Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />5-2 <br /> <br />Cross country runs where no existing rights-of-way or easements can <br />be identified are therefore avoided if possible and pipeline routes <br />are normally selected to coinc ide with the publ ic rights-of-way, or <br />existing easement corridors. ACcess to the pipeline is also a <br />consideration which can influence the development of acceptable <br />corridors. <br /> <br />Cost of Operation. If the cost of operating or maintaining <br />alternative pipeline routes varies between the alternatives, a <br />present worth analysis will be carried out in order to identify the <br />least cost alternative over the life of the facility. In this <br />project, operational costs are not a major influence, however they <br />have been considered in the alternative analysis reflected in the <br />pipe size selection analysis in Chapter 4. <br /> <br />Special Structures. Special structures include valve vaults, <br />major lateral connections, river and highway crossings, pipe bridges, <br />and other pertinent structures. Since these facilities tend to add <br />significant cost, routes in which these are likely to occur must be <br />studied carefully in order to assess the impact on the cost of the <br />entire project. <br /> <br />utility Interference. A study of potential interference with <br />utilities over each of the pipeline routes is extremely critical in <br />evaluating the desirability of a selected route. underground <br />utilities can sometimes make it almost impossible to construct <br />addi tional facil i ties wi thin the public right-of-way. Accordingly, <br />utility locations are obtained from the various agencies and utility <br />companies having jurisdiction in the area and comprehensive maps are <br />prepared as required to show the exact location of all facilities <br />within a given right-of-way. <br /> <br />Selection of Alternative Routes <br /> <br />The alternative routes selected for serious consideration are <br />described below and shown on Figure 5-1. The alternate routes were <br />chosen principally on the basis of maximizing the use of public <br />right-of-way, use of existing easements, minimizing land acquisition, <br />and minimizing pipeline length. <br /> <br />Alternative 1. Alternative 1 begins at the Dolores Turnout and <br />runs on Montezuma Water Company's property along the east lateral to <br />the existing raw water supply pipeline intake. Alternative 1 then <br />parallels the existing pipeline alignment across open farm and <br />grazing land to the recently constructed highway crossing. <br />Alternative 1 connects into the new crossing and then parallels the <br />existing alignment to the water treatment plant. Alignment 1 <br />generally falls on privately-owned property within the easements <br />previously described for the existing raw water supply pipeline, with <br />the exception of the easement required on the Montezuma Water <br /> <br />BROWN AND CALDWELL C <br /> <br />CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br />