Vantage to Pomona FEIS Index 34 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vantage to Pomona Heights Chapter 2 230 kV Transmission Line Project FEIS Proposed Action and Alternatives PAGE 2-83 Load management programs direct all customer demand to be moved away from peak load hours, freeing existing resources to serve additional peak loads. While energy conservation and load management can somewhat reduce the demand for electric energy, they will likely not reduce the load growth to zero, thereby eliminating the need for new generation sources and new transmission lines to serve increased loads. Energy conservation and load management cannot be considered a reasonable alternative to the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration. 2.6 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND SUMMARY OF IMPACTS This section presents a summary comparison of all nine Action Alternatives considered in the FEIS based on impacts identified and summarized from Chapter 4 of this document with mitigation measures and RDFs implemented. Tables 2-7 and 2-8 summarize access road short-term and long-term disturbance by route segment and Action Alternative. Tables 2-9 through 2-16 summarize short-term, long-term, and total disturbance assumptions by route segment and Action Alternative for the project components. Tables 2-15 and 2-16 summarize the total short-term and long disturbance for all activities. The overhead transmission line construction disturbance calculations are based on engineering, construction, operations and maintenance requirements of the 230 kV transmission line and were calculated in addition to the access road assumptions. Table 2-9 and 2-10 shows summary calculations of short-term, construction related impacts associated with work areas necessary for the installation and assembly of H-frame, single pole, and steel lattice structures and conductor pulling and tensioning sites for overhead transmission line construction. The appropriate calculation was then made based on the use of H-frame or single pole structures and number of angle/dead-end structures (e.g., number of poles per mile, number of angle/dead end structures) for each route segment. The disturbance area for pulling and tensioning sites was evenly distributed across each route segment (e.g., 50,000 sq. ft. every two miles or 2,500 sq. ft. per 0.1 mile increment) to account for this disturbance along short segments. Tables 2-12 and 2-13 summarizes the long-term disturbance calculations associated with the auguring and installation of poles and foundations as previously described and the clearing and leveling of work pads in areas over eight percent slope for the installation of structures by route segment and Action Alternative. A summary total of short-term and long-term disturbance based access roads, temporary work areas and set-up areas for route segments and Action Alternatives is shown in Tables 2-15 and 2-16. Underground disturbance calculations were based on the assumptions detailed in Section 2.2.5 and are included in Tables 2-11 and 2-14. Access road assumptions were identical for the NNR Alternative route segments with underground design options compared to overhead design options (e.g., access levels for route segment NNR-6o is identical to NNR-6u). Short-term disturbance for the NNR Alternative - Underground Design Option shown in Table 2-11 included assumptions for cleared areas necessary for construction along the trench. Long-term disturbance for the NNR Alternative - Underground Design Option are shown in Table 2-14 and include assumptions for the transition stations and duct banks (including splice vaults) for each of the underground route segments. Disturbance assumptions shown in Table 2-14 assume transition stations for the I-82 (for Route Segment NNR-4u Underground Design Option). Tables 2-17 summarize land use and transportation resource impacts for all Action Alternatives. Table 2- 18 summarizes recreation and visual resource impacts for all Action Alternatives. Table 2-19 summarizes wildlife and vegetation resource impacts for all Action Alternatives. Table 2-20 summarizes cultural, water and geological resource impacts for all Action Alternatives.