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 />excess of the easement purchase payments to owners. <br />the easement acquisition costs along Alignment A will <br /> <br />It is our estimate that <br />be about $450,000. <br /> <br />From the standpoint of potential major project delays, it would appear that <br />one or two property hol douts cou1 d have si gnifi cant schedu1 e impacts. The <br />Alignment B alternative that would permit construction along public roadwavs, <br />however, it does not entirely eliminate potential delays. The total length nf <br />this line is approximately one mile lonqer than Alternative A, and if ideal <br />constructi on condi ti ons exi sted, that 1 ength wou1 d requi re about two weeks <br />more construction time. The production rate for construction within state and <br />county roads would probably be slowed considerably, and installation costs <br />thereby increased. These factors are more fully addressed in the costs and <br />total comparisons of the two alignments in the last section of this chapter. <br /> <br />State and County offi ci a1 s have been contacted concerni ng ri ghts-of-way along <br />roads. It is physically and legally possible to place the water line in the <br />area between the toe of the roadway cut or fi 11 and the ri ght-of-way fence <br />1 i ne along Montezuma County roads and the State hi ghways. The approximate <br />width between county road fence lines is about 50 feet and the roadway section <br />occupi es about 22 feet. For the State Hi ghway, there are vari abl e <br />right-of-way widths with an average width being 100 feet and the road section <br />occupying 40 feet of that wit1th. In both cases, constructing the pioe1ine <br />woul d be allowed under a permi t. The agreements woul d i ncl ude the normal <br />permit provisions t~at require the pipeline owner to relocatp., should there be <br />an expansion of the roa,1. The potential of highway widening seems to be <br />greater for Route 666, but no definite olans are in progress. Should <br />expansion be made at any time in the future, the Tribe would be obligat'!d to <br />bear the cost of relocating the pipelinp.. <br /> <br />Figure 3.4, previously noted, illustrates the general location of major <br />utilities in the area. Most of those gas lines, telephone lines, and water <br />1 i nes are located wi thi n the road ri ght-of-way and feed off to i nr!i vi dual <br />residences along the way. In some cases, the pipeline could be constructed on <br />the opposite side of the roadway from existing utility lines. <br /> <br />3-38 <br /> <br />1060c <br />