Control Number: 51476
Item Number: 2
Addendum StartPage: 0 Standard Application for A Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and
Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.174
DOCKET NO. 51476
l /fbl-3 RECEIVED 04 l/m A, liD~a /V 0' 18 202# f?~l~ \ 82 CO)-0/ +G CLERK
Submit seven (7) copies of the application and all attachments supporting the application. If the application is being Jiled pursuant to 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.101(b)(3)(D) (TAC) or 16 TAC § 25.174, include in the application alt direct testimony. The application and other necessary documents shall be submitted to:
Public Utility Commission of Texas Attn: Filing Clerk 1701 N. Congress Ave. Austin, Texas 78711-3326
1 Effective June 8,2017 1 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
Note: As used herein, the term "joint application" refers to an application for proposed transmission facilities for which ownership will be divided. All applications for such facilities should be filed jointly by the proposed owners ofthe facilities.
1. Applicant (Utility) Name: El Paso Electric Company Certificate Number: 30050 Street Address: 100 North Stanton Street (Location Code 116) Mailing Address: P.O. Box 982 El Paso, Texas 79960
2. Please identify all entities that will hold an ownership interest or an investment interest in the proposed project, but which are not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction.
Not applicable.
3. Person to Contact: Mariah M. Novela Title/Position: Regulatory Case Manager Phone Number: (915) 521-4662 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 982 (Loc. 116), El Paso, Texas 79960 Email Address: [email protected]
Alternate Contact: Eddie Madrid Title/Position: Senior Project Manager Phone Number: (915) 543-5853 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 982 (Loc. 522), El Paso, Texas 79960 Email Address: [email protected]
Legal Counsel: Matthew K. Behrens - Senior Attorney Phone Number: (915) 543-5882 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 982 (Loc. 167), El Paso, Texas 79960 Email Address: [email protected]
Legal Counsel: Everett Britt and Laura Kennedy Phone Number: (512) 495-8874 Mailing Address: Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 1900, Austin, Texas 78701 Email Address: [email protected] and [email protected]
2 Effective June 8, 2017 2 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
4. Project Description: Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I
Name or Designation of Proiect
Provide a general description of the project, including the design voltage rating (kV), the operating voltage (kV), the CREZ Zone(s) (if any) where the project is located (all or in part), any substations and/or substation reactive compensation constructed as part of the project, and any series elements such as seetionalizing switching devices, series line compensation, etc. For HVDC transmission lines, the converter stations should be considered to be project components and should be addressed in the project description.
El Paso Electric Company's ("EPE") System Planning group has identified the need to expand its transmission system in the far eastern portion of El Paso County between US 62-180 (Montana Ave.) and Interstate 10. As a whole, the project is described as the Eastside Loop Expansion and will encompass (1) upgrading the capacity and/or voltage of two existing lines that already extend into the area, (2) constructing two new substations (Pine and Seabeck) along those two existing lines, and (3) constructing two new transmission lines: one line to connect the two new substations (Pine and Seabeck) to each other and one line to connect the new Seabeck Substation to the San Felipe Substation, thereby looping the substations together and providing additional transmission flow paths for EPE's 115 kV transmission system. The new and upgraded transmission system facilities will all be designed and operated at 115 kV. A diagram of the Eastside Loop Expansion is provided as Attachment 2.
This particular CCN application addresses what is termed Phase I of the Eastside Loop Expansion and involves the new 115 kV transmission line that will connect the two new substations: Pine Substation and Seabeck Substation (the Project).
Pine Substation will be located in the northern portion of the project area approximately 1.51 miles southeast ofthe intersection of United States Highway ("US") 180 and Ballard St/Desert Storm Rd., on the south side of La Pine Ave., across the street from the existing Coyote to Dell City transmission line. This line is already certificated at 115 kV but the capacity of the existing line between Coyote and Pine will be upgraded by reconductoring it with 954 ACSR conductor.
Seabeck Substation, approximately nine miles south of Pine Substation, will be located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Seabeckand Farm Road 1281 (Horizon Blvd.) and adjacent to the existing Horizon to Hueco transmission line. This line is certificated at 69 kV but has been operating at 14 kV due to low load levels at Hueco. The line will be reconductored and rebuilt between Horizon Substation and Seabeck on new structures within the existing right-of-way and upgraded to 115 kV.
The third substation that is a part of the Eastside Loop Expansion is the San Felipe substation, located approximately 12 miles south of Seabeck Substation. San Felipe substation will be constructed in 2022 (prior to the Eastside Loop Expansion) to replace the existing Felipe Substation to support the distribution system in the area, and it will be located in an undeveloped area just south of I-10, approximately 1,700 feet southeast of Fabens Rd. The new 115 kV transmission line that will connect Seabeck Substation and San Felipe Substation will be addressed in a separate CCN application as Phase 2 of the Eastside Loop Expansion.
The Project is in El Paso County, TX.
3 Effective June 8,2017 3 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
If the project will be owned by more than one party, briefly explain the ownership arrangements between the parties and provide a description of the portion(s) that will be owned by each party. Provide a description of the responsibilities of each party for implementing the project (design, Right-of-Way acquisition, material procurement, construction, etc.).
This is not a joint application.
If applicable, identify and explain any deviation in transmission project components from the original transmission specifications as previously approved by the Commission or recommended by a PURA §39.151 organization.
Not applicable.
5. Conductor and Structures:
Conductor Size and Type: 954 ACSR 'rail' Number of Conductors per Phase: 1 Continuous Summer Static Current Rating (A): 998 Continuous Summer Static Line Capacity at Operating Voltage (MVA): 185 Continuous Summer Static Line Capacity at Design Voltage (MVA): 185
Type and Composition of Structures:
The typical structure will be a delta or vertical steel monopole, either self-supported or on a drilled pier foundation..
Height of Typical Structures: 95'
Estimated Maximum Height of Structures: 110'
Explain why these structures were selected; include such factors as landowner preference, engineering considerations, and costs comparisons to alternate structures that were considered. Provide dimensional drawings of the typical structures to be used in the project.
Monopole structures were selected as the primary structure to allow for smaller right-of-way ("ROW") widths. Steel structures were selected for reliability. Dimensional drawings of the typical structures are provided as Attachment 3.
4 Effective June 8, 2017 4 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity fur a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
For joint applications, provide and separately identify the above-required information regarding structures for the portion(s) of the project owned by each applicant.
Not applicable.
6. Right-of-Way:
Miles of Right-of-Way: Approximately 8.88 to 12.39 miles depending on the route chosen.
Miles of Circuit: Approximately 8.88 to 12.39 miles depending on the route chosen.
Width of Right-of-Way: 150 feet.
Percent of Right-of-Way Acquired: Approximately 0.2% for all proposed alternative routes.
Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Proposed Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Route 2 Route 4 Route 5 Route 8 Route 9 Route 1 (Cl-Hl-Ll- (Al-Gl-Kl- (Bl-Fl-El-Hl- (Bl-Jl-Ml- (Cl-El-Il- ROW (Al-Gl-01) Pl-Ql) Ll-Pl-Ql) Ll-Pl-Ql) Pl-Ql) Sl-Ql)
Required (mi) 12.25 8.88 12.33 12.36 12.39 10.59
Circuit (mi) 12.25 8.88 12.33 12.36 12.39 10.59
Acquired (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
For joint applications, provide and separately identify the above-required information for each route for the portion(s) of the project owned by each applicant.
Not applicable. This is not a joint application.
Provide a brief description of the area traversed by the transmission line. Include a description of the general land uses in the area and the type of terrain crossed by the line.
The proposed Project is located near El Paso, Texas, in El Paso County. The majority of the study area is desert with little development. The limited land use within the study area is private recreation (off-road vehicle driving) and limited livestock grazing. The terrain can be characterized as open desert shrubland with occasional bluffs.
7. Substations or Switching Stations:
List the name of all existing HVDC converter stations, substations or switching stations that will be associated with the new transmission line. Provide documentation showing that the owner(s) of the existing HVDC converter stations, substations and/or switching stations have agreed to the installation of the required project facilities.
5 Effective June 8,2017 5 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
Two existing substations, Coyote and Horizon, will be associated with the Project. In particular, to support a new transmission line, infrastructure improvements will be required at these two existing substations. These substations are owned and operated by EPE.
List the name of all new HVDC converter stations, substations or switching stations that will be associated with the new transmission line. Provide documentation showing that the owner(s) of the new HVDC converter stations, substations and/or switching stations have agreed to the installation of the required project facilities.
Two new substations, Pine and Seabeck, will be constructed in conjunction with this Project. Both substations will be wholly owned and operated by EPE.
Estimated Schedule:
Estimated Dates of: Start Completion Right-of-way and Land Acquisition 03/29/2021 06/24/2022 Engineering and Design 06/27/2022 06/23/2023 Material and Equipment Procurement 06/26/2023 01/26/2024 Construction of Facilities 02/01/2024 10/01/2024 Energize Facilities N/A 10/01/2024
9. Counties:
For each route, list all counties in which the route is to be constructed.
All potential line routes will be entirely constructed in El Paso County.
10. Municipalities:
For each route, list all municipalities in which the route is to be constructed.
None.
For each applicant, attach a copy of the franchise, permit or other evidence of the city's consent held by the utility, if necessary or applicable. If franchise, permit, or other evidence of the city's consent has been previously filed, provide only the docket number of the application in which the consent was filed. Each applicant should provide this information only for the portion(s) of the project which will be owned by the applicant.
Not Applicable.
6 Effective June 8,2017 6 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
11. Affected Utilities:
Identify any other electric utility served by or connected to facilities in this application.
EPE currently provides a primary metering point for radial transmission service to Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, Inc. ("RGEC"), for service to Dell City, Texas, at Coyote Substation. Once completed, the metering location will be relocated to the new Pine Substation to continue providing radial transmission service to RGEC. EPE owns the 115 kV transmission system up to the El Paso County and Hudspeth County lines.
Describe how any other electric utility will be affected and the extent of the other utilities' involvement in the construction of this project. Include any other electric utilities whose existing facilities will be utilized for the project (vacant circuit positions, ROW, substation sites and/or equipment, etc.) and provide documentation showing that the owner(s) of the existing facilities have agreed to the installation of the required project facilities.
EPE will coordinate with RGEC regarding any activities necessary to transition service to the new substation. RGEC has no involvement in the construction of this Project.
12. Financing:
Describe the method of financing this project. For each applicant that is to be reimbursed for ali or a portion of this project, identify the source and amount of the reimbursement (actual amount if known, estimated amount otherwise) and the portion(s) of the project for which the reimbursement will be made.
EPE expects to incorporate the cost of the Project into its overall capital funding plan, which includes cash from operations, debt, equity, or a combination of all three.
13. Estimated Costs: Provide cost estimates for each route of the proposed project using the following table. Provide a breakdown of "Other" costs by major cost category and amount. Provide the information for each route in an attachment to this application.
Transmission Substation Facilities Facilities
Right-of-way and Land Acquisition $ $ Engineering and Design (Utility) $ $ Engineering and Design (Contract) $ $ Procurement of Material and Equipment (including stores) $ $ Construction of Facilities (Utility) Construction of Facilities (Contract) $ $ Other (all costs not included in the above categories) $ $ Estimated Total Cost $ $
Please refer to Attachment 4 for estimated costs for each alternative transmission route presented in this application.
7 Effective June 8,2017 7 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
For joint applications, provide and separately identify the above-required information for the portion(s) of the project owned by each applicant.
Not applicable. This is not a joint application.
14. Need for the Proposed Project:
For a standard application, describe the need for the construction and state how the proposed project will address the need. Describe the existing transmission system and conditions addressed by this application. For projects that are planned to accommodate load growth, provide historical load data and load projections for at least five years. For projects to accommodate load growth or to address reliability issues, provide a description of the steady state load flow analysis that justifies the project. For interconnection projects, provide any documentation from a transmission service customer, generator, transmission service provider, or other entity to establish that the proposed facilities are needed. For projects related to a Competitive Renewable Energy Zone, the foregoing requirements are not necessary; the applicant need only provide a specific reference to the pertinent portion(s) of an appropriate commission order specifying that the facilities are needed. For all projects, provide any documentation of the review and recommendation of a PURA §39.151 organization.
Need for the Construction:
As detailed below, the Eastside Loop Expansion Project is needed to address projected overload conditions on the EPE transmission system under contingency planning scenarios. Additionally, the project will enable EPE to address expected load growth in eastern El Paso County.
Existing Transmission System
EPE Extra-High Voltage ("EHV") System
The Company owns, or has ownership interests in, three 345 kV transmission lines (two of the lines have multiple segments) in New Mexico and Arizona and three 500 kV lines in Arizona. These lines enable EPE to deliver its energy entitlements from its remote generation at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona to its service area, pursuant to various transmission and power exchange agreements.
The power flowing on these transmission lines is predominantly west to east and north to south from the service areas of Tucson Electric Power Company and Public Service Company of New Mexico, respectively, into El Paso. These lines carry purchased power as well as Palo Verde power to supplement power from EPE's local fossil-fueled plants, which include:
• Newman Power Station (752 MW) located in Northeast El Paso • Rio Grande Power Station (276 MW) located in Westside El Paso • Copper Power Station (64 MW) located in East El Paso • Montana Power Station (354 MW) located in Far East El Paso
Internal to the EPE service area, EPE owns and operates additional 345 kV transmission lines that deliver the external power mentioned above to the EPE underlying 115 kV system for delivery to the
8 Effective June 8,2017 8 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
EPE substation loads. This delivery is through several 345/115 kV autotransformers at various substations.
EPE High Voltage ("HV") System
The EPE transmission system that directly delivers power to EPE's distribution substations, and then to the EPE native load in and around El Paso, Texas and Las Cruces, New Mexico, consists of a highly connected network of 115 kV and 69 kV transmission facilities. This system is not only connected to the EHV system but also to EPE's fossil-fueled local generation. The high level of networking increases the reliability of the system by allowing the power to reroute to other transmission lines during outages. A map showing EPE's local area transmission system is provided as Attachment 5 - CONFIDENTIAL.
Load Growth on the EPE System
As is detailed in the routing study included as Attachment 1 to this application, El Paso County has steadily increased in population over the past decade and the growth is expected to continue. El Paso County has experienced a 4% increase in population between 2010 and 2017. The Texas Water Development Board projections indicate a population increase of 16% from 2010 to 2020, an increase of 14% from 2020 to 2030, and an increase of 11% from 2030 to 2040. Table 14-1 below presents the past population trends and future population projections for El Paso County and the State of Texas.
Table 14-1: Population Trends State/County Census Projections 2010 2017 2020 2030 2040 State of Texas 25,145,561 27,419,612 29,683,671 33,898,444 38,045,103 El Paso County 800,647 834,825 925,565 1,055,903 1,176,945
Additionally, over the past five years, EPE system demand in Texas has grown as shown in Table 14-2 below:
Table 14-2: Texas Load Growth Total System Actual Total System Weather- Year Peak Demand (MW) Adjusted Peak Demand (MW) 2014 1,385 1,387 2015 1,398 1,386 2016 1,509 1,509 2017 1,575 1,579 2018 1,560 1,545 2019 1,596 1,583
The 2020 El Paso Electric Company Long-term Forecast predicts 10- and 20-year compound annual growth rates ("CAGR") of 1.2% and 1.4%, respectively, for native system peak demand.
9 Effective June 8,2017 9 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
In addition to the actual and projected load growth described above, the eastern portion of El Paso County in particular has continued to experience significant load growth over the past several years, and this growth is expected to continue with development expanding into the project area.
Table 14-3 below shows the historic and future expectations for load growth at the various substations adjacent to the project area at issue in this application.
10 Effective June 8,2017 10 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
Table 14-3 Eastern El Paso County Substations Load Growth
Circuit Substation Peak Load (MW) Subst. Capacity Capacity _~ _ _ tlistczrk______]JI-oje€ted Substation (MVA) (MW) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Coyote 30 MVA 20 11.5 13.7 13.7 13.3 12.5 13.] 13.8 14.5 15.2 16.0
Montwood 100 MVA 80 61.8 59.7 64.8 71.5 76.0 81.3 62.0 66.3 71.0 72.0 friumph 100 MVA 80 Currently Under Construction 18.0 43.0 46.0 49.2 56.7
Petlicano 100 MVA 80 33.4 34.8 39.3 48.3 51.2 33.2 35.2 37.3 42.9 44.4
Horizonl 30 MVA/80 MVA 60 26.7 26.6 26.5 24.3 26.2 27.5 14.8 15.7 16.4 17.2 Felipe _ -39 MyA- _ 20 6.9 7.1 7.1 7.6 8.1 7.8 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Sall Fel_ipe- -- 50 MVA Sub to be constructed in 2022 and replacing Felipe 8.3 10.5 10.9 7 Annual Percentage Growth I 1.14 6.69 8.98 5.45 3.97 (2.21) 6.33 9.09 5.85 5 Year Historic/Projected Growth 24.02% 20.07% 'An additional 50 MVA unit will be added to Horizon Substation in 2022, increasing capacity to 80 MVA at this site
11 Effective June 8,2017 11 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
Thus, historically over the past five years, load growth on the existing substations adjacent to the project area have increased 24%, with a forecasted growth for the next five years at slightly over 20%.
Reliability Need
As shown below, EPE currently projects that overloading will occur on a number of EPE transmission lines if certain contingencies occur under summer 2024 and 2025 loading conditions. EPE proposes to construct the Eastside Loop Expansion Project to address the projected overload situations. In particular, EPE's System Planning Group has identified several overloaded lines (i.e., lines with projected loading exceeding 100% of capacity) that occur under certain contingency conditions during the 2024 and 2025 Heavy Summer Loading cases. Table 14-4 below identifies the projected overloading and the impact the Eastside Loop Expansion will have on the system during this time.
Table 14-4: Summer Peak Loadingl Case Year 2024 2025 Heavy Heavy Heavy Heavy Summer Summer Summer Summer Loading % Loading % Loading % Loading % without with Eastside without with Eastside Eastside Loop Eastside Loop Loop Expansion Loop Expansion Condition/ Line(s) Expansion Project in Expansion Project in Contingency Overloaded Project Service Project Service Caliente- Caliente Vista 115 kV 106.2 94.3 106.6 94.7 Diamondhead 115 kV Line Sol-Vista 115 kV 99.1 87.7 103.9 92.2 Initially-out-of- Lane-Sol 115 kV 99.4 83.8 103.8 88.0 service (IOS) Lane-Wrangler 115 kV 118.2 67.4 123.5 70 Caliente-Diamondhead I 12.2 89.6 119.7 95.4 Montwood-Pellicano 115 kV 115 kV Line IOS Caliente-Vista 115 kV 105.6 85.9 113.1 92.1 Lane-Diamondhead 95.9 73.5 102.3 78.1 115 kV Caliente- Lane-Sol 115 kV 134.8 90.3 142.1 94.6 Diamondhead 115 kV Line IOS Caliente-Vista 115 kV 123.7 90.7 127 91.8 + Montwood- Pellicano 115 kV Line contingency Sol-Vista 115 kV 118.5 85.7 125.4 90.1 Sparks-Wrangler 115 kV Line IOS + Clint-Valley 69 kV 115.3 12.6 116.5 15.8 Horizon-Sparks 115 kV Line Clint-Fabens 69 kV 103.8 20.9 102.4 24.7 contingency
1 Modified EPE 2019 System Expansion Plan General Electric Positive Sequence Load Flow powerflow base cases for the years 2024 and 2025 were used for this analysis.
12 Effective June 8,2017 12 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
An additional benefit o f the Eastside Loop Expansion Proj ect is that, even now, under the contingency scenario of Sparks-Felipe 69 kV Line IOS + Felipe-Fabens-Clint 69 kV Line contingency, the radial 69 kV system from Felipe to Farmer and the Rio Grande Cooperative would be de-energized, which will still be the case when the San Felipe Substation replaces the Felipe Substation in 2022. With the completion of the Eastside Loop Expansion, there would be an additional line into the San Felipe Substation so that the radial system remains energized under this condition.
Finally, construction of the Eastside Loop Expansion Project will provide an infrastructure backbone for the expansion of EPE's distribution system to address load growth in the eastern portion of El Paso County when needed.
15. Alternatives to Project:
For a standard application, describe alternatives to the construction of this project (not routing options). Include an analysis of distribution alternatives, upgrading voltage or bundling of conductors of existing facilities, adding transformers, and for utilities that have not unbundled, distributed generation as alternatives to the project. Explain how the project overcomes the insufficiencies of the other options that were considered.
Distribution Alternatives
Because the primary need for the project relates to the need to address projected overloads on the transmission system in 2024-2025 due to transmission load flows, there are no distribution alternatives that will address that reliability need as a practical matter.
Energy Efficiency
The projected Energy Efficiency gains have already been included in the total load forecast used to develop the system transmission planning models.
Distributed Generation
Because the primary need for the project relates to the need to address projected overloads on the transmission system in 2024-2025 due to transmission load flows, there are no feasible distributed generation alternatives that will address that reliability need as a practical matter.
Transmission Alternatives
EPE did not identify any circumstances under which adding transformers could be employed to address the projected overloads on the transmission system in 2024-2025. Upgrading the capacity of existing transmission lines such as through voltage upgrades, bundling conductors along existing facilities, or reconductoring existing lines could potentially address the need but that approach was rejected as being more costly than the proposed project. In particular, the alternatives to the Eastside Loop Expansion Project would be to rebuild and increase the capacity of the transmission lines identified above in Table 14-4 that are otherwise projected to overload in 2024-2025 under the contingencies identified in the table. As detailed in Table 15-1 below, EPE estimates that upgrading these eight existing transmission lines and related equipment would cost approximately $50 million. In contrast, total projected costs for Phases 1 and 2 of the Eastside Loop Expansion Project combined
13 Effective June 8,2017 13 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
range from $38.55 million to $45.35 million depending on the routes selected by the PUCT.2 Additionally, upgrading the existing transmission lines alone would not provide the benefit of providing an infrastructure backbone for future distribution network expansion in eastern El Paso County.
Table 15-1 Costs to Rebuild Overloaded Transmission Lines: Substation/ Transmission Relay Transmission Total Cost Upgrade Est Cost Est Cost Estimate Cost/mi Line Segment Length (mi) ($) ($) ($) ($/mi) Caliente - Vista 6.66 36,000.00 5,129,921.49 5,165,921.49 775,663.89 Caliente - Diamondhead 6.06 41,000.00 9,805,932.84 9,846,932.84 1,624,906.41 Diamondhead-Lane 2.80 149,000.00 5,236,026.83 5,385,026.83 1,923,223.87 Lane - Wrangler 1.04 196,000.00 1,944,809.97 2,140,809.97 2,058,471.12 Lane - Sol 2.10 271,000.00 3,000,637.76 3,271,637.76 1,557,922.74 Sol - Vista 2.00 163,000.00 1,162,735.80 1,325,735.80 662,867.90 Clint - Valley 3.31 236,000.00 6,189,731.72 6,425,731.72 1,941,308.68 Clint - Fabens 8.75 85,000.00 16,362,583.85 16,447,583.85 1,879,723.87 Total: 32.72 1,177,000.00 48,832,380.26 50,009,380.26 1,528,404.04
16. Schematic or Diagram:
For a standard application, provide a schematic or diagram of the applicant's transmission system in the proximate area of the project. Show the location and voltage of existing transmission lines and substations, and the location of the construction. Locate any taps, ties, meter points, or other facilities involving other utilities on the system schematic.
Please see Attachment 6 for a schematic of EPE's transmission system in the proximate area of the proj ect.
17. Routing Study:
Provide a brief summary of the routing study that includes a description of the process of selecting the study area, identifying routing constraints, selecting potential Iine segments, and the selection of the routes. Provide a copy of the complete routing study conducted by the utility or consultant. State which route the applicant believes best addresses the requirements of PURA and P.U.C. Substantive Rules.
The methodologies and assumptions that were used to conduct the Environmental Assessment and routing study for EPE Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I are consistent with Section 37.056(c)(4)(A) through (D) of the Texas Utilities Code ("PURA"), 16 Texas Administrative Code ("TAC") § 22.52(a)(4), 16 TAC § 25.101(b)(3)(B), and the Commission's policy of prudent avoidance. The methodology used to complete the routing study is summarized below.
2 These costs include Phase 1 costs of $17.6-22.8 million; Phase 2 costs of $13.0-14.6 million, plus $7.95 million to upgrade the existing Coyote to Pine and Horizon to Seabeck lines, as explained in the Company's response to Q4.
14 Effective June 8,2017 14 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
EPE retained HDR, Inc. (HDR) to prepare this Environmental Assessment and Routing Study ("EA") to support the application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity ("CCN") for the proposed project. EPE provided HDR with the project endpoints. Using these endpoints and additional input from EPE, HDR identified the study area boundaries based on the location of the known endpoints of the Pine and Seabeck Substation Sites. The study area was defined, using these substation sites, to provide an area large enough to develop an adequate set of geographically diverse alternative routes. The northern boundary of the study area is parallel and south of Montana Avenue. The southern boundary is parallel and south of FM 1281. The western boundary is within or east of the extraterritorial jurisdiction ("ETJ") of the City of El Paso, and the eastern boundary is parallel to and 2.5 miles west ofthe El Paso/Hudspeth County line.
Field reconnaissance was conducted (March 27 and July 12, 2019 and August 10, 2020), and preliminary evaluation criteria were developed. Based on data pertinent to the study area, the HDR planning team and EPE also established criteria, consistent with PUC standards, for the resource analysis. Data were collected pertaining to land use, recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, and environmental integrity. Available Geographic Information System ("GIS") coverage with associated metadata was reviewed, and relevant resource data were selected and mapped. Sensitive resource locations were identified on an environmental and land use composite constraints map.
HDR initially identified 20 feasible and geographically diverse preliminary transmission line segments, and a public meeting was conducted (July 11, 2019) in accordance with P.U.C. Proc. R. 22.52 (a)(4). Following the public meeting, slight modifications were made to a limited number of the 20 preliminary transmission line segments. Following the modifications to the preliminary alternative route segments, 17 alternative route segments resulted. After finalizing the 17 alternative route segments, data were tabulated for the resulting alternative transmission line segments.
These alternative route segments were then organized into alternative transmission line routes. HDR and EPE identified 13 forward progressing route combinations. From these possible alternative routes, HDR and EPE identified six proposed alternative routes for comparison that utilize 16 of the 17 alternative route segments and also provide geographic diversity.
A comparative potential impact assessment of all of the alternative transmission line routes was completed culminating in the recommendation of the proposed alternative routes, as well as the identification ofthe route that HDR believes best addresses the requirements of PURA and the PUC Substantive Rules.
Alternative Route 2 was selected by HDR as the route that best addresses the requirements of PURA and PUC Substantive Rules from an environmental and land use perspective. This rationale was based off ofthe established Key Evaluation Criteria:
• Alternative Route 2 parallels the most existing transmission line ROW. • It is the shortest alternative transmission line route, at approximately 8.9 miles. • It lies predominantly parallel to existing linear features (92%). • It crosses the fewest number of parcels. • It has the shortest length within the foreground visual zone of any farm-to-market roads. • It comes in proximity to the second fewest number of archeological sites. • It has the shortest length of ROW across areas of high archeological site potential, 4,590 feet. • It has the least number of stream crossings (3) and no length parallel to a stream.
15 Effective June 8,2017 15 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
• It has no open water crossings. • It has the shortest length across potential wetlands, at 64 feet. • It has the shortest length across floodplains, at 935 feet.
In addition to the factors utilized by HDR and building on their recommendation, EPE also evaluated each primary alternative route considering engineering, design, constructability, operation and maintenance, and estimated cost.
The estimated cost of Alternative Route 2 is lower than that ofthe other routes, it was recommended as best by HDR from an environmental and land use perspective, and Alternative Route 2 poses no greater challenges than the other routes with regard to engineering, design, constructabilily, or operation and maintenance. Based on a consideration of all factors, EPE believes that Alternative Route 2 best addresses the requirements of PURA and PUC Substantive Rules.
A copy of the EA is provided in Attachment 1.
18. Public Meeting or Public Open House:
Provide the date and location for each public meeting or public open house that was held in accordance with 16 TAC § 22.52. Provide a summary of each public meeting or public open house including the approximate number of attendants, and a copy of any survey provided to attendants and a summary of the responses received. For each public meeting or public open house provide a description of the method of notice, a copy of any notices, and the number of notices that were mailed and/or published.
A public meeting was held on July 11,2019, from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. at the Clint ISD Central Office, located at 14521 Horizon Boulevard, El Paso, TX 79928. Individual notification letters announcing the public meeting were directly mailed by EPE to 3,684 landowners, which included landowners for Eastside Loop Expansion Phases I and II, whose property is located within 350 feet and/or had a habitable structure within 1,000 feet of each of the preliminary transmission line segments. The notification letter was also mailed to 23 elected officials, eight pipeline operators, and the Department of Defense ("D.O.D."). The public meeting mailing list for elected officials, pipeline operators, and the D.O.D. is included as Attachment 7. The public notice announced the location, time, and purpose of the meeting. Section 3.5.2.1 of the EA, Attachment 1, includes a detailed description of the public meeting and the responses received to the questionnaire. Copies of the landowner notice and the public notice are provided in Appendix B ofthe EA.
A total of 20 people signed in at the public meeting. HDR personnel registered visitors and handed out a questionnaire and information packet. The questionnaire solicited comments on citizen concerns as well as an evaluation of the information presented in the public meeting. Three questionnaires were submitted at the meeting. No additional questionnaires were received by mail or email after the meeting. A copy o f the questionnaire can be found in Appendix B of the EA.
19. Routing Maps:
Base maps should be a full scale (one inch = not more than one mile) highway map of the county or counties involved, or other maps of comparable scale denoting sufficient cultural and natural features to permit location of all routes in the field. Provide a map (or maps) showing the study area, routing constraints, and all routes or line segments that were considered prior
16 Effective June 8,2017 16 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
to the selection of the routes. Identify the routes and any existing facilities to be interconnected or coordinated with the project. Identify any taps, ties, meter points, or other facilities involving other utilities on the routing map. Show all existing transmission facilities located in the study area. Include the locations of radio transmitters and other electronic installations, airstrips, irrigated pasture or cropland, parks and recreational areas, historical and archeological sites (subject to the instructions in Question 27), and any environmentally sensitive areas (subject to the instructions in Question 29).
The following study area, constraints, and routing maps are included in the EA, provided in Attachment 1 of this Application. Refer to:
Figure 2-1. Study Area Boundary Figure 2-2. Composite Constraints Figure 3-1. Preliminary Transmission Line Segments Figure 3-2. Alternative Transmission Line Segments Figure 5-1. Study Area Constraints and Proposed Alternative Routes Map (Appendix D)
Provide aerial photographs of the study area displaying the date that the photographs were taken or maps that show (1) the location of each route with each route segment identified, (2) the locations of all major public roads including, as a minimum, all federal and state roadways, (3) the locations of all known habitable structures or groups of habitable structures (see Question 19 below) on properties directly affected by any route, and (4) the boundaries (approximate or estimated according to best available information if required) of all properties directly affected by any route.
Refer to Figure 5-1, Appendix D of the EA, Attachment 1 and Attachment 8 to this application.
For each route, cross-reference each habitable structure (or group of habitable structures) and directly affected property identified on the maps or photographs with a list of corresponding Iandowner names and addresses and indicate which route segment affects each structure/group or property.
Please see Attachment 9.
20. Permits:
List any and all permits and/or approvals required by other governmental agencies for the construction of the proposed project. Indicate whether each permit has been obtained.
Specific information concerning possible permits or approvals is discussed in greater detail in Section 1.3 of the EA, Attachment 1.
• Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC): The proposed project requires approval of a CCN by the PUC, which has not been obtained at this time. • United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): The USAGE has been directed by Congress to administer Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] §403), and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA") (33 U.S.C. §1344). No streams within the study area are classified as "navigable waters of the U.S." under Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act of 1 899 according to the list published by the USACE Albuquerque District. Review
17 Effective June 8,2017 17 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174 of the National Hydrology Dataset ("NHD") and National Wetland Inventory ("NWI") maps a small number of surface waters ofthe U.S. within the study area. Surface waters include riverine and lacustrine habitats associated with creeks, ditches, ponds, and small reservoirs. NWI indicates that wetlands are located in the study area associated with water bodies and floodplains. Upon PUC approval of a route, additional coordination, jurisdictional wetland verifications, and permitting with the USACE Albuquerque District for a Section 404 permit may be required. The construction of the transmission line will likely meet the criteria of the Nationwide Permit ("NWP") No. 12-Utility Line Activities without preconstruction notification, which applies to activities associated with any cable, line, or wire for the transmission of electrical energy. If the proposed impacts of the project exceed the criteria established under NWP 12 or other regional conditions listed under the NWP, then a preconstruction notification or an Individual Permit will be required. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): The USFWS is charged with the responsibility of enforcement of federal wildlife laws and providing comments on proposed construction projects with a federal nexus under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"); and within the framework of several federal laws including the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), Migratory Bird Treaty Act ("MBTA"), and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ("BGEPA't). HDR reviewed the USFWS listed species for El Paso County, Texas and solicited Texas Natural Diversity Database ("TXNDD") element occurrence records from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ("TPWD"). Upon PUC approval of a route, coordination with the USFWS Austin Ecological Services Field Office may be required to determine the need for any required species-specific surveys or additional permitting under Section 7 of the ESA and the MBTA. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): According to FAA regulations, Part 77, the construction of a transmission line requires FAA notification if any tower structure height exceeds the height of an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at one of the following slopes: o A 100:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public or military airport having at least one runway longer than 3,200 feet. o A 50:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest runway of a public or military airport where no runway is longer than 3,200 feet in length. o A 25:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet for heliports. The PUC CCN application also requires listing private airports within 10,000 feet of any alternative route centerline. After PUC route approval, and if any of the FAA notification criteria are met for the selected route, a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, FAA Form 7460-1, will be completed and submitted to the FAA Southwest Regional Office in Fort Worth, Texas at least 45 days prior to construction. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ("TPWD"): The TPWD is the state agency with the primary responsibility of protecting the state's fish and wildlife resources in accordance with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Section 12.0011(b). HDR solicited comments from the TPWD during the project scoping phase of the project, and a copy of this EA will be submitted to the TPWD when the CCN application is filed with the PUC. Once the PUC approves a route, additional coordination with the TPWD may be necessary to determine the need for any additional surveys, and to avoid or minimize any potential adverse impacts to sensitive habitats, threatened or endangered species, and other fish and wildlife resources. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEO"): The construction of the project may require a Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) General Construction Permit (TX150000) as implemented by the TCEQ under the provisions of Section 402 of the CWA, and Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code. The TCEQ has developed a tiered approach for implementing this permit that is dependent on the acreage of ground disturbance. A general
18 Effective June 8,2017 18 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
permit (TXR150000) is not required for land disturbances of less than one acre that are not part of a larger common plan of development. • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ("SWPPP") must be developed prior to and implemented during construction activities, accompanied with posting a site notice and sending notification to the Municipal Separate Sewer System Operator, if applicable. If more than five acres of land are disturbed, then the previous requirements mentioned above are necessary, and the submittal of a Notice of Intent ("NOI") and Notice of Termination ("NOT") are also required by the TCEQ. Once a route is approved by the PUC, the proposed disturbed surface area will be calculated, and appropriate conditions of the TXR150000 permit will be determined. • A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from the TCEQ may also be required if the project requires a USACE Individual Permit for proposed impacts to surface waters or wetlands as previously discussed. The TCEQ has the authority to review federally permitted or licensed activities that may result in a discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. within the state of Texas. • Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT"): The TxDOT has been notified ofthe proposed project. If the route approved by the PUC crosses TxDOT roadways, the project will be constructed in accordance with the rules, regulations, and policies of TxDOT. Best Management Practices ("BMPs") will be used, as required, to minimize erosion and sedimentation resulting from the construction. Revegetation will occur within existing TxDOT ROWs as required under the " Revegetation Special Provisions " and contained in TxDOT Form 1023 ( Rev . 9 - 93 ). Traffic control measures will comply with applicable portions of the Texas Manual of Uni form Traffic Control Devices. • Texas General Land Office ("GLO"): The GLO requires a miscellaneous easement for ROW within any state-owned riverbeds or navigable water. No easements are anticipated from the GLO as there are no navigable waters identified within the study area. • El Paso County Floodplain Administrator: Depending upon the final location of the transmission facilities, fioodplain development permits may be required by the local floodplain administrators.
21. Habitable Structures:
For each route list all single-family and multi-family dwellings and related structures, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial structures, industrial structures, business structures, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, or other structures normally inhabited by humans or intended to be inhabited by humans on a daily or regular basis within 300 feet of the eenterline if the proposed project will be constructed for operation at 230 kV or less, or within 500 feet of the centerline if the proposed project will be constructed for operation at greater than 230 kV. Provide a general description of each habitable structure and its distance from the centerline of the route. In cities, towns or rural subdivisions, houses can be identified in groups. Provide the number of habitable structures in each group and list the distance from the centerline of the route to the closest and the farthest habitable structure in the group. Locate alllisted habitable structures or groups of structures on the routing map.
The locations of habitable structures within 300 feet of the ROW centerline (as ofAugust 10,2020) are listed and described with the approximate distance to the ROW centerline in Table 4-3 of Appendix C ofthe EA and are shown on the map included as Figure 5-1 (Appendix D) ofthe EA and the maps included in Attachment 8. Additionally, this information is included for the six proposed alternative routes in the table below. The total numbers of habitable structures for the six proposed alternative routes are provided in Table 4-2 of Appendix C of the EA.
19 Effective June 8,2017 19 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
Habitable Structures within 300 feet of a Proposed Alternative Route ROW Centerline Map Approximate Distance from Number Structure Nearest Proposed Alternative Route Route Centerline (feet) 1 Single-Family Routes 2,3&9 (Segment Cl) 215 2 Single-Family Routes 2,3 & 9 (Segment Cl) 3063 3 Single-Family Route 1&3 (Segment Ol) 132 4 Single-Family Route 1 & 3 (Segment Ol ) 217
22. Electronic Installations:
For each route, list all commercial AM radio transmitters located within 10,000 feet of the center line of the route, and all FM radio transmitters, microwave relay stations, or other similar electronic installations located within 2,000 of the center line of the route. Provide a general description of each installation and its distance from the center line of the route. Locate alllisted installations on a routing map.
There are no known AM radio transmitters located within 10,000 feet of the centerline of any o f the alternative routes.
There are no known communication towers (FM radio transmitters, microwave relay stations, or other similar electronic installations) located within 2,000 feet of the centerline of all of the alternative routes.
For additional information on electronic installations, see Sections 2.2.1.8.2 and 4.2.9.2 of the EA, Attachment 1. The electronic installations in the study area are shown on the map that is Figure 5-1 in the EA.
23. Airstrips:
For each route, list all known private airstrips within 10,000 feet of the center line of the project. List all airports registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet in length that are located within 20,000 feet of the center line of any route. For each such airport, indicate whether any transmission structures will exceed a 100:1 horizontal slope (one foot in height for each 100 feet in distance) from the closest point of the closest runway. List alllisted airports registered with the FAA having no runway more than 3,200 feet in length that are located within 10,000 feet of the center line of any route. For each such airport, indicate whether any transmission structures will exceed a 50:1 horizontal slope from the closest point of the closest runway. List all heliports located within 5,000 feet of the center line of any route. For each such heliport, indicate whether any transmission structures will exceed a 25:1 horizontal slope from the closest point of the closest landing and takeoff area of the heliport. Provide a general description of each listed private airstrip, registered airport, and heliport; and state the distance of each from the center line of each route. Locate and identify alllisted airstrips, airports, and heliports on a routing map.
3 The horizontal accuracy ofthe aerial photograph used to identify habitable structures was calculated at =E 10 feet. To account for this margin of error and to ensure that all habitable structures were properly identified, HDR identified habitable structures within 310 feet of the centerline of each alternative transmission line route.
20 Effective June 8,2017 20 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
There are no FAA-registered airports with a runway longer than 3,200 feet within 20,000 feet of the centerline of any of the six proposed alternative routes.
There are no FAA registered runways with less than 3,200 feet that are within 10,000 feet of the centerline of any of the six proposed alternative routes.
There are also no heliports within 5,000 feet of the centerline of any of the six proposed alternative routes.
There are no private airstrips located within 10,000 feet of all six proposed alternative routes.
For additional information on airports and/or airstrips, see Sections 2.2.1.7.2 and 4.2.8.2 of the EA, Attachment 1.
Following approval of any of these alternative routes by the PUC, EPE will make a final determination ofthe need for FAA notification, based on specific route location and structure design. The result of this notification, and any subsequent coordination with FAA, could include changes in the line design and/or potential requirements to mark and/or light the structures.
24. Irrigation Systems:
For each route identify any pasture or cropland irrigated by traveling irrigation systems (rolling or pivot type) that will be traversed by the route. Provide a description of the irrigated land and state how it will be affected by each route (number and type of structures, etc.). Locate any such irrigated pasture or cropland on a routing map.
According to the results ofthe review of aerial photos and field reconnaissance, the proposed project does not cross any known cropland or pastureland irrigated by traveling irrigation systems, either rolling or pivot type.
25. Notice:
Notice is to be provided in accordance with 16 TAC § 22.52.
A. Provide a copy of the written direct notice to owners of directly affected land. Attach a list of the names and addresses of the owners of directly affected land receiving notice.
A copy ofthe written notice, with enclosures, that is being mailed to owners of directly affected land is included as Attachment 10 to the Application. A list of the names and addresses of those owners of directly affected land to whom notice was mailed by first-class mail is included as Attachment 11 to the Application. EPE determined the names of the landowners of record and their mail addresses based on information obtained from the El Paso Central Appraisal District.
B. Provide a copy of the written notice to utilities that are located within five miles of the routes.
There are no other utilities located within five miles ofthe routes.
21 Effective June 8,2017 21 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
EPE sent notice ofthe Application to owners/operators of steel hydrocarbon pipelines adjacent to a primary alternative route included in the Application. A list of the names and addresses o f pipeline owners/operators to whom written notice was sent are included in Attachment 12 to the Application.
C. Provide a copy of the written notice to county and municipal authorities, and the Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse. Notice to the DoD Siting Clearinghouse should be provided at the email address found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dodsc/.
A copy of the written notice, with enclosures, sent to county and municipal authorities, and the Department of Defense Clearinghouse are included in Attachment 13 to the Application. In addition to the notices described above, 16 TAC § 22.52 requires the applicant to provide notice of this application to the Office of Public Utility Counsel. A copy of that notice is also included in this application as Attachment 13.
D. Provide a copy of the notice that is to be published in newspapers of general circulation in the counties in which the facilities are to be constructed. Attach a list ofthe newspapers that will publish the notice for this application. After the notice is published, provide the publisher's affidavits and tear sheets.
A copy of the notice that is to be published in newspapers of general circulation in the counties in which the facilities are to be constructed is included in Attachment 14. The notice will be published in the El Paso Times.
For a CREZ application, in addition to the requirements of 16 TAC § 22.52 the applicant shall, not less than twenty-one (21) days before the filing of the application, submit to the Commission staff a "generic" copy of each type of alternative published and written notice for review. Staff's comments, if any, regarding the alternative notices will be provided to the applicant not later than seven days after receipt by Staffof the alternative notices, Applicant may take into consideration any comments made by Commission staff before the notices are published or sent by mail.
Not applicable. This is not a CREZ application.
26. Parks and Recreation Areas:
For each route, list all parks and recreational areas owned by a governmental body or an organized group,dub, or church and located within 1,000 feet of the center line of the route. Provide a general description of each area and its distance from the center line. Identify the owner of the park or recreational area (public agency, church, club, etc.). List the sources used to identify the parks and recreational areas. Locate the listed sites on a routing map.
There are no parks and recreation areas within the study area or within 1,000 feet o f the centerline of any of the alternative routes; therefore, no adverse impacts are anticipated to any park or recreation areas. For more information on park and recreational areas see Sections 2.2.1.5 and 4.2.6 of the EA, included as Attachment 1.
22 Effective June 8,2017 22 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
27. Historical and Archeological Sites:
For each route, list all historical and archeologieal sites known to be within 1,000 feet of the center line of the route. Include a description of each site and its distance from the center line. List the sources (national, state or local commission or societies) used to identify the sites. Locate all historical sites on a routing map. For the protection of the sites, archeological sites need not be shown on maps.
HDR conducted a literature review and records search at the Texas Historical Commission and the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory at the University of Texas at Austin to identify known historical and archaeological sites located within 1,000 feet of the alternate routes. For more information regarding site descriptions and the evaluation of the historical and archaeological sites see Section 2.4 and Section 4.4 of the EA.
Based on this review, 19 archeological sites have been previously recorded within 1,000 feet of four of the six proposed alternative routes. Sites are listed with the approximate distance and direction from the ROW centerline for each of the six proposed alternative routes in Table 4-3 in Appendix C of the EA, Attachment 1. Additionally, these sites are summarized in the table below.
Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within 1,000 feet of a Proposed Alternative Route ROW Centerline Nearest Proposed Approximate Distance Feature Alternative Route from Route Centerline 41EP248 Route 9 (Segment Sl) 293 41EP249 Route 9 (Segment S1) 502 41EP250 Route 8 (Segment Jl) 614 41EP251 Route 8 (Segment Jl) 621 41EP252 Route 9 (Segment Sl) 814 41EP253 Route 8 (Segment Jl) 59 41EP254 Route 8 (Segment J1) 49 41EP255 Route 9 (Segment Il) 423 41EP313 Routes 5 & 8 (Segment Bl) 629 41EP314 Routes 5 & 8 (Segment Bl) 218 41EP865 Routes 5&8 (Segment Bl) 723 41EP2073 Route 8 (Segment Jl) 925 41EP4420 Routes 2&9 (Segment Cl) 903 41EP4422 Routes 2 & 9 (Segment Cl) 725 41EP4428 Routes 2 & 9 (Segment Cl) 960 41EP4429 Routes 2 & 9 (Segment Cl) 648 41EP4436 Routes 5 & 8 (Segment Bl) 533 Routes 2 & 9 (Segment Cl) 956 41EP5258 Routes 5 & 8 (Segment Bl) 169 41EP5259 Routes 5 & 8 (Segment Bl) 237
Because these are archeological sites, they are not shown on the maps included in the EA, and no other historical sites were located within 1,000 feet of the Proposed Alternative Route.
23 Effective June 8,2017 23 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
Upon selection and approval of a route, EPE will conduct a route specific detailed pedestrian survey for historical and archaeological sites protected by federal and state regulations, if required. The results of those studies will be reviewed and submitted to Texas Historical Commission ("THC") for review and consultation prior to construction.
28. Coastal Management Program:
For each route, indicate whether the route is located, either in whole or in part, within the coastal management program boundary as defined in 31 TAC §503.1. If any route is, either in whole or in part, within the coastal management program boundary, indicate whether any part of the route is seaward of the Coastal Facilities Designation Line as defined in 31 TAC §19.2(a)(21). Using the designations in 31 TAC §501.3(b), identify the type(s) of Coastal Natural Resource Area(s) impacted by any part of the route and/or facilities.
None of the proposed alternative routes are within coastal management program boundaries as defined by 31 TAC §503.1.
29. Environmental Impact:
Provide copies of any and all environmental impact studies and/or assessments of the project. If no formal study was conducted for this project, explain how the routing and construction of this project will impact the environment. List the sources used to identify the existence or absence of sensitive environmental areas. Locate any environmentally sensitive areas on a routing map. In some instances, the location of the environmentally sensitive areas or the location of protected or endangered species should not be included on maps to ensure preservation of the areas or species. Within seven days after filing the application for the project, provide a copy of each environmental impact study and/or assessment to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) for its review at the address below. Include with this application a copy of the letter of transmittal with which the studies/assessments were or wiI1 be sent to the TPWD.
Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program Wildlife Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744
The applicant shall file an affidavit confirming that the letter of transmittal and studies/assessments were sent to TPWD.
Please see the Environmental Assessment and Routing Study for the El Paso Electric Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I included as Attachment 1. The EA includes environmental sources, routing maps with environmentally-sensitive areas identified, and information on protected and endangered species within or near the study area.
EPE will provide a copy of the EA to TPWD within seven days after the Application is filed. A copy of the letter of transmittal to TPWD is provided as Attachment 15 to the Application. An affidavit confirming that the letter of transmittal and a copy of the EA were sent to TPWD will be sent to the PUC.
24 Effective June 8,2017 24 Standard Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line and Application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Pursuant to 16 TAC § 25.174
30. Affidavit:
Attach a sworn affidavit from a qualifed individual authorized by the applicant to verify and affirm that, to the best of their knowledge, all information provided, statements made, and matters setforth in this application and attachments are true and correct.
Please see Attachment 16.
25 Effective June 8,2017 25 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1 of 269
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ROUTING STUDY FOR THE EL PASO ELECTRIC EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION - PHASE I EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS
Prepared for:
El Paso Electric Company 100 N. Stanton Street El Paso, TX 79901 *F, l L anq El Paso Electric
Prepared by:
HDR, Inc. 17111 Preston Road, Suite 300 Dallas, Texas 75248
September 2020
26 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures...... v List of Tables...... v Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... vii
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1-1 1.1 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1 1.3 AGENCY ACTIONS ...... 1-3 1.3.1 Public Utility Commission of Texas 1-3 1.3.2 United States Army Corps of Engineerq 1-3 1.3.3 United States Fishand Wildlife Service...... 1-4 1.3.4 Federal Aviation Administration...... „...... 1-4 1.3.5 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department...... 1-5 1.3.6 El Paso County FIoodplain Management...... 1-5 1.3.7 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality..,...... 1-7 1.3.8 Texas Historical Commission...... ,...... 1-7 1.3.9 Texas Department of Transportation...... 1-8 1.3.10 Texas General Land Office. 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 1-8 1.4.1 Structure Design...... 1-8 1.4.2 Surveying 1-13 1.4.3 Clearing 1-13 1.4.4 Structure Placement ...... 1-13 1.4.5 Conductor and Static Wire Installation...... _ 1-15 1.4.6 Cleanup ...... 1-16 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA 7-1 2.1 COMMUNITY VALUES AND SOCIOECONOMICS 2-3 2.1.1 Community Values 2-3 2.1.2 Socioeconomicq 2-3 2.1.2.1 Population Trends 2-3 2.1.2.2 Employment 9-4 2.2 LAND USE AND RECREATIONAL AND PARK AREAS 2-5 2.2.1 Land Use 9-5 2.2.1.1 Land Jurisdiction 9-5 2.2.1.2 Agriculture...... 2-5
27 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 3 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
2 . 2 . 1 . 3 Urban and Residential Aremg 9 - 7 2.2.1.4 Industrial Areas 2-8 2.2.1.5 Recreation and Park Areas 2-8 2.2.1.5.1 Federal and State Parks and Protected Areas 2-8 2.2.1.5.2 County and Local Parkq 2-8 2.2.1.5.3 Wildlife Viewing Trailq 9-9 2.2.1.5.4 Conservation EasemenM 2-9 2.2.1.5.5 Private Recreation Areaq 2-9 2,2,1.6 Cemeteripq 9-9 2.2.1.7 Transportation/Aviatinn 2-9 2.2.1.7.1 Roadwayq 2-9 2.2.1.7.2 Aviation 9-10 2.2.1.8 Utilities 2-10 2.2.1.8.1 Utility Line.q 9-10 2.2.1.8.2 Communication Towers 2-11 2.2.1.8.3 Water Wellq 2-11 2.2.1.8.4 Oil and Gas Facilities. 2-11 2.2.1.9 Schools 2-12 2.2.1.10 Planned Land Use 9-12 2.3 AESTHETIC VALUES 9-13 2.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORICAL VALUES 2-14 2.4.1 Cultural Background 2-15 2.4.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000-6,000 RC) 2-16 2.4.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 6,000 B.C.-A.D. 900) 2-18 2.4.1.3 Late Prehistoric Period (ca. A.D. 900-1683) 9-19 2.4.1.4 Jornada Mogollon Pueblo Culture (A.D. 1275/1300-1450).·..·..·.....·....·....·.-·..2-20 2.4.1.5 Historical Context.. 9-22 2.4.2 Records Review 2-25 2.4.2.1 Previously Recorded Archeological Sites 2-26 2.4.2.2 Previous Investigationq 2-28 2.4.2.3 Geology, Soils, and Landforms 2-28 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY 2-29 2.5.1 Ecological Region 9-29 2.5.2 Physiography and Geology 2-29 2.5.2.1 Physiography 2-29 2.5.2.2 Geological Ha7grrlq 2-31 2.5.3 Vegetation 2-31 2.5.3.1 Vegetation Types 9-31
28 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 4 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
2.5.3.2 Aquatic and Hydric Habitats 2-35 2.5.4 Soils 2-36 2.5.4.1 Prime Farmland Soilq 9-38 2.5.5 Water Resources..... 2-38 2.5.5.1 Surface Waters 2-38 2.5.5.2 Floodplains 2-39 2.5.5.3 Ground Water 2-39 2.5.5.4 Special Status Waters 2-39 2.5.5.5 Future Surface Water Developmpntq 2-40 2.5.6 Wildlife and Fisheries 9-40 2.5.6.1 Wildlife in the Area...... , 2-40 2.5.6.2 Fisheries in the Area 2-48 2.5.7 Threatened and Endangered SpeciAR 2-49 2.5.7.1 Wildlife Specieg 2-50 2.5.7.2 Plant Spp.cipq 2-53 2.5.7.3 TPWD Species of Concern and Sensitive Vegetation Communities ...... 2-54 3.0 ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE IDENTIFICATION 3-1 3.1 ROUTING STUDY METHODOLOGY...... ,...... 3-1 3.1.1 Base Map Development 3-2 3.1.2 Study Area Delineation 3-2 3.1.3 Evaluation Criteria...... 3-2 3.2 DATA COLLECTION AND CONSTRAINTS MAPPING 3-4 3.3 RESOURCE ANALYSIS...... 3-6 3.4 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS 3-7 3.4.1 Existing Linear Corridnrq 3-7 3.4.2 Apparent Property Boundaries 3-7 3.4.3 Roadway ROWs 3-7 3.4.4 Existing Transmission Line ROWs...... 3-7 3.5 ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTE IDENTIFICATION. 3-7 3.5.1 Preliminary Transmission Line Segmentq 3-8 3.5.2 Public Involvement Program 3-10 3.5.2.1 Public Meeting 3-10 3.5.2.2 Comments from Agencies, Officials, and Organizations 3-13 3.5.3 Modifications to Preliminary Transmission Line Segments 3-14 3.5.3.1 Modified Segments 3-14 3.5.4 Alternative Transmission Line Roi itpq 3-15 4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES 4-1 4.1 IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY VALUES AND SOCIOECONOMICS 4-1
29 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 5 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
4.1.1 Community Values. 4-1 4.1.2 Socioeconomics 4-2 4.2 IMPACTS TO LAND USE AND RECREATIONAL AND PARK AREAS ...... 4-2 4.2.1 Alternative Transmission Line Route Length...... ,...... ,...... 4-2 4.2.2 Compatible ROW ...... 4-3 4.2.3 Agricultural Land...... 4-5 4.2.4 Residential Land 4-5 4.2.5 Commercial and Industrial Land 4-6 4.2.6 Parks and Recreational Aremq 4-6 4.2.7 Cemeterieq 4-6 4 . 2 . 8 Transportation 4 - 7 4.2.8.1 Roadways 4-7 4.2.8.2 Aviation...... 4-7 4 . 2 . 9 Utilitieq 4 - 7 4 . 2 . 9 . 1 Utility Lines 4 - 7 4 . 2 . 9 . 2 Communication Towers 4- 7 4.2.9.3 Water Wpllq 4-8 4.2.9.4 Oil and Gas Wells...... 4-8 4.3 IMPACTS TO AESTHETIC VALUES 4-8 4.4 IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORICAL VALUES 4-9 4.4.1 Archeological Sites 4-11 4.4.2 Summary 4-15 4.5 IMPACTS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY ...... 4-15 4.5.1 Physiography and Geology 4-16 4.5.2 Vegetation 4-16 4.5.2.1 Endangered and Threatened Plant Species ...... 4-16 4.5.2.2 Commercially or Recreationally Important Plant Species ...... 4-16 4.5.3 Soils...... 4-17 4.5.4 Water Resourcp.q 4-18 4.5.4.1 Surface Waters 4-18 4.5.4.2 Floodplains 4-20 4.5.4.3 Ground Water 4-21 4.5.5 Wildlife and Fisherieq 4-21 4.5.5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species 4-23 5.0 PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE ROUTE SELECTION 5-1 5.1 EVALUATION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES...... 5-1 5.2 SELECTION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE ROUTES 5-3 5.2.1 Land Use and Recreational and Park Areas 5-5
IV 30 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 6 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
5.2.2 Cultural Resources and Historical Values 5-5 5.2.3 Environmental Integrity 5-6 5.2.4 Aestheticq 5-6 5.3 SELECTION OF THE ROUTE WHICH BEST ADDRESSES THE REQUIREMENTS OF PURA AND PUC SUBSTANTIVE mil FR 5-6 6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1 7.0 REFERENCES CITED 7-1 Appendices: A Agency Correspondence B Public Meeting Information C Environmental Data for Alternative Transmission Line Segments (Table 4-1) and Routes (Table 4-2) and Habitable Structures and Other Land Use Features in the Vicinity of the Alternative Transmission Line Routes (Table 4-3) D Study Area Constraints Map (Figure 5-1)
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map...... 1-2 Figure 1-2 100-Year Floodplain Map 1-6 Figure 1-3 115 kV Tension on the Pole Deadend Structure 1-9 Figure 1-4 115 kV Arm on the Bisector Deadend Structure 1-10 Figure 1-5 115 kV Single Circuit Vertical Structure 1-11 Figure 1-6 115 kV Single Circuit Delta Structure 1-12 Figure 1-7 115 kV Transmission Line ROW 1-14 Figure 2-1 Study Area Boundary ?-2 Figure 2-2 Composite Constraints 2-6 Figure 2-3 Cultural Resource Planning Regions..... 2-17 Figure 2-4 Physiographic Regions of Tewmg 2-30 Figure 2-5 Vegetational Areas of Texas 2-32 Figure 2-6 Biotic Provinces of Texas 2-41 Figure 3-1 Preliminary Transmission Line Segments 3-9 Figure 3-2 Alternative Transmission Line Segments 3-16 Figure 5-1 Study Area Constraints Map (Appendix D)
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Population Trenrlq 9-3 Table 2-2 Leading Occupations in El Paso County, Texas 2-4 Table 2-3 Top Employing Industries in El Paso County, TpYAQ 9-4
V 31 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 7 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-4 Water Wells within the Study Area 2-11 Table 2-5 Prehistoric Chronology of the Trans-Pecos Region 2-15 Table 2-6 Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within the Study Area...... 2-26 Table 2-7 Previous Investigations Conducted within the Study Area 2-28 Table 2-8 Vegetation Types Mapped in the Study Area 9-33 Table 2-9 Mapped Soil Units within the Study Area 2-37 Table 2-10 Amphibian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area 9-42 Table 2-11 Reptilian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area 2-42 Table 2-12 Year-Round Resident Bird Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area ...... 2-44 Table 2-13 Winter Resident Bird Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area ...... 2-45 Table 2-14 Summer Resident Bird Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area ...... 2-46 Table 2-15 Mammalian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area 9-46 Table 2-16 Fish Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area 2-48 Table 2-17 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Listed for El Paso County, Texas...... 2-50 Table 2-18 TPWD Species of Greatest Conservation Need for El Paso County, Texas ...... 2-54 Table 3-1 Land Use and Environmental Evaluation Criteria 3-3 Table 3-2 Segment Composition of the Alternative Transmission Line Routes ...... 3-15 Table 4-1 Environmental Data for Segment Evaluation (Appendix C) Table 4-2 Environmental Data for Route Evaluation ...... (Appendix C) Table 4-3 Habitable Structures and Other Land Use Features in the Vicinity of the Alternative Routes...... (Appendix C) Table 4-4 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys within the Study Area...... 4-10 Table 4-5 Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within the Study Arpm 4-12 Table 5-1 Key Evaluation Criteria...... 5-2 Table 5-2 Key Evaluation Criteria Data for Proposed Alternative Route Evaluation ...... 5-4
V1 32 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 8 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACSR Aluminum conductor steel-reinforced AM Amplitude Modulation ASARCO American Smelting and Refining Company BEG Bureau of Economic Geology BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BMP Best Management Practices CCN Certificate of Convenience and Necessity CDP Census designated place CFR Code of Federal Regulations Commission Public Utility Commission of Texas, also PUC CR County Road CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment and Routing Study EHV Extra-high voltage EMST Ecological Mapping System of Texas EPE El Paso Electric Company ESA Endangered Species Act ESSS Ecologically Significant Stream Segment ETJ Extraterritorial jurisdiction EO Executive Order FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCC Federal Communications Commission FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FM Farm-to-Market Road FM Frequency Modulation FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GIS Geographic Information Systems HDR HDR, Inc. HPA High probability area IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation ISD Independent School District kV Kilovolt LM Land mobile MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act ME Miscellaneous easement NCED National Conservation Easement Database NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESC National Electrical Safety Code NHD National Hydrography Dataset NHL National Historical Landmark NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOI Notice of Intent
VII 33 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 9 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
NOT Notice of Termination NPS National Park Service NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetland Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OPGW Optical ground wire OTHM Official Texas Historical Marker PADUS Protected Areas Dataset PUC Public Utility Commission of Texas, also Commission PURA Public Utility Regulatory Act RGCOG Rio Grande Council of Governments RIP Record, I nvestigate, and Protect program ROW Right-of-way RRC Railroad Commission of Texas SGCN Species of greatest conservation need SH State Highway SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TAC Texas Administrative Code TARL Texas Archeological Research Laboratory TASA Texas Archeological Site Atlas TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TGLO Texas General Land Office THC Texas Historical Commission THSA Texas Historical Sites Atlas TIGER Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Reference TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TPDES Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TWDB Texas Water Development Board TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation TXNDD Texas Natural Diversity Database U.S. United States USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S.C. United States Code USCB United States Census Bureau USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDOD U.S. Department of Defense Siting Clearinghouse USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Viil 34 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 10 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT 1.1 SCOPE OF THE PROJECT El Paso Electric Company (EPE) proposes to construct two new 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines (i.e., Phases I and Il of the Eastside Loop Expansion Project) in eastern El Paso County, Texas. See Figure 1 -1 fora mapofthearea ofthe projectvicinity. The Eastside Loop Expansion- Phase I, the subject of this Environmental Assessment and Routing Study (EA), will connect two new substations. The northern-most substation site (i.e., Pine Substation Site) will be located, starting from the intersection of Montana Ave/US Highway 62/180 (Montana Avenue)and Desert Storm Road, approximately 1.2 miles south along Desert Storm Road, then approximately 0.94 mile east along La Pine Avenue, on the south side of La Pine Avenue. The southern-most substation site (i.e., Seabeck Substation Site) will be located on the northeast corner of Farmto Market (FM) 1281 /Horizon Blvd. (FM 1281) and Seabeck St., approximately four miles east of the intersection of Ascencion Street and FM 1281.
EPE retained HDR, Inc. (HDR) to prepare this EA to support the application for a Certificate of Convenienceand Necessity(CCN) forthe proposed projed. This EAdiscussestheenvironmental and land use constraints identified within the study area, documents routing methodologies and public involvement, and provides an evaluation of alternative routes. This document provides information in compliance with the requirements of Section 37.056(c)(4)(AHD) of the Texas Utilities Code (Public Utility Regulatory Act or PURA), the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC or Commission) CCN application form, and PUC Substantive Rule 25.101. The EA may also be used to provide information for local, state, or federal permitting activities that may be required for construction of the proposed project.
To assist HDR with the evaluation of the proposed project, EPE provided HDR with the project endpoints, information regarding the need, construction practices, and right-of-way (ROW) requirements.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED Eastside Loop Expansion Project is needed to address projected overload condmonson the EPE transmission system under contingency planning scenarios. The Pine-Seabeck 115 kV line is part of the East Side Loop Expansion Project. Additionally, the project will enable EPE to address expected load growth in eastern El Paso County and will provide an infrastructure backbone for the expansion of EPE's distribution system to address load growth when needed.
1-1 35 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 11 of 269
Honiestead M eadows North /- PHASE I STUDY AREA
1 Cgemw® BI d b
0 ci.
00,
0
Easeak
Horizon City Horizon ': Blv d 1 ~ Socorro
46
Unid,d Hab RiveA,s del 01 Bravo l X Ind '~ "Ilo San Eli zario
San I sidro # %
San Agusbn
M,ddl/I
GO GO ~.- PHASE Il STUDY AREA
romi//0 ot sr'*. Ranchen a Dr 1< NU.no Panj
NEW MEXICO -1.- -- PHASE I STUDYAREA PROJECT VICINITY MAP 2.5 5 MILES . 6 - EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION I ~ .C I I PHASE I AND PHASE Il TEXAS' 4=Z ~L-~ PHASE' I| STUDY AREA ~-- ER FIGURE 1-1 El Paso Electric \ ' «f PATH·0110161092 10189 EPE EAST LOOP EXPANSION~MAP DOCIFIGURESMPHASEIAEPE PHASEI, EA FIG1 1 PROJECTVIC,NIT¥ 8X,1.MID ·USER. KNAGY - DArE. 3,17,2020 1-2 36 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 12 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I
The EPE transmission system that directly delivers power to EPE's distribution substations, and then to the EPE native load in and around El Paso, Texas and Las Cruces, New Mexico, consists of a highly connected network of 115 kV and 69 kV transmission facilities. This system is not only connected totheextra-high voltage (EHV) systembut alsoto EPE's fossil-fueled Iocalgenera#on. The high Ievelof networking increasesthe reliabilityof the systembyallowingthe powerto reroute to other transmission lines during outages.
1.3 AGENCY ACTIONS
Numerous federal, state, and local regulatory agencies have rules and regulations regarding the routing process and potential impact assessment associated with construction of high voltage electricaltransmission lines. Thissection describesthe major regulatoryagenciesand issuesthat are involved in planning and permitting of transmission lines within the state of Texas. HDR solicited project scoping comments from various regulatory agencies during the development of this document. Records of correspondence are provided in Appendix A.
1.3.1 Public Utility Commission of Texas The PUC regulates the routing of transmission lines in Texas under Section 37.056(c)(4)(AHD) of PURA. The PUC regulatory rules and guidelines for routing transmission lines include:
• PUC Substantive Rule 25.101(b)(3)(B) • Policy of prudent avoidance • PUC Procedural Rule 22.52(a)(4) • CCN application requirements
This EA has been prepared by HDR in support of EPE's CCN application for this project to be filed at the PUC for approval.
1.3.2 United States Army Corps of Engineers The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been directed by Congress to administer Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] §403), and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. §1344). Under Section 10, the USACE regulates all work or structures in or affecting the course, condition, or capacity of navigable waters of the United States (U.S.). The intent of this law is to protect the navigable capacity of waters important to interstate commerce. Under Section 404 of the CWA, the USACE regulates the dischargeof dredged and fill material into "waters of the U.S.," including associated
1-3 37 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 13 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I wetlands. The purpose of Section 404 is to protect the nation's waters from indiscriminate discharge and to minimize the potential adverse impacts and degradation of the "waters of the U.S." and aquatic ecosystems.
No streams within the study area are classified as "navigable waters of the U.S." under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Review of the National Hydrology Dataset (NHD) and National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps indicated numerous surface waters of the U.S. within the study area. Surface waters include riverine and Iacustrine habitats associated with ephemeral streams, ditches, ponds, and small reservoirs. Upon PUC approval of a route, additional coordination, jurisdictional wetland verifications, and permitting with the USACE Albuquerque District for a Section 404 permit may be required. The construction of the transmission line will likely meet the criteria of the Nationwide Permit (MNP) No. 12-Utility Line Activities, which applies to activities associated with any cable, line, or wire for the transmission of electrical energy, such that generally no further USACE permitting would be needed. If the proposed impacts of the project exceed the criteria established under NWP 12 or other regional conditbns listed under the NWP, then a preconstrudion notification or an Individual Permit will be required.
1.3.3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is charged with the responsibility of enforcement of federal wildlife laws and providing comments on proposed construction projects with a federal nexus under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and within the framework of several federal laws including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). HDR reviewed the USFWS-listed species for El Paso County to identify potential speciesof concern for this projed.
Upon PUC approval of a route, coordination with the USFWS Austin Ecological Services Field Office may be required to determine the need for any required species specific surveys or additional permitting under Section 7 of the ESA and the MBTA.
1.3.4 Federal Aviation Administration According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, Part 77 (FAA, 2010), the construction of a transmission line requires FAA notification if any tower structure height exceeds the height of an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at one of the following slopes:
1-4 38 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 14 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I
• A 100:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest pointof the nearest runway of a public or military airport having at least one runway longer than 3,200 feet. • A 50:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest runway of a public or military airport where no runway is longer than 3,200 feet in length. • A 25:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet for heliports.
The PUC CCN application also requires listing privateairports within 10,000 feet of anyalternative route centerline. After PUC route approval, and if any of the FAA notification criteria are met for the selected route, a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, FAA Form 7460-1, will be completed and submitted to the FAA Southwest Regional Office in Fort Worth, Texas at least 45 days prior to construction.
1.3.5 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) is the state agency with the primary responsibility of protecting the state's fish and wildlife resources in accordance with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Section 12.0011(b). HDR reviewed Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) element occurrence records from the TPWD and reviewed the TPWD-listed species for El Paso County to identify potential species of concern for this project. HDR solicited comments from the TPWD during the project scoping phase of the project, and a copy of this EA will be submitted to the TPWD when the CCN application is filed with the PUC. Once the PUC approves a route, additional coordination with the TPWD may be necessary to determine the need for any additional surveys, and to avoid or minimize any potential adverse impacts to sensitive habitats, threatened or endangered species, and other fish and wildlife resources.
1.3.6 El Paso County Floodplain Management Flood Insurance Rate Maps, published bythe Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA), and USACE technical reports were reviewed to determine storm surge and floodplain boundaries within thestudyarea. The mapped 100-year floodplainsaretypicallyassociatedwith theunnamed ephemeral streams within the study area (Figure 1-2). The 100-year floodplain represents a flood event that has a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded for anygiven year. Construction of the proposed transmission line is not anticipated to create any significant permanent changes in the existing topographicalgradesand should notsignificantlyaffectthestormwater runoffrates within the study area. Additional coordination with the El Paso County floodplain administratormay be required after PUC route approval to determine if any permits or mitigation are necessary.
1-5 39 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 15 of 269
PINE SUBSTATION 6 SITE
9 4
4
t,
i SHQQQy.
SEABECK r 0 : SUBSTATION SITE o
t
4
~ PHASE I STUDY AREA ~ SUBSTATION SITE I1I 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAP 0 2,500 5,000 NHD FLOWLINE FEET ~ WATER BODY EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION 100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN (FEMA) PHASEI
FIGURE 1-2 El Paso Electric
PAYH O·10161092 10189 EPE EAST LOOP EXPANSIOmiAP DOCSIFIGURESEIPHASEMEPE PMASEI EA FIG) 2 100YRFLOODPLAIN 8/11.XD - USER KNAGY - DATE· /17/020 1-6 40 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 16 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I
1.3.7 Texas Commission on Environmental Quality The construction of the project may require a Texas Pollution Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) General Construction Permit (TXR150000) as implemented by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) under the provisions of Section 402 of the CWA and Chapter 26 of the Texas Water Code. TCEQ has developed a tiered approach for implementing this perrnit that is dependenton the acreage of ground disturbance. A general permit (TXR150000) is not required for land disturbancesof less than one acre that are not part of a larger common plan of development. If more than one acre but less than five acres are disturbed, then a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed prior to and implemented during construction activities, accompanied with posting a site notice and by sending a notification to the Municipal Separate Sewer System Operator, if applicable. If more than five acres of land are disturbed, then the previous requirements mentioned above are necessary, and the submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI) and Notice of Termination (NOT) are also required by the TCEQ. Once a route is approved by the PUC, the proposed disturbed surface area will be calculated, and appropriate conditions of the TXR150000 permit will be determined.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from the TCEQ may also be necessary if the project requires a USACE Individual Permit for proposed impacts to surface waters or wetlands as previously discussed. The TCEQ has the authority to review federally permitted or licensed activities that may result in a discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. within the state of Texas.
1.3.8 Texas Historical Commission Cultural resources are protected by federal and state laws if they have some level of significance under the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 60) or under state guidance (Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 13, Part 2, Chapter 26.7-8). The Texas Historical Commission (THC) was contacted by HDR to identify known cultural resources within the study area boundary. HDR also reviewed Texas Archeological Research Laboratory (TARL) records for known Iocationsof archeological sites and the THC's online, restricted-access Texas Archeological Sites Atlas (TASA) and Texas Historical Sites Atlas (THSA) for the locations of recorded cemeteries, NRHP properties, and Official Tens Historical Markers (OTHMs). Once a route is approved by the PUC, additional coordination wilh the THC will occur, if required, to determine the need for cultural resources surveys or additional permitting requirements. Even if no additional surveys are required, EPE will implement an
1-7 41 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 17 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I unanticipated discovery procedure during constructon ac~vities. If artifacts are discovered during construction, activities will cease, and EPE will notify the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for additional consultation.
1.3.9 Texas Department of Transportation The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) has been notified of the proposed project. If the route approved by the PUC crosses TxDOT roadways, the project will be constructed in accordance with the rules, regulations, and policies of TxDOT. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used, as required, to minimize erosion and sedimentation resulting from the construction. Revegetation will occur within existing TxDOT ROWs as required under the ' Revegetation Special Provisions" and conta ined in TxDOT F orm 1 023 ( Rev . 9 - 93 ) . Traffic co ntrol measures will comply with applicable portions of the Texas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
1.3.10 Texas General Land Office The Texas General Land Office (TGLO) requires a miscellaneouseasernent (ME) for ROWwithin any coastal submerged lands (tidally influenced), state owned riverbeds, and navigable strearrs (non-tidal). Although none have been identified in the study area, an ME will be required if the approved project crosses areas meeting these criteria.
1.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 1.4.1 Structure Design EPE proposes to utilize single-circuit steel deadend (see Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4) and steel tangent (see Figure 1-5 and Figure 1-6) monopoles for construction of the 115 kV transmissbn line. These structure types were selected based upon construction and life cycle economics, future system planning, and maintenance requirements. Tangent monopoles will be designed for directembedmentintothe nativeorselectbackfill soiland would notrequireconcrete foundations, while deadend monopoles will require a foundation composed of a full length anchor bolt cage filledwith concrete. Anticipatedtypical deadend structureheightsare approximately 70 feetabove ground, while typical tangent structure heights are proposed at approximately 65 feet above ground. However, both structure heights may vary from 60 to 95 feet depending on route alignment, topography, and requirements for minimum ground clearances.
The tangent structures consist of three suspension insulators, each supporting a single 954
1-8 42 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 18 of 269
A A' 6•
10'
C i 1 C' D<
10+
10'
70'
6, t~ ~>HOLES FOR DISTRIBUTION
1' . ./
12' -*/ POLE ID TAG 10' , CI
ZFG I' v k,J /C
115 KV TENSION ON THE DRAWING NOT TO SCALE POLE DEADEND STRUCTURE EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION PHASEI
£0#ronq FIGURE 1-3 El Paso Electric
PATH O %10161092 10189 EPE EAST LOOP EXPANSIONIMAP DOCIFIGURESE/PHASEI\EPE PHASEI EA FIG1 3 TENSION POLE 8Xll MXD - USER KNAGY - DATE 5/18~2020 1-9 43 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 19 of 269
A A' 6·
B' 4'
4' r-1, fb'D 6'
4'
6'
4'
70'
11 iN 6' NOLES FOR DISTRIBUTION
1
1Z
10' POLE ]D TAG
JI LJ,
115 KVARM ON THE BISECTOR DRAWING NOT TO SCALE DEADEND STRUCTURE EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION PHASEI
FIGURE 1-4 .Ei Paso Electric
PATH O \10161 092_101 BUM EAST_LOOP EXPANSIONW,iAP OOCS\FIGURES\EI\PHASEI\EPE PHASEI EA FIGM 4 ARM BISECTOR .11 MXD · USER KNAGY - DATE 5;1812020 1-10 44 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 20 of 269
4 5'
t
10'
&
10'
Full Length = 75'
iE 0
10% + Z of Full Length
115 KV SINGLE CIRCUIT DRAWING NOT TO SCALE VERTICAL STRUCTURE EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION PHASEI »ch hr22E FIGURE 1-5 EI Paso Electric
>ATH O \10161092_10189_EPE EAST LOOP EXPANSION~MAP DOCSIFIGURESIE "PHASEIIEPE_PHASELEA_FIG 1.5_SINGLEC[RCUIT_VERTICAL- 8Xll MXD USER KNAGY - DATE 6j18/2020 1-11 45 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 21 of 269
8
5
5
Full Length = 75'
't>&3£i
10% + 2' of Full Length 4 11
115 KV SINGLE CIRCUIT DRAWING NOT TO SCALE DELTA STRUCTURE EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION PHASEI »ed: V#¥,0/ FIGURE 1-6 El Paso Electric
'ATH O 00161092_10109_EPE EAST LOOP EXPANSIONIMAP_DOCS'FIGURES~E.APHASE"PE_PHASELEA_FIG1_6_SINGLECIRCUIT_DELTA_Bxll MXD · USER KNAGY DATE 5~18~2020 1-12 46 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 22 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I
Rail kilo circular mils (kcmil) aluminum conductor steel-reinforced (ACSR). The static wire proposed is a single 36 count optical ground wire (OPGW) affixed to the apex of the pole. A deadend monopole consists of six strain insulators (three on each side), and depending on the line angle, there could be a jumper arm with a suspension insulator placedon the bisector of the structure. Each phase includes a 954 Rail kcmil conductor. A static wire (OPGW) is placed on top of the structure. The typical span lengths proposed are 500 feet with variances between 300 and 800 feet based on route alignment, topography, and minimum ground clearances.
1.4.2 Surveying Surveying of the proposed transmission line ROW (see Figure 1-7) is required to locate the centerline of the proposed ROW, structure centers, structure references, project substatbn boundaries, ROW boundaries, access roads, and temporary work areas.
1.4.3 Clearing Clearing of natural vegetation would be required for construction purposes at the staging area, structure sites (permanent clearance of 100 feet by 100 feet area around each tower), and pulling and tensioning areas. If a SWPPP is required, itwill be implemented along the approved route prior to the start of clearing. Clearances are also required along the ROW for electrical safety, maintenance and reliability of thetransmission line. Withinthe ROW, mature vegetation would be selectively removed under or near the conductors to provide adequate electrical clearance as required by the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC).
1.4.4 Structure Placement The self-supported tubular steel structures would be supported by cast-in-place, drilled concrete pier foundations for deadendstructuresor drilled shaft embedded steel foundations fortangent structures. Drilled shaft foundations would be excavated via a truck mounted drilling rig, with augers of various sizes, depending on the diameter and depth of the foundation to be installed. Foundation sizes would vary based on structural requirementsand geotechnical conditions, but typical sizes for steel tangent poles would be three to five feet in diameter by 10 to 14 feet deep, and typical deadend foundations would be up to eight feet in diameter and up to 30 feet deep. Should solid rock be encountered during excavation, blasting, rock excavation, and hauling, or use of a rock anchoring system may be required, and would be based on geotechnical conditbns and the site specific requirements of the design engineer.
1-13 47 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 23 of 269
n 1
4.5
10'
G
10'
i
83.5'
75' 75'
115 KV TRANSMISSION DRAWING NOT TO SCALE LINE ROW EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION PHASEI
FIGURE 1-7 El Paso Electric
O /0161092_10189_EPE_EAST_LOOP_EXPANSIONAMAP_DOCSIFIGURES'EA\PIASEI\EPE_PHASELEA_Fill_X_TYPICAL_SINGLE_DEADENO_8/11 MXD USER KNAGY DATE 12/12/20}19
1-14 48 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 24 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I
For drilled concrete pier foundations, rebar cages would be delivered to the tower site and installed in the excavated shaft, and commercially available concrete would be delivered to the site in concrete mixers with capacities of up to 10 cubic yards per truck. For direct embedded poles, the embedded pole would be lowered into the drilled shaft, and acceptable backfill material would be delivered and compacted as necessary. Locally available commercial ready-mb< concrete would be used for all pertinent construction activities. No batch preparation would occur within the project area.
Bundles of steel members and associated hardware (e.g., insulators, hardware, and stringing sheaves) would be transported to each structure site by truck. Structures would be assembled at each structure site on cribbing that provides for proper alignment of members. Steel sections would be laid out with hydraulic cranes.
After assembly, the structures would be erected via crane, and held level and plumb while the embedded poles are backfilled, or the anchor bolts are properly aligned and secured, depending on the type of foundation. Air compressors and air guns would be used to tighten bolts.
After the structures are erected, grounding would be installed adjacent to each pole. Structure grounds are installed to provide a path of low electrical resistance to allow electrical charge imposed on the steel poles (typically through electrical failure or lightning strike) to be dissipated to earth. Grounding rods are typically 10 feet long, are made from either steel or copper, would be driven into the earth adjacent to each pole, and would be attached to the steel structure with a connecting wire.
1.4.5 Conductor and Static Wire Installation Insulators, hardware, and stringing sheaves would be delivered to each structure site. The structures would be rigged with insulator strings and stringing sheaves at each ground (shield) wire and conductor position.
For protection of the public during wire installation, guard structures would be erected over highways, railroads, power lines, structures, and other barriers. Guard structures would consist of H-frame wood poles placed on either side of the barriers or by using boom trucks raising a guard cross beam. These structures would prevent ground wires, conductors, or equipmentfrom falling across obstacles.
1-15 49 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 25 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion - Phase I
Pilot lines would be pulled (strung) from structure to structure by land operated equipment and threaded through the stringing sheaves at each tower. Following pilot lines, a stronger, larger diameter line would be attached to conductors to pull them onto towers. The process would be repeated until the shield wire, OPGW, or conductor is pulled through all sheaves.
Shield wires, fiber optic cable, and conductors would be strung using powered pulling equipment atoneendand powered brakingortensioningequipmentattheotherend of aconductorsegrnent. Sites for tensioning equipment and pulling equipment would be approximately 9,000 feet apart. The tensioning and pulling sites would be typically 1.8 acres each (approximately 100 feet by 400 feet in both directions opposite the line angle). The sites may differ in size and dimensions, depending on the structure's purpose (mid-span or deadend) and site specific topographic conditions. Tensioners, pullers, line trucks, wire trailers, dozers, pickups, and tractors needed for stringing and anchoring the ground wire or conductor would be located at these sites. The tensioner, with the puller, would maintain tension onthe ground wires or conductorwhile they are fastened to the towers. Once each type of wire has been pulled in, the tension and sag would be adjusted, the stringing sheaves would be removed, and the conductors would be permanently attached to the insulators.
1.4.6 Cleanup Cleanup operations will be performed as construction activities are completed. Cleanup includes removal of debris, unused materials, and trash. Any necessary soil stabilization and reestablishment of vegetative cover will also occur during cleanup, following the procedures dictated in the SWPPP, if required. Pre-construcuon contours will also be restored following construction. Reclamation work will occur in disturbed areas used for construction, but not necessary for the long-term operation and maintenance of the transmission line. A permanent access road within the transmission line corridor will be maintained for the life of thetransmissbn line, if necessary.
1-16 50 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 26 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA HDR, with input from EPE, identified the study area boundary based on the location of the two substation sites (Pine and Seabeck Substation Sites) (Figure 2-1). The study area was defined to provide an area large enough to develop an adequate set of geographically diverse alternative routes. The northern-most substation site (Pine Substation Site) will be located, starting from the intersection of Montana Avenue and Desert Storm Road, approximately 1.2 miles south along Desert Storm Road, then approximately 0.94 mile east along La Pine Avenue, on the south side of La Pine Avenue. The southern-most substation site (Seabeck Substation Site) will be located on the northeast corner of Farm to FM 1281 and Seabeck St., approximately four miles east of the intersection of Ascencion Street and FM 1281. The northern boundary of the study area is parallel and south of Montana Avenue. The southern boundary is parallel and south of FM 1281. The western boundary is within or east of the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of El Paso, and the eastern boundary is parallel to and 2.5 miles west of the El Paso/Hudspeth County line.
The following chapter provides information regarding the resources within the study area, including information included in the PUC CCN application requirements:
• Public meeting or public open house; • Approval or permits required from other governmental agencies; • Brief description of the area traversed; • Habitable structures within 300 feet of the centerline for a 115 kV transmission line; • Amplitude Modulation (AM), Frequency Modulation (FM), microwave, and other electronic installations in the area; • FAA-registered airstrips, private airstrips, and heliports located in the area; • Irrigated pasture or croplands utilizing center-pivot or other traveling irrigation systems; • Parks and recreation areas; and • Historical and archeological sites.
HDR collected this information and also evaluated the study area for environmental, cultural, and community resources and values. These data were obtained through desktop review, field reconnaissance (March 27 and July 12, 2019), and public and agency involvement. HDR mailed consultation letters to local officials and participated in EPE's project public open house meeting to obtain insight into these factors. All identified factors were reviewed and used to describe the
2-1 51 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 27 of 269
I- HWY 180 MONTANAAVE? US HWY-62'US
PINE SUBSTATION ~-- SITE
RL
CONNELLY
STORM 5*
920
CR
ST/DESERT
BAELARD
/
/ MHVd MHVd
ST
ST NIVLAOLN NIVLAOLN
ST MOUNTAM TRUMPH SHADOIA
LAKE'-0
TIGARD
A, A, f f
SEABECK
SEABECK >OVH -==c-===o==anrr··.HOEPNB~vo ~ SUBSTATION SITE ,FM 1281-
CO CIO 41**Lt=- Z
0 0 Z
N ~PHASE I STUDY AREA
- - CITY OF EL PASO EXTRATERRITORIAL l - 1 JURISDICTION (ETJ) STUDY AREA BOUNDARY 0 2,500 5.000 ~ EXISTING 69 KV FEET TRANSMISSION LINE EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION t~' EXISTING 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PHASEI
/ SUBSTATION SITE
STREAMS/DRAINAGE FIGURE 2-1 * WATER BODY El Paso Electric
PATH: O·110161092 10189 EPE EAST LOOP EXPANSION~mAP DOCS~FIGURESEA1PHASEBEPE PHASEI EA FIG2 l STUDYAREABOUNDARY 8Xll,MXD · USER: KNAGY · DATE· 3/17/2020 2-2 52 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 28 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I community values, socioeconomics, land use, recreational and park areas, aesthetic values, resources and historic values, and environmental integrity of the study area.
2.1 COMMUNITY VALUES AND SOCIOECONOMICS 2.1.1 Community Values The term "community values" has not been formally defined for regulatory purposes by the PUC but is included as a consideration for transmission line certification under Section 37.056(c)(4)(A- D) of PURA. In several dockets, the PUC and the PUC Staff (Staff) have accepted the following as a working definition: the term "community values" may be interpreted as a shared appreciation of an area or other natural resource by a national, regional, or local community. To further articulate these values, HDR participated in EPE's project public open house meeting to collect information regarding community values directly from the public.
Community values are generally associated with recreational areas or resources and the aesthetic environment of an area. These values are evaluated, in depth, in the subsequent sections of this chapter.
2.1.2 Socioeconomics The following is a description of the socioeconomic patterns related to population and employment in El Paso County, Texas. The trend analysis is based upon the most recent U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 2010 Census, 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimate (USCB, 2019), and Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) County Population Projects (TWDB, 2018).
2.1.2.1 Population Trends El Paso County has increased in population between 2010 and 2017. Table 2-1 presents population data for the state of Texas and El Paso County. El Paso County has experienced a 4% increase in population between 2010 and 2017 (USCB, 2019). The TWDB projections indicate a population increase of 16% from 2010 to 2020, an increase of 14% from 2020 to 2030, and an increase of 11% from 2030 to 2040 (TWDB, 2018). Table 2-1 presents the past population trends and future population projections for El Paso County and the State of Texas.
Table 2-1 Population Trends State/County Census Projections 20101 20171 20202 20302 20402 State of Texas 25,145,561 27,419,612 29,683,671 33,898,444 38,045,103
2-3 53 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 29 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-1 Population Trends State/County Census Projections 20101 20171 20202 20302 20402 El Paso 800,647 834,825 925,565 1,055,903 1,176,945 County 1USCB, 2019,2TWDB, 2018
2.1.2.2 Employment In 2017, there were 341,350 employed persons over the age of 16 in El Paso County, and the unemployment rate was 7.0% (approximately 43,096). The major occupations in El Paso County in 2017 are listed under the category of management, business, science, and art occupations, followed by sales and office occupations (USCB, 2019). Table 2-2 presents the number of persons employed within each occupation category during 2017 in El Paso County, Texas.
Table 2-2 Leading Occupations in El Paso County, Texas Occupations Total for El Paso County (2017)
Management, business, science, and art 102,875 occupations Sales and office occupations 92,048 Service occupations 71,353
Production, transportation, and material moving 44,074 occupations
Natural resources, construction, and 31,000 maintenance occupations USCB, 2019
In 2017, the five industries employing the most people in El Paso County were healthcare and social assistance, educational services, retail trade, accommodation and food services, and public administration. Table 2-3 presents the number of persons employed in each listed industry in 2017 (USCB, 2019).
Table 2-3 Top Employing Industries in El Paso County, Texas
Industries Total for El Paso County (2017) Health Care and Social Assistance 45,454 Educational Services 40,452 Retail Trade 40,076 Accommodation and Food Services 29,932 Public Administration 24,384 USCB, 2019
2-4 54 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 30 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
2.2 LAND USE AND RECREATIONAL AND PARK AREAS 2.2.1 Land Use The majority of the study area is desert with little development (Figure 2-2). All of the land use types found within the study area are described further below.
2.2.1.1 Land Jurisdiction Land jurisdiction is defined as the control maintained by major Iandholders or land managers. Jurisdiction does not necessarily represent ownership. Potential conflicts could arise from crossing jurisdictional boundaries that were evaluated in this study. For example, a 115 kV transmission line crossing publicly-held land may cause a conflict with ongoing planning processes or a land management plan. In order to establish the existing land jurisdiction in the study area, a Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to evaluate land use information obtained from interpretation of aerial photographs, United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps, county appraisal district information, and reconnaissance surveys.
The entire study area is located within the jurisdictional boundary of El Paso County. No portion of the study area is located with the city limits of any municipality. A portion of the northwestern boundary of the study area is located within the ETJ of the City of El Paso. This is an area extending five miles in all directions from the corporate boundary of the City and its extensions. The ETJ is outside the City's corporate limits, but within its ultimate planning area, and this enables the City to regulate the subdivision of land. Additionally, there are approximately 20 acres in the north central portion of the study area that are owned by the Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo of Texas (Tigua) and locally managed by the Southern Pueblos Agency of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (USGS, 2016; TNRIS, 2019).
2.2.1.2 Agriculture The land cover in the study area is largely considered to be barren land or herbaceous (MRLC, 2016). Based on field observations, most of the study area is dominated with shrubs with some sparsely distributed grass. One water well that is primarily used for livestock is located within the study area (TWDB, 2019). Based on the general lack of water and productive rangeland, any livestock in the area would likely be stocked at a low rate. Based on aerial photo interpretation and the lack of water wells listed for irrigation (TWDB, 2019), it does not appear that there are any center-pivot or other traveling irrigation systems. Additionally, no hay fields, cultivated fields, orchards, or vineyards were observed in the study area.
2-5 55 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 31 of 269
~ *~~Y'M~TANAAV~.U~.~V~~~iustau, f;~1 2 j///fr-1~.."A/.///b./.JIL/k> d ,4: *.41 ~ CA PINE AVE --- , -·,06 .'5~ C f t . .,¢1%.4¢fl-~i ~ :9$'¢-. 3.? J...-.,.. 0 % 4 j ¢- 4 <-: r,% ,.J- k
7 / t 7 # e · ·.r
r
f
* '4
. r 31 w . ,"1 :1
. . I
1'.-'i-
t- 9.
Z
-
.
Z {/3 HORIZONlBLVO f FM",1281&„.' a , #554" . i -2 4.. U) 0 r 71 ,/4 -=% /- i VJr v .-
OF EL PASO _ CITY JURISDICTION STUDY AREA EXTRATERRITORLAL ~PHASE I I - [ETJ; SEGMENT NODE PARCEL BOUNDARY CONSTRAINTS TRANSMISSION LINE COMPOSITE /'v PRELIMINARY SUR PUEBLO LAND A/SEGMENT YSLETAOEL LOOP EXPANSION tl5 KV TRANSMISSION QUARRY EASTSIDE ,-'v EXISTING ~ 2,500 5.000 'V' LINE TOWER PHASEI 0 COMMUNICATION FEET SITE ~ / SUBSTATION WITHIN PIPELINE HABITABLE STRUCTURE - OU/GAS FEET OF SEGMENT 300 STR EAMWDRAINAGE OIL/GAS WELL Ji WATER BODY 2-2 WELL FIGURE GROUNDWATER I WETLANDS (NM) 1-J' FLOODPLAIN (FEMA) I 100-YEAR 3,•,U2020 KNAG, · C,ArE, 56 axll IAXD- USER Electric EA F,G2 2 CONSTRAINTS EI Paso APHASEI,EPE PHASE, DOCW,GURES,£ 2-6 PATH O \10161092_10189.EPE_EAST_LOOP_EXPANSI©N~MAP ATTACHMENT 1 Page 32 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Agriculture is a significant segment of the economy throughout Texas, and El Paso County has an active agricultural sector. According to the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service's 2017 Census of Agriculture, the total market value for agricultural products sold for El Paso County was $46,739,000-an increase of 3% over the 2012 market value. Of this $46,739,000, crop sales accounted for approximately 86%, while livestock sales accounted for 14%. The number of farms in El Paso County numbered 656 totaling 142,675 acres in 2017, representing at 32% decline in acreage compared to 2012. Of the 142,675 acres of agricultural land in El Paso County, 70% is used for grazing cattle, and 28% is used for crops (a majority of the cropland is irrigated). The top crop products in El Paso County in 2017 were fruits, tree nuts (mostly pecans), and berries; cotton and cottonseed; and cattle and calves. (USDA, 2017)
In 1995, an amendment to the Texas Constitution, Article 8, Section 1-d-1 established the current qualifications for open-spaced land tax appraisal (Agriculture and/or Wildlife Exemption). This allows for qualifying land under management for wildlife habitat, agricultural production, or timber harvest to be taxed based on productive value rather than market value (TPWD, 2019b). While there is no database to identify land utilizing this incentive, many properties within the study area likely qualify. Division of these lands could affect qualification for this program.
2.2.1.3 Urban and Residential Areas The urban and residential classification represents concentrations of surface disturbing land uses, which include habitable structures and other developed areas characterized with low, medium, and high intensities. The various levels of development include a mix of residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses.
The PUC definition of a habitable structure was used for this routing study. PUC Substantive Rule 25.101(a)(3) defines habitable structures as "structures normally inhabited by humans or intended to be inhabited by humans on a daily or regular basis. Habitable structures include, but are not limited to, single-family and multi-family dwellings and related structures, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial structures, industrial structures, residential structures, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and schools." Habitable structures in the study area were identified using aerial photographs and reconnaissance surveys from public points of view.
Low, Medium, and High Intensity developed areas were identified using aerial photograph interpretation and reconnaissance surveys. These classifications are described below:
2-7 57 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 33 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase l
• Low Intensity areas typically include rural settings with single-family housing units.
• Medium Intensity areas typically include single-family housing units that are grouped in residential subdivisions and may include peripheral commercial structures.
• High Intensity areas include highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes and commercial or industrial parks.
The study area is located in a mostly-unpopulated area in the eastern portion of El Paso County, Texas. One low intensity residential area is located in the southwestern corner of the study area, along FM 1281. There are no medium or high intensity areas of development in the study area.
2.2.1.4 Industrial Areas One small portion of the study area, 180 acres in the northwest corner, is mapped as "Industrial and/or Railyards" (City of El Paso, 2012). This area is the West Quarry, a building materials quarry owned by Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua (Figure 2-2).
2.2.1.5 Recreation and Park Areas Recreational, park, and preservation areas were identified through state, federal, and local agency websites, county documents, and reconnaissance surveys. This category primarily includes existing areas that are:
• Dedicated as park land or open space by a governmental body, an organized group, club, or church. • Recognized as nationally or regionally significant preservation or recreation areas. • Formally designated unique or undisturbed natural areas.
2.2.1.5.1 Federal and State Parks and Protected Areas The United States Geological Survey's (USGS) Protected Areas Dataset (PADUS) was reviewed to identify any recreational or park areas within the study area. No state or national parks, trails, historic landmarks, or other public recreation lands were identified within the study area (USGS, 2016). No TGLO lands area located within the study area (TGLO, 2019).
2.2.1.5.2 County and Local Parks No county or city public parks were identified within the study area.
2-8 58 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 34 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
2.2.1.5.3 Wildlife Viewing Trails A review of the TPWD Far West Texas Wildlife Trail (TPWD, 2019d) indicated that the study area does not contain any Wildlife Trail areas.
2.2.1.5.4 Conservation Easements A review of the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED) indicated that no non-profit or publicly held conservation easements were identified within the study area (NCED, 2019).
2.2.1.5.5 Private Recreation Areas Potential recreational opportunities-including hunting, shooting, hiking, off-road vehicle driving, and horseback riding may occur on private properties within the study area. These are not necessarily considered to be open to the general public.
Two private recreational properties were identified within the study area. The first facility is Red Sands Place to Shoot, which is described as a free firearm shooting range open to the general public. The other facility is located on the eastern boundary of the study area and is predominantly located outside of the boundary. This property is referred to as American Patriots at Shadow Mountain Lakes. This property is described as a private retreat venue for military veterans.
2.2.1.6 Cemeteries No cemeteries were identified within the study area (THC, 2019 and ESRI, 2019).
2.2.1.7 Transportation/Aviation 2.2.1.7.1 Roadways The existing transportation system within the study area includes County Roads (CR), Farm to Market (FM), and local roads. According to the United States Census Bureau (USCB) Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Reference system (TIGER), there are 32 uniquely named roads within the study area (USCB, 2019a). This includes FM 1281, CR 920, and several named and un-named local roads (Figure 2-2; USCB, 2019a and TxDOT, 2018).
The TxDOT's "Project Tracker" contains detailed information by county for every project which is or could be scheduled for construction. It was reviewed to identify any state roadway projects planned within the study area. A review of this database indicates that no roads in the study area have construction underway or beginning soon (TxDOT, 2019). Additionally, the 2013 El Paso
2-9 59 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 35 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
County Comprehensive Mobility Plan does not indicate any upcoming projects within the study area (El Paso County, 2013).
2.2.1.7.2 Aviation According to FAA regulations, Part 77 (FAA, 2010), the construction of a transmission line requires FAA notification if tower structure height exceeds the height of an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at one of the following slopes:
• A 100:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public or military airport having at least one runway longer than 3,200 feet. • A 50:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest runway of a public or military airport where no runway is longer than 3,200 feet in length. • A 25:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet for heliports.
The PUC CCN application also requires the listing of private airports within 10,000 feet of any alternative route centerline.
According to public records, no public airports are located within a 20,000 foot radius of the study area boundaries (FAA, 2019; TxDOT, 2016; BTS, 2019). Additionally, no FAA registered or private airports are located within 10,000 feet of the study area (FAA, 2019; BTS, 2019). No heliports were observed or registered within 5,000 feet of the study area.
2.2.1.8 Utilities 2.2.1.8.1 Utility Lines Existing utility corridors, easements, and ROWs were identified within the study area and mapped using GIS. These linear features are considered potential paralleling opportunities. There is one EPE 115 kV transmission line located within the study area. This line travels east/west near the northern boundary of the study area and is adjacent to the location of the Pine Substation Site. Additionally, an existing 14 kV line, which is certificated at 69 kV, is located in the southern portion of the study area and is located parallel to and north of FM 1281. Existing transmission lines were mapped based on photo interpretation and information from EPE. EPE also operates the distribution line system within the study area, which extends along the roadways and through other portions of the study area.
2-10 60 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 36 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
2.2.1.8.2 Communication Towers Communication tower location information was obtained from the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) (FCC, 2019). Six private land mobile (LM) communication towers are located in the southern portion of the study area (see Figure 2-2). These structures are concentrated near the residential area along FM 1281/Horizon Blvd. Within the industrial area (West Quarry) located near the northwest corner of the study area, there are two microwave transmitters (on a single structure) and one cellular tower.
2.2.1.8.3 Water Wells Review of the TWDB (2019) water well data indicated 32 water wells located within the study area (Table 2-4). These wells are concentrated in the southwestern corner of the study area and are generally associated with the residential area along FM 1281. Of the 32 wells, a majority are owned by the El Paso County Water Authority. See the table below for more information about well usage.
Table 2-4 Water Wells within the Study Area Primary Use Well Type Owner Number Public Supply Withdrawal of Water El Paso County Water Authority 15 Stock Withdrawal of Water Hays 1 Domestic Withdrawal of Water R. C. Sparks Estate 1 Unused Test Hole El Paso County Water Authority 6 Unused Test Hole El Paso Natural Gas Co 1 Unused Withdrawal of Water El Paso County Water Authority 2 Unused Oil or Gas Davis 1 Unused Observation El Paso County Water Authority 1 Plugged or Destroyed Test Hole El Paso County Water Authority 1 Plugged or Destroyed Withdrawal of Water El Paso County Water Authority 1 Unknown Test Hole El Paso County Water Authority 1 Unknown Test Hole Horizon Land Corp 1 TWDB, 2019
2.2.1.8.4 Oil and Gas Facilities Oil and gas well data was obtained from the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) website (RRC, 2019b) and digitized by HDR to create a GIS layer for existing oil and gas wells, pipelines, and supporting facilities. Four wells are located within the study area. Three are permitted well locations, and one is a cancelled/abandoned location. There are also five pipelines that cross the
2-11 61 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 37 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I study area from northwest to southeast. These pipelines are owned by ONEOK WesTex Transmission LLC; El Paso Natural Gas Company; Holly Energy Partners, L.P; Magellan Pipeline Company, L.P.; and Kinder Morgan Wink Pipeline LLC and are located in two distinct corridors. The northern of the pipeline corridors contains two pipelines and runs southeast from the northwestern portion of the study area, near West Quarry, to the eastern study area boundary. The southern of the corridors contains three pipelines and runs southeast from the southern portion of the western boundary, exiting the study area near Mountain Shadow Lake (also locally referred to as Shadow Mountain Lake).
2.2.1.9 Schools The study area is located within the Clint Independent School District (ISD). No existing or planned schools were identified within the study area (TEA, 2019).
2.2.1.10 Planned Land Use The planned land uses reflect objectives and policies regarding land use goals and plans, including conservation easements, managed lands, and proposed developments. Communities typically prepare comprehensive land use plans to provide strategic direction for the individual community. The websites for the City of El Paso, El Paso County, and The Rio Grande Council of Governments (RGCOG) were reviewed, and correspondence was submitted to local city and county officials to identify any planned land use conflicts.
The city of El Paso has developed a Comprehensive Plan for the future of the city. This plan indicates that the portion of the study area within the ETJ of El Paso is considered a preferred annexation area (City of El Paso, 2012). According to the plan's future land use map, a majority of the study area is classified as Remote Open Space Sector. This is generally remote land in the desert or mountains. One small portion of the study area is mapped as Industrial Growth Sector. This land use classification is considered to be an essential part of El Paso's economy and includes transportation hubs, industrial parks, refineries, and mines. This industrial area within the study area contains a quarry (West Quarry) and is within the ETJ that is listed as a preferred annexation area.
Based on aerial review and field investigations, multiple planned, future residential developments exist within the study area. In the southeastern portion of the study area, near the eastern boundary and west of Mountain Shadow Lake, there is a mobile home community being built.
2-12 62 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 38 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Signage, observed on July 12, 2019, indicates that the lots will be complete soon and will have water, electric, and septic infrastructure in place. Additionally, a majority of the study area was previously platted for a large-scale residential development. Roads were graded and parcels were subdivided, but it appears that this project has been abandoned.
2.3 AESTHETIC VALUES Section 37.056(c)(4)(C) of PURA incorporates "aesthetic values" as a consideration when evaluating proposed electric transmission facilities. There are currently no formal guidelines provided for managing visual resources on private, state, or county-owned lands located within the study area. For the purposes of this study, the term aesthetics is defined by HDR to include the subjective perception of natural beauty in a landscape and measurement of an area's scenic qualities. The visual inventory was conducted by describing the regional setting and determining the viewer sensitivity ratings. Related literature, aerial photograph interpretation, and reconnaissance surveys were used to describe the regional setting and to determine the landscape character types for the area.
For this study, the potential visual impacts considered for the project were limited to line-of-sight views within the immediate foreground (one-half mile, unobstructed) from points located on federal and state highways, FMs, and recreational and park areas.
Consideration of the visual environment includes a determination of aesthetic values (where the major potential effect of a project on the resource is considered visual) and recreational values (where the location of a transmission line could potentially affect the scenic enjoyment of the area). HDR considered the following criteria that combine to give an area its aesthetic identity:
• Land form and topography (hills, valleys, etc.) • Prominence of water in the landscape (rivers, lakes, etc.) • Vegetation variety (woodland, meadows) • Diversity of scenic elements • Degree of human development or alteration • Overall uniqueness of the scenic environment compared with the larger region
The study area is primarily uninhabited desert. Predominant land uses include livestock grazing and resource extraction (oil and gas and quarry). Overall, the study area viewscape consists of
2-13 63 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 39 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I open desert shrubland with occasional bluffs and is largely absent of water features. The northeast corner of the study area is topographically distinguished from the rest of the study area due to the presence of the Hueco Mountains. No known designated high quality aesthetic resources, views, or scenic roads, highways, or travel trails were identified within the study area.
No Texas Heritage Trails or OTHMs were identified within the study area (THC, 2019a). A review of the National Park Service (NPS) website did not identify Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails, National Historic Landmarks (NHL), National Parks, National Monuments, National Historic Sites, or National Battlefields within the study area (NWSRS, 2019; NPS, 2019).
Based on these criteria, the study area exhibits a moderate degree of aesthetic quality for the region. The study area maintains the feel of a Far West Texas desert environment. Although some portions of the study area may be visually appealing, overall, the aesthetic quality of the study area is not distinguishable from that of other adjacent areas within the region.
2.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORICAL VALUES Section 37.056(c)(4)(A-D) of PURA incorporates historical values as a consideration when evaluating proposed electric transmission facilities. The THC and TARL maintain records of known cultural resources (archeological, architectural, and cemeteries) and of previous field investigations. Information from the THC and TARL databases was reviewed, and shapefiles showing the locations of all previously documented archeological resources were requested in order to identify potential cultural resources constraints within the study area. Cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. For this study, cultural resources have been divided into three major categories: archeological resources, architectural resources, and historic cemeteries.
Archeological Resources are locations where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of physical remains (e.g., burnt rock middens, stone tools, petroglyphs, house foundations, bottles). Archeological resources can date to either prehistoric times or the historic era.
Architectural Resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, outbuildings) and intact structures (dams, canals, bridges, roads, silos).
2-14 64 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 40 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Cemeteries are places of intentional human interment and may include large public burial grounds with multiple burials, small family plots with only a few burials, or individual grave sites. In some instances, cemeteries may be designated as Historic Texas Cemeteries. Historic Texas Cemeteries include cemeteries that have been officially added to the THC records and are recognized with a Texas Historical Marker. Other cemeteries may have been documented as part of the THC's Record, Investigate, and Protect (RIP) program and have been assigned a designation number (e.g., C-0249).
2.4.1 Cultural Background The project area is located within the Trans-Pecos cultural resources planning region (Figure 2- 3), also referred to as the El Paso/Hueco Folsom Region (Pertulla, 2004). The prehistory of western Texas can be divided into three major periods: Paleoindian, Archaic (both periods subdivided into Early, Middle, and Late), and Late Prehistoric (or Formative) period in the western Trans-Pecos (Table 2-5). These periods are primarily defined by diagnostic cultural artifacts found in the archeological record that are indicative of major shifts or changes in socio-cultural practices.
Table 2-5. Prehistoric Chronology of the Trans-Pecos Region
Western Trans-Pecos/Jornada Eastern Trans-Pecos/La Junta Sub- Period period Regional Phase Date Range Regional Phase Date Range
Early Clovis Clovis Paleoindian
Middle 10,000-6000 10,000-6000 Paleoindian* Folsom Folsom Paleoindian B.C.* B.C.
Late Plano/Cody Plano/Cody Paleoindian
Early 6000-4000 6500-3000 Early Archaic Early Archaic Archaic B.C. B.C. Middle 4000-1200 3000-1200 Middle Archaic Middle Archaic Archaic Archaic B.C. B.C.
Late 1200 B.C.- 1200 B.C.-A.D. Late Archaic Late Archaic Archaic A.D. 200 900
2-15 65 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 41 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-5. Prehistoric Chronology of the Trans-Pecos Region
Western Trans-Pecos/Jornada Eastern Trans-Pecos/La Junta Sub- Period period Regional Phase Date Range Regional Phase Date Range
Mesilla/Pithouse A.D. 200-1100 Livermore A.D. 900-1200
Dona A.D. 1100- A.D. 1200- La Junta Late Ana/Traditional 1200 1400 Prehistoric / A.D. 1200- Formative** El Paso/Pueblo 1400 A.D. 1400- Conception A.D. 1400- 1683 Post-Pueblo 1500
* The Paleoindian phases are marked by functional and stylistic differences in tool kits, but the lack of chronometric dates precludes any attempt to provide date ranges for each phase (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004) **The Late Prehistoric period in the western Trans-Pecos is referred to as the Formative Period (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004)
2.4.1.1 Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000-6000 B.C.) The Paleoindian period is traditionally characterized by small, highly mobile bands reliant on big- game hunting, including large megafauna such as mammoths (Judge, 1973). While no chronometric dates have been obtained for a Paleoindian occupation of the Trans-Pecos region, evidence in the form of various artifacts and features confirms their presence (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004). Based on the stylistic differences in tool kits, the Paleoindian period is divided into three phases-the Clovis, Folsom, and Plano/Cody phases. Fluted Ianceolate projectile points, characteristic of the Clovis phase, have been discovered in the Trans-Pecos region, providing evidence of a Clovis occupation. In addition, two Clovis habitation sites have been found in the western segment of the Trans-Pecos region (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004).
Evidence from the Folsom phase of the Paleoindian period is far more common than the preceding Clovis phase in the Trans-Pecos region. Folsom tools and sites are well documented throughout the region. The reliance on big game hunting continued during the Folsom phase with an emphasis on bison hunting, specifically the large, extinct species of bison, Bison antiquus. However, the Tularosa/Hueco Bolsons in the Trans-Pecos region present a unique settlement pattern during this phase that seems to have been oriented toward hunting other animals (Amick, 1994).
The end of the Pleistocene, climatic change, and disappearance of megafauna led to the emergence of the late Paleoindian phase and the diversification of point types (Hester and Turner
2-16 66 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 42 of 269
PLAINS--
-PROJECT AREA ~--_L-_L_ ~ I < I rdtJ
EASTERN
TRANS-PECOS
CENTRAL & SOUTHERN
1 1
CULTURAL RESOURCES PLANNING REGION BOUNDARY CULTURAL RESOURCES COUNTY BOUNDARY PLANNING REGIONS 50 100 LJ MILES EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION PHASEI 4-ouganq FIGURE 2-3 EI Paso Electric
O /0161092 10189 EPE EAST LOOP EXPANS]ON\MAP DOCSFIGUREIEA/HASEIIEPE PHASEI EA FIG2 3 CULTURALRESOURCE PLANNINGREGIONS 8Xll NXO USER KNAGY DATE 12~31/2019 2-17 67 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 43 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
2015). The variety of tool traditions of the late Paleoindian phase is grouped into the Plano and Cody complexes. While cultural material from this phase is more common than that of earlier Paleoindian phases, well documented occupation sites are rare in comparison to the Folsom phase (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004).
2.4.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 6000 B.C.-A.D. 900) The continuation of climatic change during the early Holocene "contributed to the large-scale changes in subsistence strategies, requiring a diversification of the Paleoindian subsistence base with a greater focus on exploitation of plant foods" (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004:218). This transition marked the beginning of the Archaic period across the continent around 6000 B.C. Like the Paleoindian period, the Archaic period is typically divided into three phases: the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic. The Archaic period generally represents locally specific adaptation to the Holocene environment. It is during the Archaic period that the eastern and western Trans-Pecos regions distinguish themselves from one another.
The Early Archaic in the Trans-Pecos is poorly represented in the archeological record, which is mainly composed of surface finds and only a few features or substantial settlements. Populations were still organized into small, fairly mobile groups, but changes in projectile point technology suggest a more restricted, seasonally mobile settlement system (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004). Projectile points changed from the Ianceolate points to a variety of stemmed points, and coarser- grained materials were utilized. The projectile point styles began to become more regionally specific during this phase.
The Middle Archaic in the Trans-Pecos saw an increase in populations, resulting in a greater number of settlement sites in the archeological record. The discovery of house structures within Middle Archaic settlements in the Trans-Pecos suggests longer periods of occupation. These structures in the western Trans-Pecos region are "among the earliest evidence for semi-sedentary settlements in the Southwest" (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004:224). The trend of increased regionalization of projectile point forms continued in the Middle Archaic period.
The land use during the Late Archaic was greatly intensified, and the first evidence of agricultural development emerged during this phase. Hunting and gathering remained an important aspect of the economy, but the focus shifted to small game such as rabbits. As a result of a briefly wetter environment in the Trans-Pecos, Late Archaic sites expanded into all ecological zones and promoted interaction among hunting-gathering groups (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004). The use of
2-18 68 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 44 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I dry rock shelters during the Late Archaic period resulted in the better preservation of cultural materials, including fiber netting, basketry, animal skins, and wooden and shell pendants. Thermal features increased in number during the Late Archaic, indicating an intensification of plant processing. Ring middens became prominent features in the Late Archaic, which have been known historically to have been used to cook bulbs such as sotol. Evidence suggests that during this period, populations were increasing and becoming more sedentary with an increasing reliance on agriculture.
2.4.1.3 Late Prehistoric Period (ca. A.D. 900-1683) In the western Trans-Pecos region, the Late Prehistoric (or Formative) period is divided into three phases: the Mesilla, DoAa Ana, and El Paso. During this period, the bow and arrow was introduced, and small- to medium-sized game animals were the primary focus of these groups. Throughout the Formative period, settlement patterns became increasingly standardized. The Mesilla phase witnessed the beginning of the transition to a more sedentary society. While groups still maintained a fair degree of mobility and were primarily dependent on hunting and gathering, the emergence of pithouse architecture along with huts and the presence of some domesticated plant species laid the groundwork for the more agriculturally dependent societies that developed in later phases. El Paso plain brown ceramics are also present in the archeological record as well as some imported wares.
The DoAa Ana phase began constructing surface rooms in addition to pithouses. These changes in architecture and settlement patterns are believed to represent an increasing dependence on agriculture during the Formative period (Binford, 1990). Beginning around A.D. 1000, decoration of local ceramics became more prevalent. This phase also saw an increase in interregional interaction, as evidenced by the increase in nonlocal ceramics.
The El Paso phase represents the apex of the transition from the mobile hunter-gatherers in the Mesilla phase to an increasingly sedentary population. Architecture is seen in the form of pueblos (square or rectangular, multi-roomed structures with caliche plastered walls and floors) (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004). Settlement distribution became markedly more restricted, focusing around well- watered landscapes. The development of water control features during the El Paso phase corresponded with the pronounced agricultural development at this time in comparison to the earlier phases. Thermal and storage features along with the changes in groundstone technologies point to an increase in plant processing. Ceramic decoration continued to be more frequent and more elaborate.
2-19 69 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 45 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
The Late Prehistoric period in the eastern Trans-Pecos region is usually undivided, though two poorly defined phases have been assigned to the eastern Trans-Pecos/La Junta district. These phases are the Livermore and La Junta phases. Throughout most of the eastern Trans-Pecos, few changes took place during the Late Prehistoric in terms of subsistence and mobility aside from the introduction of the bow and arrow (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004). Hunting and gathering continued to be the primary means of subsistence in the region. While small groups across the eastern Trans-Pecos maintained their traditional subsistence patterns from the Late Archaic, they were still knowledgeable of the changes taking place in other regions and even adapted some of the new technologies, such as pottery, to fit their way of life.
However, two distinct regions in the eastern Trans-Pecos, the La Junta district and the Salt Flat Basin, adopted a more agriculturally dependent subsistence pattern during the Late Prehistoric period. These groups were semi-sedentary to sedentary, living in small pithouse villages, growing crops. In general, the changes visible in the archeological record taking place during the Late Prehistoric in the La Junta district followed a similar, though less pronounced, pattern to those in the western Trans-Pecos (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004).
2.4.1.4 Jornada Mogollon Pueblo Culture (A.D. 1275/1300-1450) The project area falls within the Jornada Mogollon region, a culture that inhabited the area during the El Paso/Pueblo sub-period of the Late Prehistoric Period. The Jornada Mogollon Pueblo culture inhabited the Rio Grande Valley along both sides of the Texas/Mexico border and south central New Mexico to the Sacramento Mountains in the east and Chupadero Meso in the north (Miller and Graves, 2009). The region most likely includes the Sacramento-Capitan-Sierra Blanco region northeast of the Tularosa Basin, the La Junta region of Big Bend, and the north-central Chihuahua as well (Miller and Graves, 2009). The basic settlement pattern of the Jornada Mogollon culture appears to be clusters of pueblos in well-watered locations focused on alluvial fans and playas along the major mountain ranges and the Rio Grande Valley (Miller and Graves, 2009).
Many of the pueblos in the region were discovered and recorded in exploratory surveys in the early 1900s with the earliest investigations at pueblos occurring in in 1925-1940. However, the culture did not begin to be defined until the following decade when its material culture, specifically El Paso Polychrome, was identified as a variation of the Mogollon pottery tradition located in south-central New Mexico (Miller and Graves, 2009). An investigation into the pottery by Donald
2-20 70 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 46 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Lehmer in 1940 and his subsequent conclusion that it was a separate variety of the pottery tradition formed the basis for defining the Jornada Mogollon culture (Miller and Graves, 2009).
Lehmer's work did more than identifying the pottery of this culture; he did the first real inventory of the material culture of the Jornada branch of the Mogollon culture. This material culture included El Paso Polychrome, which was the dominant ware and produced locally, several other ceramic varieties, stone palettes, shell and turquoise ornaments, sherd disks, small triangular projectile points, grinding tools, hafted tools, and stone and shell effigies (Miller and Graves, 2009).
During the 1960s and 1970s, a number of the Jornada Mogollon pueblos were excavated due mostly to the El Paso Archeological Society including Hot Well Pueblo (41 EP15) at which multiple rooms have been excavated and provides one of the most comprehensive descriptions of Jornada pueblo architectural variation (Miller and Graves, 2009). Other excavations important in more fully defining the architectural components included those at the Sgt. Doyle Pueblo and Casa Blanca. These sites consisted of multi-component architecture in a combination of pit houses, surface rooms, and small pueblo room blocks (Miller and Graves, 2009). The first real synthesis of the Jornada pueblos was achieved by Mike Marshall in 1973 since, by that time, enough excavations had been done on a total of 15 pueblos to create a comprehensive view. He concluded that Jornada pueblos tended to follow two basic layouts: plaza orientations and linear or multiple-linear room blocks (Miller and Graves, 2009).
The next important synthesis work was Jane Bradley's 1983 work on pueblo subsistence and raw material procurement. Her work showed that the pueblo residents relied not only on the cultivation of corn, beans, and squash, but also a variety of wild plants and riverine animals (Miller and Graves, 2009). Her analysis of chipped and ground stones and several other materials demonstrated a wide range of resources exploited by the pueblos (Miller and Graves, 2009).
In 1986, excavations were conducted by the Texas Archeological Field School at Firecracker Pueblo. However, after that excavation, there was a Iull in research in the Jornada Mogollon region. The next resurgence occurred when Fort Bliss stepped into the field as a major proponent of archeological projects. They sponsored several projects in the 1990s and early 2000s that focused on completing and publishing research on the Hot Well and Sgt. Doyle pueblos. The Fort Bliss Chronometric Project aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of dating methods traditionally used in the Jornada region and revising the regional chronology firmly establishing the dates for the El Paso phase as A.D. 1275/1300-1450 (Miller and Kenmotsu, 2004).
2-21 71 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 47 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
The latest large-scale excavation at a Jornada Mogollon pueblo since the 1980s was conducted at Madera Quemada Pueblo by Geo-Marine, Inc., sponsored by Fort Bliss (Miller and Graves, 2009). Madera Quemada is a fourteenth century Jornada Mogollon pueblo located in south- central New Mexico on the Fort Bliss Military Reservation (Miller and Graves, 2009). Due to extensive burning in the pueblo, the site has a high degree of preservation.
Using five different dating methods on six different samples, the study was able to establish that the pueblo was occupied during the El Paso Phase with the most intense occupations occurring between A.D. 1300 and the early 1400s (Miller and Graves, 2009). The excavation revealed the presence of functionally specialized rooms and that there is little evidence of extensive remodeling or major changes to the functionality of rooms, though there was evidence that some rooms were rearranged (Miller and Graves, 2009). Research into subsistence confirmed the earlier hypothesis that the occupants relied on a broad spectrum subsistence economy composed of wild plants, domesticated plants, and hunting of desert animals. However, the study did add squash to the list of cultivated plants among some pueblos (Miller and Graves, 2009). The study also made an argument for the ritual burning of communal rooms as part of abandonment and ritual termination of the pueblo which included placement of termination objects in certain context, burning of roof remnants, and communal burial of ritual and medicinal paraphernalia (Miller and Graves, 2009).
2.4.1.5 Historical Context European exploration of the area of present-day El Paso County began in the sixteenth century. Spanish explorers charted the way up the Rio Grande in 1582, providing documentation that guided future missionaries and settlers. The name El Paso del Norte, referring to the channel that the Rio Grande River cut through the Franklin Mountains, first appeared in print in 1610 in accounts of the Onate expedition of 1598, which claimed the territory of the upper Rio Grande for Spain. The Spanish established the Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe Mission in present-day Ciudad Juarez in 1659, but broader settlement of the area began in earnest in 1680, when a group of Spanish settlers fled New Mexico and relocated to the El Paso area after a Native American uprising (Bryson, 2010 and Timmons, 2010a). Members of two Native American groups, the Tiguas and the Piros, accompanied the Spanish to the valley. Within two years, five settlements south of the river developed, and a royal highway, or camino real, allowed goods and people to move through the area, which quickly became a trade center.
In 1789, the settlement of San Elizario began to grow around a Spanish presidio that relocated to that site from its original location south of the Rio Grande (Kohout, 2010). After Mexican
2-22 72 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 48 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I independence in 1821, Juan Maria Ponce de Leon received a land grant at the site of present- day downtown El Paso, where he farmed and ranched. Benjamin Franklin Coons later purchased the land and operated a mercantile store there by the late 1840s (Timmons, 2010 and 2010a).
The United States annexed the Republic of Texas in December 1845, making Texas the nation's 28th state. After the Mexican War and Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, the land north of the Rio Grande became part of the United States. In March 1848, the Texas state legislature established Santa Fe County, which originally encompassed present day El Paso County and much of the surrounding area, including portions of west Texas and much of present-day New Mexico. A group of American soldiers, livestock, and emigrants reached El Paso in June 1849, and established a post. The following year, the state legislature created El Paso County (along with three other counties) when it subdivided Santa Fe County (Bryson, 2010).
At the time El Paso County was established in 1849, five Anglo-American settlements were present north of the Rio Grande, including San Elizario (Timmons, 2010). San Elizario was the first county seat, and remained so until 1873, with an interruption from 1866-1868 when Ysleta briefly served as the county seat. The Military Road from Corpus Christi to California ran through the area, and in the 1840s, it led many Forty-Niners west to take part in the California Gold Rush. At that time, travelers noted the agricultural products cultivated in the area of El Paso County including peaches, wheat, and wine produced from locally-grown grapes (Kohout, 2010). The U.S. Army established Fort Bliss in 1854, and, five years later, the town of El Paso was platted. To limit confusion between the cities sharing a border and name, in 1888, El Paso del Norte was renamed Ciudad Juarez (Timmons, 2010).
The county's population reached over 4,400 residents by 1860. Shortly after Texas seceded from the U.S. in 1861, Fort Bliss was surrendered to the Confederate army, but the U.S. Army's California Column reclaimed the fort a short time later, and it remained under Union control throughout the remainder of the Civil War. Though the war did not cause damage to the city's infrastructure as it did in other places, the county's economy suffered for over a decade. In 1870, only one farm was located in the county. By 1880, however, the downturn reversed, and 279 farms and ranches were operating in the county (Bryson, 2010). The uptick came just before a period of rampant growth in the county as a result of the expansion of railroads into El Paso.
In 1881, four railroads (Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway; the Texas and Pacific Railway; the Southern Pacific Railroad; and the Galveston, Harrisburg and San Antonio Railway) reached El Paso, followed by a fifth (Mexican Central Railway) in 1882. The railroads elevated the town of
2-23 73 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 49 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
El Paso's role as a transportation hub, and in 1883, El Paso became the county seat. San Elizario, which the railroads bypassed, began a population decline that lasted until the 1940s. Overall, however, the railroads rapidly accelerated the county's growth-the county's population jumped from 3,845 in 1880 to 15,678 in 1890 (Bryson, 2010). The number of manufacturers operating in El Paso County grew from 4 in 1880 to 73 in 1890. In 1887, the Kansas City Smelting and Refining Company opened a smelter in El Paso, which grew into the American Smelting and Refining Company (ASARCO), a major employer in the area for over a century (Timmons, 2010).
The county experienced several significant changes in the early twentieth century. Culberson and Hudspeth counties were formed from El Paso County in 1912 and 1917, respectively. Despite its reduction in size, between 1900 and 1920, the population of El Paso County increased from 24,886 to 101,887 residents. In 1916, the Elephant Butte Dam in New Mexico was completed, generating electricity for thousands of residents, farmers, and manufacturers, and assuring water for irrigation for the growing agricultural sector. The number of farms in the county increased during the early twentieth century, growing from 318 in 1900 to 669 in 1910, with sorghum and fruit trees being the most widely planted crops. The number of cattle raised in the county also rose dramatically, with almost 95,000 cattle present in 1910-up from 1,631 in 1890 (Bryson, 2010). The Texas School of Mines and Metallurgy opened in 1914, and the institution became a branch of the University of Texas in 1919 (Hamilton, 2010).
In the 1920s, along with the previously mentioned crops, poultry production and cotton cultivation increased in El Paso County, and by 1929, over 1,200 farms were operating within the county. Three major oil refineries opened in El Paso in 1928 and 1929. The manufacturing sector maintained its strength, with 160 manufacturers in the county in 1930, employing a total of 6,224 workers (Bryson, 2010). As a result of Prohibition, El Paso also grew into a tourist destination, as Americans used the city as a gateway for travel to Juarez where they could imbibe legally. The city of El Paso's population reached 77,560 in 1925 (Timmons, 2010)
As was the case throughout the U.S., the Great Depression affected the economy and population of El Paso County. Farming and manufacturing both decreased, driving up unemployment and migration out of the county. During World War Il, the production efforts for the war effort helped bolster the local economy. Fort Bliss was enlarged, which helped the county recover from the downturn of the Great Depression. After the war, the fort continued to serve as a major part of the local economy throughout the twentieth century, and in 1980, the post accounted for an estimated one out of every five dollars in the city's economy (Timmons, 2010).
2-24 74 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 50 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Following World War Il and throughout the remainder of the twentieth century, manufacturing in El Paso continued to grow steadily. In 1947,148 manufacturers employed 6,167 people; by 1982, the figures jumped to 471 manufacturers employing approximately 38,300 workers. Correspondingly, the county's population grew steadily throughout the century, increasing from 194,968 in 1950 to over 590,000 in 1992; the city of El Paso's population grew from 130,003 to 563,662 during the same period (Bryson, 2010 and Timmons, 2010). Across the Rio Grande, Ciudad Juarez also grew throughout the century, becoming the largest Mexican city on the border. Together, El Paso and Juarez became the largest binational urban area on the Mexican-American border by 1983. Interstate 10 runs through El Paso, which maintains its role as a transportation hub.
In the later years of the twentieth century, agriculture continued to play an important role in the county, with over 600 farms and ranches operating there in 2002. The former Texas School of Mines and Metallurgy became the University of Texas at El Paso in 1967, its enrollment growing to over 15,000 by 1977 (Hamilton, 2010). Aside from agriculture and higher education, the military, wholesale and retail distribution, food processing, and assorted manufacturing operations remained key elements of the local economy into the early 2000s. El Paso remained the most populous city, with cities including Horizon City, San Elizario, and Fabens serving as smaller population centers in the county (Bryson, 2010).
2.4.2 Records Review For this study, HDR personnel consulted several sources of information, with the overall goal of identifying prehistoric and historic archeological sites, historic properties, and historic cemeteries that fall within the study area. Data sources include the site atlas and database maintained by the THC, the NRHP database maintained by the NPS, soil maps and soil map unit descriptions produced by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and its predecessors, and geological data provided by the USGS for El Paso County. Historical markers were also included in the search, as they often denote locations of historical interest not reflected in other data sources. This work also included analysis of geological, soil, and Iandform data to identify high probability areas for as-yet-undocumented archeological sites.
The THC's Archeological Sites Atlas was consulted to determine if any archeological sites are recorded within the study area, as well as their status for eligibility for and listing as historic properties. These records indicate five previous archeological projects in the study area as well
2-25 75 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 51 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I as 54 previously recorded archeological sites. No historical markers, NRHP-listed properties or districts, or historic-age structures have been recorded within the study area.
2.4.2.1 Previously Recorded Archeological Sites The THC records indicate that none of the 54 archeological sites in the study area are currently listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP (Table 2-6). Only one of the sites located within the study area (41 EP5269) has been evaluated for NRHP-eligibility, and it has been determined as ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The remaining 53 sites have not been evaluated for the NRHP. All of the sites except for one (41 EP286) are prehistoric. Site 41 EP286 is a multicomponent site consisting of a prehistoric Iithic procurement location and a historic house site. Three of the prehistoric sites are notable: (1) site 41EP4 consists of Pueblo ruins from the Jornada Mogollon cultural period, (2) site 41 EP316 consists of a possible pit house, and (3) site 41 EP4436 consists of a village site. The remainder of the sites include the following site types: campsites, rock shelters, Iithic scatters, artifact scatters, hearth features, Iithic procurement and workshops, and middens (see Table 2-6).
Table 2-6 Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within the Study Area NRHP Comments / Identifier Affiliation Features/ Function Eligibility Recommendations 41EP3 Prehistoric Campsite Unknown Prehistoric Avoidance 41EP4 Pueblo ruins Unknown (Jornada Mogollon) recommended 41EP36 Prehistoric Rock shelters Unknown 41EP221 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP231 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP235 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP236 Prehistoric Exposed hearth Unknown 41EP237 Prehistoric Exposed heanh Unknown 41EP248 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP249 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP250 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP251 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP252 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP253 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP254 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP255 Prehistoric Exposed hearth Unknown 41EP256 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP286 Prehistoric / Lithic procurement / Unknown Historic house site 41EP313 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown
2-26 76 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 52 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-6 Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within the Study Area NRHP Comments / Identifier Affiliation Features/ Function Eligibility Recommendations 41EP314 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown Avoidance 41EP316 Prehistoric Possible pithouse Unknown recommended 41EP865 Unknown Unknown Unknown 41EP866 Unknown Unknown Unknown 41EP867 Unknown Unknown Unknown 41EP2073 Unknown Unknown Unknown 41EP4413 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP4414 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown 41EP4415 Prehistoric Hearths Unknown 41EP4416 Prehistoric Open artifact scatter Unknown 41EP4417 Prehistoric Open artifact scatter Unknown Lithic scatter and hearth 41EP4418 Prehistoric Unknown feature 41EP4419 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Unknown 41EP4420 Prehistoric Hearths Unknown 41EP4421 Prehistoric Artifact scatter Unknown Lithic scatter and hearth 41EP4422 Prehistoric Unknown feature 41 EP4423 Prehistoric Lithic workshop Unknown Lithic scatter and hearth 41EP4424 Prehistoric Unknown feature Ceramic scatter and 41EP4425 Prehistoric Unknown hearth feature 41EP4426 Prehistoric Artifact scatter Unknown 41EP4427 Prehistoric Artifact scatter Unknown 41EP4428 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Unknown 41EP4429 Prehistoric Artifact scatter Unknown 41EP4430 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Unknown 41EP4431 Prehistoric Isolated Iithic find Unknown 41EP4432 Prehistoric Ceramic scatter Unknown Artifact scatter and 41EP4433 Prehistoric Unknown hearth feature Ring midden and Iithic 41EP4434 Prehistoric Unknown scatter Artifact scatter and 41EP4435 Prehistoric Unknown burned rock Avoidance 41EP4436 Prehistoric Village site Unknown recommended Artifact scatter and 41EP4437 Prehistoric Unknown hearth feature Ar-tifact scatter and 41EP4438 Prehistoric Unknown hearth feature 41EP5258 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown
2-27 77 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 53 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase l
Table 2-6 Previously Recorded Archeological Sites within the Study Area NRHP Comments / Identifier Affiliation Features/ Function Eligibility Recommendations 41EP5259 Prehistoric Open campsite Unknown - 41EP5269 Prehistoric Campsite Ineligible - THC, 2019
2.4.2.2 Previous Investigations A total of 5 surveys have been conducted in the study area. Previous investigations include 1 linear project and 4 project areas. One of the surveys crosses diagonally across the study area, but the majority of the study area remains unsurveyed. Details of each survey are described in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7 Previous Investigations Conducted within the Study Area Identifier Year Author/Sponsor Report Title/Description
8400008210 1995 - -
Cultural Resources Survey of 20-Acres for a 8500012197 2005 Gibbs, Victor Proposed Wastewater Interceptor System in Horizon City, El Paso, Texas
8500009366 1997 - - Intensive Cultural Resources Survey for Portions Martin, Miles, Ashley of the Proposed 17-Mile El Paso Natural Gas 8500080453 2017 Eyeington, Brandon Young Mainline Expansion Project on Public Lands in El Paso and Hudspeth Counties, Texas Intensive Cultural Resources Survey for Portions Martin, Miles, Ashley of the Proposed 17-Mile El Paso Natural Gas 8500080543 2017 Eyeington, Christina Nielson Mainline Expansion Project on Public Lands in El Paso and Hudspeth Counties, Texas THC, 2019
2.4.2.3 Geology, Soils, and Landforms The majority of the study area is underlain by Windblown sand of Holocene age with portions underlain by Young Quaternary deposits of Holocene age, Hueco Limestone of Permian age, and the Magdalena Formation of Pennsylvanian age (USGS, 2019). The majority of the soils within the study area include shallow sands. See Section 2.6.4 for a more thorough discussion of the soils in the study area. Landforms within the study area include mainly sand sheets, dunes, alluvial fans, and alluvial fan remnants. High probability areas for cultural resources include areas within 300 feet of water sources and elevated Iandforms.
2-28 78 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 54 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY Resource inventory data were collected for physiography, geology, soils, surface waters, wetlands, and ecological resource areas. These data were mapped within the study area utilizing GIS layers. Additional data collection activities consisted of file and record reviews conducted with the various state and federal regulatory agencies, a review of published literature, and review of various maps and aerial photographs. Maps and data layers reviewed included USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps, Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) Geologic Atlas maps, NWI maps, FEMA floodplain maps, TxDOT county highway maps, and county appraisal district land parcel boundary maps.
2.5.1 Ecological Region Within the Level Ill Ecoregions, the study area is located in the Chihuahuan Desert (USEPA, 2013). This desert ecoregion extends from the Madrean Archipelago in southeast Arizona to the Edwards Plateau in south-central Texas. It is the northern portion of the southernmost desert in North America that extends more than 500 miles south into Mexico. It is generally a continuation of basin and range terrain that is typical of the Mojave Basin and Range and Sonoran Basin and Range ecoregions to the west, although the pattern of alternating mountains and valleys is not as pronounced. Vegetative cover is predominantly desert grassland and arid shrubland, except for high elevation islands of oak, juniper, and pinyon pine woodland. The extent of desert shrubland is increasing across Iowlands and mountain foothills due to gradual desertification caused in part by historical grazing pressure (Wiken et al. 2011, Griffith et al., 2007). The study area is located on the boundary of the Chihuahuan Desert Grasslands and Chihuahuan Desert Basins and Playas Level IV Ecoregions (Griffith et al., 2007).
2.5.2 Physiography and Geology 2.5.2.1 Physiography As shown in Figure 2-4, the study area is located within the Trans-Pecos Basin and Range Physiographic Region of Texas. This is a large physiographic region that extends across Far West Texas and the southwestern United States. In Texas, the area is bordered by the Rio Grande River to the west, and the High Plains and Edwards Plateau Physiographic Regions to the east. The region is characterized by abruptly rising, north/south oriented mountain ranges within barren, rocky plains. Adjacent to the mountains are volcanic deposits and plains with plateaus but nearly horizontally-oriented rocks. The study area is located in the plains at the base of the Hueco Mountains , an area typically vegetated with sparsely growing creosote bush ( Larrea tridentata) and Iechuguilla shrubs (Agave Iechugui #a ). (BEG , 1996 )
2-29 79 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 55 of 269
1 2 PROJECT AREA 1 1 f€ff 1 t_ T
~-~ PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGION BOUNDARY 1- HIGH PLAINS PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS 2- NORTH·CENTRAL PLAINS OF TEXAS 0 50 100 3- GRAND PRAIRIE vlILES 4- BLACKLAND PRAIRIES EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION ~ INTERIOR COASTAL PLAINS PHASEI 6+ GULF COASTAL PRAIRIES cltic 7- EDWARDS PLATEAU 8· CENTRAL TEXAS UPUFT ER 9· TRANS-PECOS BASIN & RANGE FIGURE 2-4 El Paso Electric ~~ COUNTY BOUNDARY
PATH O ~10161092 10189 EPE EAST LOOP EXPANSIONWMAP DOCS\FIGUREIEA\PHASEI\EPE PHASEI EA FIG2 4 PHYSIOGRAPHIC REGIONS Bxll MXD · USER KNAGY·DATE 12/31/2019 2-30 80 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 56 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Geologic formations occurring within the study area include primarily Holocene aged formations (BEG, 1991). Descriptions of these mapped geologic formations are provided in the following sections.
Holocene aged formations within the study area include Windblown sand and sand dunes in addition to colluvium and fans made up of Young Quaternary deposits. Alluvium deposits contain floodplain and channel deposits comprised of clay, silt, sand, gravel, and organic matter. The alluvium deposits are located within the lowest terraces and locally within the bedrock of stream channels with a thickness of approximately 30 feet (BEG, 1991).
2.5.2.2 Geological Hazards The majority of the study area is composed of quaternary deposits, mostly windblown sands. As such, no geologic hazards are anticipated (NRCS, 2019). No known karst geology or other karst features are known within the study area or region (TSS, 1994). No historical coal mining activities have occurred within the region or currently occur within the study area (RRC, 2019a). One building materials quarry (West Quarry) is located in the northwest corner of the study area (Figure 2-2).
Review of the TCEQ State Superfund Site and Leaking Petroleum Storage Tank databases did not indicate any listed sites within the study area (TCEQ, 2019a and 2019b). Review of the Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Site database did not indicate any listed sites within El Paso County (USEPA, 2019).
2.5.3 Vegetation 2.5.3.1 Vegetation Types The study area is located within the Trans-Pecos vegetational area of Texas (Figure 2-5, Gould et al., 1960). According to the Ecological Mapping System of Texas (EMST), there are 17 vegetation types and two additional non-vegetational cover types for the study area (Elliot et al., 2014, TPWD, 2019c); however, eight of the 19 mapped types combined make up less than three percent of the study area. These eight types are excluded from discussion due to their very minimal representation in the study area.
Terrestrial habitats within the study area include desert shrubland, desert scrub, desert grassland, and desert wash drainages. The landscape is dissected by roads (paved and unpaved), pipeline corridors, utility lines, and some rural residential areas. Based on field reconnaissance and aerial
2-31 81 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 57 of 269
8 9
PROJECTAREA 354 31 10 0 7 2
6
N ~ VEGETATIONAL AREA BOUNDARY - PINEYWOODS 2 - GULF PRAIRIESAND MARSHES VEGETATIONAL AREAS 3 - POST OAK SAVANNAH OF TEXAS 0 50 100 - BIACKLAND PRAIRIES
.'Ill ES t!,<6:obd, CROSS TIMBERS AND PRAIRIES EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION SOUTH TEXAS PLAINS PHASEI EDWARDS PLATEAU d:ic ROLLING PLAINS HIGH PLAINS ER 10- TRANS-PECOS FIGURE 2-5 El Paso Electric COUNTY BOUNDARY
PATH O ~10161092 10189 EPE EAST L{ OP EXPANSIONNAP DOCSIFIGURES\EAIPHASEMPE PHASEI EA FIG2 5 VEGETATIONALAREAS /xll MXO · USER KNAGY·DATE 12/31/2019 2-32 82 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 58 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I interpretation, the EMST mapped types accurately represent the vegetation and cover types in the study area. Table 2-8 includes the vegetation types and a brief description of the mapped vegetation communities.
Table 2-8 Vegetation Types Mapped in the Study Area Vegetation Type Vegetation Type Description North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Dunes This system occupies the deep sands adjacent to the Salt Basin west of the Guadalupe Mountains, and the Hueco Basin along the Rio Grande. These sands are characterized by sparsely vegetated active dunes as well as stabilized dunes colonized by species such as giant dropseed (Sporobolus giganteusl mesa dropseed (Sporobo/us f/exuosus), sand dropseed (Sporobo/us cryptandms), spike dropseed (Sporobolus contractus), black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), purple threeawn (Aristida purpurea), honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa), broom pea (Psorothamnus scoparius), sand sage (Artemisia filifolia), soaptree yucca ( Yucca e / ata ), grassland croton ( Croton dioicus), spectacle pod (Dimorphocarpa wislizenij, plains sunflower (Helianthus petiolaris), rayed palafoxia (Palafoxia sphacelata), bindweed heliotrope (Heliotropium convolvulaceum), annual wild buckwheat (Eriogonum annuurn), winged sandpuffs (Tripterocalyx cameus), wooly bluestar (Amsonia tomentosa var . stenophylla), devil ' s horn (Proboscidea althaeifolia), and Ieafy skyrocket (lpomopsis wrightil This system includes shrubby sites on coppice dunes associated with aeolian sands of the Trans-Pecos, often resulting from degradation of grasslands of the North American Warm Desert Active and Stabilized Trans-Pecos: Desert Deep Dunes or the Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-Desert Grassland. Sand and Dune Shrubland Honey mesquite and sand sage are the commonest dominants, but (39%) other woody species include soaptree yucca, tree cholla (Cylindropuntia imbricata), four - wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens), and Mormon tea (Ephedra spp .). Herbaceous species of the adjacent grasslands are common. This system occupies the deep sands adjacent to the Salt Basin west of the Guadalupe Mountains and the Hueco Basin along the Rio Grande. These sands are characterized by sparsely vegetated active dunes as well as stabilized dunes colonized by species such as giant Trans-Pecos: Sand Dune (6%) dropseed, mesa dropseed, sand dropseed, spike dropseed, black grama, little bluestem, purple threeawn, honey mesquite, sand sage, soaptree yucca, grassland croton, plains sunflower, annual wild buckwheat, winged sandpuffs, and Ieafy skyrocket. Trans-Pecos: Desert Deep Stabilized sand dunes with primarily herbaceous cover, though some Sand and Dune Grassland (3%) woody species may be present. Mainly Natural Azonal Mapped Types Azonal types are those types that are widespread and not particularly characteristic of any region or naturally occurring vegetation type. This may be due to disturbance, where wide-ranging species adapted to disturbed conditions predominate. In other areas, land management may have resulted in invasion of widespread species such as juniper or mesquite. Azonal types may also be used to refer to general physiognomic types that are not ascribable to particular naturally occurring systems. Honey mesquite is often the dominant species of this broadly-defined type , but species such as huisache , sugar hackberry (Celtis laevigata), Ashe juniper , cedar elm , Iotebush (Ziziphus obtusifolia), agarito, winged elm, sumacs (Rhus spp.), common persimmon Native Invasive: Mesquite (Diospyros virginiana), Texas persimmon (Diospyros texana), Shrubland granjeno (Celtis ehrenbergiana), and Lindheimer pricklypear ( Opuntia engelmannii var . Iindheimeri) may also be important . Trees such as plateau live oak, coastal live oak, or post oak may form a sparse canopy.
2-33 83 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 59 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-8 Vegetation Types Mapped in the Study Area Vegetation Type Vegetation Type Description North American Warm Desert Wash This system occurs on flashy, intermittently fiooded, often dry washes and arroyos on lower mountain slopes, plains, and basins. These drainages are often embedded within a matrix of desert shrublands and/or grasslands. Washes may be sparsely vegetated, rocky, gravelly, or sandy drainageways, to patchy shrublands to almost continuous shrublands along the drainages. Woody species found in and adjacent to these washes include catclaw (Acacia greggiij , splitleaf brickellbush (Brickellia laciniata), seepwillow (Baccharis salicifolia), desert willow (Chilopsis linearis), Iittleleaf sumac (Rhus microphylla), little - leaf ash (Fraxinus greggib, Iittleleaf Ieadtree ( Leucaena retusa ), smooth sotol ( Dasylirion Ieiophyllum), and honey mesquite . Scattered individuals of netleaf hackberry (Celtis laevigata var . re # cu /ata ), desert willow , southwestern black willow (Salix gooddingiij, little walnut Wuglans microcarpa), or other species may form a very sparse overstory. Shrubs from the surrounding upland shrubland, such as creosote bush , skeleton - leaf golden eye (Viguiera stenoloba), tarbush (Flourensia cemua), and redberry juniper (Juniperus pinchotiB may be commonly encountered . Trans-Pecos: Desert Wash Shrub dominated desert drainages sometimes with a sporadic Shrubland (3%) emergent overstory of scattered trees. Trans-Pecos: Desert Wash Sparsely vegetated sandy, gravelly, rocky stretches of desert Barren (2%) drainages. Chihuahuan Sandy Plains Semi-desert Grassland This grassland or steppe occurs on sandy plains throughout the Trans-Pecos and into the arid southern portions of the High Plains. The herbaceous layer is often dominated by grasses such as black grama, mesa dropseed , sand dropseed , sand muhly (Muhlenbergia arenicola), alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), common sandbur ( Cenchms spinifex ), and purple threeawn . Species such as honey mesquite , soaptree yucca, plains yucca (Yucca campestris), Torrey's yucca (Yucca torreyO, and creosote bush may occur as a scattered woody component . The non - native species Lehmann Iovegrass (Eragrostis /ehmanniana) and Mediterranean Iovegrass (Eragrostis barre/jen) are frequently found in this system. This grassland occurs on sandy plains throughout the Trans-Pecos and into the arid southern portions of the High Plains. The herbaceous layer is often dominated by grasses such as black grama, mesa dropseed, sand dropseed, sand muhly, alkali sacaton, common Trans-Pecos: Sandy Desert sandbur, and purple threeawn. Species such as honey mesquite, Grassland (10%) soaptree yucca, plains yucca, Torrey's yucca, and creosote bush may occur as a scattered woody component. The non-native species Lehmann Iovegrass and Mediterranean Iovegrass are frequently found in this system. This grassland system sometimes occurs in association with Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thornscrub and may have shrubs of that system present. The herbaceous layer may be dense, but typically much bare ground or rock is visible. Grasses dominate the layer with species such as black grama , sideoats grama (Bouteloua Trans - Pecos : Hill and Foothill curtipendula), curlyleaf muhly (Muhlenbergia setifolia), chino grama Grassland ( 2 %) (Bouteloua ramosaj , bush muhly (Muhlenbergia porter), sixweeks grama (Bouteloua barbata), Arizona cottontop (Digitaria californica), and threeawns (Aristida spp.). On some slopes, species such as smooth sotol , Texas sacahuista (Nolina texana), Engelmann pricklypear (Opun#a enge/mannii), Iechuguilla, Torrey's yucca and/or Ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens) may be conspicuous . Chihuahuan Creosotebush Desert Scrub This system typically occurs on flat and gently rolling Iandforms, often on gravelly alluvial plains occupying outwash plains and those on intermountain basins. Creosote bush is usually the clear dominant, though species such as mariola (Parthenium incanurn), acacia (Acacia constricta), tarbush , and / or honey mesquite may be present. On some sites, particularly hot desert sites at low elevations, succulents such as ocotillo, Iechuguilla, Torrey's yucca, pricklypears (Opuntia spp.), and hedgehog cacti (Echinocereus spp.) may be conspicuous.
2-34 84 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 60 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-8 Vegetation Types Mapped in the Study Area Vegetation Type Vegetation Type Description Trans-Pecos: Creosotebush This system typically occurs on flat and gently rolling Iandforms, often Scrub (5%) on gravelly alluvial plains occupying outwash plains and those on intermountain basins. Creosote bush is usually the clear dominant, though species such as mariola, whitethorn acacia, tarbush, and/or honey mesquite may be present. On some sites, particularly hot desert sites at low elevations, succulents such as ocotillo, Iechuguilla, Torrey's yucca, pricklypears, and hedgehog cacti may be conspicuous. This type occupies areas of the intermontane basin plains with low Trans-Pecos: Sparse vegetative cover, often with significant desert pavement under a Creosotebush Scrub (2%) sparse canopy of almost monotypic creosote bush. Chihuahuan Mixed Desert and Thornscrub In this Chihuahuan Desert of Texas, this ecological system is widely distributed and often occupies footslopes and hilly Iandforms of Iimestones, sandstones, and igneous strata, though it is best developed on Iimestones. This shrubland can occur in proximity to Apacherian-Chihuahuan Semi-Desert Grassland and Steppe, Chihuahuan Creosotebush Desert Scrub, and/or Chihuahuan Succulent Desert Scrub. Creosote bush , mariola , javelina bush (Condalia ericoides), catclaw mimosa ( Mimosa acu / eaticarpa var . biuncifera), Torrey ' s yucca , whitethorn acacia, Iechuguilla, smooth sotol, skeleton-leaf golden eye, cenizo (Leucophy#um spp.), and honey mesquite) are often present Trans-Pecos: Mixed Desert to dominant, but numerous shrub species may be present. It differs Scrubland (2%) from Chihuahuan Creosotebush Desert Scrub in having a diversity of shrub species present and is not a nearly monotypic stand of creosotebush. Herbaceous cover is generally low with species such as black grama, chino grama, sideoats grama, purple threeawn, fluff grass (Dasyoch/oa pu/che//a), and curlyleaf muhly Elliott et al., 2014
For the purpose of this environmental assessment, emphasis was placed on obtaining known locations of unique vegetative communities that have been previously documented within the study area. A GIS shapefile and element occurrence report of known occurrences of sensitive vegetative communities was requested from the Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) on June 27,2019. TPWD (2019a) has no documented occurrences of unique or unusual vegetation communities or associations within the study area. It should be noted that the TXNDD report is not substituted as presence or absence survey data, but it is used during this study as an indication of whether a unique vegetation community has previously been documented within the study area.
2.5.3.2 Aquatic and Hydric Habitats Aquatic habitats within the Arid West Region are typically limited to wetlands and other shallow aquatic habitats (USACE, 2008). Within the study area, aquatic habitats are classified as ephemeral or intermittent.
2-35 85 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 61 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Mapped wetland information was derived using NWI (USFWS, 2019) and NHD (USGS, 2019a) maps. NWI maps are based on topography and interpretation of infrared satellite data and color aerial photographs and are classified under the Cowardin System (Cowardin et al., 1979). These maps are typically conservative estimates of wetlands, primarily because the hydrology of the area has likely been modified by ground disturbing activities, such as farming, channelized streams, or installation of Ievees and drainages. NWI maps identify no wetland features within the study area, only freshwater ponds and riverine systems (USFWS, 2019). NHD classified all of the lake/pond and reservoir habitats as intermittent and all of the stream/river features as ephemeral (USGS, 2019a)
Trans-Pecos: Lower Montane Riparian Shrubland is the only aquatic or hydric habitat likely to be present within the study area, though only a small amount. Typical species composition in this habitat type are seepwillow , Apache plume (Fallugia paradoxa), catclaw mimosa , willows (Salix spp .), and common buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) ( Elliott et al ., 2014 ).
2.5.4 Soils The Web Soil Survey, published by the NRCS for El Paso County was reviewed (NRCS, 2019) to identify and characterize the soils occurring within the study area.
Soil associations identified within the study area are provided in Table 2-9. A soil association map unit consists of one or more major soil series and other minor soils. Table 2-9 also indicates if any mapped soil series are considered hydric and/or prime farmlands (NRCS, 2019).
The soil associations occurring within the study area include the Hueco-Wink, Wink, Dune land, Mimbres, Rock outcrop-Lozier, Simona, Agustin, Lozier, and Pajarito. The Hueco-Wink association is located throughout the majority of the southwest, west, and north-central portions of the study area. These soils are generally sand sheets with a slight rise. The Wink association is located throughout the majority of the central, east, and north-central portions of the study area. These soils are generally sand sheets with a concave Iandform. The Dune land is located throughout the study area. These soils are derived from eolian sands. The Rock outcrop-Lozier association is located in the northeast corner of the study area, at West Quarry, and in other isolated pockets of the study area. These soils are typically on hillslopes, knobs on hillslopes, and Iedges on hillslopes. The Mimbres association is located in the north-central portion of the study area and in other isolated pockets. These soils are generally associated with drainages and floodplains. The Simona association is generally located in the eastern portion of the study area,
2-36 86 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 62 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I nearest to the mountains. These soils are generally remnant fans. The Agustin association is located in the northeast corner of the study area, near the base of the mountains. These soils are generally alluvial fans at a footslope. The Lozier association is scattered throughout the study area. These soils are generally found on the side and back slopes of hills. The Pajarito association is found in one location in the north-central portion of study area, along a floodplain. These soils are generally alluvial fans.
Table 2-9 Mapped Soil Units within the Study Area
Percent Prime Hydric Soil Map Unit Description of Study Farmland Soil Area Soil El Paso County Loamy fine sand and fine sandy Ioam; moderately Hueco-Wink deep; well drained; association, moderately rapid 38 No No hummocky permeability; nearly level to gently sloping plains of basin floors Fine sandy Ioam; very Wink association ' deep; well drained; on 27 No NO level moderately sloping uplands Dune land Fine sand; deep 16 No NO Silt Ioam; deep; moderately well drained; moderately Mimbres slow permeability; in 5 No No association, level shallow water courses and playas of upland valleys; Bedrock knobs, Iedges, free faces on hillslopes; stony Rock outcrop - Ioam; very shallow; well 5 No No Lozier association drained; on hills, foot slopes, and side slopes Gravelly Ioam; shallow and Simona very shallow; well drained; association, moderate permeability; 4 No No undulating outwash material from mountains Gravelly Ioam; deep; well Agustin drained; moderately association, permeable; alluvial fans 3 No No undulating and footslopes of mountains Stony Ioam; very shallow; Lozier association, well drained; on hills, back 1 No NO hilly slopes and side slopes Fine sandy Ioam; deep; well Pajarito drained; moderate association, level permeability; gently sloping 1 No No on alluvial fans NRCS, 2019
2-37 87 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 63 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
2.5.4.1 Prime Farmland Soils The Secretary of Agriculture, within U.S.C. §7-4201(c)(1)(A), defines prime farmland soils as those soils that have the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. They have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods. Additional potential prime farmlands are those soils that meet most of the requirements of prime farmland, but fail because they lack the installation of water management facilities or they lack sufficient natural moisture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) would consider these soils prime farmland if such practices were installed. According to the NRCS-Web Soil Survey (NRCS, 2019), no soils mapped within the study area are designated as prime farmland.
Typically, the NRCS does not consider power lines to be a conversion of prime farmlands because the site can still be used for farming after construction, and these projects are normally exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy Act.
2.5.5 Water Resources Water resources evaluated in this study include surface water and groundwater. Information on water resources within the study area was obtained from a variety of sources, including the TWDB, USGS topographical maps, TPWD, TCEQ, FEMA, and aerial photographs (Google, 2018).
2.5.5.1 Surface Waters The study area is located within the Rio Grande River basin (TWDB, 2016) and sits approximately 13 miles east of the Rio Grande. The local watersheds within the study area include the Franklin Drain-Rio Grande Watershed (HUC 12: 130401000203) (106 ac.), Powwow Canyon Watershed (HUC 12: 130401000302) (8,385 ac.), Phoneline Canyon-Fourmile Draw Watershed (HUC 12: 130401000303) (19,084 ac.), San Felipe Arroyo Watershed (HUC 12: 130401000304) (610 ac.), Island Spur Drain-Rio Grande Watershed (HUC 12: 130401000305) (518 ac.), and Lake Tank Watershed (HUC 12: 130401000404) (3,495 ac). The study area drains 32,199 ac. of these watersheds southwest to the Rio Grande.
Surface waters and their associated wetlands located within the study area are potentially subject to USACE regulations as "waters of the U.S." under Section 404 of the CWA. No streams within
2-38 88 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 64 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I the study area are classified as "navigable waters of the U.S." under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 according to the list published by the USACE Albuquerque District.
2.5.5.2 Floodplains Available floodplain and fioodway data were digitized from FEMA Firm panels. The 100-year flood (1% flood or base flood) represents a flood event that has al% chance of being equaled or exceeded for any given year. FEMA-mapped 100-year floodplain accounts for 966.5 acres (3%) of the study area (FEMA, 1991). Mapped floodplains can be seen on Figure 1-2.
2.5.5.3 Ground Water The Hueco-Mesilla Bolson aquifer is the major groundwater aquifer (TWDB, 2006 and 2011) within the study area. The Hueco-Mesilla Bolson is the principal aquifer for the El Paso area and Ciudad Juarez in Mexico- nearly 90 percent of the water pumped from the Mesilla and the Hueco bolsons in Texas is used for public supply (TWDB, 2011). The Hueco-Mesilla Bolson aquifer is located east and west of the Franklin Mountains in Far West Texas and occurs within the study area as a subsurface aquifer consisting of basin-fill deposits of silt, sand, gravel, and clay in two basins, or bolsons: the Hueco Bolson and the Mesilla Bolson (TWDB, 2011). The Hueco Bolson is about 9,000 feet thick and consists of silt, sand, and gravel in the upper part and silt and clay in the lower part. The Mesilla Bolson is about 2,000 feet thick and consists of clay, silt, sand, and gravel. There are no minor aquifers in the study area (TWDB, 2017).
Review of the TWDB (2019) water well data indicated 20 water wells used for withdrawal of water located within the study area. Fifteen of these wells are owned by El Paso County Water Authority for public water supply with an average depth of 550 feet. One well is a domestic water well, and one is a livestock water well with an average depth of 400 feet. Two of the remaining wells are unused, and one well is plugged. Review of the USGS topographic maps and the literature did not indicate any springs within the study area (USGS, 2019b, 2019c, 2019d, and 2019e; Brune, 2002; Heitmuller and Reece, 2003).
2.5.5.4 Special Status Waters Under 31 TAC 357.8, TPWD has identified Ecologically Significant Stream Segments (ESSS) based on habitat value, threatened and endangered species, species diversity, and aesthetic value criteria. Review of the TPWD (2017) data did not indicate any designated ESSS stream segments within the study area.
2-39 89 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 65 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
No portion of the study area is located within the Coastal Management Zone.
In accordance with Section 303(d) of the CWA, the TCEQ identifies surface waters that do not meet current Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and implements measures to bring the water quality within the TMDL standard. Review of the TCEQ (2019), 303(d) list did not indicate any stream segments within the study area that do not currently meet the water quality standards for designated uses.
2.5.5.5 Future Surface Water Developments In 1997, Senate Bill 1 was enacted to develop a regional approach for the development, conservation, and management of the state's water resources. Sixteen planning regions were developed, and each Regional Planning Group was charged with the development of a Regional Water Plan to be incorporated into the State Water Plan. The study area is within Region E, and a review of this plan and the El Paso Water projects list did not indicate any evaluated, proposed, or potential new reservoirs within the study area (TWDB, 2016 and El Paso Water, 2019). However, TWDB water demand projections for El Paso County indicate a demand of 307,830 acre-feet in 2020 (TWDB, 2018). Demand increases of 5.4% and 10.2%, respectively, are expected over the following two decades. Municipal-use and irrigation account for a vast majority of this demand.
2.5.6 Wildlife and Fisheries 2.5.6.1 Wildlife in the Area The study area is located in the western region of the Chihuahuan Biotic Province (see Figure 2- 6) (Blair, 1950). The Chihuahuan province includes all of Trans-Pecos Texas (except the Guadalupe Mountains) and the western portion of the Edwards Plateau ecoregions of Texas. The plants and animals of this province are mostly species that are widely distributed in the mountains and deserts of southwestern North America.
Amphibian species (frogs, toads, salamanders, and newts) that potentially occur within the study area are listed in Table 2-10. Frogs and toads may occur in all vegetation types, and salamanders and newts are typically restricted to moist habitats. None of the species listed are considered threatened or endangered under Section 7 of the ESA.
2-40 90 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 66 of 269
U_1- ' liliI 1 l-7 1 -KANSAN-
L-r- ~r- PROJECT AREA ~---4--4-_1_1-+ ICAAN-_L_ 0- l 1 _AUSTRO L > RIPARIANJ
CHIHUAHUAN BALCONIAN«»
TAMAULIPAN tA
N F7 BIOTIC PROVINCE BOUNDARY BIOTIC PROVINCES F--1 COUNTY BOUNDARY OF TEXAS 0 50 100 MILES EASTSIDE LOOP EXPANSION PHASEI
FIGURE 2-6 EI Paso Electric
PA™ O ~10161092_10189_EPE_EAST_LOOP_EXPANSIO'AMAP_DOCSVIGURES'EA'PHASEI~EPE_PHASELEA_FIG2_6_8!OnCPROV,NCE_8Xll.MXO . USER KNAGY. DATE 1 Z/31;2019
2-41 91 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 67 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-10 Amphibian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Frogs/Toads American bullfrog Rana catesbeiana Couch's spadefoot Scaphiopus couchii Great plains toad Bufo cognatus Green toad Bufo debilis Gulf Coast toad Incilius nebulifer Mexican spadefoot Spea multiplicata Plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons Red-spotted toad Bufo punctatus Rio Grande leopard frog Rana berlandieri Texas toad Bufo speciosus Woodhouse's toad Anaxyrus woodhousii Salamanders/Newts Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Herps of Texas, Online - Dixon, 2013, LaDuc and Cannatella, 2019
Reptiles (turtles, lizards and snakes) potentially occurring within the study area are listed in Table 2-11. These include those species that are typically associated with arid land habitats as well as species that may occur near relatively permanent water sources such as livestock ponds or perennial pools in streams (Dixon, 2013; LaDuc and Cannatella, 2019). The presence of any species typically associated with water (e.g., turtles) would depend on the occurrence of these habitats within the study area. None of the species listed are considered threatened or endangered under Section 7 of the ESA.
Table 2-11 Reptilian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Turtles Ornate box turtle Terrapene orr'~ata ornata Painted turtle Chrysemys picta Spiny soft-shelled turtle Apalone spinifera Yellow mud turtle Kinosternon flavescens Lizards Chihuahuan spotted whiptail Aspidoscelis exsanguis Common checkered whiptail Aspidoscelis tesselata Common lesser earless lizard Holbrookia maculata Common side-blotched lizard Uta stansburiana Crevice spiny lizard Sceloporus poinsettii Desert grassland whiptail Aspidoscelis uniparens Desert spiny lizard Sceloporus magister Eastern collared lizard Crotaphytus collaris Great Plains skink Plestiodon obsoletus
2-42 92 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 68 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-11 Reptilian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Greater earless lizard Cophosaurustexanus Greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi Little striped whiptail Aspidoscelis inornata Long-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii Marbled whiptail Aspidoscelis marmorata Mediterranean house gecko Hemidactylus turcicus New Mexico whiptail Aspidoscelis marmorata Ornate tree lizard Urosaurus ornatus Prairie lizard Sceloporus undulatus Round-tailed horned lizard Phrynosoma modestum Texas banded gecko Coleonyx brevis Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum Snakes Big Bend patch-nosed snake Salvadora deserticola Black-necked garter snake Thamnophis cyrtopsis Black-tailed rattlesnake Crotalus molossus Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum Checkered garter snake Thamnophis marcianus Chihuahuan hook-nosed snake Gyalopion canum Chihuahuan Iyresnake Trimorphodon vilkinsonii Chihuahuan nightsnake Hypsiglena jani Common kingsnake Lampropeltis getula Eastern patch-nosed snake Salvadora grahamiae Glossy snake Arizona elegans Gray-banded kingsnake Lampropeltis alterna Great Plains ratsnake Pantherophis emoryi Gopher snake Pituophis catenifer Long-nosed snake Rhinocheilus Iecontei Massasauga Sistrurus catenatus Mexican hog-nosed snake Heterodon kennerlyi Mojave rattlesnake Crotalus scutulatus New Mexico threadsnake Leptotyphlops dissectus Plains black-beaded snake Tantilla nigriceps Prairie rattlesnake Crotalus viridis Ring-necked snake Diadophis punctatus Rock rattlesnake Crotalus Iepidus Smith's black-headed snake Tantilla hobartsmithi Striped whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus Trans-Pecos ratsnake Bogertophis subocularis Western diamond-backed rattlesnake Crotalus atrox Western threadsnake Leptotyphlops humilis Dixon, 2013, LaDuc and Cannatella, 2019
2-43 93 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 69 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Numerous avian species are potentially present in the study area, including year-round residents, as well as winter and summer residents, as listed in Tables 2-12, 2-13, and 2-14 (TPWD, 2002 and Lockwood and Freeman, 2014). Additional bird species include spring and autumn migrants, spring and summer breeding species, or winter residents. Winter resident species that may potentially occur in the study area are listed in Table 2-13 (TPWD, 2002 and Lockwood and Freeman, 2014). Summer residents that may potentially occur in the study area are listed in Table 2-14 (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014). The likelihood for occurrence of each species depends upon suitable habitat and season. The majority of birds potentially occurring in the study area have protection under the MBTA of 1918. None of the species listed are considered threatened or endangered under Section 7 of the ESA.
Table 2-12 Year-Round Resident Bird Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Black vulture Coragyps atratus Black-crested titmouse Baeolophus atricristatus Black-tailed gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura Black-throated sparrow Amphispiza bilineata Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus Canyon towhee Melozone fusca Canyon wren Catherpes mexicanus Common raven Corvus corax Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii Curve-billed thrasher Toxostoma curvirostre European starling Sturnus vulgaris Gambel's quail Callipepla gambelii Great horned owl Bubo virginianus Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus Horned Iark Eremophila alpestris House finch Carpodacus mexicanus House sparrow Passer domesticus Inca dove Columbina inca Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Ladder-backed woodpecker Dryobates scalaris Loggerhead shrike Lanius Iudovicianus Mexican duck (mallard) Anas platyrhynchos
2-44 94 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 70 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-12 Year-Round Resident Bird Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Pyrrhuloxia Cardinalis sinuatus Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus Rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps Say's phoebe Sayornis saya Scaled quail Callipepla squamata Verdin Auriparus flaviceps Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Western screech owl Megascops kennicottii Western scrub jay Aphelocoma woodhouseii White-winged dove Zenaida asiatica Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo Wood duck Aix sponsa Lockwood and Freeman, 2014 and TPWD, 2002
Table 2-13 Winter Resident Bird Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name American kestrel Falco sparverius American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos American goldfinch Spinus tristis Belted kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon Brewer's sparrow Spizella breweri Chestnut-collared Iongspur Calcarius ornatus Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis Gadwall Mareca strepera Green-winged teal Anas crecca Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza Iincolnii Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Northern shoveler Anas clypeata Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Sage sparrow Artemisiospiza nevadensis Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia Ieucophrys Lockwood and Freeman, 2014; TPWD, 2002
2-45 95 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 71 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-14 Summer Resident Bird Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Ash throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Bell's vireo Vireo bellii Blue grosbeak Passerina caerulea Bullock's oriole Icterus bullockii Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Cave swallow Petrochelidon fulva Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Common poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Couch's kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Lesser nighthawk Chordeiles acutipennis Painted bunting Passerina ciris Scissor-tailed flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus Scott's oriole Icterus parisorum Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Summer tanager Piranga rubra Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Varied bunting Passerina versicolor Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens Lockwood and Freeman, 2014, TPWD, 2002
Mammals potentially occurring in the study area are listed in Table 2-15 (Schmidly and Bradley, 2016). The occurrence of each species depends upon the availability of suitable habitat. None of the species listed are considered threatened or endangered under Section 7 of the ESA.
Table 2-15 Mammalian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name American badger Taxidea taxus Baird ' s pocket gopher Geomys breviceps Banner - tailed Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys spectabilis Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Big free - tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis Black - tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus Black - tailed prairie dog Cynomys Iudovicianus Bobcat Lynx rufus Botta ' s Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae Brazilian free - tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis
2-46 96 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 72 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-15 Mammalian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Brush mouse Peromyscus boylii Cactus Mouse Peromyscus eremicus California Myotis Myotis califomicus Cave Myotis Myotis velifer Collared Peccary Tayassu tajacu Common gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus Common hog - nosed skunk Conepatus mesoleucus Common raccoon Procyon Iotor Coyote Canis Iatrans Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Pocket Gopher Geomys arenarius Desert Pocket Mouse Chaetodipus penicillatus Desert Shrew Notiosorex crawfordi Feral pig Sus scrofa Fringed bat Myotis thysanodes Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus Hispid pocket mouse Chaetodipus hispidus Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus Long - legged Myotis Myotis volans Long - tailed weasel Mustela frenata Mearns ' s Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys arenicola Merriam ' s Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys merriami Merriam ' s Pocket Mouse Perognathus merriami Mexican Ground Squirrel Spermophilus mexicanus Mountain lion Felis concolor Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys Ieucogaster Northern Rock Mouse Peromyscus nasutus Norway rat Rattus norvegicus Ord ' s Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ordii Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Plains Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys montanus Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Pronghorn Antilocapra americana Ringtail Bassariscus astutus Rock pocket mouse Chaetodipus intermedius Rock squirrel Spermophilus variegatus Silky pocket mouse Perognathus flavus Southern plains woodrat Neotoma micropus Spotted ground squirrel Spermophilus spilosoma Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Swift fox Vulpes velox
2-47 97 86 8*€
( 4SgleO enlg epuee O ! hl ) ' ds sruniepl .. 4s!:Ileo eniq epuee O!kl slsuellni elieuudio JeU!4s pehl eOJO S!do]10N JeU!4S U]Oll'eitd snueo!Xelll XelleijSV eJ lel ueO!xeIAI eeloeleleo sA4140!u!4hl eoep esouSuol snoieBew 9!wodel 4s!Juns JeeSUol seP!UOLUIeS Sn]0}dO]0!IN sseq 4inolue5Jel. snlleueko s!wodel 4s!Juns UeeJD l.Unlse6uoo eluolsoxoIN eSJO4pekl XeJ 9 l.Unumpedeo eluosojoa peqs piezz!9 *UeA!10 s!10!Polxd 4s!Jleo peelljel=1 oidjeo snuudio dieo UOWU.Ioo. snleiound snJnleiol Ns!Jleo Ieuueto
xel!6!A Selelldelu!d MOUU!Ul peeqllng,t SnJ!40030elU 9!luodel ll!6enlg seielu snjn ! 0UIV pee41 | nq Moel8 eu,eN 04!lue!OS eu,eN UOUIUIO~ eeiv Xpnjs elll U!41!AA 6uwnooo Xlleiluejod se!oedS ils!=I 9 L-Z alqel
9 I'-Z eiqel u! pels!l eJe U!seq-qns uelul!!1¤ uo:3-epuea 0!hl el# u! JnoOO ol Ie!1uelod 41!AA Sepeds elll 'lel!qell elqel!ns JO X}!I!qel!eAe elll uodn spuedep sepeds
Lloee JO eouellnooo elll NSU JeleAALIse]J poddns ielljlel!qe4 0!lenbe iuejs!suoo ep!AOJd Xelu eele
Xpnls elli u!41!M je}!qel| puelleAA pUe SJeleM eoepns iuejs!SJed Ilv '(9 I,OZ 'Uelloo pue uos>PppuaH) uiseq-qns uelulin¤ uo:I-epue]9 0!hl elll u! Jnooo klie!1uejod 49!J JO sepeds ee]41-AlueAA-L 'JeA!hl epuee 0!hl elli Jo jseell]Jou Sel!lu L L Xlelel.Uixoidde sus pue (* Log '8aM.L) u!seq JeA!hl epue]9
0!hl e41 Jo spewSJeleAA AABJD O6eJJOEI pue Ielejel eliupeno elo U!41!AA peleooi s! eeie Xpnis el~l eelv 041 u! sa!.'ells!=I Z 9 9 Z
9:OZ '*elpejEI pue *Ip!l.ULPS sdoueiseo s* uloeBOWJO Jelldo6 le > pod peoei - AAolleA einbiqle euloloeN lejpOOAA peleO ] 41 - el ! 4 / V \ snue! U ! 61 ! A Snel ! 00OPO Jeep Pe '! el - el ! 4M Sndoonel snosiwoied esnoul pelool - 81 ! l . IAA s ! I !oe ] 6 eieflol ! ds MunMs peuods uielse /\A ulniqeio! 1 ! o snOAIN s ! 1OXlll pelooJ - IleUJS UJe ] SeM sniedsell snileils!(|! d elleJ } S ! dld WelseA/\ silolefelu SAulowopol41 ! eB eSnOLU jSeA .Iell UJelseAA eue! u ! 63 ! A S! 4dlep ! a iunssodo e ! u ! 53 ! A !! pUeSUMO1 snlooeld leg Peiee - 6 ! q S , pueSUAAO1 seldieiu ! snl ! 4douuedsoiuiuv IeJJ ' nbs edoiejue sexei ailleN 0!&!lue!0S elueN UOUIUIOO eeiv Xpnls elll u!41!M Buwnooo Aile!1uelod se!0eds ueilewulevy g L-Z eiqei i eseqd-uo!suedx3 dool eP!sisea 69Z Jo EZ eBed L 1NBIAIHOV11V ATTACHMENT 1 Page 74 of 269 Eastside Loop Expansion-Phase I
Table 2-16 Fish Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Common Name Scientific Name Rio Grande bluntnose shiner Notropis simus simus River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Speckled chub Macrhybopsis aestivalis Western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis * White bass Morone chrysops Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalis Hendrickson and Cohen, 2015; * = non-native species, ** = taxonomy not fully described
Fish species that may occur within the study area include those species specialized to moderate to high gradient desert streams. Based on the size and characteristics of the various surface waters, very few of these species would occur in the habitats represented in the study area. Fish species that may occur in the study area include gray redhorse, Iongear sunfish, Mexican tetra, speckled chub, and western mosquitofish (Hendrickson and Cohen, 2015).
Several species of turtles, snakes, and amphibians are also dependent on perennial surface waters for their habitat requirements. Several of these species will infrequently use terrestrial habitats to migrate between surface waters, but they primarily inhabit impounded and perennial surface waters.
2.5.7 Threatened and Endangered Species Data on special status species and unique vegetation resources within the study area were obtained from a variety of sources including the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) database; TPWD county list of rare, threatened, and endangered species; and the TPWD TXNDD. Additional information was obtained from published literature and technical reports.
For the purpose of this environmental assessment, emphasis was placed on obtaining known locations of unique vegetative communities and critical habitat or known occurrences of special status species that have been previously documented within the study area. Special status species include those listed by the USFWS as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate; and those listed by TPWD as threatened, endangered, or as a species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). A GIS shapefile of known occurrences for listed species and sensitive vegetative communities was obtained from the TXNDD on June 27,2019. Review of TXNDD data indicates no occurrences of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species within the study area.
2-49 99