2008-02-22_APPLICATION CORRESPONDENCE - C2008086 ‎(46)‎

• Permit No: C2008086
• IBM Index Class Name: Application Correspondence
• Doc Date: 2/22/2008
• Doc Name: PDEIS Chapter 2 Alternatives
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

CHAPTERTWO Alternatives
along CR 15, CR M, and CR 16 to just north of the Highline Canal; and along the existing
pipeline/transmission line in Sections 15, 16, 22, 23, and 26, T8S, R102W. Alternative C shares
a route with the proposed action from the substation along CR 15, CR M, and CR 14 to just north
of the Highline Canal. All land south of the Highline Canal is private, but the transmission line
would be constructed in existing utilities easements. North of the Highline Canal, land status is
mixed BLM and private; the only easements are along the existing transmission line and pipeline
referenced previously.
Table 2-13, Transmission Line Lengths and Land Status Crossed, compares total length of the
alternatives and proposed action and the private versus BLM-managed lands crossed north of the
Highline Canal. When the alternative is located along a property line between private and BLM-
managed lands, it is assumed that the line would be constructed on BLM lands. The numbers of
private parcels are also shown for alternatives A and B, as ROW negotiations with each
landowner would be necessary for these lines.
Table 2-13
TRANSMISSION LINE LENGTHS AND LAND STATUS CROSSED
Alternative Total Length (miles)
Uintah Substation to Mine BLM Private Number of
Private Parcels
Proposed Action 14.3 7.1 0 0
Alternative A 15.1 4.1 4.2 19
Alternative B 14.6 5.8 1.9 5
Alternative C 14.9 7.7 0 0
Notes:
* North of Highline Canal only
BLM = Bureau of Land Management
Alternative A follows CR 16 from north of the Highline Canal to the existing transmission
line/pipeline easement in Section 26. This provides easy access but requires additional angle
(turning) structures. Mesa County does not have access easements along CR 16 north of the
Highline Canal.
Alternative B follows section and property lines to minimize private land crossings. Access
would be more overland but would follow some existing disturbance and access roads. The line
would be harder to access in inclement weather. The alternative crosses three BLM isolated
parcels of land; that is, BLM-managed lands surrounded by private land.
Alternative C from the Highline Canal, this alternative crosses BLM lands to connect with the
proposed rail corridor approximately 1,500 feet east of SH 139. This alternative avoids private
lands and consolidates railroad, water pipeline, and transmission line disturbance and access for
approximately 3.4 miles. Access between the Highline Canal and the rail corridor would be a
mix of existing roads/two-tracks and overland travel.
2-56