ML19221A828
| ML19221A828 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/28/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0555, NUREG-0555-09.3.4, NUREG-555, NUREG-555-9.3.4, SRP-09.03.04, SRP-9.03.04, NUDOCS 7907090205 | |
| Download: ML19221A828 (17) | |
Text
Section 9.3.4 February 1979 ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR ES SECTION 9.3.4 ALTERNATIVE PLANT AND TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS:
TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS 9.3.4.1 Alternative Routes 9.3.4.2 Alternative Design, Construction, and Maintenance REVIEW INPUTS Environmental Report Sections 2.6 Regional Historic, Archeological, Architectural, Scenic, Cultural, and Watural Features 3.9 Transmission Facilities 4.2 Transmission Facilities Construction 5.5 Ef fects of Operation and Maintenance of the Transmission Systems 10.S Station Design Alternatives: Transmission Facilities E_nvironmental Reviews 2.2.2 Land: Transmission Corridors and Of fsite Areas 2.4.1 Terrestrial Ecology 2.4.2 Aquatic Ecology 2.5.3 Historic and Archeological Sites and Natural Landmarks 3.7 Power-Transmission Systems 4.1.2 Land-Use Impacts: Transmission Corridors and Of fsite Areas (Construction) 4.1.3 Land-Use Impacts - Historic / Archeological Sites (Construction) 4.3.1 Ecological Impacts - Terrestrial Ecosystems (Con:truction) 4.3.2 Ecological Impacts - Aquatic Ecosystems (Construction) 4.4.1 Socioeconomic Impacts: Physical 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Construction 5.1.2 Land-Use Impacts: Transmission Corridors and Of fsite Areas (Operation) 5.6 Transmission System Impacts (Operation) 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts During Operation 8.1 Description of the Power System Standards and Guides Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture, Environmental Criteria for Electric Transmission Systems, U.S. GP0 0-446-290,1971.
FPC, Electric Power Transmission and the Environment, Protection and Enhancement of Natural Scenic Values in the Design, Location, and Operation of Project Work, November 27, 1974.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Alternative Electrical Transmission Systems and their Environmental Impact," NUREG-0316, August 1977.
109 2!0 gQQQQD}Oh 9.3.4-1
February 1979 Other The site visit Responses to requests for additional information Consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies REVIEW OUTPUTS Environmental Statement Sections 9.3.4 Alternative Plant and Transmission Systems: Transmission Systems Other Environmental Reviews 4.6 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts during Construction 5.10 Measures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts during Operation 10.1 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts 10.4 Benefit-Cost Balance I.
PUR'1SE AND SCOPE The purpose of this environmental standard review plan (ESRP) is to direct the staf f's analysis of alternatives to the applicant's proposed transmission system.
This includes evaluation of these alternatives, in comparison with the proposed system, to identify those systems that are (1) environmentally preferable to the proposed system and (2) environmentally equivalent to the proposed system.
Environmentally preferable alternatives will be compared with the proposed system on a benefit-cost basis to determine if any such system should be recommended for consideration as a preferred alternative to the proposed system.*
The scope of the review directed by this plan will include (1) alternative corridor routes and (2) alternatives to proposed system design, construction, and maintenance practices. The review will be limited to alternatives that (1) are applicable to and compatible with the proposed plant, the service area, and the regional transmission network, (2) are not prohibited by local, State, or
- The review of enviror, mentally preferable t'ansmission systems will include both environmental and economic considerations. The activities and inputs of two or more reviewers will be required in condut ting this portion of the review.
a.
\\@ q ;i 9.3.4-2
February 1979 Federal r:gulations, and (3) can be judged as practical from a technical stand-point with respect to the proposed dates of plant operation. This review will also irclude the investigation of alternatives proposed by other reviewers to mitigate impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed transmission system.
This plan provides the basis for the staff conclusions with res?ect to the environmental preference or equivalence of alternative transmission systems and for environmentally preferable systems, conclusions and recommendations for con-sideration of any such systems having an equivalent or better benefit-cost balance than the proposed system.
II.
REQUIRED DATA AND INFORMATION The kinds of data and information required will be af fected by site-and region-specific factors, and the degree of detail will be modified according to the magnitude of the impacts predicted for the proposed transmission system and to the practicability of adopting the alternative under consideration. The f ollow-ing data or information will usually be required:
A.
Alternative Corridor Routes 1.
Maps or aerial photographs showing alternative transmission cor-ridors from the station site to interconnecting points en the existing high voltage system and identifying corridor characteristics, e.g., new lines / towers on existing corridors, widening of existing corridors, new corridors.
(A key map providing this information will be provided in the ER.
Topographic maps (71/2 or 15 min. )
will be obtained f rom the applicant on request. )
2.
Maps or aerial photographs showing existing and known future generat-ing stations and transmission networks for the service area or affected region.
For existing transmission corridors not proposed as alternatives to the proposed system, reasons (e.g.,
system reliability) why they were not considered (f rom the ER and through consultation with agencies such as regional power pools).
9.3.4-3 1OO
?*1 iu/
c,m
Februcry 1979 Items 3, 5, 6, and 8 (following) will not be required when the alter-native route is an existing corridor containing towers and lines that will not be widened nor require new towers for use as an alternative.
3.
Maps or aerial photographs showing the approximate locations of National, State, or private wild life ref uges or other areas dedicated to ecolog-ical preservation, management, or study that are within 1 km of alternative corridors (from the ER and through consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies).
4.
Location and description of known populations of threatened or endangered species of plants and animals occurring aloi.g alternative corridors (through consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies).
5.
Location and extent of agricultural areas that are on or within 2 km of alternative corridors that are routinely serviced by aircraft, e.g.
crop dusting (through consultation with local representatives of State and Federal Departments of Agriculture).
6.
Corridor proximity to airports, roads, railroads, or other trans-portation facilities (f rom the ER).
7.
Lengths and widths (in km) of rights-of-way for each alternative segment or corridor (from the ER).
8.
General land-use characteristics along the alternative corridors, expressed as percentages of total corridor length and in terms of the intensity of use (e.g.,
residential density) for the following classifications (from the ER and through consultation with State and Federal ag ocies):
a.
Agricultural b.
Forest, woodland c.
Rangeland f[)
9.3.4-4
February 1979 d.
Recreational or ecologically sensitive areas such as parks, wildlife preserves / refuges or management areas, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers e.
Urban or residential areas f.
Commercial or industrial areas g.
Other potentially significant classifications (e.g., Federally-owned lands, Indian lands) h.
Potential geologic hazards (e.g., active faults) that could af fect transmission system reliability 9.
Number and approximate location of known historic / archeological sites within 2 km of the alternative corridor (f rom the ER and through consul-tation with State and Federal agencies) 10.
l.oca l and State laws or regulations that af fect rights-of-way acquisition, transmission line construction and operation, or corridor siting (from consultation with appropriate local and State agencies).
B.
Alternative System Design, Construction, and Maintenance Practices 1.
Alternative voltage levels and transmission f requency that are compatible with the existing service area / regional transmission network (from the ER).
2.
Alternative tower designs for areas of potential visual impact (f rom the ER).
3.
Alternative tower heights and conductor-to ground clearances (from the ER).
4.
Alternative conductor designs (from the ER).
5.
Undergrounding in areas of potentially high impact (from the ER).
6.
Alternative construction practices, including vegetation clearing; erosion control, revegetation; access road design, location and maintenance; tower i O c) e?,:,.4 9.3.4-5
February 1979 placement, foundations, and installation; and conductor installation (from the ER and through consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies).
7.
Alternative maintenance practices (f rom the ER and through consulta-tion with local, State, and Federal agencies).
8.
Alternative location of auxiliary transmission facilities, e.g.,
substations, microwave relay stations (from the ER).
9.
Laws or regulations that affect transmission facilities design or operation (from consultation with local, State, and Federal agencies).
C.
Selection Process and Cost Data 1.
Discussion of the selection process used to evaluate transmission line routes and the rationale and criteria used to select the proposed route (f rom the ER) 2.
Acquisition cost data for the proposed and alternative route rights-of-way (f rom the ER) 3.
Construction and maintenance costs for the proposed system and for principal system alternatives (f rom the ER) 4.
Estimated transmission-line losses for the proposed system and for principal alternatives (from the ER).
III.
ANALYSIS PROCEDURE The principal objectives of this analysis procedure are (1) to provide assist-ance to those ES Section 4 and 5 reviewers concerned with identifying and verifying means to mitigate adverse impacts associated with the proposed transmission system, and (2) to identify and analyze reasonable alternatives to the applicant's proposed system to the extent needed to rank them, from an environmental standpoint. as preferable, equivalent, or inferior to the applicant's proposed system.
c gi'
\\ QO " ' )
9.3.4-6
February 1979 The depth of the analysis will be governed by the nature and magnitude of proposed transmission system impacts predicted by the ES Section 4 and 5 reviewers-When adverse impacts are predicted, the reviewer will cooperate with these reviewers in identifying and analyzing means to mitigate these impacts. The proposed system with any verified mitigation schemes (i.e., measures and controls to limit adverse impacts) will be the baseline system against which alternative transmission systems will be compared. The nature and advorsity of the remaining unmitigated impacts for this baseline system will establish the level of analysis required in the review of alternative systems to permit staff evaluation and conclusions with respect to the environmental preference or equivalence of these alternatives.
When no adverse impacts have been predicted for the proposed system, the review will be limited to an analysis of alternative transmission systems in the depth necessary to judge their environmental equi.alence to the applicant's proposed system.
When envircomentally preferable alternatives have been identified, (see the Evaluation section of this ESRP), the review will be expanded to consider the economic costs of any such alternative.
This analysis will be done in consulta-tion with appropriate ES Section 10.4 reviewers. Assistance f rom these reviewers will be needed to establish the economic cost data that will be used to develop a benefit-cost comparison with the baseline (proposed) transmission system.
In this analysis, the reviewer will consider alternatives to the following elements of the proposed transmission system:
A.
Transmission corridor routes B.
Design, construction, and maintenance.
The analysis will consider only those alternatives applicable to and compatible with the proposed plant, the applicant's service area, and the regional trans-mission network.
The reviewer will conduct an initial environmental screening of each alter-native transmission system to eliminate those systems that are obviously unsuit-able for application to the proposed project.
Economic factors will not be used 1 0 9 9,: o<
9.3.4-7 c
February 1979 in this initial screening. Working through the NRC Environmental Project Manager, the reviewer may consult with appropriate Federal and State agencies when needed to conduct this screening. When the reviewer rejects an alternative, that alter-native needs no futher consideration other than the preparation (for Section V of this ESRP) of the reasons and justification for the rejection.
The following procedure for developing the analysis of alternat 've trans-mission systems considers both environmental and economic cost factors. In follow-ing this procedure, the reviewer will initially consider only the environmental factors, and will repaat the procedure for economic factors only for those alter-natives shown to be environmentally preferable by the evaluation procedures of this ESRP. The analysis of those alternative transmission systems not eliminated by the initial screening process will be based on the environmental and economic factors shown i n Tabl e 9. 3. 4-1.
The reviewer will prepare a similar table for each transmission system element under consideration, comparing each of the envi-ronmental and economic cost and benefit factors with those of the proposed trans-mission system element.
Information for this table may be prepared either in terms of absolute environmental and economic costs and benefits, or as incremental costs and benefits referenced to the proposed system.
Additional factors may be included when needed on a site-or system-specific basis.
A.
Alternative Corridor Routes The reviewer's analysis of alternative corridor routes will be based on a comparison of those routes with the proposed route described in ES Sec-tion 3.7.
The comparison may be made for complete routes or for route segments, as appropriate, and will consider those factors listed in Item A of Section II of this plan.
The reviewer will consider both environmental and economic factors, using a tabular format similar to that shown in Table 9.3.4-1.
The reviewer will consult with the reviewer for ES Section 3.7 and the appropriate ES Section 4 and 5 reviewers to establish construction and operation impacts for the proposed corridor routes. The reviewer's comparison of these data with those for the alter-native corridors will involve the following:
9.3.4-8
1.
Impacts The reviewer will estimate the impacts that can be expected from development of alternative transmission corridors, tower end line installation, and operation and maintenance.
The appropriate ES Section 4 and 5 reviewers will be consulted in making these estimates and in comparing these impacts with those predicted for the proposed corridor routes.
2.
Ecnnomic Factors fhe reviewer will estimate acquisition or rights-of-way cos ts,
clearing and construction costs, maintenance costs, ar e costs to mitigate predicted environmental impacts for the proposed and alternative routes. Where there are appreciable dif ferences in transmission-line lengths, the reviewer will estimate the loss in delivered electrical capacity due to transmission-line losses.
B.
Alternatives to the Proposed Transmission System Design, Construction, and claintenance The reviewer's analysis of alternatives to the proposed system design, construction, and maintenance will be based on recommendations made by the appro-priate ES Section 4 and 5 reviewers for alternative actions to mitigate predicted impacts. As a general rule, these alternative designs, practi.'es, and procedures will fall within the categories listed in Section II.B of this LSRP. The following guidance should be considered when reviewing these alternatives:
1.
Alternative voltage levels and/or d.c.
versus a.c.
transmission will only be considered when (a) the reviewer for ES Section 5.6.3 predicts a significant impact associated with the proposed voltage levels and frequency that cannot be mitigated by other alternatives (e.g., increased conductor-to ground clearance, alternative routes) and (b) the alternatives are cansistent with service area and regional transmission netvork characteristicJ 2.
Alternative tower designs, tower heights, conductor-to ground clear-ances, conductor designs, and rights-of way widths will be considered when the 9 3 4-9 IO Lo Q
February 1979 reviewers for ES Section 5.6 predict adverse transmission system impacts (e.g.,
esthetic impacts, electric fielr's, shock hazact's) that could be mitigated by alter-ratives to these design parameters.
3.
Undero ounding will be considered only for unusual circumstances where the costs ascaciated with this practice can be justified.
4 Alternative construction practices will be considered wi.en recom-mended bv the reviewers for ES Sections 4.1, 4.3, and 4.4.
Typical alternatives to be _onsidered include methods for vegetation clearing; erosion control < revegeta-tie.i; access-road design and use, tower locations, foundations, and installation-,
'.onductor installation; type and amount cf equipment in use; and timing of co;r struction activities.
5.
The reviewer will consider alternative maintenance practices, particularly with respect to corridor maintenance, when the propssed methods can be predicted to have adverse impacts associated with, e.g., ':erbicide drif t or habitat loss due to clearcutting.
The reviewer will consu't with the reviewers for ES Section 5.6 to determine the nature and scope of alternatives to be considered.
6.
The reviewer will consider alternative locations of auxiliary trans-mission-system facilities only when the reviewers for ES Sections 4.1.2 or 5.1.2 recommend relocation of such facilities.
IV.
EVALUATION The reviewer will evaluate the applicant's process f or identification and selection of alternative transmission system routes to ensure that reasonable alternatives to the proposed route have been considered.
The reviewer will also ensure that due consideration has been given to the use of existing transmission-line corridors as an alternative to the development of new corridors. The reviewer will ensure that each transmission system alternative has been described in suf fi-cient detail to enable the reviewer to make an effective analysis and comparison of environmental impacts leading to a staf f conclusion that the alterna,tg]e system n
\\[
b' C
9.3.4-10
February 1979 is environmentally preferable, equivalent, or inferior to the proposed system.
For those alternatives determined to be environmentally preferable, the reviewer will ensure that economic cost data are available in sufficient detail to enable the reviewer to conduct benefit-cost analyses and comparisons with the proposed system leading to a final staf f recommendation for transmission system considera-tion. The reviewer will also ensure that all comparisons were made on the basis of the proposed system, as supplemented with those measures and controls to limit adverse impacts proposed by the applicant and recommended by the staf f.
For those alternatives eliminated from consideration on the basis of land use, water use, or legislative restrictions, the reviewer will ensure that adequate documented justification for this action has been prepared.
A.
General Considerations If a mitigation measure or alternative transmission system is to be recom-mended for consideration, the reviewer must determine first that the measure or system being evaluated has a lesser overall environmental impact than the pro-posed system, i.e.,
is environmentally preferable.
When this is true, the economic costs of mitigation or of the alternative must result in an equivalent or improved project benefit-cost balance.
When these criteria are met, the reviewer will verify those mitigation measures proposed by the reviewers for ES Sections 4 and 5 or will recommend consideration of an alternative transmission system. The reviewer will be guided by the following general considerations:
1.
The reviewer must keep in mind that an environmental review of alter-native transmission systems, if conductef in the depth appliad to the review of the proposed system, would be expected to find additional impacts and/or increased severity of the impacts already predicted for the alternative. The reviewer will allow for this when evaluating the comparative environmental impacts or each pro-posed alternative with those of the proposed system.
2.
The reviewer will ensure that the level of detail provided for each economic, environmental, and social cost estimate is commensurate with the level of importance of the related environmental impact.
9.3.4-11 1ng 9,n iU/
Z. c a
February 1979 B.
Measures and Controls to limit Adverse Impacts When considering measures recommended by the reviewers for ES Sections 4 and 5 to mitigate adverse environmental impacts predicted f or the proposed trans-mission system, the reviewer's verification of the desirability of the measure will require the following conclusions:
1.
The measure provides the desired mitigation and does not introduce other adverse environmental impacts not predicted for the proposed system.
2.
The measure will result in an overall benefit / cost balance equivalent to or better than that of the proposed project.
3.
The measure is not precluded by Federal, State or local regulot. ions or ordinances.
C.
Alternative Transmission Systems 9
1.
The initial step in the evaluation of those alternative transmis-sion systems identified by the aviolysis procedure of this ESFtP will be to cate-gorize these systems os environmentally preferable, equivalent, or inferior to the proposed transmission system as modified by measures and controls to limit adverse impacts. The following criteria will be applied to this evaluation:
a.
When the reviewer determines that the proposed system (with mitigation measures, if necessary) will have no unavoidable adverse impacts, and will comply with applicable local, State, and Federal regulations, the reviewer will conclude that there can be no environmentally preferable transmission system alternatives.
When this conclusion is reached, the reviewer will evaluate the alternatives to identify those that may be considered environmentally equivalent.
For this condition, environmental equivalence will require that an alternative have no unavoidable adverse impacts and meet applicable regulatory requirements.
The reviewer will not indicate a preference between environmentally equivalent alternatives nor will a benefit-cost analysis be made when this condition prevails.
Alternatives having unavoidable adverse environmental impacts or that do not meet
\\h b
9.3.4-12
February 1979 regulatory requirements will be judged environmentally inferior to proposed trans-mission systems meeting these conditions.
b.
When the reviewer determines that the proposed transmission system will meet regulatory requirements but is predicted to have unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the reviewer will evaluate the identified alter-native systems for potential environmental preference to the proposed system.
The scope and extent of this evaluation will depend on the nature and macnitude of the proposed system's environmental impacts. An environmental review for the alternatives may be required following the analysis and evaluation procedures of the appropriate ES Section 4 and 5 ESRPs. The following criteria apply to this evaluation:
(1)
Environmental preference will be established when an alternative can be shown to have no unavoidable adverse impacts and will meet regulatory requirements.
(2) Environmental preference may be established when an alter-native that meets regulatory requirements can be shown to have unavoidable adverse impacts that are less severe in both nature and magnitude than those of the proposed system.
Determination of envirrnmental preference under these conditions will require consul tation with the NRL Environmental Project Manager and the appropriate ES Section ' and 5 res iawers.
This consultation will result in a joint deter-mination of the status of any su:h alternative.
(3) Envi rc omental equivalence will be established when an alternative that meets regulatory requirements can be shown to have unavoidable adverse impacts of the same or equivalent nature and magnitude as those of the proposed system.
(4) Environmental inferiority will be established when an alternative can be shown to have unavoidable adverse impacts that are more severe in both nature and magnitude than those of the proposed system, or that will not comply with applicable local, State, or Federal regulations.
9.3.4-13 l [V] C) ?'1 L. L
February 1979 When the reviewer determines that there are environmentally preferable alter-natives to the proposed transmission system, the reviewer will conduct those portions of the analysis instructions of this ESRP that deal with the economic costs of the alternative systems.
2.
When environmentally preferable alternative transmission systems have been identified, the reviewer will ensure that economic cost data have been develooed for the alternatives and that these data are adequate for a benefit-cost analysis and corrparison with the proposed system. This portion of the evaluation procedure will be conducted with the assistance of appropriate ES Section 10.4 reviewers.
The reviewer will complete the economic tactors portions of Table 9.3.4-1.
On the basis of the completed table, the reviewer will balance and com-pare benefits and costs of the environmentally preferable alternative (s) with those of the proposed system.
When an environmentally preferable alternative can be shown to have the same benefits as the proposed system with comparable reliability and at the same or lesser economic costs, the reviewer may conclude that the alternative should be recommended for consideration as (in alternative to the proposed system.
For those cases where benefits of the alternative are less than these of the prcposed system (e.g., increased transmission losses or decreased system reliability) or where economic costs are greater than those of the proposed system, a conclusion that the alternative is to be recommended will require consultation with the NRC Environmental Project Manager and with the appro-priate ES Section 4 and '
oiewers.
If this conclusion establishes that the alternatives are no more than equivale7t to the benefit-cost oalances of a
proposed system, the alternatives will not be recommended f or f urther consideration.
When alternatives have significantly decreased benefits or increased economic costs, they will be rejected for any further consideration as alternatives to the propoced system.
V.
INPUT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT This section of the environmental statement should be planned to accomplish the follo. sing objectives: (1) description of the alternative transmission corridor routes and system design, construction, and maintenance practices that were con" sidered and results of the staff's analysis of these alternatives, (2) presentation e)O) k 9.3.4-14
,o u
$ \\) 1
\\
February 1979 of the basis for the staf f's analysis, and (3) presentation of the staf f's conclu-sions and recommendations.
The reviewer will prepare separate input.s describing the review and analysis of alternative routes and alternative system design, construction, and maintenance.
If desired, each input may be prepared as a separate Environmental Statement section, (e.g., 9.4.3.1, Alternative Routes). Each input will normally describe (1) those alternatives considered by the staff, (2) those alternatives rejected by the staf f as being inappropriate for the proposed project, (3) the staff's analysis and comparison of potentially appropriate alternatives to seek environmentally preferable alternatives to the proposed system or component, and (4) the staff's conclusions and recommendations (where applicable) for consideration of alternative transmission systems. For alternative routes, the input will also include a brief description of the applicant's process for identifying and evaluating alternative routes and the staf f conclusion with respect to the merits of the procedure.
The reviewer will discuss briefly those alternatives rejected because of specific deficiencies and state why the alternative was rejected.
The reviewer will also identify those alternatives judged enviromentally equivalent or inferior to the proposed systen. The use of a table similar to Table 9.3.4-1 to present the staff's comparison of these potentially acceptable alternative heat dissipation systems is recommended.
When the reviewer has concluded
.a alternative is environmentally preferable and should be considered as the preferred route (or route segment),
practice, or maintenance technique, sufficient additional design, construct a
narrative detail will be included in the input to justify the alterna'ive on an environmental and economic cost basis.
wer wi.ll provide inputs or ensure that inputs will be made to the I' -
following sections:
A.
Sections 4.6 and 5.10.
The reviewer wili provide the reviewers for ES Sections a.6 and 5.10, as appropriate, with a lis t of those measures and controls 109 2?s 9.3.4-15
February 1979 to limit adverse transmission-system impacts that were developed as a result of this environmental review.
B.
Sections 10.1 and 10.4.
When the reviewer has recommended consider-in of an alternative to the proposed transmission system, data and informa-tion will be provided to the reviewers of ES Sections 10.1 and 10.4 to permit the inclusion of any such alternatives in the final evaluation of the proposed cction.
VI.
REFERENCES 1.
J. R. Anderson, E. E. Ha rdy, J.
T. Roach and R. E. Witmer, A Land-Use and Land-Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data, Geological Survey Professional Paper 964, 1976.
9.3.4-16
February 1979 TABLE 9.3.4-1 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE CORRIDOR ROUTES Proposed Route Alternative A Alternative B Factor Or Segment Route / Segment Route / Segment Descriptions 1.
New Corridors a.
Tata'
.gn f t.)
b.
Right-M w..)
d _tn (n.
c.
Teta' area ('a) d.
Lcre i+.r cc,rac teri s tics (1)
(A: apprcpriate from Section II.A of this ESRP)
(2) etc.
2.
Existing (Cleared) Corridors a.
Total length b.
Right-of-way width c.
Total area Impacts 1.
Land Use (e.g., agriculture, recreational areas) 2.
Terrestrial Ecology (e.g., habitat loss, endangered species) 3.
Aquatic Ecology (e.g., siltation, streaa crossings) 4.
Socioeconomics (e.g., esthetics, historic sites)
Ecoiomic Factors 1.
Estimated Acquisition Cost 2.
Estimated Construction Costs 3.
Estimated Maintenance Costs 4.
Estimated Transmission Lesses 109 2:o 9.3.4-17