13 replies to this topic

[Aaron]

There is talk of converging two different power line routes into one and running it on steel towers for a significant length along hwy 36. This would replace the current wood power poles.

http://www.9news.com..._medium=twitter

--Aaron

[DrCloud]

This, of course, is quite an issue within the Estes Valley and especially in the Meadowdale subdivision (those houses on the hillside across from the Hermit Park entrance, over Park Hill on 36 from EP).

There's a more detailed discussion in an Estes Park Trail-Gazette article here: http://www.eptrail.com/ci_19539003 and if you poke around via search at wapa.gov you'll find truly detailed maps.

Why WAPA isn't going with the Estes-Lyons Tap route (even if they'd need more right-of-way for a couple of miles) is just a mystery. HPH

[Igloo Ed]

DrCloud, on 14 December 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

Why WAPA isn't going with the Estes-Lyons Tap route (even if they'd need more right-of-way for a couple of miles) is just a mystery. HPH

My guess would be dealing with Larimer county rather than Bolder County.

[jflo]

Hmmm. At first it sounds bad. I don't know that much about it though. I noticed that they talked about going underground too, but that could also be bad.

[DrCloud]

Igloo Ed, on 14 December 2011 - 03:39 PM, said:

My guess would be dealing with Larimer county rather than Bolder County.

i wondered about that, too, but it's all in Larimer -- in fact, all west of Medowdale, for some reason. The WAPA maps show it clearly: The big lines across the Lake Estes Causeway (US36) split at Mall Road, but rejoin up by the top of the hill somewhere. The "Estes-Lyons Tap" is just the more northern of the two, closer to Mt. Olympus. I think they want to use the other one (south of US36, mostly) because they have easier access and maybe a better right-of-way. The other one probably runs more through private property. HPH

[DrCloud]

jflo, on 14 December 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

Hmmm. At first it sounds bad. I don't know that much about it though. I noticed that they talked about going underground too, but that could also be bad.

Underground would be best (I'd really, really like to see the causeway lines underground -- that would certainly improve the Estes Valley's ambiance), but they're hugely expensive for transmission lines like these.

The new towers they're proposing are not those "marching guy" framework towers that go across the causeway, but rather (taller) T-shaped ones. WAPA has a good point that the existing (and pretty old) wood towers are vulnerable to wildfires -- that's the only power to the valley, after all. The local generating plant depends on flow through the Adams Tunnel, over which Estes Park has no control. HPH

[jflo]

DrCloud, on 14 December 2011 - 07:49 PM, said:

Underground would be best (I'd really, really like to see the causeway lines underground -- that would certainly improve the Estes Valley's ambiance), but they're hugely expensive for transmission lines like these.

I'd love to see that too! It would be so nice to drive into Estes and see just beautiful scenery along the lake...

I wish there were more of an easier solution to this issue. They're talking about these new Poles to be twice as tall as the current ones too... how much that will effect the views?

[DrCloud]

This is the Big Topic in Estes Park just now (I'm here for a couple of weeks). The Trail-Gazette is following it closely (and letters there are starting to get published). WAPA is being whipsawed by two competing complaints: Estes Parkers (and people here) would like the lines across the causeway (along the lake) to be buried, and the folks in the Meadowdale Subdivision are in the NIMBY mode, trying to get the new towers to go somewhere else. The two interests might be able to unite, but I imagine that WAPA will try to divide and conquer.

The fact is that transmission lines are required if the Estes Valley is to have power. WAPA, I think, spends federal tax money (maybe not income tax but rather something on power bills) to do these projects. They can justify only so much expenditure for the Estes Valley. And you can bet that the folks who live here won't want to pony up for extra expenses such as transmission line burial or expensive new rights-of-way.

Meanwhile, the Beaver Business is yesterday's news. We drove up (south - the only way now) Fish Creek Road today, and the contractor was working in the vicinity of those ponds. Gotta say -- the beavers are destroying a very nice aspen (plus other species) grove there: There are lots of downed trees (big ones), and it won't take too many years for them to denude the place and move on. HPH

[Aaron]

Thanks for the firsthand updates

--Aaron

[jflo]

Yes, Thanks!!! Glad to have an Eye Witness!!!

[DrCloud]

So... this afternoon, on the drive back to Estes Park from an overnight in Denver (I have a brother there), we made a point of stopping at that pull-out "scenic overlook" on the way down from Park Hill, where the big sign chiseled into the sandstone says "Estes Park", and so on.

For the life of me, I can't understand the objections raised that have to do with this spot. The main lines (the preferred WAPA route along US 36) can be seen only up the hill. If you look really, really hard between the trees, you can see the other ("Estes-Lyons Tap", which is a misnomer) lines -- maybe, with big poles, they'd be more visible. Frankly (this is the first time in literally hundreds of trips down that hill that I'd ever stopped there to look), that's a lousy viewpoint for the Estes Valley. You can't see very much of anything -- including existing power lines or anything to hint of the proposed ones.

So, for me, this part of the discussion is a red herring.

I, too, would like to see the erector set towers across the causeway by the lake eliminated, but I fear that these are not part of this particular WAPA project. And the new lines seem unlikely to affect more than a few of the Meadowdale residences as well -- only those with the most spectacular views, it looks like. I'm not suggesting that there are no issues with this, but the publicity does not seem congruent with the reality, except in the case of a very few people. Staying educated seems to be the best course of action here. HPH

[jflo]

So what you're saying is that for visitors/tourists that they shouldn't really notice much of a difference?

[DrCloud]

Hard to say, really. Taller towers will surely be more obvious in some locations, but if they don't change those erector-set ones along the lake, I don't think the others will be catastrophic, and many people will be oblivious. In order to see the existing lines from the turnout, you have to peek through the trees -- but may be the new ones will be easier to see. Here's a piece of the official project map:



The scenic-view turnout is just at the norther-most point of that S-curve on US 36, so the green section just north of that could be visible (that's what's hard to see now, with the existing poles). But the Meadowdale folks want WAPA to use the Estes-Lyons Tap route, and that would be much more visible from there, because the trees hide the valley immediately below the turnout but you can see down into the Valley (by where it says "County Road 63"). And removing the existing lines along US36 by where it says "Park Hill" would improve matters a lot, because those lines are quite visible now. But now poles on the section lower down (1-1 to 1-6) will still be pretty obvious, especially with the taller towers.

I think I'd vote for using the Estes-Lyons Tap route, all-in-all, but it's not obvious that it would preserve views. It would probably help the Meadowdale people the most, though. HPH

[DrCloud]

There's an interesting letter in today's Trail-Gazette, which I'll re-post here to provide another perspective. (I'll note that part of it supports my comments in #11 above.)

Crocker Ranch: separating power line fiction from fact
Dear Editor:
As the family member-owners of the Crocker Ranch, we have closely followed the Western Area Power Administration's proposal to reroute transmission lines between Estes Park and the Flatiron Substation (the Project). Our family has owned the ranch for over 100 years and has been consistent stewards of the valley. But now certain opponents of the Project (including some of the residents of the Meadowdale Hills subdivision) have made some false allegations about our family and the project. We write to set the record straight on a few of the myths being spread.

Myth 1: WAPA is giving the Crocker Ranch a sweetheart deal.
Fact: The ranch bears the burden of power lines today, and will after the project is complete. WAPA proposes to move lines to the southern flank of the ranch. The southern route will follow existing power lines that provide electricity to the homes of the same residents of Meadowdale Hills who attack the ranch. We wish that WAPA would remove all of its lines from the ranch. But we recognize modern society requires safe and reliable power. Under any alternative currently proposed, the ranch will bear the burden of supplying that power to others, including the Meadowdale Hills homeowners. We are willing to accept that burden. Allegations that the Crocker Ranch stands to receive a sweetheart deal from WAPA are false. The Meadowdale Hills homeowners are the ones seeking a one-sided deal: transmission lines removed from their lands altogether and all put on the Crocker Ranch.

Myth 2: The project will ruin views of the valley.
Fact: Because WAPA has yet to produce a rendering of views before and after the project, the project's opponents have spread fear mongering depictions of visual ruin. The website responsiblelines.org depicts a transmission pole towering above the Highway 36 welcome sign. These images are deliberately misleading. WAPA proposes to install approximately 105-foot tall poles. The poles on the Crocker Ranch will be in a draw 200 feet under the turnout, shielded by trees that will render the lines largely invisible from that location. The top of the poles will be about 100 feet below the turnout, not towering over it. By contrast, the current lines scarring the base of Mt. Olympus are visible from the turnout, from many viewpoints within town such as the Safeway parking lot, and from along Highway 36. We recognize that the project will produce lines that are visible from certain spots where they are not today. But it will also remove from view many lines. We think the net effect will be positive. We urge others to base their own conclusions on the facts in WAPA's environmental assessment for the project and not on alarmist depictions.

Myth 3: The northern route on the Crocker Ranch is within a U.S. Forest Service designated "utility corridor."
Fact: This claim is utterly false. The Forest Service has no authority to designate "utility corridors" on private lands like the Crocker Ranch and it has not done so. The northern route does have power lines on it today. But to expand the use of the northern route and make it accessible, WAPA would have to expand its easements, construct highly engineered roads across the base of Mt. Olympus and up the ridge on the eastern edge of the ranch, mitigate landslide risks, and take other highly visually and environmentally destructive actions. And, just like the northern route, the proposed southern route follows an existing transmission line: the line for the Meadowdale Hills subdivision. If the northern route is in a utility corridor, then so is the southern route through Meadowdale Hills.

Thanks for the opportunity to set the record straight. We urge everyone in the community to make up their minds based on objective facts rather than the propaganda being spread by special interest groups.

William Curran, Charles Curran, Rick Hamilton, and Hannah Bowton
Owners of the Crocker Ranch