Laserfiche WebLink
4.3 Alternative Routes Considered and Rejected I <br /> In consultation with surrounding landowners, the City and applicable regulatory agencies, Xcel <br /> Energy identified and analyzed four Alternative Routes for the Project, which are identified as <br /> "Alternative Route 1", "Alternative Route 2", "Alternative Route 3" and "Alternative Route 4" <br /> (collectively, "Alternative Routes") in Appendix G, Figure G-1, and are further described in <br /> Appendix G. Table G.1 in Appendix G provides a detailed description of the Alternative Routes, <br /> including road and waterbody crossings. <br /> In evaluating the Alternative Routes,Xcel Energy focused predominantly on the location of existing <br /> transportation corridors, alignment of the existing distribution and transmission lines and land use <br /> because they best satisfy the routing criteria. The Alternative Routes follow existing rights-of-way <br /> and property lines to the extent feasible. <br /> In performing the Alternative Routes analysis, Xcel Energy considered social, environmental, and <br /> engineering-related factors, such as location of existing transportation and utility corridors, land use, <br /> site conditions, proximity to residential or commercial structures, environmental impacts, effects on <br /> trees, proximity to areas of archaeological or historical significance, proximity to wetlands or PWI <br /> watercourses, and several engineering design-related factors. Based on this analysis, Xcel Energy <br /> concluded that the Alternative Routes were not preferable to the Proposed Route for the reasons <br /> summarized below and further described in Appendix G. <br /> 4.3.1 Alternative Route 1 ' <br /> Alternative Route 1 and the Proposed Route share the same route for the first 1,701 feet of the <br /> Proposed Route. At this point Alternative Route 1 deviates from the Proposed Route on a more <br /> westerly course for approximately 550 feet to existing Structure 077 of Line 0831. <br /> Alternative Route 1 is not preferable to the Proposed Route because it will not fulfill one main <br /> objective of the Project,that being to minimize impacts to residences. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, <br /> Xcel Energy is working with the two landowners whose properties are currently crossed by existing <br /> Line 0831 to remove the Line 0831 from the properties and move the line north of their respective <br /> property lines onto adjacent HFA property. Alternative Route 1 also requires the clearing of some I <br /> mature trees through the middle of one of the residential lots for right-of-way purposes. <br /> 4.3.2 Alternative Route 2 <br /> Alternative Route 2 utilizes the portion of the Proposed Route (866 feet) prior to the Proposed <br /> Route turning westerly at the BNSF railroad right-of-way. At this point Alternative Route 2 <br /> continues north an approximate 326 feet and crosses the BNSF railroad, a Metropolitan Council <br /> sewer line, U.S. Highway 12 and an existing Xcel Energy distribution line. Upon exiting U.S. <br /> Highway 12 right-of-way, Alternative Route 2 enters the Three Rivers Park District's Baker Park <br /> Reserve. From here Alternative Route 2 continues westerly approximately 974 feet across Baker <br /> Park Reserve property connecting to existing Xcel Energy 115 kV transmission Line 0831 (see <br /> Figure 3). The existing tower (Structure 076) located at this connection point lies within 30 feet of <br /> a paved bike path within Baker Park Reserve. , <br /> Alternative Route 2 was rejected due to the number of transportation crossings (e.g. the BNSF <br /> railroad, U.S. Highway 12), the location of an existing Metropolitan Council sewer line located I <br /> Orono Project June 7,2011 <br /> MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 16 <br />