (F) Dissolved oxygen (DO) Feet (ft) Gallons per day (gpd) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Gigawatt Hour (GWh) Global Positioning System (GPS) Grams (g) Horsepower (hp) International Symbol of Accessibility (IAS) Kilogram (kg) Kilowatt (kW) Kilowatt-hour (kWh) Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Mean Sea Level (msl) Megawatt (MW) Megawatt-hours (MWh) Micrograms per liter (µg/L) Milligrams per liter (mg/L) Millimeter (mm) Million gallons per day (mgd) National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) Ounces (oz.) Outdoor Recreation Access Route (ORAR) Outstanding Remarkable Value (ORV)

Acronym List

AL-3

Parts per billion (ppb) Parts per million (ppm) Pounds (lbs.) Power Factor (p.f.) Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) Project Inflow Design Flood (IDF) Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species (RTE) Ready for Environmental Analysis (REA) Resource Work Groups (RWG) Revolutions per Minute (rpm) Rights-of-way (ROW) Stakeholders (federal and state resource agencies, NGOs, and other interested parties) Visual quality objectives (VQOs) Volts (V) Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP)

Resource Plan Compliance

1

1.0 Introduction and Background Public Service Co. of Colorado (PSCo) owns and operates the Ames Hydroelectric Project located in southwestern Colorado in the South Fork San Miguel River watershed. The Ames Project first entered operation in 1891 and is approaching 115 years of successful operation as a renewable and valuable energy resource. PSCo is using the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) to obtain a new operating license for its 115-year-old Project. As part of that process, PSCo is undertaking resource studies in accordance with study plans developed with the stakeholders and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in its Study Plan Determination dated March 24, 2006.1

2.0 Description of Issue It was asked if the Ames Project was in compliance with existing resource management plans, specifically including the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) management plans, U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) policies and plans, and any management plans of other governmental or non-governmental (NGOs) bodies, including the San Miguel Watershed Coalition. Management plans and policies have varying degrees of authority related to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-jurisdictional hydro projects. Notably, on federal lands occupied by the Project, the federal land management agency has substantial authority under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act to require measures at the Project deemed necessary to protect those federal lands. 2.1 Purpose of Study Plan The purpose of this study is to review all relevant resource management plans and identify any inconsistencies within the Ames Project Boundary. Specific objectives include: ■ Documenting the resource management directives considered relevant to the Ames Project

Boundary for specific resource consideration; ■ Identifying consistency with current land management resource management plans and

policies; and ■ Developing list of non-compliance issues in cooperation with the USFS resource managers. Relevant Resource Management Goals (18 CFR 5.9(b)(2)) Natural resources in Colorado are controlled and managed under an intricate system of federal, state, and local laws. These laws, in conjunction with regulations, comprehensive plans, and policy directives, provide resource agency staff with specific management direction. The major laws, regulations, and plans that pertain specifically to natural resources in the Project and surrounding area are as follows: (a) Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests Land and Resource

Management Plan (Amended) - The original Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was amended in 1990,

1 This report includes the investigations required by the Water Terrestrial Resource Working Group (RWG) Issue

Assessment No. 11, however was placed under the responsibility of the Recreation RWG.


2

yet it is important to note that the Forest Plan is currently being revised (Forest Plan Revision) and is partially available in draft form (http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/plan_rev/index). Where possible, management direction and needs related to recreation in the Forest Plan Revision will be discussed following the needs and objectives stated in the amended Forest Plan.

(b) 2003 Colorado State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) - With respect to recreation plans, the 2003 Colorado SCORP identifies recreation issues of statewide importance and which of those issues will be addressed through Colorado’s share of the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grants. The SCORP Local Government Survey was conducted as part of the 2003 SCORP update and includes regionalized recreation issues and needs from local agencies involved in outdoor recreation management. The Southwest Region includes San Miguel County, which identifies the highest priority capital investment needs in order to meet their outdoor recreation goals (PSCo 2005).

(c) San Miguel Watershed - Watershed Plan - The San Miguel Watershed Coalition (SMWC) is comprised of citizens from all parts of the basin—encompassing seven towns (Telluride, Mountain Village, Norwood, Naturita, Nucla, Ophir, and Sawpit) two counties (San Miguel and Montrose counties), eight state and federal agencies (including USFS, BLM, National Park Service [NPS], and Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), and basin residents and interest groups.

The watershed spans from the headwaters of the San Miguel River near Telluride to its

confluence with the Dolores River roughly 80 miles downstream. The Ames Project is located in the southeastern most region of this watershed.

2.1.1 Field Methods and Data Collection The Project compliance study consisted of four parts: (1) an inventory and assessment of the Project area resources or landscape that are on public lands; (2) a review of the management polices applicable to the Project area; (3) an assessment of the contrast between the Project’s components and surrounding landscape with policies and management directives and summarize; and (4) a review of compliance and results with USFS and BLM staff. 1) Inventory/Assessment of Resources - Building on information presented in Section 5.9 of

the Pre-Application Document (PAD), an inventory of all Project facilities was summarized for the purposes of this report. The characteristics of the Project area have been photographed and are included in the summary. Unique and important visual resources as well as the characteristic landscapes within the Project area were identified. The viewshed of Project components has been surveyed and mapped and these will also be summarized for the purposes of this study. Unique landscape units, key public view points, and key public viewing areas including seen areas and distance zones for Project components were identified and evaluated. The scenic attractiveness, scenic integrity, absorption capacity, and visual sensitivity of the landscapes in the Project area were assessed.

2) Review of Management Plans and Policies - Agency management plans relevant to natural resources were identified. Land management plans, transportation plans, and other resource use plans were evaluated to identify visual and other resource management considerations applicable to the Project area. The Project compatibility with currently prescribed visual


3

quality objectives (VQOs) was to be assessed; however, VQOs specific to the Project area were not available. Highway and road scenery management regulations and policies as well as any trail or waterway designations were identified. Any non-compliance issues were summarized.

3) Assess Contrasts - The compatibility of the Project features with the surrounding landscape, including linear features such as penstocks, were evaluated. Any visual contrast and/or compatibility of the Project components, recreation use impacts, and potential erosion at dam spillways and the surrounding landscape were evaluated for scenic characteristics and compatibility with surrounding scenic qualities and extent of viewing dominance. Site confirmation visits occurred, if deemed necessary.

4) Review Compliance with USFS - The results of steps 1 through 3 will be reviewed with the USFS and BLM. A draft report will be prepared and action items to comply with current plans proposed.

Study Area The proposed study area consisted of all Project components, lands, and waters contained within the Project Boundary. Results 1) Inventory and Assessment of Resources Overall Description of Ames Hydroelectric Project The Ames Project lies in the San Miguel Mountains of southwestern Colorado and extends from Hope Lake at elevation 11,910 feet to Trout Lake at elevation 9,710 feet to the Ames tailrace at elevation 8,700 feet. The scenic vistas from Hope Lake and Trout Lake are exceptional. The aesthetic character of the Project area also includes the scenic San Miguel and South Fork San Miguel River valleys extending west and south of the Town of Telluride, respectively. The major river associated with the Project is the South Fork of the San Miguel River which branches from the San Miguel River to the west of the Town of Telluride. The high peaks of the San Juan Mountains stand as backdrops to these scenic river valleys. Mount Wilson is the highest peak in this area at 14,246 feet. Most of this area has been glaciated, producing features such as rock streams and knife ridges. The Ames Project obtains its water supply from two separate sources: the Lake Fork, and the Howards Fork of the San Miguel River. The primary source of Project water supply is Trout Lake constructed on the Lake Fork of the San Miguel River. Spring snowmelt runoff is stored in Hope Lake (elevation 11,910 feet2) , which is located on USFS lands in an alpine basin above timberline, and in Trout Lake (elevation 9,707 feet), which is located on private property. In late fall and winter, Hope Lake storage is released into the Lake Fork natural channel which then flows through USFS lands and private property approximately 3.25 miles to Trout Lake. Water is released from

2 All elevations are referenced to mean sea level datum.


4

Trout Lake into a steel and fiberglass penstock that roughly parallels the Lake Fork and extends to the Ames powerhouse. This penstock traverses both USFS lands and private property, including the San Bernardo subdivision and the Pathfinder gravel pit. Flow exits the Ames powerhouse through the Ames tailrace and is delivered back to the Howards Fork just upstream of the confluence of the Howards Fork and the Lake Fork. The joining of these two streams marks the beginning of the South Fork San Miguel River. The secondary source of water for the Ames Project is the Howards Fork of the San Miguel River. The Howards Fork diversion dam (elevation 9,360 feet) is located on USFS lands and private property and conveys streamflows from the Howards Fork into a steel penstock that extends to the Ames powerhouse. This penstock traverses mostly USFS lands with pockets of private property. The Howards Fork diversion dam is located near the community of Ophir. In total, the Ames Project occupies 99 acres of federal land, all administered by the USFS. Hope Lake and Dam Hope Lake is located in the Alpine Zone in a basin above timberline (Photograph 1). This area is hidden beneath snow for much of the year. This reservoir was once a natural lake, the surface of which was raised to an elevation of 11,910 feet by the construction of the dam. Hope Lake Dam is a concrete and masonry dam, about 150 feet long with a maximum of 10 feet in height. The top elevation of the dam is 11,912 feet across the natural opening of the basin. The dam is provided with a 9.3-foot wood-planked overflow spillway on top of rock fill. Photograph 1 Hope Lake viewshed.


5

Hope Lake Dam is primarily visible once at the lake. At this location, the Project components—largely concrete with some wood structures—blend with the rocky substrate that surrounds the lake and overall, the features remain visually subordinate to the surrounding landscape. Trout Lake and Dam Trout Lake is located in the Sub-alpine Forest Zone in a meadowland area (Photograph 2). This area is dominated by grasslands with mixed conifer forest that gives way to spruce-fir at higher elevations. Aspen stands are also found throughout this region with several other tree species including blue spruce, white fir, lodgepole pine, limber pine, and bristlecone pine. The reservoir has a maximum surface area of 138 acres at an elevation of 9,710 feet and a usable storage capacity of 2,400 acre-feet. Photograph 2 Trout Lake viewshed.

The Trout Lake Dam was formed by the construction of an earthen fill dam, about 570 feet long, with a top elevation of 9,717 feet, and a maximum height of 25 feet. The main spillway consists of two steel siphons built on the crest of the dam with the inlet protected by a screened structure extending above the reservoir surface. An emergency overflow spillway is also located on the west end of the dam and is about 100 feet wide with a rip-wrapped surface. Trout Lake is located approximately 3.5 miles northeast of Lizard Head Pass on State Highway 145. Lizard Head Pass marks the divide between the Dolores and San Miguel River watersheds. Lizard Head Meadows, an expanse of high-country open meadow at elevations exceeding 10,000 feet, is located just south of Trout Lake. Highway 145, which comes within 1,000 feet of Trout Lake, is part of the San Juan Skyway. Highway 145 sits approximately 500 to 1,000 feet above Trout Lake and when traveling north from Lizard Head Pass, the highway, looking east across Trout Lake, offers exceptional views of the Yellow Mountains and Vermillion Peak (elevation 13,894 feet). Viewsheds from Trout Lake itself are no less spectacular. Visitors to the public recreation facility on Trout Lake look directly onto Vermillion Peak and San Miguel Peak (13,700 feet).


6

Lake Fork Penstock The Lake Fork penstock is a steel pipe extending about 12,650 feet northerly and roughly parallel to the Lake Fork channel to the Ames powerhouse (Photograph 3). The penstock varies in diameter from 42 inches at the dam to approximately 26 inches at the powerhouse. A 2,300-foot-long section of the penstock was replaced in 1984 with a 30-inch-diameter, fiberglass-reinforced pipe. The majority of the Trout Lake penstock is buried, with the exception of stream crossings and at locations where the alignment traverses along steep talus slopes. At these locations, the pipeline is supported by steel and timber trusses on concrete foundations. At a location approximately 2,500 feet uphill from the powerhouse, the penstock was formerly connected to a surge line, consisting of an 11-foot-diameter steel pipe about 130 feet long and a 15-foot-diameter welded standpipe, 21 feet in height. In 1994, PSCo disconnected the Lake Fork surge tank from the penstock. The high-pressure portion of the penstock was lined with cement mortar in 1984. Cement mortar lining is provided in the 2,500 feet of penstock between the powerhouse and the surge tank wye and about 1,700 feet upstream of the surge tank wye. Howard’s Fork Diversion and Penstock The Howard’s Fork Diversion is located along the Howard’s Fork of the San Miguel River at an elevation of 9,360 feet (Photograph 4). The Howard’s Fork diversion dam is a low earthfill and timber crib embankment extending across the main channel of the Howard’s Fork of the San Miguel River. The diversion dam is approximately 260 feet in length with a maximum height of approximately 6 feet. The structure includes an overflow spillway constructed of reinforced concrete. The intake for the Howard’s Fork penstock is a concrete side inlet structure. Water is diverted from the Howard’s Fork by a 1.25-mile penstock to the Ames powerhouse. The Howard’s Fork penstock extends from the inlet structure at the Howard’s Fork diversion dam westerly along the south bank of the Howard’s Fork to the Ames powerhouse. The first 4,500 feet of the penstock is constructed of 36-inch-diameter welded steel pipe, which terminates at a 20-foot-diameter by 30-foot-tall welded steel surge tank. At the surge tank, the Howard’s Fork penstock transitions to a 2,000-foot-long, 18-inch-diameter steel pipe that is the high-head portion of the penstock. Ames Powerhouse The Ames powerhouse is located just east of Highway 145 near the confluence of the Lake Fork and the Howard’s Fork. The powerhouse is situated at the head of the South Fork San Miguel River valley. Access to the powerhouse is via a gravel road mostly traveled by local residents. The Ames powerhouse is only visible from Highway 145 momentarily, and with knowledge of its location. The architecture of the 100-year-old, cut-stone Ames powerhouse (Photograph 5) is connected to the context of the mining history of the area. The powerhouse is a cut-stone building with a clear span roof supported on steel trusses. The roof is covered with wood shingles, and the ceiling is plastered. The building houses the impulse turbines and generator; three transformers; an operator’s booth; a 16-ton manually operated traveling bridge crane; and a workshop and storage area isolated from the generator area by a stone masonry wall.


7

Photograph 3 Lake Fork penstock visual landscape.

Lake Fork penstock below Trout Lake Dam.

Disconnected surge line.

Penstock along Lake Fork of the San Miguel River.


8

Photograph 4 Howard’s Fork diversion and penstock visual landscape.

Howard’s Fork diversion .Penstock at Howards Fork diversion. Photograph 5 Ames powerhouse visual landscape.

Ames powerhouse front. Ames powerhouse side.


9

Galloping Goose Trail The Galloping Goose Trail, which uses the now-abandoned Rio Grande Southern Railroad grade and winds along Highway 145, passes nearby the Project, especially at Trout Lake where the trail traverses the Lake Fork just upstream of Trout Lake. Trail users have views of Trout Lake, and other Project components such as the surge tank and penstock which run adjacent to the trail under Highway 145 (Photographs 6). P

hotograph 6 Galloping Goose Trail adjacent to Project elements.

Galloping Goose Trail sign near surge tank area.

Surge tank on Galloping Goose Trail near Highway 145 tunnel.

View of Galloping Goose Trail to tunnel. View of penstock parallel to Galloping Goose Trail.


10

View of solar panel and penstock along Galloping View of shed across from surge tank on Goose Trail near surge tank. Galloping Goose Trail. 2) Review of Management Plans and Policies Agency management plans relevant to natural resources were identified and include the USFS Management Plans, Watershed Plans and a review of special designations in the Project area. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan The original Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was amended in 1990 in order to modify the forest’s timber management program. Private parties and the federal government primarily own the lands adjacent to the Project area. The federally-owned lands adjacent to and surrounding Trout Lake are managed by the USFS according to Management Prescription 2B, which provides for Rural or Roaded Natural recreation experience. Table 2-1 details the resource elements of Management Prescription 2B. Table 2-1 Management Prescription 2B - Rural or roaded natural recreation experience.

Recreational Resources ■ Motorized and non-motorized recreation activities such as driving for pleasure, viewing scenery, picnicking,

fishing, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing are provided for in design and construction of facilities. ■ Motorized travel may be prohibited or restricted to designated routes to protect physical and biological resources. Visual Resources ■ Visual resources are managed so that management activities maintain or improve the quality of recreation

opportunities. ■ Management activities are not evident, remain visually subordinate, or may be dominant, but harmonize and

blend with the natural setting. ■ Landscape rehabilitation is used to restore landscapes to a desirable visual quality. ■ Enhancement aimed at increasing positive elements on the landscape to improve visual variety is also used. Scenic Byways ■ Scenic byways will be a special emphasis with this prescription and will provide passenger car activities along

scenic, cultural and historic routes on the Forest. ■ The primary objective will be to showcase outstanding National Forest scenery and increase public awareness and

understanding of National Forest activities.

Source: Amended LRMP, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. 1990. Management Direction, p. III-105.


11

The federally-owned lands adjacent to and surrounding Hope Lake are managed by the USFS according to Management Prescription 2A, which provides for a Semi-primitive motorized recreation experience. Table 2-2 details the resource elements of Management Prescription 2A. Table 2-2 Management Prescription 2A - Semi-primitive motorized recreation experience.

Recreational Resources ■ Management emphasis is for semi-primitive motorized recreation opportunities such as snowmobiling, four-wheel

driving, and motorcycling, both on and off roads and trails. ■ Motorized travel may be restricted or seasonally prohibited to designated routes to protect physical and biological

resources. Visual Resources ■ Visual resources are managed so that management activities are not evident or remain visually subordinate. ■ Past management activities such as historical changes caused by early mining, logging, and ranching may be

present which are not visually subordinate but appear to have evolved to their present state through natural processes.

■ Landscape rehabilitation is used to restore landscapes to a desirable visual quality. ■ Enhancement aimed at increasing positive elements of the landscape to improve visual variety is also used. Mineral and Energy Resources ■ Mineral and energy resource activities are generally compatible with goals of this management area subject to

appropriate stipulation provided in Management Activities G00 - G007 in Forest Direction. Source: Amended LRMP, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. 1990. Management Direction, p. III-100. In addition, there is a small parcel of land located between Trout Lake and Hope Lake along the Lake Fork of the San Miguel River (between Groundhog and Poverty Gulches) that is managed by the UNF according to Management Prescription 6B. The management emphasis is for livestock grazing and maintaining forage composition. Table 2-3 details the elements of Management Prescription 6B. Table 2-3 Management Prescription 6B – Livestock grazing and maintaining forage

composition. Livestock Grazing ■ Intensive grazing management systems are favored over extensive systems. ■ Range condition is maintained through use of forage improvement practices, livestock management, and

regulation of other resource activities. ■ Investment in structural and non-structural range improvements to increase forage utilization is moderate to high.

Structural improvements benefit, or at least do not adversely affect wildlife. ■ Conflicts between livestock and wildlife are resolved in favor of livestock. ■ Non-structural restoration and forage improvement practices available are seeding, planting, burning, fertilizing,

pitting, furrowing, spraying, crushing and plowing. Cutting of encroaching trees may also occur. Other Resources ■ Investments are made in compatible resource activities. ■ Dispersed recreational opportunities vary between semi-primitive, non-motorized and roaded natural. ■ Management activities are evident but harmonize and blend with the natural setting.

Source: Amended LRMP, Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests. 1990. Management Direction, p. III-145. The USFS lands adjacent to the Project area fall within one of the three management prescriptions (2A, 2B, and 6B) discussed above. The lands to the west of Trout Lake, across State Highway 145,


12

are part of the Lizard Head Wilderness, designated and managed as wilderness lands. While these lands are within the UNF boundary, they are managed according to the San Juan National Forest LRMP (amended in 1992). UNF Wilderness Areas The Uncompahgre National Forest includes three National Wilderness Areas, closed to all forms of mechanical transportation, including bikes: the Lizard Head Wilderness, the Mount Sneffels Wilderness, and the Uncompaghre (Big Blue) Wilderness. The 4.2-mile Bear Creek National Recreation Trail is also here, providing one the forest’s most scenic hikes as it winds along rocky ledges. Lizard Head Wilderness The U.S. Congress designated the Lizard Head Wilderness in 1980. It covers a total of 41,309 acres between the Uncompahgre and San Juan National forests. The peak, Lizard Head (13,113 feet), located about 8 miles west of Trout Lake, stands spire-like on the eastern side of the Wilderness and is shadowed by both Mount Wilson and Wilson Peak, two of Colorado’s “fourteeners” that incongruously bear the same name. The summit of Lizard Head, a 400-foot-tall tower of highly weathered rock, has been voted Colorado’s most dangerous and difficult climb by many mountaineers. Lizard Head Wilderness is a land of cirque lakes, mountain streams, waterfalls, and a spruce-fir forest. Much of the nearly 37 miles of trails in the wilderness receive light use due to their strenuous nature. The Lizard Head Overlook is located within a few miles of Matterhorn Campground in the Norwood Ranger District, at the top of Lizard Head Pass. This overlook serves as a rest area and trailhead for the Lizard Head Trail. An interpretive kiosk tells about the surrounding peaks and other areas of interest. Lizard Head Trail leaves State Highway 145 at Lizard Head Pass. It contours the east side of Black Face Mountain and overlooks the Lake Fork Valley, including Trout Lake. The trail switchbacks through a saddle north of Black Face and climbs to the ridge, and eventually to the summit of Black Face at elevation 12,147 feet. Uncompaghre Wilderness The U.S. Congress designated the Uncompahgre Wilderness in 1980, and it now covers more than 102,000 acres of which 99,000 acres are on the Uncompahgre National Forest, and 3,400 acres are on lands administered by the BLM. Elevations range from 8,400 to greater than 14,000 feet. This wilderness contains roughly 150 miles of foot and horse trails with trailheads located in the West, Middle, and East forks of the Big Cimarron River. The Big Blue Trail, beginning south of the campground by the same name, also is a major route into the wilderness. Additional trails enter the wilderness from the vicinities of the towns of Ouray and Lake City. Trails to the 14,000-foot peaks in this wilderness receive heavy use (as do most trails to 14,000-foot peaks in Colorado). The closest part of the wilderness to the Project is approximately over 10 miles north of the Ames powerhouse.


13

San Juan Skyway The San Juan Skyway, Colorado's first designated scenic byway, traverses 232 miles through the San Juan and Uncompahgre National Forests offering views of numerous 14,000-foot peaks, panoramic vistas, and ancient ruins in the Four Corners area. The skyway has three historic designations. In September of 1988 it was first designated as a USFS Scenic Byway by Forest Service; since 1989 it has been designated a “Colorado Scenic & Historic Byway” by the Colorado Department of Transportation Scenic and Historic Byways Commission; and most recently, in September of 1996 it was designated an “All-American Road” by the Federal Highway Administration National Scenic Byways Program. The entire loop takes you through Ouray, Silverton, Durango, Cortez and Telluride. In addition, a segment of the byway follows the famous Million Dollar Highway (Ouray to Silverton). An interpretive site and accessible toilets are available on State Highway 145 at the top of Lizard Head Pass. San Miguel Watershed Coalition’s Watershed Plan The SMWC is comprised of citizens from all parts of the basin—encompassing seven towns (Telluride, Mountain Village, Norwood, Naturita, Nucla, Ophir, and Sawpit), two counties (San Miguel and Montrose), eight state and federal agencies (including USFS, BLM, NPS, and USEPA), and basin residents and interest groups. The Coalition has a vision of a watershed that includes the following elements: (1) a landscape maintained in good health through protection and responsible use of natural resources; (2) availability of a diversity of high quality recreational opportunities; (3) a sustainable economy offering opportunities for growth and employment guided by a strong sense of community identity; (4) a cooperative atmosphere where agencies, organizations and individuals collaborate on management decisions with an ecosystem mindset; and (5) a citizenry educated about the close connection between resource conservation, economic vitality, and quality of life, and committed to good watershed stewardship (SMWC 1998, p. 8). The watershed spans from the headwaters of the San Miguel River near Telluride to its confluence with the Dolores River, roughly 80 miles downstream. The Ames Project is located in the southeastern most region of this watershed. The SMWC developed, through a process of collaborative planning and substantive public involvement, a watershed management plan (WMP) that conserves and enhances the natural, cultural, recreational, social and economic vitality of its communities. The WMP is not a regulatory document, but rather, it provides a context for decision-making, provides management guidance, and offers an array of potential actions to basin residents and resource managers. The WMP is not meant to be a static document, but rather, an evolving resource guide that changes over time as new and more information is revealed. Telluride Region Pathways Initiative The Pathways Initiative encompasses the lands of eastern San Miguel County from the San Miguel River drainage divide, east of Telluride, to the confluence of Leopard Creek with the San Miguel


14

River near the Town of Placerville. This initiative was prepared by the San Miguel County Trails Council, the USFS (Norwood Ranger District), BLM, and the NPS, in conjunction with various private citizens and interest groups. The primary focus of the initiative has been the establishment of mountain bike and Nordic ski trails, with a secondary focus of establishing new front-country trails near Telluride, and backcountry trails in the region. The only project to come from this initiative that is relevant to the Project was the Galloping Goose Recreation Pathway initiative, particularly phase one development of the trail from the Town of Telluride to Lizard Head Pass. Portions of this trail wind around Trout Lake and the Lake Fork of the San Miguel River before heading to Lizard Head Pass. The trail utilizes the grade from the abandoned Rio Grande Southern Railroad in the Project area and vicinity. San Miguel River South Fork Preserve The Nature Conservancy acquired this 67-acre parcel of land in 1989 along the South Fork of the San Miguel River in Illium Valley. From Telluride, the preserve is accessed by following State Highway 145 south and making a right onto Ilium Valley Road at the bottom of Keystone Hill and following it until you reach the preserve. The Conservancy’s foremost concern here is preservation of the riparian habitat with a focus on non-native weed control, creating partnerships within the region to promote conservation, and educating the local community about riparian plant and animal communities. The preserve also includes a half-mile gravel hiking trail of moderate difficulty and a handicap accessible, 180-foot, elevated boardwalk and viewing platform with interpretive signs. Catch-and-release fishing is allowed, but only with artificial flies and lures. This preserve is one of three acquired and protected by the Nature Conservancy along the San Miguel River. The other two preserves (San Miguel River Canyon and Tabeguache Preserves) are further downstream from the South Fork Preserve, near Placerville, Colorado. 3) Assess Contrasts The compatibility of the Project features with the surrounding landscape, including linear features such as penstocks, was evaluated and compared to visual quality objectives identified within the “Land and Resource Management Plan for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests (the Forest Plan), which was adopted in 1983, amended in 1991, and now undergoing revisions currently. Further, a review of the 2005/2006 Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report for the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests was utilized to identify whether any of the Ames Project attributes were in accordance with the Forest Plan VQO and other management directives applicable to the Project. The findings of this review process indicate that no negative issues concerning visual impacts related to activities by the Project on the National Forest were found. 4) Review Compliance with USFS The results of steps 1 through 3 will be reviewed with the USFS and BLM. A draft report will be prepared and action items to comply with current plans proposed.


15

2.1.2 Analysis of Project Effects The Project’s existence and operation may play some role, albeit minor, in the overall development of management plans related to the GMUG National Forest, State Recreation Plans, and land use and development plans in San Miguel County. Based on the review of relevant resource management plans, PSCo did not identify any inconsistencies. 2.1.3 Discussion and Conclusions [Discussions and conclusions will be complete after discussions/feedback from the FS (see Step 4).] 2.1.4 References Public Service Company of Colorado. 2005. Pre-Application Document, Ames Hydroelectric

Project (FERC Project No. 400). May 2005. San Miguel County Planning Office. 2001. San Miguel County Comprehensive Development Plan

(Amended). Telluride, CO. 46. San Miguel Watershed Coalition. 1998. The San Miguel Watershed Plan: A Collaborative

Management Framework for the San Miguel Basin. 8, 36, 45. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service . 1990. Amended Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and

Gunnison National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Rocky Mountain Region. ——. 2005. Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Land and Resource

Management Revisions. Rocky Mountain Region. [Online] URL: h ttp://www.fs.fed.us/ r2/sanjuan/projects/. (Accessed April 25, 2005.)

——. 2006. 2005/2006 Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and

Gunnison National Forests. [Online] URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/gmug/policy/ monitoring/05_06_monitoring_report.pdf. (Accessed March 9, 2007.)

J:\Projects\Xcel Energy\132.0011-Ames\0300-Aquatic\ResrcPlanComplnce\A-Drft ResrcPlnComplnce-070327.doc KB/elt 132.0011.0300/8.0 March 27, 2007