supplemental environmental assessment...

Supplemental Environmental

Assessment (EA)

Colorado Community Anchors Broadband Consortium Project

EAGLE-Net Alliance

Grant Award No. NT11BIX5570001

Various Locations, Colorado, and Wyoming

March 19, 2013

Terracon Project No. 01127051

Prepared for:

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

Washington, D.C.

Prepared by:

Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Wichita, Kansas

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... VI

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1

PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................................. 2

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................ 5

3.1 PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................................ 5

3.2 Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 12

No Action Alternative ............................................................................................... 12

Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative ................................................................ 12

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion ............................ 13

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ....................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 14

4.4 WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................................ 15

Streams and Rivers ................................................................................................. 15

Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 16

Floodplains ............................................................................................................... 16

Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 17

4.5 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 17

4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 19

4.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources ...................................................................................... 24

4.8 Land Use............................................................................................................................. 24

4.9 Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 24

4.10 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................... 25

4.11 Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................. 26

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................................... 26

5.1 Noise ................................................................................................................................... 26

5.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................... 27

5.3 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................. 28

5.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 28

Streams and Rivers ................................................................................................. 28

Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 29

Floodplains ............................................................................................................... 29

Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 30

5.5 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 30

5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 37

5.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources ...................................................................................... 40

5.8 Land Use............................................................................................................................. 41

5.9 Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 41

5.10 Socioeconomic Resources ............................................................................................... 41

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.)

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable ii

5.11 Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................. 43

5.12 Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................... 45

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND COMMUNICATION

46

6.1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) .......................................... 46

6.2 Bureau of Indian Affairs – Southern Ute Agency............................................................ 47

6.3 Bureau of Land Management ........................................................................................... 48

6.4 Bureau of Reclamation ...................................................................................................... 49

6.5 U.S. Forest Service ............................................................................................................ 49

6.6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service .............................................................................................. 51

6.7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................................................................................... 51

6.8 Colorado Department of Transportation ......................................................................... 52

LIST OF AGENCIES CONSULTED ............................................................................................. 52

LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................................ 55

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 56

FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Colorado Broadband Map ................................................................................... 3

Figure 2.2 Colorado Economically Distressed Area Map ................................................... 4

Figure 3.1.1 State Wide Project Map .................................................................................... 6

Figure 3.1.2 CAI Location Map ............................................................................................. 8

Figure 3.1.3 Vibratory Plow Photo ....................................................................................... 9

Figure 4.6.1 Colorado SHPO File Search Summary Table ................................................. 21

Figure 4.6.2 Wyoming SHPO File Search Summary Table ................................................. 23

Figure 5.5.1 Table of Species Reviewed for Section 7 ....................................................... 32

Figure 5.5.2 Clay Loving Wild Buckwheat Potentially Suitable Habitat Map as defined by

USFWS ................................................................................................................................... 35

Figure 5.5.3 Pagosa Skyrocket Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat Map as defined by

USFWS ................................................................................................................................... 36


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable iii

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Suspension Letter

Appendix B – State Maps

Appendix C – CAIs

Appendix D – Construction Pictures

Appendix E – Cabinets

Appendix F – CDOT Erosion Control

Appendix G – Common Wildlife Species

Appendix H – T&E Wildlife Species

Appendix I – Waterways & USACE

Appendix J – Ozone Control Area

Appendix K – BIA & Southern Ute

Appendix L – BLM

Appendix M – Bureau of Reclamation

Appendix N – USFWS

Appendix O – USFS

Appendix P – CO SHPO

Appendix Q – CPW

Appendix R – WY SHPO

Appendix S – WY Game & Fish

Appendix T – Tribes

Appendix U – Previously Eliminated Alternatives

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

APE Area of Potential Effect (area of study for archeological and historic resources)

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

BIA U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BOCES Boards of Cooperative Educational Services

BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

BTOP Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

CAI Community Anchor Institution

CBOCES Centennial Board of Cooperative Educational Services

CCABC Colorado Community Anchors Broadband Consortium

CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation

CDPS Colorado Discharge Permit System

CDW Colorado Division of Wildlife (former name of CPW)

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife (formerly Colorado Division of Wildlife)

EA Environmental Assessment (NEPA document)

EAGLE-Net Educational Access Gateway Learning Environment Network

EHP Environmental and Historic Preservation

ENA EAGLE-Net Alliance

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973

FCC U.S. Federal Communications Commission

FEMA U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA U.S. Federal Highway Administration

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FS Forest Service

GHG Greenhouse Gas

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

IRU Indefeasible Right to Use

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918

NCA Noise Control Act (Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972)

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NFHL National Flood Hazard Layer

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

NOAA U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRCS U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetland Inventory


Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable v

NTIA U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration

OSHA U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PA Programmatic Agreement

POI Point of Interconnect

ROW Right of Way

RUS U.S. Rural Utilities Service

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

T&E Threatened and Endangered

TCNS FAA Tower Construction Notification System

TIA Telecommunications Industry Association

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WYGF Wyoming Game and Fish

WYCRIS Wyoming Cultural Resource Information System

WYDOT Wyoming Department of Transportation

Supplemental Environmental Assessment


Various Locations, Colorado

March 19, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. 01127051

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) awarded this grant to the

Colorado Community Anchors Broadband Consortium, through the Broadband Technology

Opportunities Program (BTOP), as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

(ARRA). The funding must be obligated and the project completed within 3 years (September

30, 2013). This timeline is driven by the laws and regulations governing the use of this (ARRA)

grant funding.

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for (BTOP) Grant Award No.

NT11BIX5570001, Colorado Community Anchors Broadband Consortium (CCABC) because of

substantial changes in the Proposed Action that was reviewed in the original EA (Terracon,

2011) and found by the NTIA (NTIA, 2011) to present no significant impact [40 CFR 1502.9(c)].

The original EA (Terracon, 2011) is incorporated by reference into this Supplemental EA.

On December 6, 2011, The CCABC project was suspended by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Grants Office (Appendix A). The Suspension Letter

specified that the grant recipient, Educational Access Gateway Learning Environment Network

(EAGLE-Net), immediately cease project construction work and provide various materials and

information to NTIA, including the following items.

■ Current project description and maps that includes all previously and proposed project

modifications;

■ Project schedule illustrating remaining environmental and historic preservation

Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) actions, interdependencies between

actions, and critical paths for completing the project in the performance period;

■ Construction status of the project and documentation of consultations with the U.S. Fish

and Wildfire Service (USFWS) , Colorado and Wyoming State Historic Preservation

Offices (SHPO) and Federally recognized Tribal nations; and

■ Documentation of permits and or licenses required by relevant Federal entities including,

but not limited to, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM),

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Federal

Communications Commission (FCC).

This Supplemental EA for the modified BTOP project complies with the NEPA and the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), and provides much of the information required by the

December 6, 2012 grant Suspension Letter.





Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable vii

Project Status at Suspension

When the CCABC project was suspended, the grant recipient was in the process of:

■ Installing 1,070 miles of buried fiber optic cable in Colorado;

– 84% of northeast quadrant miles constructed (370.59 miles planned; 311.66

miles constructed as of 6 Dec 2012)

– 85% of northwest quadrant miles constructed (4.3 miles planned; 3.68 miles

constructed as of 6 Dec 2012)

– 60% of southwest quadrant miles constructed (448.32 miles planned; 268.46


– 75% of southeast quadrant miles constructed (191.32 miles planned; 144.17


■ Leasing 2,200 miles of existing dark fiber through Indefeasible Rights to Use (IRUs);

– Agreements executed for 1718 miles as of 6 Dec 2012

■ Leasing 242 miles of existing wireless links through IRUs;


■ Installing microwave infrastructure on 37 towers and 9 buildings (for approximately 400

miles of new wireless links); and

– Installation completed at 0 sites as of 6 Dec 2012

■ Connecting 223 community anchor institutions (CAIs)

– Installation completed at 104 CAIs as of 6 Dec 2012

Additionally, the recipient had installed upgraded electronics in equipment racks in existing Point

of Interconnect (POI) sites to improve capacity for 190 miles of existing fiber, and installed

upgraded electronics in existing equipment racks/cabinets to improve capacity for 73 miles of

existing wireless infrastructure. These installations were completed within existing facilities by

December 6, 2012, and did not involve any ground-disturbing work.

This Supplemental EA only evaluates the new (proposed) segments of the CCABC project; it

does not evaluate the constructed (existing) portions of the project. The previously constructed

portions of the CCABC project (i.e., segments built before December 6, 2012 grant suspension)

were generally completed with methods described in the Complete Core Network Fiber

Alternative of this Supplemental EA, and in accordance with the Preferred Alternative (Proposed

Action) of the original EA and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), the Programmatic

Agreement (PA) with the Colorado SHPO, and the guidelines and permits issued by State and

Federal agencies. Deviations from the Proposed Action prior to the grant suspension that





Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable viii

occurred, and potentially caused impacts, are being addressed by the responsible State and

Federal agencies. With NTIA concurrence, EAGLE-Net is cooperating with these agencies to

determine the extent of the impacts, if any, and what mitigation or enforcement actions may be

required.

Project Description (Proposed Action)

Completion of the CCABC project presented and evaluated in this Supplemental EA would

expand and increase Colorado's broadband network, and increase service to 1 Gbps or faster

at school districts, libraries, and community anchor institutions across the State. The project

would also bring broadband access to one county in southern Wyoming. Overall, the project

would increase broadband accessibility and affordability for an estimated 1,600,000 households

and 50,000 businesses, with leasing of more than 2,200 miles of existing dark fiber, installation

of 1,070 miles of terrestrial fiber, leasing of 242 miles of existing wireless broadband, and

installation of more than 400 miles of microwave wireless broadband.

Environmental impacts and costs of the CCABC project would be minimized by using existing

fiber optic infrastructure and wireless tower infrastructure. The primary method of installation

would be by vibratory plowing. Directional boring and trenching would be used to install short

sections of new fiber optic lines, particularly in areas of existing infrastructure (e.g., roads and

railroads) and environmentally sensitive habitat (e.g., streams and wetlands). Additionally,

broadband electronics would be installed in new and existing, huts, cabinets, and handholds, as

well as in existing building and on existing towers. No buildings or towers would be constructed

by the CCABC project.

Purpose and Need

The purpose and need of the CCABC project remains the same as evaluated in the July 2011

EA. The propose of the project is to expand and enhance broadband service in underserved

and unserved areas of Colorado and in one county of southern Wyoming, which would improve

access to information by educational and public institutions (e.g. schools, universities, libraries),

and provide opportunity for economic growth and job creation in rural communities. The

completed project would provide access to unserved and underserved areas, educational and

public institutions (e.g. schools, universities, libraries), and provide the opportunity for economic

growth and job creation by providing new opportunities for rural communities.

The need for this project is caused by diverse, rugged physical geography of Colorado, which is

a financial obstacle to fiber build-out. One linear mile of distance can equate to up to six miles

of fiber optic cable in rugged terrain. Correspondingly, private utility companies have found it

economically unfeasible to build middle-mile broadband infrastructure in rural Colorado with

current broadband infrastructure. Even when available, rural Colorado broadband customers

pay up to 10 times the cost of comparable broadband service of urban areas, often with lower

connectivity speeds. The State is currently ranked 42nd in the nation in broadband connectivity.





Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable ix

Alternatives Evaluated

Three alternatives are evaluated in this Supplemental EA.

Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative)

The Preferred Alternative is to complete the build-out of a middle-mile network to connect

unserved and underserved portions of Colorado’s 64 counties and one county in Wyoming,

connecting 223 institutions, including 168 school districts, 26 libraries, 15 community colleges,

and three universities (Air Force Academy, Colorado College, and the University of Northern

Colorado) (Appendix C). The project would provide connectivity for one school district and two

libraries on the Southern Ute Indian Reservation.

Planned construction for the Preferred Alternative includes the following:

Installation of 342 miles buried fiber optic cable;

Leasing of approximately 482 miles of existing dark fiber through Indefeasible

Rights to Use (IRUs);

Installation of microwave infrastructure on 37 existing towers and 9 buildings for

approximately 400 miles of new wireless links (including wireless links over

Critical and or Potentially Suitable Habitat of the endangered Pagosa skyrocket,

Ipomopsis polyantha) and Clay-loving buckwheat, Eriogonum pelinophilum);

Connections to 119 community anchor institutions (CAIs)

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative evaluated in this Supplemental EA is defined as no further

construction of the CCABC project. Installation of infrastructure that ceased in accordance with

the requirements of the Suspension Letter (Appendix A) would not resume. Where

economically feasible, some constructed portions of the middle-mile infrastructure (including

fiber installed before December 6, 2012) might be used to deliver last-mile broadband services.

Connections to the remaining 119 of the 223 CAIs would not be completed. The No Action

Alternative was not chosen as the Preferred Alternative because it does not meet the purpose

and need of the Federal Action.

Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative

This alternative is similar to the Preferred Alternative, but with a 100% fiber-optic core ring,

including fiber buried in Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat of the endangered Pagosa

skyrocket (Ipomopsis polyantha) and Clay-loving buckwheat (Eriogonum pelinophilum). This

alternative would enable broadband service of at least 1 Gbps throughout the middle-mile

infrastructure, and deliver high-speed service to more unserved and underserved locations in





Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable x

the State than the Proposed Action. This alternative was not chosen as the Preferred

Alternative because completion of the Biological Assessments and Formal Consultation with the

USFWS could not be finished in time for the CCABC project to be restarted and completed in

time to meet the ARRA grant completion deadline of September 30, 2013, and therefore does

not meet the purpose and need of the Federal Action.

Summary

Based on analysis completed as part of this Supplemental EA, the Proposed Action to install

342 miles buried fiber optic cable and install microwave infrastructure on 37 existing towers and

9 buildings would not result in significant negative impacts to the environment, human health, or

cultural resources. Correspondingly, the CCABC project is expected to provide several positive

socioeconomic benefits, improvements to human health and safety, and benefits to land use

within the area served by the project. In addition, the project would provide unserved and

underserved communities with lower cost broadband access and improvements in education

and communications.

Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 1

SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT


EAGLE-Net Alliance

Various Locations, Colorado, and Wyoming

Terracon Project No. 01127051

March 19, 2013

INTRODUCTION 1.0

This grant was awarded by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration

(NTIA) to the Colorado Community Anchors Broadband Consortium, through the Broadband

Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), as part of the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The funding must be obligated and the project completed within 3

years (September 30, 2013). This timeline is driven by the laws and regulations governing the

use of this ARRA grant funding.

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared for BTOP Grant Award No.

NT11BIX5570001, Colorado Community Anchors Broadband Consortium (CCABC) because of

substantial changes in the Proposed Action that was reviewed in the original EA (Terracon,

2011) and found by NTIA (2011) to present no significant impact [40 CFR 1502.9(c)]. The

original EA (Terracon, 2011) is incorporated by reference into this Supplemental EA.

On December 6, 2012, the CCABC project was suspended by the NOAA Grants Office

(Appendix A) pending re-evaluation of the project for compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

(NHPA).

The information contained in this Supplemental EA presented the purpose and need for the

remaining elements of the CCABC broadband project, and summarizes impact evaluations on

ten environmental resource areas: Noise, Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Water Resources,

Biological Resources, Historic and Cultural Resources, Aesthetic and Visual Resources, Land

Use, Infrastructure, and Socioeconomic Resources. Potential impacts of the project on Human

Health and Safety, as well as Cumulative Impacts, are also evaluated and presented.

Construction and infrastructure built before the project was suspended on December 6, 2013 is

not evaluated in this document.

This Supplemental EA only evaluates the new (proposed) segments of the CCABC project; it

does not evaluate the constructed (existing) portions of the project. The previously constructed

portions of the CCABC project (i.e., segments built before December 6, 2012 grant suspension)

were generally completed with methods described in the Complete Core Network Fiber

Alternative of this Supplemental EA, and in accordance with the Preferred Alternative (Proposed






Action) of the original EA and FONSI, the Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the Colorado

SHPO, and the guidelines and permits issued by State and Federal agencies. Deviations from

the Proposed Action prior to the grant suspension that occurred, and potentially caused

impacts, are being addressed by the responsible State and Federal agencies. With NTIA

concurrence, EAGLE-Net is cooperating with these agencies to determine the extent of the

impacts, if any, and what mitigation or enforcement actions may be required.

PURPOSE AND NEED 2.0

Purpose

The propose of the project is to expand and enhance broadband service in underserved and

unserved areas of Colorado and in one county of southern Wyoming, which would improve

access to information by educational and public institutions (e.g. schools, universities, libraries),

and provide opportunity for economic growth and job creation in rural communities. The

geography of rural Colorado is an impediment of fiber build-out. One linear mile of distance can

equate to six miles of fiber cable in rugged terrain. Private utility companies have found it

economically unfeasible to build middle-mile broadband infrastructure in rural Colorado with

current broadband infrastructure. Even when available, rural Colorado broadband customers

pay up to 10 times the cost of comparable broadband service of urban areas, often with lower

connectivity speeds. The State is currently ranked 42nd in the nation in broadband connectivity.

The CCABC project would increase broadband accessibility and affordability for an estimated

1,600,000 households and 50,000 businesses.

Need

The need for this project is to mitigate the socioeconomic, human-health, and safety impacts

that presently existing across large areas of the State, which are partly caused by little or no

access to broadband service. Hospitals, schools, universities, and libraries in rural areas of the

State are delivering compromised or inefficient services because of restricted communication

infrastructure. Economic growth and job creation in these communities are similarly stifled by

limited broadband access.

The Colorado Broadband map (Figure 2-1 - http://maps.co.gov/coloradobroadband/) shown on

the following page illustrates the lack of broadband capacity in the rural areas of the State. As

shown in the map, even some urban areas fall short of the long-term national broadband plan

objective of affordable access to at least 1 Gbps service to anchor institutions such as schools,

hospitals, and government buildings. (Federal Communications Commission, “National

Broadband Plan: Connecting America,” Chapter 2,

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/2-goals-for-a-high-performance-america/.)

http://maps.co.gov/coloradobroadband/

http://www.broadband.gov/plan/2-goals-for-a-high-performance-america/


Figure 2.1 – Colorado Broadband Map






In addition to the lack of broadband capacity, the following map (Figure 2.2) showing

economically distressed areas in Colorado illustrates that many of the areas in the state with

insufficient broadband are also in economically distressed areas. It may not be possible to

quantify a direct correlation between areas that are economically distressed having insufficient

broadband; however, providing affordable broadband service in these areas does provide the

opportunity to access services at reduced costs similar to other areas in the state.

Figure 2.2 – Colorado Economically Distressed Areas Map

Economic constraints encountered by private utility companies have resulted in limited or non-

existent and often costly broadband coverage for education, healthcare, public safety, and

community facilities in many areas of the state. Colorado is ranked 42nd of the 50 states in

broadband connectivity, and facilities in rural or remote areas of the state pay approximately 10

times the rate of neighboring states for inferior broadband bandwidth. The CCABC project






would improve access and affordability for education, healthcare, public safety, and community

institutions throughout the state of Colorado.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 3.0

3.1 PROPOSED ACTION

The CCABC project would require the construction and completion of approximately 1,070 miles

of new underground fiber optic cable, and 46 collocations of antennas onto existing towers or

buildings. No new buildings or towers will be constructed.

The Proposed Action includes the following:

■ Installation of 342 miles buried fiber optic cable;

■ Leasing of approximately 482 miles of existing dark fiber through Indefeasible Rights to Use (IRUs);

■ Installation of microwave infrastructure on 37 existing towers and 9 buildings for approximately 400 miles of new wireless links (including wireless links over Critical and or Potentially Suitable Habitat of the endangered Pagosa skyrocket, Ipomopsis polyantha) and Clay-loving buckwheat, Eriogonum pelinophilum);

■ Connections to 119 community anchor institutions (CAIs)

Approximately 11 miles of the 342 miles of buried fiber optic cable would be in Laramie County,

Wyoming, to connect to a new fiber route constructed in collaboration with the Colorado

Department of Transportation (CDOT) beginning at 120th Street near Denver north to the

Colorado-Wyoming border along Interstate 25. The statewide project map is displayed below.






Figure 3.1.1 – State Wide Project Map

When the CCABC project was suspended, the grant recipient was in the process of:

■ Installing 1,070 miles of buried fiber optic cable in Colorado;

– 84% of northeast quadrant miles constructed (370.59 miles planned; 311.66


– 85% of northwest quadrant miles constructed (4.3 miles planned; 3.68 miles

constructed as of 6 Dec 2012)

– 60% of southwest quadrant miles constructed (448.32 miles planned; 268.46


– 75% of southeast quadrant miles constructed (191.32 miles planned; 144.17


■ Leasing 2,200 miles of existing dark fiber through Indefeasible Rights to Use (IRUs);


■ Leasing 242 miles of existing wireless links through IRUs;







■ Installing microwave infrastructure on 37 towers and 9 buildings (for approximately 400

miles of new wireless links); and

– Installation completed at 0 sites as of 6 Dec 2012

■ Connecting 223 community anchor institutions (CAIs)

– Installation completed at 104 CAIs as of 6 Dec 2012

Additionally, the recipient had installed upgraded electronics in equipment racks in existing POI

sites to improve capacity for 190 miles of existing fiber, and installed upgraded electronics in

existing equipment racks/cabinets to improve capacity for 73 miles of existing wireless

infrastructure. These installations were completed within existing facilities by December 6,

2012, and did not involve any ground-disturbing work.

Further details regarding the locations of fiber routes and construction status are included in the

maps in Appendix B. There are also detailed Federal agency specific maps included in each

agency appendix.

The CCABC project would connect 223 CAI’s, including 168 school districts, 26 libraries, 11

Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES), 15 community colleges, and three

universities. New fiber would be installed in public rights-of-way along previously disturbed

roadways, utility corridors, and railroad rights-of-way, and would generally parallel existing utility

lines. A map showing the location of the CAI’s is depicted below and is included in Appendix C

with additional CAI information.






Figure 3.1.2 – CAI Location Map

Fiber Optic Cable

The approximately 1,070 miles of fiber optic cable would be installed using underground

placement within existing road and railroad rights-of-way. Underground installation would

typically occur via vibratory plowing in rural areas, but would be completed using directional

boring in urban areas (to avoid impacts to roads, sidewalks, driveways, etc.) and in areas where

use of directional boring would facilitate avoidance of impacts to environmental resources, such

as streams and wetlands. Bridge attachment may also be utilized to avoid impacts to wetlands

and streams. The number and locations where bridge attachment would be utilized would be

determined upon final design. Trenching would be utilized on a limited basis where vibratory

plowing and directional boring are not feasible due to access constraints, costs, or other

concerns. Existing buried conduit along Hwy 160, within the Rio Grande National Forest, is also

being utilized along a portion of the route (Appendix O). During construction, handholes would

be placed, in the right of way, at intervals of approximately 500 feet in urban environments and

approximately 1500 feet in rural areas. The handholes are installed flush to the surface with a

depth of 18 inches. These handholes are used for fiber slack storage and fiber splicing






locations. In Appendix D, there are spec sheets of the handholes as well as a photo of a

handhole after installation. Telecommunication equipment cabinets would also be placed in the

public right of way. These cabinets sit on a modified handhole base. A photo of an installed

cabinet is included in Appendix E along with spec sheets on the cabinet and base. Also

included in Appendix E is a map of the cabinet locations and a spreadsheet with additional

cabinet information.

Vibratory plowing consists of the use of a specialized piece of machinery called a track plow.

The plow opens a slot into the ground at the specified depth. The typical ground disturbance

width when plowing is between 6 and 8 feet. The slot is no more than 6-inches wide. A reel of

conduit is loaded onto the plow, and as the plow moves forward, the conduit is fed into a chute,

which directs the conduit into the bottom of the slot opened by the plow, typically approximately

36 inches below ground surface. The conduit is laid at the proper depth, and as the plow

continues forward, the excavated slot is compacted back to ground level. In a rural area with a

minimal amount of obstructions, plowing is the most time‐ and cost‐efficient method of placing

underground fiber cable. Transport vehicles would also be required to accompany the track

plow, including a cable reel truck, vehicles for transporting construction personnel, and a truck

and trailer to transport other equipment and supplies. Ground disturbance associated with

vibratory plowing is limited to the narrow (approximately 6-inch) slot created by the plow and

limited disturbance associated with movement of the tractor pulling plow along the route. A

photo of a plow operation is inserted below. This photo along with other construction images is

included in Appendix D.

Figure 3.1.3 – Vibratory Plow Photo






Directional boring consists of utilizing a boring rig to create a borehole, typically 4-6 inches in

diameter, at an appropriate depth. The typical ground disturbance width when directional boring

is between 4 and 8 feet depending on the size of bore rig required. Depth of boreholes depends

on need, as directional boring is utilized to avoid obstacles such as streams. Therefore, the

depth would vary based on depth of impediment. Similarly, although bore lengths are generally

less than 100 feet, they may be as long as hundreds of feet depending on the obstacles being

avoided. A bore may be commenced with a bore pit, which allows the bore to occur at the

proper depth. The boring head is then directed forward by the operator and tunnels through the

ground beneath the obstruction. As the head moves forward, 10-foot rod sections are added to

the boring rig to increase the length of the excavation as necessary. A slurry mixture is

introduced through the rods and bore to soften the soil for compaction around the boring head

path. After the obstruction is cleared, the boring head is directed toward the ground surface.

When the boring head breaks the surface, flexible High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) casing is

attached to the bore head, and the head is then pulled back through the excavation, which pulls

the piping into the excavation thereby creating a pathway through which the cable may be

installed. Directional boring would require a boring rig, a cable reel truck, and transport vehicles

for personnel and other equipment and supplies. Ground disturbance for directional boring is

limited to areas of entrance and exit for the boring head, and the location of the boring rig during

the drilling. Hand holes would be installed below-grade using small excavators to minimize soil

disturbance. A photo of a directional boring operation is included in Appendix D.

Trenching consists of utilizing a backhoe or similar excavation equipment to open a trench from

8-12 inches wide by approximately 36 inches deep. The typical ground disturbance width when

trenching is between 6 and 10 feet depending on the type of equipment utilized. Either

conduit(s) would be placed in the bottom of the trench to allow the fiber optic cable to be

installed within, or the fiber optic cable would be buried using the “direct-bury” method by

placing the fiber optic cable in the bottom of the open trench. Following conduit or “direct-bury”

cable installation, the trench would be backfilled and compacted with the same excavated

material. As is the case with the other construction techniques described within this

Supplemental EA, it is intended that trenching would occur within previously disturbed public

rights-of-way. Pictures of trenching operations are included in Appendix D.

Micro-trenching utilizes special equipment to simultaneously cut a narrow trench, typically 12-

18-inches deep, through asphalt while at the same time removing spoil with a vacuum system.

Ground disturbance when micro-trenching is limited to the width of the micro-trench in the

roadbed, typically 2 to 4 inches. After conduits are placed in the trench, the excavation is filled

with an environmentally safe grout that is immune to shrinkage, weathering, and erosion. After

curing, asphalt mastic is applied on top of the grout filled trench. Through consultation with

CDOT Micro-Trenching is the preferred method for completing construction over Wolf Creek

Pass between Pagosa Springs and South Fork, Colorado. Photographs of micro-trenching are

included in Appendix D.






Community anchor institutions would be connected to the network through underground or

aerial installation. If underground installation is utilized, existing communications conduit would

be used to enter the buildings if available, or a new 2-inch penetration would be created through

the facility wall if necessary. If aerial installation is completed, the new fiber line would be

parallel with existing aerial utilities, and enter the building at the same location as existing

utilities. No utility poles would be installed or replaced for this project. The locations where

these installation methods would be utilized would be determined upon final design. Example

building entrance pictures are included in Appendix D.

Wireless Technology

Wireless technology would be utilized in areas where cable placement is not feasible,

particularly in remote and rural portions of the state. Microwave antennas would be installed on

existing telecommunications towers where possible, and no new towers would be constructed.

Approximately 37 existing towers and 9 buildings would be utilized for collocations of new

antennas.

Collocations to existing telecommunications towers would consist of installing a microwave

antenna onto an existing tower in accordance with applicable FCC and industry guidelines and

regulations. In addition, antenna collocations to buildings designated as historic would comply

with Colorado Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation (SHPO) recommendations and

Best Management Practice (BMP): Attaching Broadband Equipment to Historic Buildings

guidance document from the NTIA. Leasing agreements would be obtained from the existing

tower owners. In addition, installation would include placing a 3-foot by 3-foot pre-cast concrete

pad within the existing tower’s fenced compound. The pad would hold the new network

equipment cabinet. Cabinet and base spec sheets and photos are included in Appendix E.

Ground disturbance would not occur outside of the existing tower compound footprint. This

weatherproof cabinet would house essential power and communication electronics such as

batteries, power supplies, and microwave radios. If the tower compound has existing buildings

for the collocation of tenant’s electronics, than an equipment cabinet would not be placed at the

site. If required, emergency generators would be installed within the existing compound.

Applicable zoning and permitting requirements would be met for these sites, and they would

comply with requirements of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Collocation of

Wireless Antennas.

Antenna collocations to existing buildings would consist of attaching microwave antennas to the

rooftops of existing buildings utilizing standard antenna and roof mounts. Co-axial cable would

run from the roof to additional network equipment to be located inside the buildings.

Collocations to existing structures would not require ground disturbance. Example microwave

antennas are pictured in Appendix D.






Construction and installation activities (plowing, directional boring, trenching, micro-trenching,

antenna collocation, etc.) would be completed in accordance with industry standards and

applicable Federal, State, and local guidelines and regulations. Installation of fiber optic cable

would occur along existing roadway rights-of-way; therefore, appropriate permissions, permits,

and agreements would be put in to place to utilize rights-of-way. Utility companies would be

notified of cable installation to allow utility companies to mark locations of their existing facilities

and avoid impacts to said facilities. Cable routes, cable depths, antenna heights, etc. would be

adjusted as necessary to avoid impacts to other utilities and sensitive environmental resources.

In order to protect workers and motorists, the installation contractor would be required to follow

CDOT and Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) methods for construction work-

zone traffic control within rights-of-way. While the majority of the work would be off the

roadway, adequate signage and barricades are necessary for the safe operation of equipment

within the right of way. Similarly, installation personnel would adhere to applicable U.S.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards for worker protection,

including use of appropriate high visibility safety vests for construction zone personnel.

EAGLE-Net would consult with Federal, State, and local agencies and authorities, as required,

and secure all necessary permits, permissions, and licenses before construction begins, and

would submit post-construction reports as required..

3.2 Alternatives

No Action Alternative 3.2.1

The No Action Alternative evaluated in this Supplemental EA is defined as no further

construction of the CCABC project. Installation of infrastructure that ceased in accordance with

the requirements of the Suspension Letter (Appendix A) would not resume. This alternative

would eliminate the need for any additional ground disturbing activities and all ancillary

requirements. The No Action alternative fails to address the project’s purpose and need, but is

included within this comparison to illustrate the potential impacts of the Proposed Action and

Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative.

Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative 3.2.2

This alternative is similar to the Proposed Action, but with a 100% fiber-optic core ring, including

fiber optic line installed in or near designated Critical and or Potentially Suitable Habitat, as

defined by USFWS, for the Federally endangered Pagosa skyrocket (Ipomopsis polyantha) and

Clay-loving buckwheat (Eriogonum pelinophilum). Maps of these alternative fiber routes are

included in the USFWS Appendix N. This alternative was not chosen as the Preferred

Alternative because completion of the Biological Assessments (BA) and Formal Consultation






with the USFWS could not be finished in time for the CCABC project to be restarted and

completed in time to meet the ARRA grant completion deadline of September 30, 2013.

Therefore, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Federal Action.

Furthermore, there was no guarantee that the BAs for this alternative would have shown no

impact to potentially affected species. EAGLE-Net intends to pursue this alternative with all

applicable agencies to determine if completing the BAs, securing permits, and completing

construction within the grant deadline with this alternative is feasible.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Discussion 3.2.3

A summary of these alternatives from the original EA are included in Appendix U.

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4.0

4.1 Noise

The level of existing ambient noise varies throughout the project area according to location and

land use. Most of the project would be located along the right-of-way of existing roadways

through agricultural areas. In these areas, ambient noise is primarily attributable to wind,

passing cars, and farm machinery. Based on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

information, outdoor noise levels range from 35 to 70 dB in typical rural and urban settings (EPA

1978). Noise near railroad rights-of-way is primarily attributable to passing trains. Areas

adjacent to highways are likely to have increased noise levels that fluctuate with traffic patterns.

In the urban portions of the project, ambient noise includes industrial operations, traffic,

ventilation equipment, lawn mowers, railroad operations, and other varying sources. In addition,

areas adjacent to major waterways, such as rivers, experience noise associated with water

movement, particularly during times of high water flow or in areas containing rapids.

Sensitive receptors are land use types that have increased sensitivity to sound. Sensitive

receptors within the project area include residential properties, schools, hospitals, churches and

libraries and are found in various locations throughout the project area, particularly in urban

areas.

4.2 Air Quality

The project area would be located in Colorado & Wyoming. The climate range in Colorado &

Wyoming is profoundly affected by differences in elevation, with mountainous areas nearly

always remaining cool and cool winters and warm summers in the plains regions (Western

Regional Climate Center 2013). Temperatures between high and low elevations can vary as

much as 35°F. In general, temperature decreases, and precipitation increases with altitude;






total yearly precipitation can vary from 25 to 300 inches, with the most snow occurring in

mountainous areas of the state. Humidity is generally low.

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are components of the atmosphere that trap heat relatively near the

surface of the earth, and therefore, contribute to the greenhouse effect and global warming.

Most GHGs occur naturally in the atmosphere, but increases in their concentration result from

human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Global temperatures are expected to

continue to rise as human activities continue to add carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and

other greenhouse (or heat-trapping) gases to the atmosphere. Since 1900, the Earth’s average

surface air temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4°F. The warmest global average

temperatures on record have all occurred within the past 13 years, with the warmest year being

2005 (EPA 2012). Most of the U.S. is expected to experience an increase in average

temperature. Precipitation changes, which are also very important to consider when assessing

climate change effects, are the most difficult to predict. Whether or not rainfall would increase

or decrease remains difficult to project for specific regions (EPA 2012). The extent of climate

change effects, and whether these effects prove harmful or beneficial, would vary by region,

over time, and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to adapt to or

cope with the change. Human health, agriculture, natural ecosystems, coastal areas, and

heating and cooling requirements are examples of climate-sensitive systems. Rising average

temperatures are already affecting the environment. Some observed changes include shrinking

of glaciers, thawing of permafrost, later freezing and earlier break-up of ice on rivers and lakes,

lengthening of growing seasons, shifts in plant and animal ranges, and earlier flowering of trees

(EPA 2012, IPCC 2007).

The cable routes are along existing roadways or located in towns or urban areas. These areas

experience air pollution from automobiles and other modes of transportation, industry, and

agricultural related activities on a regular basis. Based on a review of information from the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there are several fiber optic routes that are located

within the Denver-Boulder-Greeley-Fort Collins, Colorado Eight-Hour Ozone Control Area,

which has a non-attainment status for ozone (Appendix J). Other areas of air quality concern

were not identified within the project area.

4.3 Geology and Soils

Generalized descriptions of the geology of fiber-optic cable routes are presented in the following

sections (USDA-NRCS 2012 and CGS 2012). Soil types within the project area vary widely due

to the geographical extents of the project, with different parent materials, slopes, and climates.

High Plains. Great Plains – Eastern Colorado/Wyoming Cable Routes:

The cable routes traverse plains covered by Quaternary and Tertiary gravel,

sand, and silt, or areas where Mesozoic to Tertiary sedimentary rocks (shale,






sandstone, coal, limestone) are at or near the surface. The cable route crossing

the Great Plains portion of Huerfano County also traverses more rugged terrain

with scattered Tertiary intrusive bodies (volcanic necks, dikes, sills, etc.).

Southern Rocky Mountains – West-Central Colorado Cable Routes:

The cable routes traverse structurally complex areas of Paleozoic to Mesozoic

sedimentary rocks locally intruded and covered by Tertiary volcanic and intrusive

rocks, or which occur between fault-bound uplifts consisting of Precambrian

granite and metamorphic basement rocks.

Colorado Plateau – West-Central and Southwestern Colorado Cable Routes:

The cable routes traverse a high plateau region underlain by relatively little-

deformed Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic sedimentary rocks (shales,

sandstones, conglomerates) locally intruded and covered by Mesozoic to Tertiary

volcanic and intrusive rocks. The plateau has been eroded to form deep

canyons and mesas, in which Precambrian basement rocks (granite, gneiss,

schist) are locally exposed.

Wyoming Basin – Northwestern Colorado Cable Routes:

Cable routes within the towns of Meeker and Craig traverse the Wyoming Basin

area, which is characterized by structural basins and broad, anticlinal uplifts. The

Meeker route traverses a small valley filled with Quaternary alluvial deposits and

underlain by Cretaceous shale. Eroded cliffs of Cretaceous sandstone, shale,

and coal are present immediately north and west of Meeker. Structurally,

Meeker appears to be situated within the eroded interior of a broad anticlinal

uplift. The Craig route also traverses a small valley filled with Quaternary alluvial

deposits, which crosses an area of ragged canyons and hills eroded from

relatively little deformed Cretaceous and Tertiary sandstone, shale, and coal.

Structurally, this area appears to be a basin.

Due to the location of fiber routes within existing previously disturbed rights-of-way, installation

of cable within these areas is not anticipated to impact prime farmland.

4.4 WATER RESOURCES

Streams and Rivers 4.4.1

Numerous streams and rivers, as identified on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute

topographic maps, are crossed by the fiber optic cable routes. Potential stream crossings

include numerous named and unnamed streams. A list of streams and rivers that may cross

fiber routes is included in Appendix I. The Animus, Dolores, Pierre, San Miguel, San Juan and






Uncompahgre Rivers and Ten mile Creek have been identified by the Sacramento District of the

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as a “Traditional Navigable Water” under 33 CFR

328.3(a)(1). In addition, other streams and rivers to be crossed by the proposed project are

likely to be considered jurisdictional Waters of the U.S., including named streams and rivers and

unnamed intermittent to perennial streams and tributaries. Sections of streams and rivers to be

crossed are not identified as Outstanding Natural Resource Waters or Wild and Scenic Rivers,

although some sections have the potential to provide habitat for sensitive species, such as the

Arkansas darter and Colorado pike minnow.

Wetlands 4.4.2

The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) was established by the USFWS in 1974 and provides

information on the characteristics, extent, and status of U.S. wetlands, water bodies (ponds,

lakes rivers), and deep-water habitats (estuarine and marine). The database utilizes the

Cowardin Classification System to classify mapped wetlands, defining areas as those containing

the following three characteristics: hydrophytic plants, hydric soils, and hydrology. The

Cowardin Classification system divides wetlands into five defined classification systems: Marine,

Estuarine, Riverine, Lacustrine, and Palustrine. The classified systems are further divided in to

subsystems based upon substrate material, flooding regime, or vegetation.

The NWI database provides data in geodatabase format, displaying spatial information through

seamless map data that has been digitalized and is available through the Wetlands Mapper

online program (USFWS 2012). The NWI database is used as a means of establishing the

possible presence of wetlands within a given area and serves as a planning tool to guide

developers in minimizing and avoiding impacts to potential wetland habitats.

NWI data was reviewed for each of the fiber optic routes. The reviewed data indicates potential

riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine areas adjacent to or crossing a number of the fiber optic

cable routes. A majority of the potential wetland areas appear to be associated with streams or

river systems, but also include several apparently isolated wetland areas such as ponds or

depressions. Overall, the fiber optic routes are proposed to be installed within existing right-of-

ways. Reviewed NWI data showed that potential wetland areas within or adjacent to existing

right-of-way was uncommon.

Floodplains 4.4.3

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produces Flood Insurance Rate Maps

(FIRM) that delineates flood zones within a given geographic area. Flood zone designations are

given by FEMA and indicate the risk and/or severity of flooding within the given area. These

designations are inclusive of information pertaining to 100 and 500-year floods and floodplains

of lesser hazards, such as those protected by levees. FEMA’s Flood Map Modernization

program has compiled flood hazard data into the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL), a






computer database that provides digital flood hazard information for all mapped areas (FEMA

2013). In addition to flood information such as flood hazard zones and base flood elevations,

the NFHL provides digital viewing of FIRM data.

The NFHL was reviewed for each of the fiber optic routes. Floodplains were identified by the

NFHL within numerous areas where fiber optic route crossings occur. A majority of the

identified floodplains were associated with large river systems; however, floodplains associated

with smaller streams were also within the areas crossed by fiber optic routes.

Groundwater 4.4.4

Groundwater supplies approximately 18 percent of water needs in project area. The majority of

groundwater is used for agricultural purposes. Groundwater depth varies across project area

and is influenced by geology, topography and soil types. Water-quality data from public water

systems supplied by ground water indicate the most common contaminants in project area are

nitrate, fluoride, selenium, iron, manganese, alpha radiation (radon), and uranium. Various

sources contribute to groundwater contamination, including but not limited to underground

storage tanks (USTs), buried wastes, landfills, injection wells, land-based chemical applications,

leaking septic systems, disposal ponds, and various spills and leaks. Sole Source Aquifers are

not located in the project area.

4.5 Biological Resources

The Proposed Action encompasses the majority of Colorado and a portion of southeastern

Wyoming. The project area can be categorized into five Level lll terrestrial ecoregions based on

similarities in climate, vegetation, wildlife, etc. (CEC 2012).

High Plains. The eastern portion of Colorado and southeastern Wyoming are

part of the High Plains ecoregion. This region was historically short and mid-

grass prairie. However, the majority of this area has been altered through

agricultural use and other human development.

Southwestern Tablelands. The east-central portion of Colorado is comprised of

the Southwestern Tablelands ecoregion. The topography of this region is

comprised of elevated tablelands with a similar climate and species community to

the neighboring High Plains ecoregion. This area is also historically a short to

mid-grass prairie that has been used for livestock grazing.

Southern Rockies. The central portion of Colorado falls into the Southern

Rockies ecoregion, which has warm to cool summers and severe winters.

Various forms of coniferous forests cover much of the region, with grass or






shrubs generally covering the lower elevations. Terrain is generally linear

mountain ranges with elevations ranging from approximately 1500 to 3,400

meters above sea level (MASL).

Wyoming Basin. The far northwestern portion of Colorado lies within the

Wyoming Basin ecoregion, with warm to hot summers and cold winters. The

terrain is comprised of a broad intermontane basin interrupted in places by high

hills and low mountains, and vegetation is dominated by arid grasslands and

shrublands.

Colorado Plateaus. The remaining portion of western Colorado falls under the

Colorado Plateaus ecoregion. This ecoregion is characterized by hot summers

with low humidity, and cool to cold dry winters. The topography is a tableland

area that can have abrupt changes in local elevation, which often vary from 300

to 600 meters. Vegetation varies according to elevation, with low elevation

basins and canyons vegetated with species such as Blackbrush, Shadscale,

Fourwing saltbush, and Galleta grass. Uplands and higher elevation valleys

contain sagebrush and pinyon-juniper woodlands, and higher elevations contain

some areas of oak, mahogany, aspen, and Douglas-fir.

The USFWS lists threatened and endangered (T&E) species by county for Colorado and

Wyoming. The current USFWS plant, vertebrate, and invertebrate lists located at

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/ were reviewed to identify T&E species and designated

Critical Habitat that occur where ground-disturbing Proposed Action work is planned. In

addition, the USFWS was contacted directly for input regarding the Proposed Action in

accordance with Section 7 of the ESA. The Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) was also

contacted to solicit comments regarding the Proposed Action. Comments from the USFWS and

CPW have been incorporated into this Supplemental EA, and copies of correspondences with

these agencies are included in Appendices I and J, respectively.

During the original EA the Wyoming Game and Fish (WYGF) lists of Species of Special

Concern were reviewed, and species with a designation of Native Species Status l (SSl) and

Native Species Status ll (SSll) that may occur in Laramie County, Wyoming are included in

Appendix H. The Species of Special Concern designation is not a statutory category, and these

species are not afforded the same protections as species listed as threatened or endangered.

According to the USFWS, CPW and WYGF lists (USFWS 2012 and CDW 2012), 100 protected

species or species of concern were identified, and a list of these species is included in the table

in Appendix H.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/species/






4.6 Historic and Cultural Resources

To streamline compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, BTOP recipients are authorized to

gather information to identify and evaluate historic properties and work with consulting parties to

assess effects. To reduce the number of inquiries and time associated with reviewing the

historical file searches, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) between the NTIA, Colorado SHPO,

and the Eagle-Net Alliance was established to provide guidance and stipulations regarding the

potential historical resources found in proximity to the fiber routes. A copy of this PA is included

in Appendix P. As per the PA’s Stipulation I.B.2:

“EAGLE-Net will have a State of Colorado permitted archaeologist on contract

retainer in all regions where underground construction is occurring who will flag

all archaeological sites within 100 feet of the cable corridor prior to construction.”

NTIA initiated consultation with the Colorado SHPO under NHPA Section 106 in support of this

Supplemental EA.

Due to the sensitive and confidential nature of the location of cultural resources, maps and other

information detailing the locations of these resources sent to SHPO and tribal organizations

have not been included in this report; however, State maps indicating the Proposed Action

areas are included in Appendix B.

Consultation Overview

Prior to the identification of the requirement for a Supplemental EA, consultation was conducted

by the grantee per the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement between NTIA, the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, the National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers,

and other consulting parties. Consultation with the Wyoming SHPO during drafting of the

original EA (WY SHPO) resulted in a finding of No Effect (see Appendix R). Due to the

conclusion of NHPA Section 106 consultation in Wyoming, this Supplemental EA focuses on the

historic and cultural resources in Colorado.

The Colorado SHPO originally responded in a letter dated October 29, 2010 that historic and/or

archaeological resources may be affected by the Proposed Action due to aboveground and

belowground operations (Appendix P). The SHPO recommended that a file search be conducted

of Colorado Historical Society records to identify historic and archaeological resources and that

further investigation may be needed to ensure that no cultural resources would be affected by the

Proposed Action. In a response letter from the Colorado SHPO dated March 29, 2011, the

agency provided additional comments regarding the Proposed Action and the Colorado SHPO

recommended entering a Programmatic Agreement to reduce review time associated with CAIs

associated with the Proposed Action. The letter went on to state that while adverse effects to

historic properties were not anticipated as a result of installation of fiber routes through






directional boring, “there is greater potential for adverse effects to historic properties” when

vibratory plowing is utilized.

The Colorado SHPO was subsequently provided additional details regarding the Proposed Action

in a letter dated March 2, 2011 and through ongoing email and phone correspondence as per the

stipulations outlined in the arranged Programmatic Agreement. Copies of these correspondences

are included in Appendix P.

Following the guidance provided by the PA, file reviews were submitted to the SHPO. Cultural

and/or historical resources were identified within 100 feet of the fiber centerline of the Proposed

Action. Sites were reviewed to determine if additional consultation and/or field surveys are

needed in order to ensure avoidance measures.

Additional information regarding the Proposed Action was provided regarding comments from

the Colorado SHPO at a meeting on May 4, 2011 and response letters dated April 29 and May

23, 2011. The majority of historic properties are located within urban areas where directional

boring would be utilized to install fiber optic cable. In addition, installation of the proposed fiber

routes would not occur on private property outside of public rights-of-way and the fiber

installation is limited to public rights-of-way along previously disturbed roadways, utility

corridors, and railroads, and would generally parallel existing utility lines. Guidelines issued by

the Colorado SHPO would be followed during implementation of the Proposed Action.

Mitigation measures to be included during the Proposed Action include avoiding known

archaeological resources, ceasing work within 100 feet of a discovery if unknown archaeological

resources are uncovered and contacting appropriate authorities, and submitting appropriate

documentation for connecting existing buildings to the network. Community anchor institutions

would be connected to the network using underground or aerial installation as outlined in

Section 3.1. No utility poles would be installed or replaced for this alternative. In an initial

response letter dated May 25, 2011, the Colorado SHPO determined the Proposed Action

would have No Effect with respect to historic and archaeological resources.

Affected Environment

In support of the Supplemental EA, file searches were conducted using COMPASS, the SHPO’s

on-line cultural resource database and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)

Information Systems web site. The searches were conducted to identify known archaeological

or historic resources per the PA’s guidance located within Area of Potential Effect (APE). The

APE is defined as 100 feet of either side of the broadband fiber centerline. The SHPO and NR

files searches resulted in the identification of the sites listed in Figure 4.6.1 within the APE.

A summary of the cultural sites identified by Historic Preservation Consultants and Alpine

Archaeological Consultants, Inc. include historic structures, historic trails, architectural

structures such as bridges and roadways, prehistoric finds, and historic districts. Historic






Preservation Consultants and Alpine Archaeological Consultants reviewed the potentially

eligible cultural and historical sites within 100 feet of the fiber installation centerline. Sites were

deemed as needing further review if they fell within the Class 1 file-review search radii of

100 feet from the fiber corridor and were listed as eligible and/or previously unevaluated. Sites

listed as eligible and/or unevaluated were researched to ensure mitigation efforts are in place to

avoid impacts to these resources. To date, Historic Preservation Consultants and/or Alpine

Archaeological Consultants have reviewed over 600 hundred cultural resource sites and

identified 37 eligible or potentially eligible historical and/or cultural sites within 100 foot of the

cable corridor needing additional review, consultation, and/or flagging. A detailed table

summarizing the findings of these file searches is included in Appendix P and a summary of

findings to date by county is listed below. It should be noted that while 4.6.1 shows both the

total number sites and the number of eligible sites, all archaeological sites within the 100ft cable

corridor will be flagged prior to construction per the PA.

Figure 4.6.1 – Cultural Resources Identified within CCABC Project Study Corridor

County

Number of

Known Cultural

Resources listed

within 100 ft. of

fiber centerline

Number of

NRHP Eligible

or Potentially

Eligible Cultural

Resources

Eligible or Unevaluated Sites within 100 feet of

fiber centerline with Site ID and NRHP status

Adams 40 1 5AM.1929 - unevaluated

Alamosa 8 0

Arapahoe 73 0

Archuleta 72 5

5AA.1086 – unevaluated*, 5AA.1858*

5AA.2567 – not eligible, 5AA.3766 –

unevaluated, 5AA.528 – eligible*, 5AA.955 –

unevaluated

Cheyenne 1 0

Conejos 3 0

Costilla 11 0

Delta 3 1 5DT.1732 – not eligible

Denver 16 0

Dolores 0 0

El Paso 23 1 5EP.3920 – eligible; flagged 7/30/2012

Elbert 4 1 5EL.147 – unevaluated; flagged 7/30/2012

Garfield 0 0

Huerfano 8 0

Jefferson 9 0

Kit Carson 3 0

Larimer 44 2 5LR.11432 – not eligible, 5LR.11435 –

unevaluated

Las Animas 74 0






County

Number of

Known Cultural

Resources listed

within 100 ft. of

fiber centerline

Number of

NRHP Eligible

or Potentially

Eligible Cultural

Resources

Eligible or Unevaluated Sites within 100 feet of

fiber centerline with Site ID and NRHP status

Logan 2 0

La Plata 75 11

5LP.110 – unevaluated, 5LP.111 –

unevaluated, 5LP.114 – unevaluated, 5LP.115

– unevaluated, 5LP.116 – unevaluated,

5LP.124 – unevaluated, 5LP.126 –

unevaluated, 5LP.5677– unevaluated

5LP.2972* – unevaluated, 5LP.298* –

unevaluated

5LP.6654* – eligible

Mesa 0 0

Mineral 12 2 5ML.32 – unevaluated, 5ML.136 – not eligible

5ML.316* – eligible, 5ML.583* – eligible

Moffat 2 0

Montezuma 12 2 5MT.6599 – listed, 5MT.13767 – eligible

Montrose 9 3 5MN.1164 – unevaluated, 5MN.8341 – not

eligible, 5MN.9214 – not eligible

Morgan 9 0

Ouray 60 0

Phillips 2 0

Rio Blanco 2 0

Rio Grande 7 2 5RN.108 – not eligible, 5RN.109 – not eligible

Saguache 1 0

San Miguel 0 0

Sedgwick 10 0

Washington 9 1 5WN.38 – isolated find

Weld 82 5

5WL.1652 – not eligible, 5WL.2065 – not

eligible, 5WL.5322 – not eligible, 5WL.5325 –

not eligible, 5WL.5555 – not eligible

Yuma 1 0

*Site found on USFS and/or BLM lands

Further identification efforts in Colorado included providing digital map files indicating the

proposed fiber route locations and additional file reviews with four resources on or near U.S. FS

and BLM owned lands. A copy of the SHPO correspondence associated with these file

searches is included in Appendix P. A list of community anchor institutions listed on the NRHP

is also included in Appendix C.






State of Colorado and Secretary of Interior (SOI) permitted archaeologists John Hoffecker

(#2012-81) of Historic Preservation Consultants was contracted to identify and flag

archaeological sites deemed eligible and/or previously unevaluated within 100 feet of the fiber

corridor prior to construction. A copy of Mr. Hoffecker’s credentials is included in Appendix P.

In addition, Terracon contracted with Alpine Archaeological Consultants, Inc. of Montrose,

Colorado (#2013-1) to assist in the review of cultural resources within portions of the Proposed

Action area that cross USFS and BLM lands. Alpine Archaeological Consultants currently holds

USFS permit (CAN391HR) and BLM permit (C-46920) and is licensed for conducting field

surveys and file reviews on both USFS and BLM lands. Copies of Alpine Archaeological

Consultants credentials are also included in Appendix P.

Portions of the fiber installation extend into Laramie County, Wyoming. An initial review of the

cultural and/or historical resources on routes in Laramie County, Wyoming was completed in

July of 2011. A database search of the Wyoming Cultural Resource Information System

(WYCRIS) and the NRHP was conducted to identify eligible properties, State-surveyed historic

resources, and archaeological sites within a 0.5-mile radius of the Proposed Action. There are no

NRHP sites located within the APE of the Proposed Action. According to the database search,

six State-surveyed sites are located within 0.5 mile of the approximately 11-mile broadband

route. They are described below:

Figure 4.6.2 – Wyoming SHPO File Search Summary Table

Laramie County, Wyoming

Cultural Resources Listed (NHRP)status

48LA.10 unevaluated

48LA.117 Noncontributing

48LA.2804 Noncontributing

48LA.2079 Not Eligible

48LA.2080 Not Eligible

48LA.3007 unevaluated

In a letter dated March 14, 2011, the Wyoming SHPO concurred that the proposed fiber route

through Wyoming would have No Effect with respect to potential historic and archaeological

resources. Although the Wyoming letter refers to the CCABC Proposed Action as an U.S. Rural

Utilities Service (RUS) project, subsequent conversations with the Wyoming SHPO indicate they

understand this is a BTOP project. Recommendations made by the Wyoming SHPO regarding

the Proposed Action would be followed during implementation of the project (Appendix R).






Native American Consultation

NTIA originally notified potentially affected Native American tribes in cooperation with the FCC

using their Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS) in February of 2011 (Appendix T).

Responses from the original February 2011 correspondence are included in Appendix T. Re-

initiation of tribal consultation regarding changes in construction scope and scale were

resubmitted via the TCNS system in January 02, 2013 by the NTIA. Thirty days after the

January 02, 2013 tribal notification, one tribe has requested notification of inadvertent

discoveries, as noted in Appendix T. NTIA would continue to consult with these tribes if the

project area changes and provide any requested information and documentation.

4.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources

The project would involve construction within a number of different surroundings including rural

rights-of-way adjacent to agricultural fields, natural areas, railroads, and urban streetscapes.

The project is located within the vicinity (≤ 1 mile) of several protected areas, including multiple

State Wildlife Management Areas, BLM Lands, and the Rio Grande & San Juan National

Forests. Land managed by the BLM & FS is generally comprised of natural areas that are

sensitive to aesthetic and visual impacts.

4.8 Land Use

The existing land use in the construction corridor consists of previously disturbed utility corridors

and public rights-of-way. Several types of land use are present and adjacent to the construction

corridor including agricultural, commercial, industrial, residential, recreational, and educational.

Appendices L, M, O and T provide additional detail regarding the Eagle-Net Alliance (ENA)

project segments that cross Federal and Tribal land. The accompanying maps in Appendix B

provide additional project status detail.

4.9 Infrastructure

Various levels of infrastructure service are in place throughout the project area. Generally, the

project area is served by a network of local roadways, telephone lines, natural gas, and electric

lines. Utility lines within rights-of-way in the project area would be avoided through utilizing a

utility locating service to mark existing lines such as the Utility Notification Center of Colorado

(Colorado One Call) or One Call of Wyoming. In areas where fiber routes must cross other

underground utilities, small test-pits would be excavated by hand to ensure that installation does

not damage existing lines.

In general, high speed communications services are available within the major population

centers, but are either unavailable or limited within the more rural communities and throughout






the agricultural areas of Colorado. The goal of the project is to increase access to high-speed

data networks throughout these unserved or underserved portions of the state.

4.10 Socioeconomic Resources

A large portion of the CCABC project is being implemented in rural Colorado communities,

whose economies are dominated by agriculture and tourism, and generally lower wealth,

education, access to health care than other parts of the State. Executive Order 12898, Federal

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,

requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental and human health effects of Federal

actions on minority and low-income populations.

According to U.S. Census Data from 2000, the population in Colorado is approximately 83.7%

White, 3.9% African American, 2.6% Asian, and 1% Native American, with Hispanics (of any

race) comprising approximately 17.1% of the population. Population estimates from the 2000

U.S. Census for Laramie County, Wyoming are approximately 88.9% White, 2.6% African

American, 1.0% Asian, and 0.8% Native American, with Hispanics comprising approximately

10.9% of the population.

U.S. Census Bureau’s 2009-2011 American Community Survey estimates the poverty rate in

Colorado at 13.2% (U.S. Census Bureau. 2010). Three Colorado counties (Alamosa, Costilla,

and Saguache) have been labeled by the U.S. Department of Treasury as Persistent Poverty

Counties, counties that have experienced poverty rates of 20% or higher in the 1990 and 2000

U.S. Census Bureau decennial censuses and the 2006-2010 American Community Survey. A

survey conducted in 2000 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service

reported that three counties served by the project (Costilla, Morgan, and Saguache) are

considered low education counties, counties with 25 percent or more of residents age 25-64

years old lacking a high school diploma or GED. U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services has identified 51 of Colorado’s 64 counties as containing medically underserved areas

and/or populations with Health Professional Shortages of primary care, dental and mental health

providers and facilities.

According to the 2008 America’s Digital Schools report, 37 percent of school districts anticipate

a problem obtaining sufficient Internet bandwidth and the majority have implemented policies to

conserve bandwidth by limiting student Internet use. Despite this, Internet proficiency is

assumed at the college level, leaving many children at an educational disadvantage.

Furthermore, to save money and facilitate updates of education materials, hard-copy textbooks

are being replaced by electronic textbooks and other electronic media. This process is

underway in several U.S. school districts and in developed foreign counties such as Korea. The

U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has challenged the private sector to enable






this process by 2015. Without adequate broadband, some rural school districts and students

would be unable to access the textbooks required for learning. (“FCC Chairman Genachowski

Joins Secretary of Education Duncan to Unveil New “Digital Textbook Playbook,’ A Roadmap

for Educators to Accelerate the Transition to Digital Textbooks,”

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0201/DOC-312244A1.pdf

4.11 Human Health and Safety

A review of the EPA’s National Priorities List indicated that superfund sites are not located

within two miles of the project area (EPA 2012). There are no known Brownfield sites located

within the project area (EPA 2012). A review of the EPA information indicated there are

Brownfield sites in Grand Junction and Colorado Springs within one mile of the proposed fiber

optic installation and active superfund sites on or near the fiber optic installation were not

identified. However, based on the majority of the fiber optic installation occurring within the road

right of ways at depths typically less than 36 inches encountering impacts from known release

sites is not likely. As previously stated, the project would take place along existing roadways,

towns and urban areas in road way ditches and utility corridors. Proper precautionary measures

would need to be taken by the installation contractor in accordance with applicable state and

local requirements.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 5.0

5.1 Noise

Noise, defined herein as undesirable sound, is Federally regulated by the Noise Control Act of

1972 (NCA). Although the NCA gives the EPA authority to prepare guidelines for acceptable

ambient noise levels, it only charges those Federal agencies that operate noise-producing

facilities or equipment to implement noise standards. EPA guidelines, and those of many other

Federal agencies, state that outdoor sound levels in excess of 55 dB DNL are “normally

unacceptable” for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, and hospitals (EPA

NPC 1973...

Proposed Action (Preferred Alternative) and Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative

Operation of the project would not add to ambient noise levels during operation. Construction

activities associated with project would necessitate the use of construction machinery such as

vibratory plows, directional boring equipment, and excavators, but the associated noise would

be limited to the construction phase of the project. Due to rapid installation methods utilized, it

is unlikely that construction equipment would be located adjacent to a sensitive noise receptor

for more than one to two days. Both alternatives may result in some unavoidable impacts near

sensitive receptors since many of the entities to be served are themselves sensitive receptors.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0201/DOC-312244A1.pdf






These impacts due to construction noise would be mitigated through the use of restricted work

hours. If work would occur in or near sensitive receptors such as school zones, libraries,

residential areas, etc., then appropriate work hour guidelines would be followed such as

avoidance of construction during operational school hours. Potential impacts to residential

areas would be mitigated through restricted work hours, with the work day generally beginning

at 8 a.m. and ending at approximately 6 to 7 p.m.


The No Action alternative would have no adverse noise impacts, but would fail to meet the

purpose and need of the project.

5.2 Air Quality


The Preferred Alternative or the Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative would constitute a

short-term minor increase in the use of fossil fuel and associated GHG emissions during

construction. GHG emissions would occur as a result of project construction. The installation

operations would result in the release of approximately 3,100 metric tons of equivalent carbon

dioxide emissions or less.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has issued draft guidance on when and how

Federal agencies should consider GHG emissions and climate change in NEPA. The draft

guidance includes a presumptive effects threshold of 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide

equivalent emissions from an action (CEQ 2010). The GHG emissions associated with the

Preferred Alternative and the Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative are well below the CEQ

threshold. Therefore, GHG emissions from the Preferred Alternative or the Complete Core

Network Fiber Alternative should not contribute appreciably to climate change or global

warming.

In addition, it is anticipated that the increased connection rates accommodated by completion of

the project should result in significant emissions savings over their useful life via vehicle trip

reductions due to increases in telecommuting, online meetings, distance learning, and other

forms of online collaboration facilitated by increased bandwidth. By construction with both

alternatives discussed above minor amounts of dust may be generated during construction

operations depending upon ambient moisture levels. The installation methods used are

proposed to be via directional boring and vibratory plow, which have minimal soil disturbance

limiting the potential for dust generation. Water trucks may be utilized to control fugitive dust

during construction as deemed necessary. Neither the placement nor operation of the buried

fiber optic cable to provide data transmission would create significant new sources of emissions

into the air.







The No Action alternative would have no adverse air quality impact; however, the potential

benefits discussed above (i.e. reduction of commuting for education and/or work), would not be

realized under the No Action alternative.

5.3 Geology and Soils


The construction area for fiber optic lines for both the Preferred Alternative and the Complete

Core Network Fiber Alternative consists of previously disturbed rights-of-way along roadways

and railroads, and therefore would not be expected to adversely affect the geology or soils of

the area. Construction for both methods would use a vibratory plow as the primary method,

which would preserve existing soils profiles and areas requiring trenching would occur within

rights-of-way and be backfilled with soils from the area of excavation, and therefore should not

result in significant disturbance to soil profiles. Directional boring would be utilized to avoid

sensitive features such as streams, rivers, and wetlands, but would also not cause significant

disturbance to existing soils, particularly to surface soils.

In areas where more significant ground disturbance would occur by installation, such as

locations of hand hole installations, erosion control measures and other various best

management practices (BMPs) approved by the CDOT, such as silt fences berms, straw bales,

etc., would be utilized to minimize disturbance to these areas (Appendix F). Because portions

of the project have not been fully designed at this time, exact estimates of ground disturbance

are not currently available. However, calculations used to estimate ground disturbance per mile

are included in Appendix P. In accordance with the guidance from USFWS, soil and vegetation

disturbance would be limited to these areas as described in Sections 2.1 and 4.3 and any

ground disturbance would be temporary and done utilizing construction methods that minimize

soil disturbance to the extent possible.


The No Action alternative would have no adverse effects on the geology or soils within the area,

but would fail to meet the purpose and need of the project.

5.4 Water Resources

Streams and Rivers 5.4.1


The fiber routes associated with the proposed project would require numerous stream and river

crossings. However, impacts to these resources would be avoided with the use of directional

boring or bridge attachment for installation of the fiber. Surface waters would not be depleted






as a result of the proposed project. The USACE regulates construction activities near aquatic

resources. Based on consultation with the USACE, permits are not required for directional

boring or aerial installation of fiber in avoidance of impacts to aquatic habitats (Appendix I); no

utility poles would be installed or replaced for this alternative. In addition, installation of fiber

routes via vibratory plow is permitted under USACE Nationwide Permit 12 – Utility Line

Activities. Under this Nationwide Permit, pre-construction notification is not required unless a

crossing impacts a perennial water or special aquatic site within the Colorado River Basin.

Installation of fiber routes via directional boring, bridge attachments, or where necessary aerial

installation, would allow the proposed project to avoid impacts to streams and rivers. In

addition, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and appropriate

CDOT BMPs would be utilized to reduce potential impacts to surface waters (Appendix F).

Therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to

rivers or streams.


The No Action alternative would have no adverse effects on rivers or streams, but would fail to

meet the purpose and need of the project.

Wetlands 5.4.2


The fiber optic routes associated with the project run adjacent to numerous NWI mapped

wetlands. In general, the fiber optic routes would be located adjacent to existing roads and

within existing right-of-ways that were rarely identified as wetland areas by the NWI. Impacts to

wetland areas would be avoided with the use of directional boring for fiber installation or bridge

attachment, as necessary. Similarly, if directional boring cannot be utilized to avoid wetland

impacts, aerial installation would be utilized to avoid wetland impacts. No utility poles would be

installed or replaced for this alternative. Based on consultation with the USACE (Appendix I),

permits would not be required for directional boring or aerial installation of fiber across wetland

habitats.


The No Action alternative would result in no impacts to wetlands in the project area.

Floodplains 5.4.3


The fiber routes associated with the proposed project would require numerous floodplain

crossings. However, impacts to these resources would be avoided with the use of directional

boring or bridge attachment for installation of the fiber or, in cases where these methods of






installation are not feasible, aerial installation would be utilized. No utility poles would be

installed or replaced for this alternative. The proposed fiber routes would be installed beneath

grade and would not result in substantial fills or other grading revisions. Therefore, the

proposed project is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to floodplains.


The No Action alternative would also result in no impacts to floodplains.

Groundwater 5.4.4


Construction of the proposed project would have negligible impact to groundwater supplies due

to the construction methods to be employed. Vibratory plows would be used as the primary

installation method, which preserves the in situ soil profile and would not adversely affect

groundwater flows. Horizontal directional boring would be utilized in areas where vibratory

plows would cause excessive disturbance. During horizontal directional boring, the bore hole is

stabilized by a bentonite slurry grout pumped under pressure. Although the grout is inert and

would not act as a pollutant, it can affect groundwater flows by filling voids adjacent to the

borehole and reducing the overall permeability. The magnitude of this potentially adverse effect

is negligible due to the depth of installation to be utilized (approximately three feet). Significant

groundwater sources (aquifers) are not present at such limited depths and would not be

impeded by the installation of the improvements. Therefore, the proposed method of installation

would have negligible adverse environmental impact.


The No Action alternative would not adversely impact groundwater resources.

5.5 Biological Resources

As reported in Section 4.5 above, the USFWS, CDW, and WYGF lists 100 vertebrate,

invertebrate, or plant species of concern in counties where CCABC project ground-disturbing

work is planned. Further review of these species and of the specific proposed CCABC project

work in their habitats determined that 79 of the 100 identified species are unlikely to be

impacted due to one or more of the following criteria:

Documented occurrence of the species (or lack thereof);

Preferred or known habitat of the species;

Pre-construction survey data,

Limited physical impacts of the installation,

Limited duration of the installation,

Previously disturbed nature of the right-of-way where the installation would occur,






Avoidance of wetlands and of surface waters during installation and/or

Avoidance of removal of woody vegetation during installation.

Twenty-one species were found to potentially occur near the project site and which could be

affected by installation of fiber optic line. Evaluation of the 21 listed species is discussed within

each alternative discussion below.


Fiber optic and wireless routes pass through habitat or known ranges of several terrestrial and

avian species discussed in Section 4.5. However, proposed fiber routes would be installed

within existing roadway and railroad rights-of-way, and result in minimal ground disturbance

(refer to fiber optic cable installation in Section 3.1). The wireless routes would be installed on

existing towers or structures; no new towers or structures would be installed. Connections to

existing towers and other structures would be performed with minimal disturbance (refer to

trenching and boring installation described in Section 3.1). The installation of new equipment on

existing towers would not cause the height of the tower to exceed 199 feet or require the

installation of additional guywires. Installation of fiber optic routes near aquatic, wetland, and

riparian habitats would be done using directional boring (refer to boring installation described in

Section 3.1) or bridge attachments to avoid impacts.

It is expected that most animal species disturbed by infrastructure construction for the Proposed

Action, would temporarily relocate to other areas of suitable habitat, and return to the area

shortly after the construction is completed in that project segment. Correspondingly, plant

species impacted by the temporary construction work are expected to quickly recolonize the

project areas. No permanent loss of habitat, or reduction of existing habitat quality, is expected

from the Proposed Action Fiber optic cable and wireless installations associated with the

proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to species protected under the

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and/or Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA).

Furthermore, appropriate CDOT erosion control measures and BMPs would be implemented

during construction activities to prevent runoff to aquatic habitats (Appendix F). Therefore, the

proposed project is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts to fish or other aquatic species.

In addition, in order to reduce potential impacts to wildlife species, ground disturbance areas

have or would be surveyed for Federally and State protected species, burrowing species and

their dependent species (e.g. prairie dogs, Burrowing owls, Mountain plovers, Ferruginous

hawks, Black footed ferrets, etc.), and/or nesting species, if construction activities would occur

during the primary nesting season, as recommended by the USFWS. If protected species,

burrowing species, or nests are observed during construction activities, construction would be

temporarily halted and further consultation with applicable agencies would occur, and the

area/species would be avoided temporally or spatially when possible.






By following guidance received from the USFWS and best management practices (BMPs) for

minimal ground disturbance, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant

impacts to protected species. Terracon reviewed the current listing of Federally threatened,

endangered and candidate species located in the counties where the proposed fiber optic line

would be installed. Based the species identified during the Section 7 review for this project, and

following the installation procedures and precautions described above, it was Terracon’s opinion

the proposed project may affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect the following species in the

following table.

Figure 5.5.1 – Table of Species Reviewed for Section 7

Table of Species Reviewed for Section 7 Consultation that may be Effected by Project

Species Group Status

Black-footed ferret

(Mustela nigripes)

Animal FE, SE

Canada lynx

(Lynx Canadensis)

Animal FT, SE

Colorado butterfly plant

(Gaura neomexicana spp. Coloradensis)

Plant FT

Colorado hookless cactus

(Sclerocactus glaucus) Plant FT

Colorado pikeminnow

(Ptychocheilus Lucius) Fish FE, ST

Greenback cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) Fish FT, ST

Greater sage-grouse

(Centrocercus urophasianus) Bird C, SC

Gunnison's prairie dog

(Cynomys gunnisoni) Animal C

Knowlton’s cactus

(Pediocactus knowltonii) Plant FE

Lesser prairie-chicken

(Tympanuchus pallidicinctus) Bird P

Mexican spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis lucida) Bird FT, ST

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse

(Zapus hudsonius luteus)

Animal C

Penland alpine fen mustard

(Eutrema penlandii) Plant FT






Table of Species Reviewed for Section 7 Consultation that may be Effected by Project

Species Group Status

Preble's meadow jumping mouse

(Zapus hudsonius preblei) Animal FT, ST

Razorback sucker

(Xyrauchen texanus) Fish FE, SE

Rio Grande cutthroat trout

(Oncorhynchus clarki stomias) Fish C, SC

Southwestern willow flycatcher

(Empidonax traillii eximus) Bird FE, SE

Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly

(Boloria acrocnema) Insect FE

Ute ladies'-tresses orchid

(Spiranthes diluvialis) Plant FT

Wolverine

(Gulo gulo) Animal P, SE

Yellow-billed cuckoo

(Coccyzus americanus) Bird C

C- Candidate for Federal listing; FT- Federally listed as threatened; FE- Federally listed as endangered;

P- Proposed for Federal listing; SE – State of Colorado listed as endangered; ST – State of Colorado

listed as threatened; SC-State of Colorado Species of Special Concern

In letters dated October 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, the USFWS concurred with these

findings for regulated Federal species on the routes as proposed by November 2012 (Appendix

N).

On the portions of the routes between Delta and Montrose, and on Highway 160 near Pagosa

Springs in Archuleta County, the review identified designated Critical Habitat for two Federally

listed plants on or near the proposed routes. This included, the Clay-loving buckwheat

designated Critical Habitat located on or near the Delta to Montrose routes and Pagosa

skyrocket designated Critical Habitat located on or near the Highway 160 route in Archuleta

County, Colorado. Consultations with USFWS further defined areas where Potentially Suitable

Habitat for these two plant species may occur on the Delta to Montrose and Highway 160

routes. This Potentially Suitable Habitat was an area of buffer near known populations of the

two plants and areas of designated Critical Habitat for the two plant species. Through

consultation with USFWS it was determined all proposed methods of fiber optic cable

installation within the areas of Potentially Suitable Habitat they had defined would require formal

Section 7 consultation. As proposed by the Preferred Alternative, the utilization of wireless

transmission through the locations of Potentially Suitable Habitat identified by USFWS, it is

anticipated no measurable affects to these two plant species would occur. Maps depicting this

alternative are included in Appendix N. During telephone consultation on January 22, 2013,






Craig Hansen, biologist with the Denver office of the USFWS, agreed with this opinion, through

an Informal Consultation process. However, Mr. Hansen indicated an opinion of “no effect”

would not require consultation with USFWS and USFWS would not provide a concurrence on a

“no effect” opinion.

In a letter issued from WYGF during the preparation of the original EA (Appendix S), WYGF

stated they did no concerns with the project and its potential impact on Wyoming wildlife. The

letters from USFWS and WYGF issued during the performance of the original EA are included

in Appendices N and S.


The Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative would have similar effects on species and

habitats along most portions of the routes as the Preferred Alternative as described above. The

exception to this would be the portions of the routes located between Delta and Montrose and

on Highway 160 near Pagosa Springs in Archuleta County. On these project segments, the

identified Potentially Suitable Habitat for the Clay-loving buckwheat and the Pagosa skyrocket

are within the road ROWs. There are also portions of the identified Critical Habitat of the

Pagosa skyrocket within the road ROWs (see figures below).






Figure 5.5.2 Clay-Loving Wild Buckwheat Potentially Suitable Habitat Map as defined by

USFWS






Figure 5.5.3 Pagosa Skyrocket Potentially Suitable and Critical Habitat Map as defined by

USFWS

On these project segments, the identified potentially suitable habitat defined by the USFWS for

the Clay-loving buckwheat and the Pagosa skyrocket are within the road ROWs. There are also

portions of the identified Critical Habitat of the Pagosa skyrocket within the road ROWs. The

Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative includes the installation of fiber optic line in these

right-of-ways that may affect the two plant species. Based on this potential effect, NTIA has

initiated formal consultation (NTIA letter dated January 2, 2013 in Appendix N) with USFWS

regarding suitable habitat and populations of the Pagosa skyrocket and the Clay-loving

buckwheat on these two routes. The process of formal consultation would evaluate options to

reduce impacts to these plant species and through field surveys attempt to identify and

delineate populations of these two species if present. The results of the field surveys and other

information obtained in preparation of the Biological Assessment would be presented to the

USFWS to assist the agency in issuing a Biological Opinion with guidance on installation

options and mitigation actions if found necessary. These activities would be coordinated with

the appropriate BLM and USFS personnel.


The No Action alternative, no installation of new broadband network, would result in no impacts

to protected species or their habitat due to no construction or maintenance work, but would fail

to meet the purpose and need of the project.






5.6 Historic and Cultural Resources


NTIA has determined that the CCABC Proposed Action is an “undertaking” with potential to

affect historic resources, as defined in 36 CFR Part 800. NTIA initiated consultation with the

Colorado SHPO and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (WYSHPO) under NHPA

Section 106. In order to comply with Section 106, EAGLE-Net consulted with the SHPO and

WYSHPO regarding the effect on historic and cultural resources resulting from the installation of

underground fiber optic cable installation, of equipment on existing towers, and the connection

of broadband to historic buildings in Colorado and Wyoming. To date, consultation with the

WYSHPO is concluded. Consultation with the SHPO and Federal agencies for portions of the

project crossing USFS and BLM lands is ongoing.

The following analysis of consequences to historic and cultural resources applies to buried fiber

along existing CDOT and other road ROW’s, and the placement of wireless technology on

existing towers. Aerial fiber alternatives on existing lines/poles and leases of existing fiber are

excluded from NHPA Section 106 consultation for NTIA ARRA grant projects per the Nationwide

Programmatic Agreement that NTIA entered into with the Advisory Council of Historic

Preservation, the National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers, and other consulting

parties. Consultation with the WYSHPO was concluded with a finding of No Effect.

Consultation in Colorado is ongoing and includes the SHPO, USFS, BLM and Federally

recognized tribes. There are cooperating agreements in place with the USFS and BLM.

The APE is defined as 100 feet on either side of the fiber centerline for the purposes of

identifying historic and cultural resources to allow for a buffer between sites and project

implementation/staging areas, to aid in the identification of areas of concern, and inform project

implementation activities. The total 200-ft width of the APE/study area also allows for the

shifting of the fiber centerline to accommodate the presence of archaeological sites without

delaying project implementation for intensive study. The actual construction area subject to

ground disturbance would be less than 10% of the APE width. The method of construction for

each segment would determine the area of actual ground disturbance within the APE/study

area. A plow would potentially have a 1-ft wide area of actual horizontal below ground

disturbance with an area of approximately 4-ft wide of weight and tire disturbance to the surface

of the previously disturbed ROW where the implementation activities would take place. Both

boring and micro-trenching would have a below ground horizontal disturbance of inches. The

depth of all trenches and bores would be determined by the presence of cultural resources,

engineering concerns, and field conditions.






Impacts to historic buildings would be minimized by following the approved treatment, as

agreement with the SHPO in the PA and SAC, and with NTIA developed best practices for

connecting broadband to historic buildings. Per the SAC attached to the original EA prepared

for this project, the grantee:

“. . . will provide the SHPO with construction drawings, photographs, and

inventory forms for attachments and/or penetrations to all buildings constructed

in 1965 or before, and those buildings built after 1965 that are in a National

register historic district or within a site boundary of a property for which the

SHPO has an inventory form in its library. If the SHPO deems necessary, Eagle-

Net will coordinate with the SHPO for additional Section 106 consultation.”

Therefore, connections and penetrations to buildings would be handled individually and any

such connections to historic buildings or within historic districts would adhere to NTIA’s best

management practices for connecting broadband to historic buildings and structures. Following

the approved process as set forth above, would result in a finding of No Adverse Effect for

connection of broadband to buildings.

Collocation of equipment on existing towers would be reviewed individually, by tower location, to

ensure that the placement of such equipment would adhere to the March 2001 Federal

Communications Commission’s (FCC) Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) in order to

avoid adverse effects to historic properties. No equipment would be approved or mounted on

towers that would be in violation of the stipulations in the FCC NPA or that would result in

cumulative impacts. Any issues or questions would be addressed with the SHPO through

consultation. Adherence to the stipulations contained within the FCC NPA would result in a

finding of No Adverse Effect to historic or cultural resources.

While NHPA Section 106 consultation is ongoing for this project in Colorado, it is anticipated

that the project would have no adverse effects on known historic and cultural resources and that

the possibility of impacting unknown resources is remote due to the professionally accepted

avoidance measures outlined in the SAC, PA, and cooperating agreements for the installation of

buried cable. Avoidance of sites would be accomplished by:

■ Conducting plowing and boring only on public lands within public ROW along

previously disturbed roadways and utility corridors,

■ Flagging and avoidance of historic and cultural resources,

■ Flagging archaeological sites located with 100 feet of the project corridor,

■ Using qualified and properly permitted archaeologists to flag sites,






■ Shifting the project corridor if sites are within the buffer of a site (following the SHPO

approved approach in the PA),

■ Stopping construction if any artifacts or human remains are discovered, and

■ Contacting the appropriate parties (including NTIA and local law enforcement).

It is NTIA’s policy that in the event of an unanticipated discovery that the landowner be notified

and consulted with immediately. To date, the CCABC project has complied with the PA and the

historic and cultural resource provisions of the SAC, and there have been no known impacts to

historic or cultural resources. The continuing consultation would allow for refining of the

identification efforts and any archaeological surveys deemed necessary to comply with all

consultation requirements in the PA, SAC, and cooperating agreements prior to construction of

a project segment. Installation of buried fiber in areas outside of existing previously disturbed

ROW would adhere to Section 106 consultation requirements, the SAC, the PA, the cooperating

agreements, and the NPA. All consultation would be completed before project implementation

to avoid adverse effects to historic and cultural resources. Use of professionally acceptable

avoidance measures is an accepted means of avoiding adverse effects to historic and cultural

resources. Fulfillment of the avoidance and monitoring measures agreed to with the SHPO and

refined in consultation with the USFS and BLM would result in a finding of No Adverse Effect for

project implementation.

As part of the ongoing consultation for this Supplemental EA, Alpine Archaeological Consultants

conducted a cultural and historical file review for portions of the fiber corridor crossing Federal

lands. On January 25, 2013 Alpine requested the electronic site inventory records managed by

the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). In addition to the SHPO records,

Alpine received site inventory data from Dr. Wendy Sutton of the Pagosa District Archaeologist

of the San Juan National Forest (SJNF). Alpine identified 14 sites on Federal lands within

100 feet of the fiber corridor, and determined 8 sites needed additional management

consideration due to their potential eligibility for listing on the National Register. These identified

sites are detailed in Figure 4.6.1.

In an ongoing continuation of the Programmatic Agreement, proposed fiber routes scheduled for

construction in 2013 remain in the design phase, and continued correspondence with the

Colorado SHPO office is ongoing to insure avoidance measures are satisfied. It is anticipated

that additional file searches and correspondence with the SHPO, and with USFS and BLM

personnel, would be needed for proposed fiber routes in 2013.

Cumulative impacts to historic and cultural resources would not result from project

implementation. The potential ground disturbance is minimal with buried fiber installation;

broadband connections to buildings would be accomplished by following the protocols of the






SHPO and NTIA’s best practices for such activities; and the collocation of equipment on existing

towers would be executed following the FCC NPA stipulations.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would not have an adverse effect on historic and cultural

resources due to:

■ The extensive efforts to identify sites within the APE through record searches and

consultation,

■ The limited ground disturbing activities associated with project implementation,

■ The processes in place for site avoidance and unanticipated discoveries,

■ Adherence to the requirements contained in the SAC and PA, and

■ The continuing consultation to identify and avoid any adverse effects through site

avoidance and monitoring.


The No Action alternative would result in no impacts to cultural and/or historical resources, but

would fail to meet the purpose and need of the project.

5.7 Aesthetic and Visual Resources


The project would involve construction within a number of different surroundings including rural

rights-of-way adjacent to agricultural fields, natural areas, railroads, and urban streetscapes. In

general, area aesthetic disruptions for most areas would be limited to the duration of

construction and primarily in the form of the short-term presence of construction equipment.

Permanent aesthetic impacts would be limited since fiber routes would be located underground

and optical splice enclosures would be located below-grade in vaults and hand holes, and if

aerial attachment is required, existing poles would be utilized to limit potential visual impacts.

There would also be minimal visual and aesthetic impacts to the wireless component of the

network, as equipment would be installed on existing towers and structures. Required

equipment cabinets would be placed, in public right of way, adjacent to existing above ground

cabinets and transformers wherever feasible to reduce visual and aesthetic impacts. Additional

permitting would be required for fiber routes within Federally managed land, as discussed in

Section 5.


The No Action alternative would have no impact to aesthetic and visual resources, but would fail

to meet the purpose and need of the project.






5.8 Land Use


The existing land use in the construction corridor consists of previously disturbed utility corridors

and public rights-of-way. The existing land use in the locations of the towers is undeveloped

land adjacent/nearby existing roads and highways and urban areas. Several types of land use

are present along the routes of the options considered. Such land uses include agricultural,

commercial, industrial, residential, recreational, and educational. The infrastructure necessary

to complete this project would be located within existing roadway and railroad rights-of-way and

existing utility easements. These improvements are consistent with normal uses of rights-of-

way and utility easements. Therefore, adverse impacts based on land use are not expected.

Leases would be obtained for fiber routes located within railroad rights-of-way. Future ground

disturbing activities within rights-of-way would need to avoid installed fiber routes and other

utilities present within the rights-of-way.

The project would provide benefits to many of the land use types. All improved land uses would

derive benefits from higher speed data access at lower costs than are currently available. This

improved level of service is anticipated to aid in attracting advanced industry and technical

operations to the service area.


The No Action alternative would also have no negative impact on land use. However, if the

improvements are not constructed, the increased value to lands served by the project would not

be realized.

5.9 Infrastructure


Based on the below ground installation in existing road right of ways it is anticipated this project

would not have negative impacts to other infrastructure in the project area. Temporary

disruptions to traffic would be handled in accordance with applicable guidelines as discussed in

Section 5.11 below.


The No Action alternative would have no impact to infrastructure, but would fail to meet the

purpose and need of the project.

5.10 Socioeconomic Resources







The Proposed Action to compete the CCABC project would offer new or improved broadband

access to rural schools, libraries, and universities, including one school district and two libraries

on tribal land. In rural, low income and tribal locations, the new and/or improved bandwidth

would have positive impacts on education, economic opportunities, health care, and public

safety for these populations by helping to attract or retain businesses, providing new and

enhanced access to educational resources available locally and globally, providing better public

safety services through collaboration, coordinated actions and training among public safety

agencies, providing better access for existing and new health services, and providing required

access speeds to permit telecommuting and new internet based businesses. The project would

not disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations; conversely, it is anticipated to

have a positive impact on these populations.

The source of socioeconomic benefits for the Proposed Action is the construction and

acquisition of dedicated fiber and wireless infrastructure. Educational, medical, and business

communications that use technologically inferior or non-dedicated infrastructure are susceptible

to slow and disrupted communications. In the “Why Technology in Schools” report (Ed Tech

Action Network, http://www.edtechactionnetwork.org/why-technology-in-schools), research by

the International Society for Technology in Education and the Consortium for School Networking

confirms that benefits of having adequate Internet access and broadband access in classrooms

include:

■ Measurable improvements in school performance (as measured on the Adequate Yearly

Progress Tests under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001).

■ Improved attendance, decreased dropout rates, increased graduation rates, and allowed

increased parental involvement.

■ Improved school efficiency and productivity.

■ Helped teachers satisfy professional requirements by helping develop lesson plans and

providing continuing education opportunities.

■ Enhanced students’ problem-solving and independent-thinking skills.

■ Enabled schools to meet the needs of special education children.

■ Increased equity and access in education by creating learning opportunities for

geographically isolated students.

■ Improved workforce skills.


This alternative would provide the same positive socioeconomic benefits as the Proposed

Action. However, with the installation of fiber through Critical and or Potentially Suitable Habitat

of two Federal Listed endangered plants, the CCABC network would deliver high-speed service

to more unserved and underserved locations than the Proposed Action.

http://www.edtechactionnetwork.org/why-technology-in-schools






While wireless technology is utilized where fiber optic cable placement is not feasible, the use of

fiber optic cable in this alternative provides several benefits to the project. The faster

broadband speeds, of at least 1Gbps throughout the middle-mile infrastructure, provide the

opportunity for exponential growth without additional infrastructure that would be more robust

than the wireless technology in the Proposed Action. This alternative also provides more

resilient infrastructure as the fiber is not impacted by weather that can interrupt networks

utilizing wireless technology.

In addition, once installed, fiber optic cable provides lower ongoing operational costs in the form

of lower maintenance costs and the absence of tower lease costs. The long-term benefit of this

is the savings from the lower ongoing cost of the infrastructure can be passed onto customers in

the form of lower bills or the savings can be used to provide investments into additional

infrastructure providing service to additional unserved or underserved areas.

Therefore, this alternative would provide greater socioeconomic benefits by enabling more

information to flow faster, with fewer interruptions, and with lower ongoing costs.


In comparison to the other two alternatives, the No Action alternative would have an adverse

socioeconomic impact on rural and remote Colorado communities. Without the new or

improved broadband services provided by the CCABC project there would be no improvement

of broadband service to education, health, law enforcement and first responder facilities and

institutions. Nor would there be last-mile built out that would enhance employment opportunities

through telecommuting and online collaboration, and educational opportunities via online

education and connected classrooms.

In this alternative, there would be no further construction to the 119 community anchors that are

included in either the Proposed Action or the Complete Core Network Fiber alternative. People

in the unserved and underserved areas where these community anchors are located would

receive no socioeconomic benefits and the lack of broadband access would continue to limit

their opportunities that are provided in the other alternatives.

5.11 Human Health and Safety


A review of the EPA’s National Priorities List, Corrective Action Baseline Database, and

Brownfield sites did not reveal areas of concern within the project corridor. It is anticipated that

identified areas of soil contamination can be addressed with the construction methods. The

primary installation method of vibratory plowing preserves the existing soil profile in situ and

would not result in contaminated soils being exposed. The secondary installation method of






directional boring also minimizes soil disturbance and would not be expected to significantly

redistribute contaminated soils. Trenching and installation of hand holes for splices within areas

of soil contamination may require appropriate offsite disposal if contaminated soils are

encountered. If soils in the area of construction appear visually different from surrounding soil

or petroleum product odors are detected, the soils would be identified as potentially

contaminated and work would cease in the area of concern. Further investigation would be

conducted to determine the presence and extent of soil contamination. Workers would then be

equipped with appropriate personal protective equipment in accordance with OSHA standards

and follow the required regulatory procedures for mitigating identified soil contamination.

Because much of the work would take place adjacent to high-speed traffic, worker and motorist

safety is paramount. Due to the construction activities taking place in the ditches and utility

corridors along highways and roads, contractors would not be located directly in the path of

traffic. This also reduces the impact to vehicles traveling on the highways and roads since

traffic lanes would not need to be rerouted or closed. Contractors would comply with Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control

Devices to promote highway safety and efficiency by providing warning and guidance to all

elements of traffic. The CDOT and WYDOT traffic control standards would be used to establish

and maintain a safe work zone. Workers are required to meet OSHA standards for worker

visibility, and equipment driven on roadways and must meet proper signage and licensing

requirements.

Work in and around school zones would be coordinated with school district officials to ensure

that safe, functional routes are available for pedestrian and bus traffic. By adopting the safety

and coordination efforts described above, it is anticipated the project could be constructed

without adverse impacts to human health and safety or the environment.

As mentioned earlier, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has identified 51 of

Colorado’s 64 counties as containing medically underserved areas and/or populations with

Health Professional Shortages of primary care, dental and mental health providers and facilities.

Brining affordable broadband to these counties would benefit local people’s health by enabling

faster response to emergency calls, enabling better telemedicine at rural clinics, and better

access for existing and new health services.

The Proposed Action would also create great value for public-safety users throughout Colorado:

dedicated, secure bandwidth may enable high-bandwidth communications among public-safety

agencies statewide, offering both interoperability and sharing of high-bandwidth resources and

services (such as computer-aided dispatch).







This alternative would provide the same positive human health and safety benefits as the

Proposed Action. However, with the installation of fiber through Critical and or Potentially

Suitable Habitat of two Federal Listed endangered plants, the CCABC network would deliver

high-speed service to more unserved and underserved locations than the Proposed Action.

While wireless technology is utilized where fiber optic cable placement is not feasible, the use of

fiber optic cable in this alternative provides several benefits to the project. The faster

broadband speeds, of at least 1Gbps throughout the middle-mile infrastructure, provide the

opportunity for exponential growth without additional infrastructure that would be more robust

than the wireless technology in the Proposed Action. These faster speeds are critical to human

health applications including sharing of large medical images and telemedicine and safety

applications including emergency response and computer aided dispatch.

The critical nature of human health and safety applications require access to reliable broadband

networks. This alternative provides more resilient infrastructure as the fiber is not impacted by

other factors, such as weather, that can interrupt networks utilizing wireless technology.

Therefore, this alternative would provide greater human health and safety benefits by enabling

more information to flow faster and with fewer interruptions.


In comparison to the other two alternatives, the No Action alternative would result in a reduced

risk to human health since roadside construction would not occur, thus eliminating the

requirement to have construction personnel and vehicles working on or in close proximity to

active roadways. However, the No Action alternative would also have an adverse human health

and safety impact on rural and remote Colorado communities. Without the new or improved

broadband services provided by the CCABC project there would be no improvement of

broadband service to health, law enforcement, and first responder facilities and institutions.

In this alternative, there would be no further construction to the 119 community anchors located

in Colorado’s 51 counties containing medically underserved areas and/or populations with

Health Professional Shortages. Correspondingly, public-safety agencies in rural areas of the

State would continue to have limited access, interoperability, and sharing of resources due to

the lack of broadband access. As a result, human health and safety benefits provided by the

Proposed Action or the Complete Core Network Fiber alternative would not be available in this

alternative.

5.12 Cumulative Impacts

During implementation of the CCABC project, cumulative noise impacts may occur due to

concurrent road construction and maintenance, particularly during the summer months.

However, due to the relatively quick installation time for the installation of fiber routes, the






anticipated increase in noise is expected to be minimal and insignificant in duration. Similarly,

the presence of multiple construction crews may have a temporary effect on traffic in the area of

installation. However, if installation of fiber routes occurs simultaneously with other anticipated

construction and maintenance, repeated disturbance to biological resources such as wildlife and

vegetation in the area of construction would be reduced. Disturbance would be limited to

existing rights-of-way, which are repeatedly disturbed as the need arises for installation and

maintenance of various utilities. The previously constructed portions of the CCABC project (i.e.,

segments built before December 6, 2012 grant suspension) were generally completed with

methods described in the Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative of this Supplemental EA,

and in accordance with the Preferred Alternative (Proposed Action) of the original EA and

FONSI, the Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the Colorado SHPO, and the guidelines and

permits issued by State and Federal agencies. Deviations from the Proposed Action prior to the

grant suspension that occurred, and potentially caused impacts, are being addressed by the

responsible State and Federal agencies. With NTIA concurrence, EAGLE-Net is cooperating

with these agencies to determine the extent of the impacts, if any, and what mitigation or

enforcement actions may be required. .

The currently constructed portions of this project as well as the continued implementation of the

remaining portions of the CCABC project should have a positive cumulative impact on

socioeconomics because additional jobs could be created or retained, thus providing an

economic input into the community that could create and/or retain additional jobs. The

increased access to broadband services could also increase the quality of other infrastructure

services in the area. In addition, the expansion of broadband services throughout the CCABC

project area would allow future expansion of broadband services to other unserved and

underserved communities in Colorado, and neighboring states. Positive impacts to education,

health care, and law enforcement are also possible through increased communication and

learning opportunities through collaboration with other similar entities.

FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY CONSULTATION, 6.0

COORDINATION, AND COMMUNICATION

6.1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

The NPDES Construction Stormwater Permits would be obtained through the Colorado

Department of Public Health and Environment in the form of Colorado Discharge Permit System

(CDPS) permits.

For the Proposed Action outlined in this Supplemental EA, EAGLE-Net has obtained all required

CDPS permits for segments that have been completed or where construction was in progress.

Copies of these permits are available upon request to either the NTIA or EAGLE-Net. Maps






showing construction status are located in Appendix B. For all remaining segments, CDPS

permit requirements would be fulfilled before construction begins.

For the No Action Alternative no additional CDPS permits would need to be obtained and all

others would be closed out. No further ground disturbing activities would take place.

For the Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative an additional CDPS permit would be required

to complete the approximate 30 miles of fiber construction, within the Hwy 160 CDOT ROW,

through the Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat of the Pagosa Skyrocket. This area is

identified in the map for the Pagosa Skyrocket Critical and or Potentially Suitable Habitat in the

USFWS Appendix N and also in the state wide maps in Appendix B.

6.2 Bureau of Indian Affairs – Southern Ute Agency

EAGLE-Net began discussions with the Southern Ute Tribe, in June of 2012 about permitting

requirements for constructing an approximate 3.26 mile fiber optic line on Hwy 160, across tribal

land, between Pagosa Springs and Bayfield. In NTIA correspondence with BIA (email chain

dated February 14, 2013) BIA indicated they had no concerns with installations methods

described in the Proposed Action; however, BIA indicated they would require additional review if

future development includes the methods described in the Complete Core Network Fiber

Alternative (Micro-trenching). Applications and proposed construction drawings were submitted

for the right to survey on October 9, 2012. Copies of these documents can be found in

Appendix K. EAGLE-Net received the approved permit on December 31, 2012, which is also

included in Appendix K along with maps depicting the proposed routes.

For the Proposed Action outlined in this Supplemental EA there would be no need to move

forward with the permitting process. There would not be any ground disturbing activities within

Southern Ute tribal lands. The Proposed Action would utilize wireless links to pass through

tribal lands. There would not be any EAGLE-Net equipment placed on collocation towers on

tribal land. Maps of this route are attached in Appendix K.

For the No Action Alternative no additional consultation or permitting would be required. There

would be no ground disturbing activities on tribal lands.

For the Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative EAGLE-Net would continue to pursue the

permit and easement requirements to build the 3.26 mile fiber route along Hwy 160, within

Southern Ute tribal lands. The map of this route is included in Appendix K. This route occurs

within the Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat of the Pagosa Skyrocket. A map showing this

Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat area is included in Appendix N. The pursuit of this

alternative would be dependent on the ability of EAGLE-Net to meet the completion date of the






grant while completing all USFWS requirements for constructing within the Critical and

Potentially Suitable Habitat of the Pagosa Skyrocket.

6.3 Bureau of Land Management

BLM is a cooperating agency (40 CFR 1501.6) on this EA pursuant to a Memorandum of

Understanding between NTIA and BLM Tres Rios Field Office signed February 2013. The MOU

is designed to aid in cooperation between NTIA and BLM in order to provide improved efficiency

in the analysis process of preparing the EA. The MOU also defines BLM’s responsibilities and

limitations in regards to the process of completing the EA in compliance with NEPA. BLM’s

purpose and need for action is to comply with its mandate under FLPMA to respond to a request

for a Right-of-Way Grant for construction across public land. The BLM would decide whether or

not to grant the right of way across portions of BLM land, and if so, under what terms and

conditions.

EAGLE-Net has applied for the following permits with BLM for the CCABC project.

Royal Gorge Field Office – Hwy 160 La Veta Pass - Huerfano County – .11 miles

- Permit Received – Construction Complete

Montrose Field Office – Kinikin Road - Montrose County – .87 miles - Permit

Received – Construction Complete

Tres Rios Field Office – Hwy 160 Durango to Pagosa Springs – La Plata &

Archuleta Counties – 1.09 miles - Permit Pending/Application Submitted

Maps of these routes, applications, permit documentation, and correspondence are attached in

Appendix L.

For the Proposed Action outlined in this Supplemental EA there would be a small BLM parcel

that would need to be removed from the permitting process. This parcel is located within the

Critical Habitat of the Pagosa Skyrocket, map in Appendix N. The Proposed Action would utilize

wireless links to pass through this BLM parcel. There would not be any EAGLE-Net equipment

placed on collocation towers on BLM lands. All other BLM parcels on Hwy 160 between

Durango and Pagosa Springs would have ground disturbing activity as defined in the maps in

Appendix L.


would be no additional ground disturbing activities on BLM lands.


permit and easement requirements to build the fiber route along Hwy 160, within CDOT ROW,

through the Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat of the Pagosa Skyrocket. The map of this






Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat is included in Appendix N. There is one BLM parcel that

this alternative route transects for approximately 384 feet. The pursuit of this alternative would

be dependent on the ability of EAGLE-Net to meet the completion date of the grant while

completing all USFWS and BLM requirements for constructing within the Critical and or

Potentially Suitable Habitat of the Pagosa Skyrocket.

6.4 Bureau of Reclamation

EAGLE-Net has applied for the following permits with the Bureau of Reclamation for the CCABC

project.

Albuquerque Area Office – Closed Basin Canal - Alamosa County – .097 miles -

Permit Received – Construction Complete

Durango Field Office – Dove Creek Canal - Dolores County – .038 miles - Permit

Received – 1 Crossing Complete and 1 Crossing Pending Completion

Grand Junction Field Office – South Canal – Montrose County – .038 miles -

Permit Received – Construction Complete

Grand Junction Field Office – Loutsenhizer Canal – Montrose County – .019

miles -Permit Received – Construction Complete

Durango Field Office – Florida Canal – La Plata County – .019 miles – Permit

Application Pending


Appendix M.

For the Proposed Action outlined in this Supplemental EA ground disturbing activities would

consist of directionally drilling the last crossing of the Dove Creek Canal and the crossing of the

Florida Canal as outlined in the maps in Appendix M. In correspondence between BOR and

NTIA dated March 3, 2013, BOR has requested a SF-299 be submitted for the Florida Canal

crossing.


would be no additional ground disturbing activities on Bureau of Reclamation lands.

For the Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative there would not be any Bureau of Reclamation

lands affected.

6.5 U.S. Forest Service

In an NTIA letter dated January 31, 2013 (Appendix O), the terms of agreement and

cooperation between the NTIA and USFS regarding the EAGLE-Net project are defined. In






general this letter outlines the process that will take place regarding the EA completion process

and USFS role in the process. EAGLE-Net has applied for the following permits with USFS for

the CCABC project.

San Juan National Forest – Hwy 184 & Hwy 145 – Montezuma County – .87

miles - Permit Received

San Juan National Forest – Hwy 160 – Durango to South Fork – La Plata,

Archuleta, Mineral Counties – 16.52 miles - Permit Pending

San Juan National Forest – Hwy 550 – Durango to Cascade Village – La Plata

County – 1.29 miles - Permit Pending

Rio Grande National Forest – Hwy 160 – Pagosa Springs to South Fork –

Mineral & Rio Grande Counties – 14.32 miles - Permit Pending


Appendix O.

For the Proposed Action outlined in this Supplemental EA there would be approximately 5.25

miles of USFS lands along Hwy 160 removed from the permitting process. These parcels are

located within the San Juan National Forest and the potentially suitable habitat of the Pagosa

Skyrocket, map in Appendix N. The Proposed Action would utilize wireless links to pass

through these USFS parcels. These links include proposed collocation at two communications

sites on USFS land (Yellowjacket and Oakbrush Hill). If these sites have existing collocation

buildings, and space is available, no equipment cabinets would be placed. If new cabinets are

needed, EAGLE-Net would coordinate with the owner of the site and determine whether

EAGLE-Net or the site owner would submit the SF-299 applications. Maps of these wireless

routes are attached in Appendix O. All other USFS lands, identified above, would have ground

disturbing activity as defined in the maps in Appendix O. Furthermore, USFS provided

Biological Evaluations (BEs) on two communication tower locations at the Oakbrush Hill site.

Based on our review of these BEs effects to T&E species or sensitive species were not

identified with construction of the two communication towers.


would be no ground disturbing activities on USFS lands.


permit and easement requirements to build the fiber route along Hwy 160 within CDOT ROW

through the Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat of the Pagosa Skyrocket, map in Appendix

N. This alternative route transects USFS lands along Hwy 160 for approximately 5.25 miles.

The pursuit of this alternative would be dependent on the ability of EAGLE-Net to meet the

completion date of the grant while completing all USFWS and USFS requirements for

constructing within the Critical and or Potentially Suitable Habitat of the Pagosa Skyrocket.






6.6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

For the Proposed Action outlined in this Supplemental EA, the USFWS Pagosa Skyrocket and

Clay Loving Wild Buckwheat Critical and or Potentially Suitable Habitats would not be impacted.

The Critical and or Potentially Suitable Habitat Areas would be crossed via wireless/microwave

links. Maps of these routes and correspondence are attached in Appendix N. For all other

routes, outside of Critical and or Potentially Suitable Habitat areas, concurrence letters are

attached in Appendix N.


would be no ground disturbing activities in USFWS Critical or Potentially Suitable Habitat areas.


permit and easement requirements to build the fiber routes through the Critical and Potentially

Suitable Habitats of the Pagosa Skyrocket and Clay-Loving Wild Buckwheat as identified in the

maps in Appendix N. These alternative routes transect USFWS through Potentially Suitable

and Critical Habitat for approximately 19.4 miles along Hwy 160 (Pagosa Skyrocket) and 11.04

miles along Hwy 50 (Clay-Loving wild Buckwheat). Formal consultation with USFWS regarding

impacts to these two species was initiated by NTIA with a request letter dated January 2, 2013

(Appendix XX). This formal consultation includes evaluation of the impacts of the proposed

construct on the two endangered species and providing USFWS with installation alternatives to

reduce impacts and plans for mitigation of impacts. The pursuit of these alternative routes

would be dependent on the ability of EAGLE-Net to meet the completion date of the grant while

completing all USFWS requirements for constructing within the Critical and Potentially Suitable

Habitat of these species.

6.7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Based on consultation received from the USACE, permits would not be required if directional

boring or bridge attachment is utilized to avoid potentially jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. such

as rivers, streams, and wetlands. Correspondence with USACE is attached in Appendix I.

For the Proposed Action outlined in this Supplemental EA, EAGLE-Net would directional bore or

use bridge attachments to cross all rivers, streams, and wetlands.

For the No Action Alternative no additional rivers, streams, or wetlands would be crossed. No

further ground disturbing activities would take place.

For the Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative, EAGLE-Net would directional bore or use

bridge attachments to cross all rivers, streams, and wetlands within the Critical and Potentially






Suitable Habitat areas of the Pagosa Skyrocket. This area is identified in the map for the

Pagosa Skyrocket Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat in Appendix N and also in the state

wide maps in Appendix B.

6.8 Colorado Department of Transportation

For the Proposed Action outlined in this Supplemental EA, EAGLE-Net has obtained all required

CDOT permits for segments that have been completed or where construction was in progress.

For all remaining segments CDOT permit requirements would be fulfilled before construction

begins.

For the No Action Alternative no additional CDOT permits would need to be obtained and all

others would be closed out. No further ground disturbing activities would take place.

For the Complete Core Network Fiber Alternative an additional CDOT permit would be required

to complete the approximate 30 miles of fiber construction, within the Hwy 160 right of way,

through Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat of the Pagosa Skyrocket. This area is identified

in the map for the Pagosa Skyrocket Critical and Potentially Suitable Habitat in the USFWS

Appendix N and also in the state wide maps in Appendix B.

LIST OF AGENCIES CONSULTED 7.0

Federal Agencies

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Southern Ute Agency

Bureau of Land Management

State Administrative Office

Colorado River Valley Field Office

Columbine Field Office

Del Norte Field Office

Dolores Field Office

Gunnison Field Office

Kremmling Field Office

Royal Gorge Field Office

Tres Rios Field Office

Uncompaghre Field Office

White River Field Office

Bureau of Reclamation

Albuquerque Field Office

Durango Field Office






Grand Junction Field Office

Federal Communications Commission

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S. Forest Service

State Administrative Office

Comanche National Grassland

Rio Grande National Forest

San Juan National Forest

State Agencies

Colorado Department of Environmental Quality

Colorado Wildlife and Parks

Colorado State Historic Preservation Office

Colorado State Land Board

Wyoming Department of Transportation

Wyoming Game and Fish

Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office

County and City Agencies

Adams Public Works Department

Alamosa Road and Bridge Department

Arapahoe Public Works-Engineering

Department

Archuleta Public Works-Road and Bridge

Department

Baca County

Bent County Administrator

Boulder County

Broomfield Public Works - Engineering

Chaffee Road and Bridge Department

Cheyenne Zoning and Planning/Land Use

Clear Creek Road and Bridge Department

Conejos Land Use Department

Costilla County Planning and Zoning

Crowley Road and Bridge Department

Custer County Road and Bridge

Delta County Planning Department

Denver Public Works Permit Operations

Dolores County Road and Bridge

Douglas Permits and Inspections

Eagle County Engineering

El Paso County DOT

Elbert County Road and Bridge Department

Fremont County Department of

Transportation

Garfield County Road and Bridge

Gilpin County Community Center Public

Works

Grand County Department of Road and

Bridge

Gunnison County Public Works

Hinsdale County Road and Bridge

Huerfano Road and Bridge Department

Jackson County Administrator

Jefferson Transportation and Engineering

Kiowa County

Kit Carson County Administrator

La Plata County Engineering Department

Lake County Building Department






Larimer public works - Engineering

Las Animas Road and Bridge Department

Lincoln County Road and Bridge

Logan Planning and Zoning

Mesa County Public Works

Mineral County Land Use Administration

Moffat County Road and Bridge Department

Montezuma Road and Bridge Department

Montrose County Public Works

Morgan County Road and Bridge

Otero Public Works Department

Ouray Road and Bridge Department

Park County Road and Bridge Department

Park County Planning Department

Phillips County

Pitkin County Road and Bridge Department

Prowers County Road and Bridge

Department

Pueblo Public Works - Road and Bridge

Department

Rio Blanco County Road and Bridge

Department

Rio Grande Road and Bridge Department

Routt Road and Bridge Department

Saguache Road and Bridge Department

San Juan Public Works

San Miguel County

Sedgwick County Road and Bridge

Summit Road and Bridge Department

Teller County Transportation Department

Washington County Road and Bridge

Weld Public Works Department

Yuma Road and Bridge Department






LIST OF PREPARERS 8.0

Gabe Anderson, Michael Montgomery and John Rathgeber


1815 S. Eisenhower

Wichita, Kansas 67209

Lauren Bennett and Jim Valleroy


11600 Lilburn Park Road

St Louis, Missouri 63146

Andrew Munn, Ken DeRose, and John Empey

G4S Technology, LLC (Formerly Adesta LLC)

12742 E. Caley Avenue, Unit 2B

Centennial, Colorado 80111






REFERENCES 9.0

Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Plant Species,

American Tower Management, Facility 1 Communications Site Lease, April 09, 2012,

USDA Forest Service.

Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Plant Species,

American Tower Management, Communications Site Lease, July 24, 2012, USDA

Forest Service.

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Air Control Division. 2007. Colorado

Department of Public Health and Environment Air Pollution Control Division 8-Hour

Ozone Nonattainment Area Changes Fact Sheet

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHE-AP/CBON/1251594862560

CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation). 2012. Ecological Regions of North America:

Levels l-lll. North American Atlas.

CEC (Council on Environmental Quality). 2010. Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the

Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100218-nepa-

consideration-effects-ghg-draft-guidance.pdf

CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife). 2012. Wildlife Profiles and Information. Available at:

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/

CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife). 2012. Wildlife Species. Natural Diversity Information

Source. Available at: http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp

CGS (Colorado Geological Survey). 2012. http://geosurvey.state.co.us/

Colorado Historical Society. 2011. National Register of Historic Places and the Colorado State

Register of Historic Properties. Available at http://www.historycolorado.org/

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. National Priorities List

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Brownfield Grant Fact Sheet Search.

http://cfpub.epa.gov

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDPHE-AP/CBON/1251594862560

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100218-nepa-consideration-effects-ghg-draft-guidance.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100218-nepa-consideration-effects-ghg-draft-guidance.pdf

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/

http://ndis.nrel.colostate.edu/wildlife.asp

http://geosurvey.state.co.us/

http://www.historycolorado.org/

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/

http://cfpub.epa.gov/bf_factsheets/index.cfm






EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Region 5 Corrective Action Baseline Database.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/correctiveaction/facility/

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

and Sinks: 1990-2005. EPA 430-R-07-002. April 15, 2007. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

EPA Noise Pollution Clearing house A Basis for Limiting Noise Exposure for Hearing

Conservation 1973 Available at: http://www.nonoise.org/epa.htm

FCC National Broadband Plan Goals for a High-Performance America 2013 Available at:


Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Available at:

https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/NFHLWMSkmzdownload

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Contribution of Working Group ll to

the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 1000 pp.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI) EAGLE-Net Alliance Colorado Community Anchors Broadband

Consortium Project, 2011

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Letter to USFWS

Regarding Endangered Species Act, Section 7 Formal Consultation Regarding BTOP Grant

Recipient, ENA, January 2, 2013

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Memorandum Of

Understanding with BLM Regarding the Supplemental EA Process for the BTOP Grant

Recipient, ENA, Signed February 10, 2013

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), Letter of Agreement with

USFS Regarding the Supplemental EA Process for the BTOP Grant Recipient, ENA, February

31, 2013

Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon), Environmental Assessment (EA) Colorado Community

Anchors Broadband Consortium Project EAGLE-Net Alliance Grant Award No.

NT11BIX5570001Various Locations, Colorado and Wyoming, 2011

http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/correctiveaction/facility/

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.html

http://www.nonoise.org/epa.htm


https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/NFHLWMSkmzdownload






U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Fact Sheet for Colorado. Available at:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html

USDA -NRCS (U.S. Department of Agricultural-Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2012.

Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm

USDHHS-HRSA (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-Health Resources and

Services Administration). 2009. Find MUA/P by State and County. Available at:

http://muafind.hrsa.gov/index.aspx

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. National Wetland Inventory Wetlands Mapper. Available

at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. Endangered Species Program. Available at:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered

Western Regional Climate Center. 2013. Climate of Colorado and Wyoming. Available at:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu

Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2011. Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.

Available at: http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/species

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm

http://muafind.hrsa.gov/index.aspx

http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html

http://www.fws.gov/endangered

http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/CompConvStrategy/species

supplemental environmental assessment...

Documents