|
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 />u. rare and unique natural resources and archaeological and historic resources were
<br />identified within an approximate one -mile radius of the Project location;
<br />iii. 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 />
|