|
7.0 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED AND ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
<br /> The extent of the area used to compare the Proposed and Alternative Routes vary depending on the
<br /> ' applicable siting factors,including:
<br /> i. aesthetics, cultural values, recreation, public services, tourism, electrical system
<br /> ' reliability, flora and fauna were identified within the Project location;
<br /> ii. rare and unique natural resources and archaeological and historic resources were
<br /> identified within an approximate one-mile radius of the Project location;
<br /> air quality, water quality, route specific design issues and existing infrastructure were
<br /> identified within the requested 400-foot route width of the Project route centerline;
<br /> ' iv. residences, noise, or public health and safety were identified within 200 feet of the
<br /> Project route centerline;and
<br /> ' v. wetlands, floodplains, and flora were identified within the 75-foot-wide easement
<br /> width or the Proposed Route.
<br /> ' For each siting factor, the potential effect of the each route is briefly summarized or it was
<br /> determined there was no effect for the factor.
<br /> There are no anticipated effects for several siting factors including: noise, displacement of residents,
<br /> cultural values, tourism, public services, infrastructure, public health and safety, forestry, air quality,
<br /> water quality, public water crossings, mining, electrical system reliability, agriculture and loss of
<br /> ' prime farmland. For other siting factors, the effects for the Proposed and Alternative Routes are
<br /> similar, including: archaeological resources, historic resources, floodplains, flora, fauna, rare and
<br /> unique resources,and forested areas.
<br /> Table G.2 in Appendix G summarizes Xcel Energy's application of the factors set forth in Minn.
<br /> R. 7850.4100 for the Proposed and Alternative Routes. In general, in comparison to the Alternative
<br /> ' Routes,the Proposed Route has no impacts on these factors,less impacts on these factors or similar
<br /> impacts to these factors than the Alternative Routes.
<br /> The primary differences between the Proposed Route and the Alternative Routes are the effects on
<br /> the following siting factors: recreation, existing rights-of-way, and wetland crossings. Based on this
<br /> analysis,the Proposed Route has fewer impacts compared to the Alternative Routes as follows:
<br /> • The Proposed and Alternative Routes generally cross the same type of landscape in a
<br /> predominantly undeveloped open setting. To minimize impacts on these land uses, the
<br /> Proposed Route parallels the BNSF railroad right-of-way for 57 percent of the route,while
<br /> Alternative Routes 1, 2, 3 and 4 follow existing road or railroad right-of-way for 37, 43,
<br /> 44, and 0 percent of their routes, respectively. Alternative Route 4 follows an existing
<br /> GRE transmission right-of-way for approximately 3,130 feet(84 percent) of this route;
<br /> • The Proposed Route will cross approximately 2,140 lineal feet of wetland. Alternative
<br /> Routes 1, 2, 3 and 4 will cross approximately 1,760, 750, 1,760 and 2,370 lineal feet of
<br /> Orono Project June 7, 2011
<br /> MPUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-223 63
<br />
|