Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />co <br />~ <br /> <br />TABLE OF CONTENTS (Coot'd) <br /> <br />PAGE <br /> <br />CRAIG-RIFLE 23().KV LINE ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-157 <br />WOLCOTT-MT. ELBERT 23().KV LINE ................. 3-157 <br />EROSION .................................. 3-157 <br />IMPACT ON VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-158 <br />IMPACT ON WILD LIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-159 <br />HUMAN ACTIVITIES ............................ 3-160 <br />WATER RESOURCES .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-160 <br />HISTORICAL IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-161 <br />AVIATION IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-162 <br />CORONA LOSS ............................... 3-162 <br />ECONOMIC IMPACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-162 <br />ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION ................... 3-163 <br />ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-163 <br />NO TRANSMISSION SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-163 <br />OTHER ELECTRICAL ARRANGEMENTS ................. 3-164 <br />OTHER CONSTRUCTION METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-164 <br />HELICOPTER CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE . . . . . . . .. 3-164 <br />BURIED..cABLE CONSTRUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-166 <br />OTHER TYPES OF STRUCTURES ..................... 3-166 <br />ALTERNATE ROUTES ........................... 3-167 <br />ASSOCIATEDTRANSMISSION ......................... 3-175 <br />USBRHAYDEN-AULT345-KVLINE ..................... 3-175 <br />ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-175 <br />IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................... 3-176 <br />ALTERNATIVES .............................. 3-180 <br />USBR CURECANTI-SHlPROCK NO.2 23().KV LINE .. . . . . . . . . . .. 3-185 <br />ENGINEERING DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-185 <br />IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................... 3-187 <br />ALTERNATIVES ...............................3-188 <br /> <br />SECTION 4 <br />OVERALL PROJECT ASSESSMENT <br /> <br />IMPACT SUMMARY ............................... 4-1 <br />AIR QUALITY ................................. 4-1 <br />WATER QUALITY .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-2 <br /> <br />ECOLOGY ................................... 4-3 <br />LAND USE ................................... 4-5 <br />THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT ........................ 4-5 <br />ALTERNATIVES TO THE YAMPA PROJECT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-8 <br />NO ADDITIONAL GENERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-9 <br />NO COOPERATIVE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-11 <br />ALTERNATE FUELS OR FUEL SUPPLIERS ................. 4-12 <br />ALTERNATE SITE REGIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-13 <br />ALTERNATE FINANCING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4-13 <br /> <br />ix <br />