08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

TABLE 3-1 (Cont’d)

Status Species Scientific Name FWS ANHC TPWD County Giant prairie robberfly Microstylum morosum NL INV NL Hempstead Golden mydas fly Mydas btunneus NL INV NL Hempstead Diana Speyeria diana NL INV NL Hempstead Red milkweed beetle Tetraopes texanus NL INV NL Hempstead Mammals Black bear Ursus americanus T/SA; NL NL T Bowie Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta NL NL R Bowie Rafinesque’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii NL INV T Bowie, Hempstead Red wolf Canis rufus LE NL E Bowie Southeastern myotis bat Myotis austroriparius NL NL R Bowie Eastern harvest mouse Reithrodontomys humulis NL INV NL Miller, Hempstead Crawford’s gray shrew Notiosorex crawfordi NL INV NL Hempstead Mollusks Common pimpleback Quadrula pustulosa NL NL R Bowie Fawnsfoot Truncilla donaciformis NL NL R Bowie Pistolgrip Tritogonia verrucosa NL NL R Bowie Plain pocketbook Lampsilis cardium NL NL R Bowie Ouachita rock pocketbook Arkansia wheeleri LE INV Hempstead, Little River Rock-pocketbook Arcidens confragosus NL NL R Bowie Wabash pigtoe Fusconaia flava NL NL R Bowie White heelsplitter Lasmigona complanata NL NL R Bowie Sandbank pocketbook Lampsilis satura NL INV NL Hempstead, Little River Southern mapleleaf Quadrula apiculata NL INV NL Hempstead, Little River, Miller Monkeyface Quadrula metanevra NL INV NL Hempstead, Little River Pondhorn Uniomerus tetralasmus NL INV NL Hempstead, Miller Pink mucket Lampsilis abrupta LE INV NL Little River Flutedshell Lasmigona costata NL INV NL Little River Southern hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana NL INV NL Little River Obovaria olivaria Hickorynut NL INV NL Little River Pyramid pigtoe Pleurobema rubrum NL INV NL Little River Ouachita kidneyshell Ptychobranchus occidentalis NL INV NL Little River Rabbitsfoot Quadrula cylindrical NL INV NL Little River Tapered pondhorn Uniomerus declivis NL INV NL Miller Reptiles Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii NL NL T Bowie Northern scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea copei NL NL T Bowie Timber/canebrake Crotalus horridus NL NL T Bowie rattlesnake Mississippi green water Nerodia cyclopion NL INV NL Miller, Hempstead snake Gulf crayfish snake Regina rigida sinicola NL INV NL Hempstead Amphibians Southern redback Plethodon serratus NL INV NL Hempstead salamander

441829/070031 3-23 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

TABLE 3-1 (Cont’d)

Status Species Scientific Name FWS ANHC TPWD County Hurter’s spadefoot Scaphiopus hurterii NL INV NL Hempstead, Miller Crustaceans Crayfish Faxonella blairi NL INV NL Miller Vascular Plants San Antonio false-foxglove Agalinis homalantha NL INV NL Little River, Miller Drummond’s wild onion Allium drummondii NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead Panicled indigo bush Amorpha paniculata NL ST NL Little River Ground plum Astragalus crassicarpus var. NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead crassicarpus Nuttall’s milkvetch Astragalus nuttallianus NL INV NL Little River Texas grama Bouteloua rigidiseta NL SE NL Little River Caric sedge Carex microdonta NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead Caric sedge Carex planostachys NL INV NL Little River Capul negro Condalia hookeri NL INV NL Little River Texas bindweed Convolvulus equitans NL INV NL Little River Prairie clover Dalea compacta var. NL INV NL Little River compacta Prairie clover Dalea compacta NL INV NL Little River var.pubescens Rabbit tobacco Diaperia prolifera NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead Wolf’s spike rush Eleocharis wolfii NL INV NL Little River Engelmann’s daisy Engelmannia peristenia NL INV NL Little River, Miller Buckwheat Eriogonum annuum NL INV NL Little River Nuttall’s dwarf morning glory Evolvulus nuttallianus NL INV NL Little River Umbrella-grass Fuirena simplex var. NL INV NL Little River aristulata Crested coralroot Hexalectris spicata NL INV NL Little River Scarlet pea Indigofera miniata var. NL ST NL Little River aristulata Ashe’s juniper Juniperus ashei NL INV NL Little River Bladderpod Lesquerella gracilis ssp. NL INV NL Little River Gracilis Fringed puccoon Lithospermum incisum NL INV NL Little River Lacy tansy-aster Machaeranthera pinnatifida NL INV NL Little River Lax hornpod Mitreola petiolata NL INV NL Little River Celestial lily Nemastylis geminiflora NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead Evening primrose Oenothera spachiana NL INV NL Little River Showy beard-tongue Penstemon cobaea NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead Riverweed Podostemum ceratophyllum NL INV NL Little River Laurel oak Quercus laurifolia NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead Durand’s white oak Quercus sinuate NL ST NL Little River, Hempstead Skunkbrush sumac Rhus trilobata var. trilobata NL INV NL Little River Falling beakrush Rhynchospora caduca NL INV NL Little River, Miller White top sedge Rhynchospora colorata NL SE NL Little River Giant coneflower Rudbeckia maxima NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead

441829/070031 3-24 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

TABLE 3-1 (Cont’d)

Status Species Scientific Name FWS ANHC TPWD County Wild petunia Ruellia humilis var. NL INV NL Little River depauperata Clasping goldenrod Solidago auriculata NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead Eve’s necklace Sophora affinis NL INV NL Little River, Hempstead, Miller False gaura Stenosiphon linifolius NL ST NL Little River, Hempstead Arkansas meadow rue Thalictrum arkansanum NL ST NL Little River, Bowie, Hempstead, Miller Rain lily Zephyranthes chlorosolen NL INV NL Little River Golden colicroot Aletris aurea NL INV NL Miller Purple pleat-leaf Alophia drummondii NL INV NL Miller Woolly threeawn Aristida lanosa NL INV NL Miller Dwarf pawpaw Asimina parviflora NL INV NL Miller Slimpod milkvetch Astragalus leptocarpus NL INV NL Miller Soxman’s milkvetch Astragalus soxmaniorum NL INV NL Miller Green eyes Berlandiera x betonicifolia NL INV NL Miller Hairy grama Bouteloua hirsute NL SE NL Miller Hairsedge Bulbostylis ciliatifolia NL INV NL Miller Epiphytic caric sedge Carex decomposita NL INV NL Miller Blueberry hawthorn Crataegus brachyacantha NL INV NL Miller Little-leaved prairie clover Dalea phleoides var. NL ST NL Miller microphylla Silky prairie clover Dalea villosa var. grisea NL SE NL Miller Carolina larkspur Delphinium carolinianum NL INV NL Miller, Hempstead ssp. Vimineum Red coneflower Echinacea sanguinea NL ST NL Miller Blue-flowered eryngo Eryngium integrifolium NL INV NL Miller Bush’s umbrella-grass Fuirena bushii NL INV NL Miller Texas cranesbill Geranium texanum NL INV NL Miller Appressed bog club-moss Lycopodiella appressa NL INV NL Miller Milkweed vine Matelea cynanchoides NL SE NL Miller Swamp hornpod Mitreola sessilifolia NL INV NL Miller Swamp black gum Nyssa biflora NL INV NL Miller Evening primrose Oenothera heterophylla ssp. NL INV NL Miller Orientalis Evening primrose Oenothera rhombipetala NL INV NL Miller Palm-leaved scurf-pea Pediomelum digitatum NL ST NL Miller Buried breadroot Pediomelum hypogaeum NL SE NL Miller var. subulatum Red bay Persea borbonia NL SE NL Miller Sand plum Prunus gracilis NL INV NL Miller Arkansas oak Quercus arkansana NL INV NL Miller, Hempstead Slender beakrush Rhynchospora gracilenta NL INV NL Miller Fewflower beakrush Rhynchospora rariflora NL ST NL Miller Riddell’s spike-moss Selaginella arenicola ssp. NL INV NL Miller Riddellii

441829/070031 3-25 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

TABLE 3-1 (Cont’d)

Status Species Scientific Name FWS ANHC TPWD County Fragrant ladies’-tresses Spiranthes odorata NL INV NL Miller Featherbells Stenanthium gramineum NL INV NL Miller Twistflower Streptanthus hyacinthoides NL ST NL Miller Louisiana squarehead Tetragonotheca ludoviciana NL SE NL Miller Powdery thalia Thalia dealbata NL INV NL Miller Spanish moss Tillandsia usneoides NL INV NL Miller, Hempstead Reverchon’s spiderwort Tradescantia reverchonii NL INV NL Miller Small’s noseburn Tragia smallii NL INV NL Miller Deer pea vetch Vicia ludoviciana ssp. NL INV NL Miller leavenworthii Earleaf false-foxglove Agalinis auriculata NL INV NL Hempstead Glade onion Allium stellatum NL INV NL Hempstead Caric sedge Carex comosa NL INV NL Hempstead Threadstem caric sedge Carex leptalea ssp. Harperi NL INV NL Hempstead Ozark chinquapin Castanea pumila var. NL INV NL Hempstead ozarkensis Devil’s bit Chamaelirium luteum NL INV NL Hempstead Kentucky ladies’-slipper Cypripedium kentuckiense NL INV NL Hempstead Water purslane Didiplis diandra NL INV NL Hempstead Upright burhead Echinodorus berteroi NL INV NL Hempstead Water-spider orchid Habenaria repens NL INV NL Hempstead Frostweed Helianthemum bicknellii NL INV NL Hempstead Pucoon Lithospermum tuberosum NL INV NL Hempstead Virginia mountain mint Pycnanthemum virginianum NL INV NL Hempstead Yellow water crowfoot Ranunculus flabellaris NL INV NL Hempstead White water crowfoot Ranunculus longirostris NL INV NL Hempstead Capitate beakrush Rhynchospora cephalantha NL INV NL Hempstead American cupscale Sacciolepis striata NL INV NL Hempstead California bulrush Schoenoplectus californicus NL INV NL Hempstead Fewflower nutsedge Scleria pauciflora NL INV NL Hempstead Goldenrod Solidago delicatula NL INV NL Hempstead *Data Sources: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Updated July 10, 2006, ANHC. LE, LT – Federally Listed Endangered/Threatened; PT, C – Federally Proposed Threatened, or Candidate Species; DL, PDL – Federally Delisted/Proposed Delisted; E, T – State Listed as Endangered/Threatened in the State of Texas; INV – Inventory Element; The ANHC is currently conducting active inventory work on these elements; NL – Not Listed; SE/ST – State Listed as Endangered/Threatened in the State of Arkansas; R- Rare Species in the State of Texas.

Currently, 39 plant species are listed by the FWS as endangered or threatened in Texas and Arkansas. Six of these are candidate species (FWS, 2007a). There are no federally listed endangered, threatened, or candidate plant species from the study area (TPWD Natural Diversity Database [TXNDD], 2007; ANHC, 2007d). Eighteen of the plant taxa in Table 3-1 are considered by ANHC to be threatened or endangered. The state-listed endangered species are the Texas grama (Bouteloua rigidiseta), white top sedge (Rhynchospora colorata), hairy grama (Bouteloua hirsute), silky prairie clover (Dalea villosa var. grisea), milkweed vine (Matelea cynanchoides), buried breadroot (Pediomelum hypogaeum var. subulatum), red

441829/070031 3-26 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

bay (Persea borbonia), and Louisiana squarehead (Tetragonotheca ludoviciana). The species considered by the ANHC to be threatened in the state are panicled indigo bush (Amorpha paniculata), scarlet pea (Indigofera miniata var. aristulata), Durand’s white oak (Quercus sinuate), false gaura (Stenosiphon linifolius), Arkansas meadow rue (Thalictrum arkansanum), little-leaved prairie clover (Dalea phleoides var. microphylla), red coneflower (Echinacea sanguinea), palm-leaved scurf-pea (Pediomelum digitatum), fewflower beakrush (Rhynchospora rariflora), and twistflower (Streptanthus hyacinthoides).

Panicled indigo bush is a stout shrub, which prefers wet floodplain forests and deep acid woodlands, and has been documented within the study area in Little River County (NRCS 2007; ANHC, 2006b).

Durand’s white oak flowers during the spring and is generally found in low wet areas, hummocks, riparian and limestone bluffs, and prairies, as well as well drained sites and hilly areas with limestone soils (NRCS, 2007; Hunter, 2004). It has been documented in Little River and Hempstead counties within the study area (ANHC, 2006a, 2006b).

Arkansas meadow rue generally flowers in early spring from March to April. It prefers wet bottomland forest, mesic mostly deciduous forest, and is often on alluvial terraces (TXNDD, 2007; NRCS, 2007). The Arkansas meadow rue historically occurred within the study area in Hempstead County (ANHC, 2006a); however, its presence in the vicinity of the historical record was not verified in an April 2007 reconnaissance by ANHC.

Texas grama grows in grassy pastures and openings in woods, usually in clay or sandy clay soils. Although listed as state endangered in Arkansas, it is both widespread and abundant within its range, which extends from the southern United States to northern Mexico. It is one of the earliest flowering warm season grasses (NRCS, 2007). The white top sedge prefers sands, peats, and silt of interdunal swales, shores, meadowy swales, and marsh edges, and is usually found on circumneutral or basic substrates (NRCS, 2007). Hairy grama grows from the open plains to slightly shaded openings in woods and brush on well-drained, often rocky terrain (NRCS, 2007). The red bay flowers in spring to early summer and is primarily found in wetlands, swamps, marshes, low pinewoods, savannas, or maritime forests in the Atlantic and Gulf coastal plains (NRCS, 2007). The Louisiana squarehead flowers in late spring to summer and prefers deep sandy soils with scrub oaks (NRCS, 2007). The fewflower beakrush generates fruit from spring to summer or all year in the southern regions. This species prefers sands or peats of low savannas, seeps, bogs, flatwoods, pond shores, and stream banks (NRCS, 2007). Although these species have not been documented within the study area, these species may occur within the study area due to the general nature of the preferred habitat types.

The silky prairie clover (Dalea villosa var. grisea) and the milkweed vine (Matelea cynanchoides) occur in sandy soils (The Nature Conservancy [TNC], 2002; Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. [EH&A], 1997). The silky prairie clover is found within dry prairies and woodlands, while the milkweed vine primarily prefers specifically woodlands (TNC, 2002; EH&A, 1997). The buried breadroot (Pediomelum hypogaeum var. subulatum) occurs in xeric sand barrens (TNC, 2002; EH&A, 1997). The scarlet pea

441829/070031 3-27 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(Indigofera miniata var. aristulata) occurs in open areas, and the false gaura (Stenosiphon linifolius) prefers rocky banks and slopes (EH&A, 1997). The little-leaved prairie clover (Dalea phleoides var. microphylla) inhabits sandy woodlands (TNC, 2002; EH&A, 1997). The red coneflower (Echinacea sanguinea) inhabits sandy areas within open pine woods and prairies, while the palm-leaved scurf-pea (Pediomelum digitatum) occurs within oak and pine woodlands (ANHC, 2007d; TNC, 2002; EH&A, 1997). The twistflower (Streptanthus hyacinthoides) inhabits rocky hills and roadsides, as well as shaly clearings (TNC, 2002; EH&A, 1997). These species have not been documented within the study area; however, due to the general habitat requirements, they may occur within study area if suitable habitat exists.

The ANHC is currently conducting active inventory work on species identified as inventory elements including gathering detailed location information. Available data suggests these elements are of conservation concern and may include outstanding examples of natural communities, colonial bird nesting sites, outstanding scenic, and geologic features, as well as plants and animals, which, according to current information, may be rare, peripheral, or of an undetermined status in the state. Fourteen inventory elements, which are of conservation concern to the ANHC, have been documented within the study area. These include: laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), clasping goldenrod (Solidago auriculata), Arkansas oak (Quercus arkansana), caric sedge (Carex comosa), devil’s bit (Chamaelirium luteum), Kentucky ladies’- slipper (Cypripedium kentuckiense), upright burhead (Echinodorus berteroi), water-spider orchid (Habenaria repens), pucoon (Lithospemum tuberosum), Virginia mountain mint (Pycnanthemum virginianum), yellow water crowfoot (Ranunculus flabellaris), white water crowfoot (Ranunculus longirostris), American cupscale (Sacciolepis striata), and California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) (ANHC, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).

3.4.5 Ecologically Sensitive Areas

In general, an area may be considered ecologically sensitive if: (1) it supports a rare plant or animal community or a rare, threatened, or endangered species; (2) it is valuable due to its maturity and the density and diversity of plants and animals it contains; or (3) it supports a community of plants adapted to flooding and/or saturated soil conditions and dominated by species considered to be wetland indicators by a regulatory agency (e.g., USACE). During a recent review of TXNDD (2007) records, one of these species was identified within the study area. TXNDD (2007) has mapped a sensitive natural plant community consisting of tissue sedge (Carex hyalina) located south of Ogden near the Texas-Arkansas border.

Tissue sedge is primarily found in disturbed floodplains with second growth and regenerating deciduous forests. It prefers clay soil with wet, temporarily flooded areas with heavy vegetation under broken canopies (TXNDD, 2007).

The ANHC is currently conducting active inventory work on numerous inventory elements, which include special elements and natural communities that have been documented within the study area in

441829/070031 3-28 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Hempstead County. These inventory elements include back swamp, cypress swamp, sugarberry-elm-ash forest, and willow oak forest (ANHC, 2006). One inventory element, lowland pine-oak forest, has been documented within the study area in Little River County (ANHC, 2006).

Numerous natural areas and WMAs are located within the study area. Nacatoch Ravines Natural Area, which is co-owned by `the ANHC and the Nature Conservancy, is considered an Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) WMA, and is located north of McNab within Hempstead County (Osborn, 2007). The Little River Bottoms WMA and the northern portion of the Bois d’ Arc WMA also fall within portions of the study area (Osborn, 2007). Little River WMA is located in Hempstead County, on the Little River northwest of Fulton, and the Bois d’ Arc WMA is located in Hempstead County, east of Fulton.

The ANHC states that the Grassy Lake area, which has previously been recommended for landmark status, is an extremely sensitive area. The sensitive area focused on the Grassy Lake bald cypress – tupelo swamp, which with its overall undisturbed condition, variety of aquatic and riparian communities, and diversity of animal life, is the premier ecological feature of the area (Diamond et al., 1986).

Within the study area, the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APC&EC) has designated Grassy Lake and Yellow Creek below Millwood dam as “Ecologically Sensitive Waterbodies” pursuant to the APC&EC’s Regulation 2.

3.4.6 Regulatory Wetlands

Plant communities adapted to flooding and saturated soil conditions and dominated by species considered to be wetland indicators by a regulatory agency (e.g., USACE) may be considered ecologically sensitive. Characteristics of bottomland habitats and hydric habitats, which contribute to their ecological value and sensitivity, include high levels of productivity and species diversity, utilization by numerous wildlife species, dependence upon and functional values of particular hydrologic factors, and a high or predominant occurrence of species considered to be wetland indicators.

Most of the study area is well drained and upland. However, portions of bottomland/riparian forests, as well as hydric and aquatic habitats that occur in the study area may be considered regulatory wetlands by the USACE. NWI mapping on 1:100,000 topographic quads prepared by the FWS indicates potential wetlands throughout the study area, including numerous hydric categories including open water and wetlands as described by Cowardin et al. (1979). NWI coverage identifies potential jurisdictional areas including forested wetlands, scrub-shrub wetlands, emergent wetlands, and freshwater marshes associated with the Red River, Little River, Millwood Lake, numerous creeks, and their tributaries. Water regimes in these areas are semipermanent, permanent, or seasonally inundated/saturated; therefore, hydric conditions may not be sufficient to qualify as jurisdictional wetlands (USACE, 1987).

441829/070031 3-29 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

3.5 WILDLIFE HABITATS AND SPECIES

The wildlife habitats in the study area correspond to vegetation types described in Section 3.4.2. These habitat types include upland hardwood forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest, bottomland/riparian forest, grassland (including pasture and cropland), cutover/regenerative areas, and hydric and aquatic areas. According to Dice (1943) and Blair (1950), the study area counties are within the Austroriparian Biotic Province (figures 3-5 and 3-6). Characteristic species of the area are discussed below. No species of wildlife is considered endemic to the study area counties.

3.5.1 Amphibians

Urodele fauna (salamanders and newts) likely to occur in the study area include the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), marbled salamander (Ambystoma opacum), small-mouth salamander (Ambystona texanum), dwarf salamander (Eurycea quadridigitata), three-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma tridactylum), Red River mudpuppy (Necturus maculosus louisianensis), central newt (Notophthalmus viridescens louisianensis), and western lesser siren (Siren intermedia nettingi), all of which are restricted to moist bottomland or hydric habitats (Crother et al., 2000, 2001, 2003; Trauth et al., 2004).

Anuran species (frogs and toads) found in the study area include the dwarf American toad (Bufo americanus charlesmithi), eastern cricket frog (Acris crepitans crepitans), Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousii), eastern narrow-mouthed toad (Gastrophryne carolinensis), western chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), bronze frog (Rana clamitans clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), northern spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer crucifer), American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Hurter’s spadefoot (Scaphiopus holbrookii hurterii). Several treefrogs are also found within the region including, the green treefrog (Hyla cinerea), Cope’s gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), and the gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor) (Trauth et al., 2004).

3.5.2 Reptiles

Common reptiles expected to occur in the study area include the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), common map turtle (Graptemys geographica), Ouachita map turtle (Graptemys ouachitensis), Mississippi map turtle (Graptemys pseudogeographica kohnii), three-toed box turtle (Terrapene carolina triunguis), eastern river cooter (Pseudemys concinna), red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans), Mississippi mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum hippocrepis), razorback musk turtle (Sternotherus carinatus), pallid spiny softshell (Apalone spinifera), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina serpentina), alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), and lizards such as the western slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus attenuatus), green anole (Anolis carolinensis), eastern six-lined racerunner (Aspidoscelis sexlineatus sexlineatus), prairie racerunner (Aspidoscelis sexlineatus viridis), common five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), broad-headed skink (Eumeces laticeps), little brown skink (Scincella lateralis), and southwestern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus hyacinthinus). Snakes in the area include the northern scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea copei), eastern racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern coachwhip (Masticophis flagellum flagellum), yellowbelly water snake (Nerodia

441829/070031 3-30 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

CAROLINIAN

AUSTRORIPARIAN

Engineering Environmental Consulting Surveying

north Figure 3-5 0 100 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA COUNTIES scale in miles IN RELATION TO THE BIOTIC PROVINCES OF ARKANSAS Source: Dice, 1943 l:\projects\hc1\aep\441829\cad\figure3-5.ai 3-31 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-32 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

KANSAN

NAVAHONIAN

AUSTRORIPARIAN CHIHUAHUAN BALCONIAN

TEXAN

TAMAULIPAN

Engineering Environmental Consulting Surveying north Figure 3-6 100 0 100 200 LOCATION OF BOWIE COUNTY IN RELATION TO THE scale in miles BIOTIC PROVINCES OF TEXAS

Source: Blair, 1950 l:\projects\hc1\aep\441829\cad\figure3-6.ai 3-33 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-34 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

erythrogaster flavigaster), broad-banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata confluens), diamondback water snake (Nerodia rhombifer rhombifer), western ribbon snake (Thamnophis proximus), western mud snake (Farancia abacura reinwardtii), western smooth earth snake (Virginia valeriae elegans), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), eastern hog-nosed snake (Heterodon platirhinos), prairie kingsnake (Lampropeltis calligaster calligaster), and speckled kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula holbrooki). Several venomous species also occur in the region, including the southern copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix contotrix), western cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus leucostoma), Texas coralsnake (Micrurus tener), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and western pygmy rattlesnake (Sistrurus miliarius streckeri) (Crother et al., 2000, 2001, 2003, Trauth et al., 2004; AGFC, 2004).

3.5.3 Birds

Numerous avian species are found within the study area. Year-round residents include the pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black vulture (Coragyps atratus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), barred owl (Strix varia), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), eastern towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), pine warbler (Dendroica coronata), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolensis), Carolina chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerine), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), red- winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), eastern meadowlark (Sturnella magna), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscala), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus) (James and Neal, 1986; AGFC, 2005; American Ornithologist’s Union [AOU], 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007).

Many species of birds migrate through the study area including such winter residents as the mallard (Anas platyrhychos), gadwall (Anas strepera), American wigeon (Anas americana), American coot (Fulica americana), common snipe (Gallinago gallinago), yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), brown creeper (Certhia Americana), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii), swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), and dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis).

Summer nesting in the study area include chuck-will’s-widow (Caprimulgus carolinensis), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), purple martin (Progne subis),

441829/070031 3-35 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

summer tanager (Piranga rubra), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), and black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia). Numerous other migrating species, such as arctic shorebirds wintering on the Gulf coast, northern passerines wintering in Central and South America, raptors, and waterfowl, pass through or over the study area during spring and fall migrations (James and Neal, 1986; AGFC, 2005).

Colonial nesting sites for water birds have been documented within the study area in Hempstead and Little River counties (ANHC, 2006a, 2006b).

3.5.4 Mammals

Common mammals within the study area include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), swamp rabbit (Sylvilagus aquaticus), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), Baird’s pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps), beaver (Castor canadensis), marsh rice rat (Oryzomys palustris), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), cotton mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus), nutria (Myocastor coypus), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), American mink (Mustela vison), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) (Sealander and Heidt, 1990; Baker et al., 2003).

3.5.5 Recreationally and Commercially Important Species

Numerous species of wildlife within the study area provide human benefits. These benefits result from both consumptive and nonconsumptive utilization of the wildlife resources. Nonconsumptive uses include activities such as observing and photographing wildlife (i.e., birdwatching, butterfly watching, nature photography, etc). These uses, although difficult to quantify, deserve consideration in the evaluation of the wildlife resources of the study area. Consumptive uses of wildlife species, such as hunting and trapping, are more easily quantifiable. Consumptive and nonconsumptive uses of wildlife are often enjoyed contemporaneously and are generally compatible. Many species occurring in the study area provide consumptive uses, and all provide the potential for nonconsumptive benefits.

The white-tailed deer is the most important big game mammal in Texas (Davis and Schmidley, 1994), as well as Arkansas. It inhabits open woodlands, brushland, forest edges, and areas that provide dense growth of young hardwoods, shrubs, and herbs. White-tailed deer, which are primarily browsers, feed upon leaves, twigs, and tree and shrub shoots, but they have been known to graze upon grass and broad- leaved herbs as well (Sealander and Heidt, 1990). The AGFC has created a Strategic Deer Management Plan, which divides the state into six Deer Management Units (DMU), based on Arkansas’ regions. Hempstead, Miller, and Little River counties fall within the West Gulf Coastal Plain DMU (AGFC, 2006). The West Gulf Coastal Plain contains the highest deer density within the state of Arkansas, and offers 50% of the annual statewide harvest, which was 132,415 deer during the 2005–2006 deer season

441829/070031 3-36 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(AGFC, 2006). The West Gulf Coastal Plain DMU has a 3-year average (2003 to 2006) of one deer harvested for every 123 ac. Within the three counties located in the study area, which are Hempstead, Miller, and Little River counties, a total of 4,985 deer were harvested within the 2005–2006 deer season (AGFC, 2006). The TPWD divides the counties of Texas into ecological regions for white-tailed deer management. Bowie County falls within the Piney Woods ecological region. In 2002, TPWD estimated the average deer density in Bowie County to be 70 deer per 1,000 ac (TPWD, 2007). In 2002, approximately 700 bucks and 200 does were harvested during deer season within Regulation Unit 1, which encompasses Bowie County (TPWD, 2007).

In addition to white-tailed deer, furbearers (e.g., common raccoon, nutria, beaver, Virginia opossum, bobcat, gray fox, river otter, and mink (Mustela vison)) are of considerable economic and recreational importance in Arkansas. Data show the raccoon, bobcat, red fox, and Virginia opossum to be the most commonly observed furbearers in the Gulf Coastal Plain region (AGFC, 2006) and Pineywoods region (Sorola, 1990), with bottomland forests and riparian woodlands generally having the greatest abundance.

3.5.6 Endangered and Threatened Species

Table 3-1 includes wildlife taxa that have a geographic range that encompasses Bowie, Little River, Miller, or Hempstead counties and are considered by the FWS, ANHC, and/or TPWD to be rare, threatened, or endangered. Inclusion on the list does not imply that a species is known to occur in the study area, but only acknowledges the potential for occurrence. Federally listed wildlife species are specifically protected under the Endangered Species Act. State-listed species have specific protection under state law. ANHC Inventory species, however, do not have specific legal protection, unless they are also federally and/or state-listed; are migratory birds, which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; or Eagles, which are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Four terrestrial species listed in Table 3-1, the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos), the ivory- billed woodpecker (Campephilus principalis), red wolf (Canis rufus), and the American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) are considered by the FWS as endangered. Two additional aquatic species listed as endangered by FWS are discussed in Section 3.6.2.2. The following paragraphs present distributional data concerning each federally listed or state-listed species, along with a brief evaluation of the potential for the species to occur within the study area. ANHC inventory species of potential in the study area counties that have not been documented within the study area are not discussed, but are included in Table 3-1.

In February 1984, the wood stork (Mycteria americana) was placed on the list of endangered species maintained by the FWS (2007b) (NatureServe, 2007). Although the wood stork is identified as endangered in other states (i.e., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina), it is not considered to be endangered by the FWS in either Texas or Arkansas. The wood stork, however, is considered to be threatened in Texas by TPWD. The wood stork formerly bred in southeast Texas, but now only occurs during post-breeding dispersal from Mexico (Oberholser, 1974; Coulter et al., 1999).

441829/070031 3-37 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

The wood stork occurs primarily in freshwater situations such as marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, flooded fields, and occasionally occurs in brackish wetlands. Wood storks nest mostly in upper parts of cypress trees, mangroves, or dead hardwoods over water or on islands along streams or adjacent to shallow lakes and feed in freshwater marshes, swamps, lagoons, ponds, flooded pastures, and flooded ditches (NatureServe, 2007). James and Neal (1986) do cite occurrences of wood storks at Lake Millwood, which is in the project area, until the year 1985. There is potential for the wood stork to occur at Lake Millwood and Grassy Lake in the project area; however, impacts to the species are not expected because the transmission routes of the project were designed to avoid these areas.

The bald eagle was officially delisted as a federally threatened species on August 8, 2007; however, it is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Both federal laws prohibit “taking”—killing, selling, or otherwise harming eagles, their nests or eggs. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines have been created to help landowners and construction activities ensure the preservation of bald eagles and their habitat. The bald eagle breeds on major inland lakes in Arkansas. It is usually found in association with large bodies of water, which provide the eagle with the bulk of its dietary requirements (James and Neal, 1986). ANHC records indicate three bald eagle nests within the study area, and new or undocumented bald eagle nests also may occur in the study area (Tobin, 2007). According to the ANHC (2006a, 2006b), the bald eagle has been documented within the study area in Hempstead and Little River counties.

The endangered interior least tern is listed as potentially occurring within the study area and has been documented or is known to occur within Bowie County (FWS, 2007a) and the other study area counties. Numerous nesting sites of interior least terns has been documented along the Red River within the study area (Harney, 2006), and it has been documented in all three counties (ANHC, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).Least terns are small shorebirds that have been divided into three subspecies based on the location of their breeding ranges: eastern or coastal least terns (Sterna antillarum antillarum), California least terns (Sterna antillarum browni), and interior least terns. It is migratory, breeding along inland river systems throughout the U.S. and wintering along the coasts of Central America. Preferred nesting habitat includes bare or sparsely vegetated sand or dried mudflats along coasts or rivers (Thompson et al., 1997). In Texas, the interior least tern historically nested on sandbars of the Colorado River, Red River, and Rio Grande. Small remnant breeding populations persist at isolated locations within the historic range. Important characteristics of breeding habitat include the presence of bare to nearly bare ground and alluvial islands or sandbars. The availability of food (primarily small fish), and the existence of favorable water levels helps to encourage nesting success (FWS, 1995).

In February 2004 a lone kayaker observed what he believed to be an ivory-billed woodpecker in the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in eastern Arkansas. A subsequent, year-long scientific search of the area sponsored by the Big Woods Partnership (including the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, TNC, the AGFC, and the FWS) produced enough evidence, including additional sightings and a brief videotape recording, to convince FWS that the species had been rediscovered in Arkansas. FWS published a draft recovery plan for the species in August 2007, and scientific studies and acquisition of

441829/070031 3-38 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

additional potential habitat are ongoing in the vicinity of the Cache River NWR. Although typical habitat requirements for this species are somewhat uncertain, it is thought to require large, contiguous forests with numerous large trees (FWS, 2007c), including mature bottomland forest. According to the FWS, the ivory-billed woodpecker has not been documented within the study area counties (Hempstead, Miller, or Little River) (Harney, 2006).

The red wolf was formerly known throughout the Eastern half of Texas and Arkansas in brushy and forested areas, as well as coastal prairies (Davis and Schmidly, 1994; Sealander and Heidt, 1990). It has since been extirpated from Texas and Arkansas and is not likely to occur within the study area.

The Louisiana black bear was once native to east Texas but is now considered extirpated from the state (Fleming, 1988, 1989). In addition to the Louisiana black bear’s listing, all other black bears occurring within the historic range of the Louisiana black bear are listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (57 FR 588, 7 January 1992). The historic distribution of the Louisiana black bear in Texas included all counties east of and including Cass, Marion, Harrison, Upshur, Rusk, Cherokee, Anderson, Leon, Robertson, Burleson, Washington, Lavaca, Victoria, Refugio, and Aransas, through Louisiana and southern Mississippi. Currently, only two breeding populations of the Louisiana black bear are known to occur, in the Tensas and Atchafalaya river basins in Louisiana. Although sightings have been reported outside of these two river basins, it is not known if they represent breeding populations or transient individuals. Additional areas may be occupied in Louisiana and Mississippi (FWS, 1995). Occasional sightings of bears in east Texas probably result from released captives, or transients from other states (Taylor, 1999, 2000). In 1998 and 1999, black bears were reported from Angelina, Franklin, Hopkins, and Lamar counties. In 1999 one of at least two bears reported in Hopkins County was killed on IH 30 near the Hopkins/Franklin county line (Taylor, 1999). No significant bear activity, however, has been reported in east Texas in recent years (Taylor, 2000; McKinney, 2001). The Louisiana black bear has been documented, or is known to occur within Bowie County, and transient black bears may, on rare occasion, occur in heavily forested portions of the study area.

American burying beetle is known primarily from oak-hickory forest and grasslands of the Ozark uplift, and in the Ouachita Mountains in areas described as forest/pasture ecotone and open pasture (FWS, 1991). Little is known about the habitats associated with most historical collections of N. arnericanus. Considering the broad geographic range of the species, it is likely that vegetational structures and soil types are not generally limiting for this burying beetle, but it is clear that certain conditions are not suitable for carcass burial (FWS, 1991). These conditions include very xeric, saturated, or loose sandy soils. Some studies suggest that it is probable that carrion availability in a given area is more important to the species occurrence than vegetation or soils (FWS, 1991). Typically the rangewide activity period for the American burying beetle is generally late April through September (FWS, 1991). The American burying beetle has been documented from western Little River County (FWS, 2007a) and may occur within the study area.

441829/070031 3-39 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Four species that are considered inventory elements by the State of Arkansas have been documented within the study area in Hempstead County. They include the purple gallinule (Porphyrio martinica), Mississippi green water snake (Nerodia cyclopion), gulf crayfish snake (Regina rigida sinicola), and southern redback salamander (Plethodon serratus). The remaining wildlife taxa in Table 3-1 are not federally listed but are considered by TPWD to be threatened. These are the American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius), scarlet snake (Cemophora coccinea), timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii), and Rafinesque’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii).

According to the Texas Ornithological Society (TOS, 1995) and FWS (1995), both the American peregrine falcon and arctic peregrine falcon are statewide migrants in Texas. The FWS has officially removed the American peregrine falcon and the arctic peregrine falcon from the list of endangered and threatened species as the result of studies showing significant population recoveries (64 FR 46542). Although the FWS has officially delisted these two taxa, TPWD continues to list the American peregrine falcon as endangered and the arctic peregrine falcon as threatened in Texas. Both taxa are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Peregrines may occur in the study area during migration (Oberholser, 1974; Sibley, 2000).

The scarlet snake is primarily an inhabitant of areas having loose, sandy soil in coastal South Texas and in the pine, hardwood, and mixed-forest environments of northeast Texas. It can also be found on the edges of swamps, stream banks and agricultural fields. The range of this species includes the study area counties (Tennant, 1998; Werler and Dixon, 2000; Dixon, 2000); therefore, it could occur within the study area.

The timber rattlesnake inhabits moist bottomlands and riparian woodlands along major river basins in the eastern third of Texas. Although this species tends to inhabit environments with a thick understory, it seems to prefer open space at ground level (Werler and Dixon, 2000). The range of this species includes the study area counties (Dixon, 2000); thus, it is likely to occur within the study area.

Bachman’s sparrow inhabits dry, open pine woodlands in grass, shrub, or palmetto patches, on shrubby hillsides, in fallow fields, or grassy orchards (Sibley, 2000; Dickinson, 1999). This species typically builds its nests on the ground by bunches of grass or under low shrubs. The study area is at the western limits of the distribution of this species (Dickinson, 1999), and it may therefore be present where there is appropriate habitat.

The alligator snapping turtle is an inhabitant of deep rivers, lakes and large streams with muddy bottoms and abundant aquatic vegetation. This species’ decline has been attributed to over harvesting for its meat for human consumption. The alligator snapping turtle has been recorded from all study area counties (Bartlett and Bartlett, 1999; Dixon, 2000), and thus may occur in the study area in aquatic environments that represent suitable habitat.

441829/070031 3-40 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Rafinesque’s big-eared bat is not a well known bat in North America. It roosts in barn lofts, attics, old buildings, but it is seldom found in caves (Sealander and Heidt, 1990). It prefers dimly lit rooms of badly dilapidated, abandoned buildings in rural areas and has been documented in Little River County by Saugey et al. (1989) in an abandoned school. This species may occur within the rural areas and structures of the study area.

3.6 AQUATIC ECOLOGY

3.6.1 Aquatic Habitats and Species

As mentioned previously, the majority of the study area is located in the Red River Basin in northeast Texas and southwest Arkansas. The major aquatic environments in the study area include perennial rivers and streams, intermittent streams, lakes and oxbows, and man-made ponds. The principal tributaries, creeks, and streams that drain the area eventually empty into to Red River and the Little River. The primary drainages include portions of Red River, Little River, and their tributaries.

A large impoundment of surface water, Millwood Lake, is located within the study area. Small, surface- water impoundments, which are apparently used for watering livestock, as well as oxbows of the Red and Little rivers, are scattered throughout the study area. They range from small perched impoundments (stock ponds) to moderate-sized reservoirs on headwater creek channels. Numerous oxbow lakes and bayous are located near the Red and Little rivers, which vary in size from small to moderate.

Creeks occurring in the study area are typically shallow, intermittent streams with moderate to wide floodplains. Streamside woodlands, even in areas where the bottomlands have been cleared for pasture or cultivation, frequently shade the narrow stream channels. The substrate of these aquatic systems is typically composed of clay with varying amounts of silt and sand. Habitat variations within these systems are primarily attributable to substrate variability, water flow velocity, the presence and extent of rooted vegetation, and basin morphology. Accumulations of woody debris and leaf pack from the riparian canopy provide an important source of cover and food for numerous insect and crustacean species.

Because the smaller streams of the area are dry for a substantial portion of each year, the species that utilize them are restricted either to those having some adaptation to surviving dry periods (e.g., resting eggs in some crustacean species) or to species adapted to rapidly recolonizing disturbed habitats. The latter group may include many algal and zooplankton species, aquatic insects with winged adult stages, and numerous small fish species that migrate into ephemeral tributaries from permanent stream habitats to breed. Heavy shading by riparian vegetation and the steep-banked, clay-bottom channels constrain the development of stands of aquatic vascular plants, provide little attachment area for filamentous algal growth, and restrict the development of large populations of macroinvertebrates necessary as a food supply for the higher trophic levels.

In stream reaches dominated by scoured, sandy-clay bottoms, accumulations of woody debris or leaf pack provide the most important feeding and refuge areas for invertebrates and forage fish. While this material

441829/070031 3-41 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

is also an important habitat component in reaches with soft, muddy substrate, the softer bottoms also generally harbor substantial populations of burrowing invertebrates (e.g., larval diptera and oligochaetes), which may be an important food resource to higher trophic levels.

Unshaded areas, most commonly encountered at road crossings, which support stands of aquatic vegetation and have areas of soft substrate, can be expected to exhibit the stream’s most dense and diverse aquatic communities. This is attributable both to the additional food base provided by in situ production by algae and macrophytes and to the increase in habitat diversity afforded by the macrophyte stands.

The pond habitats in the study area vary widely in area, depth, and morphology. Bottom materials in these ponds are universally silt-to-clay sized particles that are either naturally occurring where the pond is built or added as a liner to prevent leaking. Ponds with extensive, shallow, marginal areas tend to develop stands of rooted aquatic vegetation. The ponds in the study area probably tend to be relatively productive since they are mainly unshaded and nearly all receive some nutrient input from agricultural runoff.

Phytoplankton and zooplankton populations in area streams are generally of low density because of flushing during periods in which the streams are flowing. During low-flow periods when streams consist of relatively isolated pools, high plankton population densities will often be encountered in pools where light and nutrient conditions are suitable for their development. Species composition and densities are typically highly variable even among adjacent pools in the same stream channel. The most commonly encountered phytoplankton groups include the Chlorophyta (green algae), the Euglenophyta, the Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae), and the Bacillariophyta (diatoms). The zooplankton communities in area streams are probably dominated by the rotifers.

The same major phytoplankton groups probably tend to be abundant in study area ponds. The zooplankton, however, will tend to be dominated by the crustacea rather than the rotifers. Both the phytoplankton and zooplankton tend to be found in much higher densities in pond habitats than in streams. Macroinvertebrate populations are generally small where streambeds are dominated by scoured sandy clays. Although individuals of most of the major insect groups may be found in these areas, the dominant forms are larval chironomids, odonates and mayflies, and adults of aquatic species of Coleoptera and Hemiptera. All these forms are found primarily in association with accumulations of terrestrial plant debris. Where riffle areas or stands of aquatic vegetation occur, macroinvertebrate populations tend to be both denser and more diverse. These areas tend to be dominated by species of the insect orders Odonata (dragonflies), Ephemeroptera (mayflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) in which the larval or nymphal stages are aquatic. Soft sediments generally contain relatively larger populations of larval diptera and oligochaetes.

Macroinvertebrate communities in ponds in the study area probably tend to have a somewhat different structure than in the streams. The crustaceans are a more important component of the community in the ponds since in those habitats they do not have to contend with frequent periods of drought. Species of Oligochaeta and Diptera, which are typical of fine-grained stable sediments containing substantial

441829/070031 3-42 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

amounts of organic matter, generally constitute an important portion of the macroinvertebrate community and an extremely important food source for fish in the higher trophic levels.

The fish fauna of northeast Texas and southwest Arkansas can be characterized as transitional, containing a mixture of species present in other regions. Typical species of intermittent and smaller permanent creeks include forage fish assemblages dominated by minnows (Notropis spp.) that are preyed upon by predatory species. Fish communities in pool areas tend to be heavily dominated by centrarchids. The bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis), and spotted sunfish (Lepomis punctatus) are probably widely distributed in area streams when sufficient water is present. Other commonly encountered centrarchids would include green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides).

The fish communities of the pond habitats are almost universally dependent upon stocking practices. Several species of sunfish, largemouth bass and channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) are the species most commonly stocked for recreational fishing in these ponds (Robison and Buchanan, 1988).

3.6.2 Important Species

3.6.2.1 Recreationally or Commercially Important Species

The larger rivers within the study area appear to be large enough to support some significant recreational or commercial fishery. The major impoundments in the area would provide the bulk of the recreational fishery. Millwood Lake supports a year-round recreational fishery. Important recreational species include channel catfish, flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), white bass (Morone chrysops), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), largemouth bass, white crappie (Pomoxis annularis), and black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus).

Pond habitats in the area typically provide a private recreational fishery available to landowners and their guests. Within the state of Arkansas, fish-farming and wild commercial fisheries exist (Robison and Buchanan, 1988). Fish-farming operations include production of food, stock, and bait fish. Commercial fishing within the Red River yielded approximately 1 million pounds of total biomass of fishes taken commercially from 1984 to 1985 (Robison and Buchanan, 1988).

3.6.2.2 Endangered and Threatened Species

As displayed in Table 3-1, two federally listed aquatic species, the Ouachita rock pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri) and the pink mucket (Lampsilis abrupta) are considered by FWS as endangered. The paddlefish (Polyodon spathula), the creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), the blackside darter (Percina maculate), and the shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platirynchus) are listed as state-threatened by the TPWD (TXNDD, 2007). As mentioned previously, federally listed species are specifically protected under the Endangered Species Act. State-listed species have specific protection under state law. ANHC Inventory species, however, do not have specific legal protection, unless they are also federally and/or state-listed.

441829/070031 3-43 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

The pink mucket typically inhabits medium to large rivers with strong currents; however, it has also been able to survive and reproduce in areas of impounded reaches with river/lake conditions without standing water (NatureServe 2003; FWS, 1985). Substrate preferences include sand, gravel, and pockets between rocky ledges in high velocity areas and mud and sand in slower moving waters. Individuals have been found at depths up to 1 meter in swiftly moving currents and in much deeper waters with slower currents (Gordon and Layzer, 1989). Due to the wide variety of aquatic environments, this species could occur within the study area. A 2007 survey commissioned by AEPSC of approximately 2 miles of the Little River just upstream of the Red River confluence, which encompasses the areas of the potential alternative transmission line crossings, found no living specimens of this species (URS 2007c).

The Ouachita rock pocketbook occurs in medium-sized rivers, in backwater or slackwater areas adjacent to the main channel, and from muddy or silty substrates (Howells et al., 1996). This species has also been reported in pools in small, low-current rivers. It prefers sand and cobble-gravel substrates (Howells et al., 1996). This species occurs at numerous sites in the Little River between Millwood Lake Dam and the confluence with the Red River (Tobin, 2007). It has been documented within the study area in Hempstead and Little River counties (ANHC, 2006a, 2006b) ; however, the 2007 survey mentioned above found no living specimens of this species.

The paddlefish was once an abundant species throughout the Mississippi River drainage (Lee et al., 1980; Hubbs et al., 1991). Previously, it had declined throughout its range due to habitat alteration, overexploitation, and pollution, although the state of Texas has been reintroducing paddle fish into East Texas, including the Sabine and Neches rivers (American Fisheries Society [AFS], 1986). It is unlikely that the paddlefish is present in the small streams and creeks of the study area; however, it has been documented within the Red and Little rivers and could occur within the larger rivers and waterbodies located within the study area.

The creek chubsucker ranges from streams of the Atlantic Coast west to the San Jacinto River in Texas (Lee et al., 1980). During its development, the creek chubsucker inhabits a wide variety of stream and creek environments, though it seldom occurs in impoundments or near springs. This fish is among the first to inhabit headwaters and previously dry (intermittent) streams (Smith, 1979) and is of potential occurrence within the study area.

The blackside darter is predominately found in small to medium-sized creeks and rivers near the Coastal- Plain-Upland boundary (Robison and Buchanan, 1988). It occurs in a variety of habitats including pools and riffles of slow to moderate current having gravel or other rock substrates (Robison and Buchanan, 1988) and is of potential occurrence within the study area.

The shovelnose sturgeon prefers shallow areas and deep channels of large rivers, and it is generally found near sand bars with strong currents (Robison and Buchanan, 1988). It is tolerant of high turbidity. The shovelnose sturgeon has been documented in the Red and Little rivers and could occur within the study area.

441829/070031 3-44 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Seven species, which are considered inventory elements by the state of Arkansas, have been documented within the study area. The goldeye (Hiodon alosoides), sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), southern mapleleaf (Quadrula apiculata), and monkeyface (Quadrula metanevra) have been documented in Hempstead and Little River counties (ANHC, 2006a, 2006b). The western sand darter (Ammocrypta clara) and red river shiner (Notropis bairdi) have been documented in Miller and Hempstead counties, while the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongates) has been documented within all three Arkansas counties within the study area (ANHC, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c).

3.7 SOCIOECONOMICS

The study area encompasses one county in Texas and three counties in Arkansas. This section presents a summary of economic and demographic characteristics for the state of Texas, including Bowie County, the state of Arkansas, including Hempstead, Miller, and Little River counties. Also included in the analysis is the City of Texarkana, which is located in both Texas and Arkansas, and the City of Fulton, and the towns of McNab and Ogden, all of which are located in Arkansas. Literature sources reviewed include publications of the TWDB, Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, the Institute for Economic Advancement (IEA), and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

3.7.1 Population Trends

3.7.1.1 Historic Populations

Texas: As shown on Figure 3-7, the population of Bowie County and the state of Texas has increased since 1980. Bowie County’s population increased by 8.5% during the 1980s and continued to increase by 9.4% during the 1990s. By comparison, the state’s population grew at a rate of 19.4% during the 1980s and 22.8% during the 1990s (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000).

Arkansas: The populations of Miller County and the state of Arkansas (Figure 3-7) have increased since 1980. Miller County is the only Arkansas county within the study area to demonstrate population growth through the 1980s and 1990s, with an increase of 1.9% from 1980–1990, and an increase of 5.1% from 1990–2000. Hempstead County’s population decreased by 8.5% in the 1980s and increased by 9.1% in the 1990s, while the population of Little River County increased by 0.1% from 1980–1990, and decreased by 2.4% from 1990–2000. Meanwhile, the state of Arkansas’s population increased during both decades by 2.8% from 1980–1990, and by 13.7% from 1990–2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000).

3.7.1.2 Population Projections

Texas: The population of Bowie County is projected to increase its population by nearly 19,091 (21.4%) from 2000 to 2030. By comparison, the state of Texas’s population is expected to reach 31,830,579 by 2030, an increase of nearly 53% (TWDB, 2006).

Arkansas: From 2000 to 2030, the population of Hempstead County is expected to increase from 23,587 to 35,117, a growth of 48.9%, and Miller County’s population is expected to increase in that timeframe by

441829/070031 3-45 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-46 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4 FIGURE 3-7

POPULATION TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS

STATE OF TEXAS LITTLE RIVER COUNTY 35,000,000 16,000 30,000,000 14,000 25,000,000 12,000 10,000 20,000,000 8,000 15,000,000 6,000 Population 10,000,000 Population 4,000 5,000,000 2,000 0 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year Year

BOWIE COUNTY MILLER COUNTY 120,000 60,000

100,000 50,000

80,000 40,000

60,000 30,000 40,000 20,000 Population Population 20,000 10,000

0 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year Year

HEMPSTEAD COUNTY STATE OF ARKANSAS 40,000 4,500,000 35,000 4,000,000 30,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 25,000 2,500,000 20,000 2,000,000 15,000 1,500,000 Population Population 10,000 1,000,000 5,000 500,000 0 0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year Year

Source: U.S. Census, 2000; TWDB, 2006; IEA, 2003.

441829/070031 3-47 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-48 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

24.3% from 40,443 to 50,273. From 2000 to 2030, Little River County’s population is expected to decrease from 13,628 to 11,124, a decrease of 18.4%. Meanwhile, the state of Arkansas’s population during this period is expected to increase steadily from 2,673,400 to 4,180,497, an increase of 56.4% (IEA, 2003).

3.7.2 Employment

Texas: The labor forces in Bowie County and the state of Texas have increased steadily from 1990 to 2005 (Figure 3-8). Between 1990 and 2005, the labor force in Bowie County increased by 12.7% from 37,988 in 1990 to 42,827 in 2005. The total labor force within Texas increased 30.6% during the same time period from 8,593,724 in 1990 to 11,225,882 in 2005.

Bowie County’s unemployment rate (see Figure 3-8) has consistently been higher than that of the state since 1990. Bowie County’s average unemployment rate peaked in 1995 when it reached 8.5%, while the state’s level peaked in 1990, with 6.4% (BLS, 2006).

Arkansas: The labor forces within Miller County and the state of Arkansas have also increased steadily from 1990 to 2005 (see Figure 3-8). In Miller County, the labor force increased from 17,072 in 1990 to 19,839 in 2005, an increase of 16.2%. The labor force in Arkansas increased from 1990 to 2005 by 20.9%, from 1,125,962 to 1,260,256, respectively. In Hempstead and Little River counties, the labor force has fluctuated during the same time period. In Hempstead County, the labor force increased between 1990 and 1995, but then decreased until 2005 for an overall increase of 8.0%. The labor force of Little River County decreased between 1990 and 1995, and then slowly increased until 2005 for an overall decrease of 3.2% (BLS, 2006).

Both Miller and Little River counties peaked in 1995, with unemployment rates of 6.6% and 7.0%, respectively (see Figure 3-8). Hempstead County’s unemployment rate reached a high in 1990 with 8.7%, and then steadily decreased until 2005. The state of Arkansas experienced a similar pattern, steadily decreasing from a high of 6.8% in 1990, until increasing again in 2005 (BLS, 2006).

3.7.3 Leading Economic Sectors

Covered employment data incorporates the number of workers covered by state unemployment insurance and most agricultural employees within a county. The employment count includes all corporation officials, executives, supervisory personnel, clerical workers, wage earners, pieceworkers, and part-time workers. The data excludes employment covered by the Railroad Retirement Act, self-employed persons and unpaid family workers.

Texas: A comparison of first quarter TWC employment figures over a five-year period (2001 to 2006) revealed that covered employment in Bowie County increased by 7.5% while Texas increased by 7.0% (TWC, 2006). As shown on Figure 3-9, first quarter 2006 leading employment sectors at the state level for Texas included the trade, transportation, and utilities sector (21%), the government sector (17%), and

441829/070031 3-49 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-50 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4 FIGURE 3-8

LABOR FORCE AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE

STATE OF TEXAS LITTLE RIVER COUNTY Labor Force Unemployment Rate Labor Force Unemployment Rate 12,000,000 7.0% 7,000 8.0%

6,800 7.0% 10,000,000 6.0% 6,600 6.0% 5.0% 8,000,000 6,400 5.0% 4.0% 6,200 6,000,000 4.0% 3.0% 6,000 3.0% Labor Labor Force 4,000,000 Labor Force 5,800 2.0% Unemployment Rate

2.0% Unemployment Rate 5,600 2,000,000 1.0% 5,400 1.0%

0 0.0% 5,200 0.0% 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year 1990 1995Year 2000 2005

BOWIE COUNTY MILLER COUNTY Labor Force Unemployment Rate Labor Force Unemployment Rate 44,000 9.0% 20,500 7.0% 20,000 43,000 8.0% 6.0% 19,500 42,000 7.0% 19,000 5.0% 41,000 6.0% 18,500 40,000 5.0% 4.0% 18,000 39,000 4.0% 3.0% 17,500 Labor Labor Force Labor Labor Force 38,000 3.0% 17,000 2.0% Unemployment Rate 37,000 2.0% Unemployment Rate 16,500 1.0% 36,000 1.0% 16,000 35,000 0.0% 15,500 0.0% 1990 1995Year 2000 2005 1990 1995Year 2000 2005

HEMPSTEAD COUNTY STATE OF ARKANSAS Labor Force Unemployment Rate Labor Force Unemployment Rate 12,000 10.0% 1,600,000 8.0%

9.0% 1,400,000 7.0% 11,500 8.0% 1,200,000 6.0% 7.0% 11,000 6.0% 1,000,000 5.0% 5.0% 800,000 4.0%

10,500 4.0% 600,000 3.0% Labor Labor Force 3.0% Labor Force

Unemployment Rate 400,000 2.0% Unemployment Rate 10,000 2.0% 1.0% 200,000 1.0% 9,500 0.0% 0 0.0% 1990 1995Year 2000 2005 1990 1995Year 2000 2005

Source: USBLS, 2007.

441829/070031 3-51 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-52 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4 FIGURE 3-9 MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTORS 3rd QUARTER 2004

STATE OF TEXAS LITTLE RIVER COUNTY

Manufacturing Trade, Natural Resources Construction 33% Transportation & Federal, State, and & Mining 6% Local Government 2% Utilities 17% 25%

Manufacturing 9% Construction Information Other Services 5% Financial1% Activities 3% 2% Trade, Transportation & Utilities 21% Natural Resources Leisure & Information & Mining Professional & Hospitality 2% 2% Business Services 9% 3% Financial Activities Professional & Education & Health 6% Federal/State/Loca Business Services Services l Government 12% Leisure & 11% 19% Education & Hospitality Other Services Health Services 5% 2% 4%

BOWIE COUNTY MILLER COUNTY Financial Activities Trade, 5% Transportation & Manufacturing Utilities Trade, Information 22% 22% Transportation & 1% Utilities Information 23% Professional & 1% Business Services 6% Construction 6% Education & Health Financial Activities Manufacturing Services 3% 7% 18%

Natural Resources Professional & Construction & Mining Leisure & Business Services 4% 1% Hospitality 7% 9% Federal/State/Loca Federal/State/Local Education & l Government Government Other Services Health Services 17% Leisure & 26% 2% 8% Hospitality Other Services 10% 3%

HEMPSTEAD COUNTY Trade, STATE OF ARKANSAS Transportation & Information Utilities 2% Manufacturing Trade, 15% 33% Transportation & Utilities 27% Financial Activities Information 3% 1% Manufacturing Financial Activities 5% Construction 3% 2% Construction Professional & 5% Business Services Professional & 12% Business Services Natural Resources Natural Resources 3% & Mining & Mining 3% 2%

Education & Health Education & Health Federal/State/Local Leisure & Services Services 12% Federal/State/Loca Government Hospitality l Government 13% 19% 7% 19% Leisure & Hospitality Other Services Other Services 9% 3% 2%

Source: TWC, 2006.

441829/070031 3-53 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-54 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

the professional and business services sector (12%), which accounted for approximately 50% of the state’s employment. The major sectors in Bowie County are government (25%), trade, transportation, and utilities (23%), and education and health services (18%).

Arkansas: A comparison of first quarter employment figures over a 5-year period (2001 to 2006) revealed that covered employment in Hempstead County decreased by 9.1%, Little River County increased by 45.6%, Miller County decreased by 9.1%, and the state of Arkansas increased by 13.0% (Discover Arkansas, 2006). Leading sectors in Arkansas (see Figure 3-9) were the trade, transportation and utilities sector (27%), the government sector (20%), and education and health services (13%). In the study area, the leading sectors are the same for all three counties—manufacturing, trade, transportation and utilities, and government. In Hempstead County, manufacturing makes up 33% of covered employment, the government sector 19%, and trade, transportation and utilities 15%. In Little River County manufacturing makes up 33%, followed by trade, transportation and utilities with 25%, and government with 19%. Miller County’s covered employment is dominated by manufacturing (22.1%), trade, transportation and utilities (22%), and government (17%) (Discover Arkansas, 2006).

3.7.4 Agriculture

Texas: In 2002, there were approximately 1,337 farms in Bowie County, covering approximately 307,531 ac. The average market value of agricultural products per farm was $27,929, and $37,342,000 for the entire county. Bowie County ranked 106th in the state of Texas in terms of the total value of agricultural products sold in 2002. Livestock sales represented 81.5% of the market value in 2002, while crop sales represented 18.5% of the market value. Poultry and poultry products and cattle and calves were the livestock commodities yielding the greatest market value in 2002 in the county. Grains, oilseeds, dry beans and dry peas, and forage, brought the greatest market value among all crop sales (USDA, 2002).

Arkansas: In Hempstead County, in 2002, there were approximately 783 farms, covering approximately 203,678 ac. The average market value of agricultural products per farm was $183,434. In 2002, the total market value of agricultural products sold in the county was $143,629,000. Hempstead County ranked 4th out of 75 in the state of Arkansas in terms of the total value of agricultural products sold in 2002. Livestock sales represented 98.4% of the market value in 2002, while crop sales represented 1.6% of the market value. Poultry and poultry products were by far the livestock commodity yielding the greatest market value in 2002 in the county, followed by cattle and calves. Forage brought the greatest market value among all crop sales (USDA, 2002).

In 2002, there were approximately 424 farms in Little River County, covering approximately 147,173 ac. The average market value of agricultural products per farm was $94,075, and the average value of agricultural products sold in the county was $39,888,000. Little River County ranked 49th out of 75 in the state of Arkansas in terms of the total value of agricultural products sold in 2002. Livestock sales represented 85.8% of the market value in 2002, while crop sales represented 14.2% of the market value. Poultry and poultry products were the livestock commodity yielding the greatest market value in 2002.

441829/070031 3-55 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Grains, oilseed, dry beans and dry peas brought the greatest market value among all crop sales (USDA, 2002).

In Miller County, in 2002, there were approximately 516 farms, covering approximately 158,208 ac. The average market value of agricultural products per farm was $72,756. In 2002, the total market value of agricultural products sold in the county was $37,542,000. Miller County ranked 52nd out of 75 in the state of Arkansas in terms of the total value of agricultural products sold in 2002. Livestock sales represented 77.6% of the market value in 2002, while crop sales represented 22.4% of the market value. Poultry and poultry products were by far the livestock commodity yielding the greatest market value in 2002 in the county, followed by cattle and calves. Soybeans and forage brought the greatest market value among all crop sales (USDA, 2002).

3.7.5 Community Values

The term “community values” is included as a factor for consideration of transmission line certification under Section 37.056(c)(4) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), although the term has not been specifically defined for regulatory purposes by the PUCT. For the purpose of evaluating the effects of the proposed transmission line, PBS&J has defined the term community values as a “shared appreciation of an area or other natural or human resource by a national, regional, or local community.”

3.8 LAND USE, AESTHETICS AND RECREATION

3.8.1 Land Use

The study area encompasses Bowie County in northeast Texas; and Hempstead, Miller, and Little River counties in southwest Arkansas. Approximately 19% of the study area is in Bowie County to the southwest, 23% of the study area is in Hempstead County to the northeast, 31% of the study area is in Little River County to the northwest, and 27% of the study area is in Miller County to the southeast. Bowie County is included in North East Texas State Planning Region No. 5 (Ark-Tex Council of Governments [A-TCG]) (Texas Association of Regional Councils, 2007), and Hempstead, Miller, and Little River counties are included in the Southwest Arkansas Planning and Development District (SWAPDD, 2007). Portions of school districts found within the study area boundaries include the Pleasant Grove Independent School District of Texas; and the Ashdown, Saratoga, Hope, and Texarkana school districts of Arkansas (U.S. Department of Education, 2007; Texas Education Agency, 2007).

Bowie County is the largest of the study area counties as it occupies 590,600 ac, or 0.35% of the state of Texas. The land use in Bowie County that covers the greatest land area is forestland, with 218,600 ac, or 37.01% of the total county acreage. The second-largest land use category in Bowie County is pastureland at 184,100 ac, or 31.17% of the county. Urban land use is the next largest land use and accounts for 60,200 ac, or 10.19% of the county. All other land uses combined account for 21.62% of the county (or 127,700 ac) (NRCS, 2000).

441829/070031 3-56 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Hempstead County occupies 474,500 ac, or 1.39% of the state of Arkansas. The land use category in Hempstead County, Arkansas, that covers the greatest land area is forestland with 279,100 ac, or 58.82% of the total county acreage. The second-largest land use category in Hempstead County is pastureland, at 144,700 ac, or 30.50% of the county. All other land uses combined account for 10.68% of the county (or 50,700 ac) (NRCS, 2000).

Miller County occupies 408,000 ac, or 1.2% of the state of Arkansas. The land use category in Miller County, Arkansas, that covers the greatest land area is forestland with 160,500 ac, or 39.34% of the total county acreage. The second-largest land use category in Miller County is cropland, at 104,400 ac, or 25.59% of the county. Pastureland is next largest land use and accounts for 94,600 ac, or 23.19% of the county. All other land uses combined account for 11.89% of the county (or 48,500 ac) (NRCS, 2000).

Little River County is the smallest of the project study area counties as it occupies 361,600 ac, or 1.06% of the state of Arkansas. The land use category in Little River County, Arkansas, that covers the greatest land area is forestland, with 146,400 ac, or 40.49% of the total county acreage. The second-largest land use category in Little River County is cropland at 97,700 ac, or 27.02% of the county. Pastureland is the next largest land use and accounts for 66,900 ac, or 18.50% of the county. All other land uses combined account for 13.99% of the county (or 50,600 ac) (NRCS, 2000). Recent field reconnaissance revealed that lands within the study area were used specifically for the purposes of cattle ranching; poultry production, various row crop cultivation, pecan farming, commercial pine and hardwood sivilculture (for lumber and paper production), commercial turfgrass production, natural resource conservation, and parks and recreation.

The cities of Texarkana, Arkansas, and Texarkana, Texas, represent a major urban area in the southwestern portion of the study area. The cities of Ogden, in the central-western portion of the study area, and Fulton, in the northeastern portion of the study area are the only other incorporated cities in the study area. Several communities are also located throughout the study area and occur mainly along the adjacent southwest/northeast corridors of IH 30 and US 67. These communities include (from southwest to northeast) Mandeville, Paup, Clear Lake Junction, Homan, Clipper, and Fulton. Other communities scattered throughout the northern portion of the study area include McNab, Davem Orton, Redbluff, Cole, Millwood, and Temple. Other incorporated cities near the study area include Ashdown, Arkansas, to the northwest; Hope, Arkansas, to the northeast, and Nash and Leary, Texas, to the southwest. The southern portion of Millwood Lake is located within the northern portion of the study area, and communities in this area are influenced by the recreational opportunities provided by the lake.

3.8.2 Aesthetics

Aesthetic values are included as a factor for consideration in the evaluation of transmission facilities in Section 37.056(c)(4) of the Texas Utilities Code. The term aesthetics refers to the subjective perception of natural beauty in the landscape by attempting to define and measure an area’s scenic qualities.

441829/070031 3-57 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Consideration of the visual environment includes a determination of aesthetic values (where the location of a transmission line could potentially affect the scenic enjoyment of the area). Aesthetic values considered in this analysis, which combine to give an area its aesthetic identity, include:

• topographical variation (hills, valleys, etc.) • prominence of water in the landscape • vegetation variety (forests, pasture, etc.) • color • degree of human development or alteration • overall uniqueness of the scenic environment compared to the larger region

Based on these criteria, the study area exhibits medium aesthetic quality for the region. Accompanied by a seemingly flat topography with moderately rolling topography in the north, a great deal of the study area consists of forestland, pastureland, and cropland. The study area has several small lakes, numerous ponds, creeks, and rivers including the Red River and Little River. Many oxbow lakes are found throughout the Red River and Little River floodplains and provide aesthetic value through birding opportunities during migration seasons. The most noteworthy lake within the vicinity of the study area is Millwood Lake. This USACE flood controlled reservoir contributes to the aesthetic value of the region and provides for various outdoor recreational opportunities including nature viewing. The Little River and Bois d’ Arc WMAs are located within the study area along Little River and Bois d’ Arc Creek, respectively, and both provide aesthetic quality through floral and faunal diversity. In addition, The Nacatoch Ravines Natural Area is located along SH 355, north of McNab and consists of deeply cut forested ravines that look down into the hardwood bottoms and wetlands of Grassy Lake and the Little River. Although very little of the total land area has been urbanized, with the exception of areas within the Texarkana metropolitan area, and a few other very small rural communities, there are in addition a number of subdivisions, highways, logging areas, utility corridors, and railroad lines that have contributed to the degree of human development and alteration from its natural form.

There are no specific roadside markers, travel trails, scenic overlooks, or specific attractions associated with the Texas portion of the study area (TxDOT, n.d., 1997; THC, 2006; Texas Highways, 1998).

3.8.2.1 Recreation

The study area provides several recreational opportunities, primarily outdoor and sporting opportunities. Many of these include hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, hiking, boating, water skiing, wildlife viewing, organized sports, golfing, and various leisure activities. A field reconnaissance and visits to local park headquarters and state visitor and welcome centers, in addition to a review of national, state, and local sources (Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism [ADPT], 2007; Briscoe and Duke, 1997; Hodge, 2003; National Park Service [NPS], 2007; TxDOT, 2007; TPWD, 1985, 1998; USACE, 2001; AGFC, 2007a; ANHC, 2007a) revealed one state park, five USACE parks, two WMAs, one natural area,

441829/070031 3-58 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

multiple public river access boat ramps, one auto race track, several city and county parks, a rodeo and fairgrounds facility, local high school sports complexes, and several golf courses, country clubs, and hunt clubs. There are no Texas state parks, Texas WMAs or Texas state natural areas in the study area. There are also no national parks, national monuments, wild and scenic rivers, national natural landmarks, wilderness areas, or national forests.

Fishing, boating, and various other aquatic-related recreational opportunities are provided along the Red and Little rivers and Millwood Lake. Several state maintained public access boat ramps are located along the Red and Little rivers. Facilities located within the study area with access to Millwood Lake include Millwood State Park; and USACE-owned Beard’s Bluff park, River Run East park, and River Run West park. Millwood Lake is very popular for its bass fishing opportunities. Each year it is the site of many bass tournaments and fishing derbies held by local and out-of-state organizations (USACE, 2001, 2007a, 2007b).

Nature viewing and hiking opportunities are provided throughout Beard’s Lake Park and Nacatoch Ravines Natural Area. Beard’s Lake Arboretum Trail and Wildlife Boardwalk, located within Beard’s Lake Park south of SH 32 below Millwood Dam is a self-guided interpretive Arboretum trail and watchable wildlife boardwalk that spans out over a wetland habitat owned by the USACE. Numerous species of wildlife can be seen here including American alligator, white-tailed deer, wood duck, squirrel, and many others. With over 309 species of birds reported within a 7.5-mile area, this is known as one of the best birding sites in Arkansas (USACE, 2001, 2007c). The Nacatoch Ravines Natural Area is a 635-ac preserve that is one of the largest, and most intact examples of dry, dry-mesic, and mesic upland forests remaining in the northern part of the West Gulf Coastal Plain. It is shared with undivided interest between the Nature Conservancy and the ANHC and is specifically managed to preserve rare forest communities (ANHC, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c).

The primary objectives of the Little River and Bois d’ Arc WMAs are to provide quality wildlife habitat and public hunting activities. The Little River WMA is located on the Little River northwest of Fulton and is a 597-ac area owned by the AGFC. The area is primarily bottomland hardwood and is flooded often providing excellent waterfowl hunting opportunities as well as hunting opportunities for white- tailed deer, quail, turkey, squirrel, and rabbit. The Bois d’ Arc WMA is located 16 miles south of Hope and is composed of 13,626 ac of state-owned and timber-and-paper company-leased lands. Also consisting of primarily bottomland hardwood habitats, this WMA provides hunting opportunities for white-tailed deer, quail, turkey, squirrel, rabbit, and especially waterfowl (AGFC, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). Other hunting opportunities are provided on various private lands through leases in Texas and hunt club memberships in Arkansas.

Field reconnaissance revealed that prominent local sporting and entertainment events occur within the study area, primarily within the Texarkana metropolitan area, at venues such as Razorback Athletic Stadium, Texarkana Motor Speedway, and Four States Fair and Rodeo Grounds. Less prominent opportunities are provided at various local city parks, pavilions, and golf country clubs.

441829/070031 3-59 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Further information concerning area attractions and recreational opportunities throughout Arkansas are provided at two Arkansas welcome centers located within the study area accompanied by roadside parks; one being located along the northbound side of Stateline Avenue (US 59/US 71) just south of the Red River, and the other located on northeast bound side of IH 30 just north of SH 108. Within the City of Texarkana, Texas (outside of the study area) is a Texas Travel Information Center and the office of the City of Texarkana, Texas Parks and Recreation, and both may be contacted directly by the public for further information concerning area attractions and recreational opportunities throughout the state of Texas. Information concerning hunting, fishing, boating, and WMA regulations are provided through contacting the AGFC or the TPWD. Information concerning Arkansas State Natural Areas is provided by the ANHC, and information concerning recreation activities on Millwood Lake is provided by the AGFC and the USACE.

3.8.3 Transportation/Aviation

Regional and local transportation is provided by the southwest/northeast corridors of IH 30 and US 67 and the north/south corridor of US 59/71. Additionally, numerous farm-to market roads and county roads cross the study area.

A review of the Memphis Sectional Aeronautical Chart (FAA 2007a), the airport/facility directory for the south central U.S. (FAA, 2007b), USGS topographic maps, and airnav.com (AirNav.com, 2007) revealed three private airstrips including the Shilling’s, Pine Prairie, and Flying W airfields. The only municipal airport currently registered by the FAA nearest to the study area is the Texarkana Regional–Webb Field airport. An additional seven private airports and three heliports are located outside the study area within 30 miles of Texarkana, Texas-Arkansas.

An internet search of AM/FM radio towers (Federal Communications Commission [FCC], 2007) revealed no AM or FM towers within the study area. However, a review of Memphis Sectional Aeronautical Chart (FAA, 2007a), and field reconnaissance indicated several electronic communication towers concentrated along the southwest/northeast corridors of IH 30 and US 67; and along the north/south corridor of US 59/71.

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES

The study area, which falls within the southwest cultural resources region of Arkansas (Davis, 1994) (Figure 3-10) and the eastern planning region of Texas (Mercado-Allinger, et al.) (Figure 3-11), includes Bowie County, Texas, and portions of Hempstead, Miller, and Little River counties, Arkansas. This area has been inhabited since the late Pleistocene/early Holocene period, some 12,000 or more years ago, with cultural developments reflecting a progression of human adaptations to the environment of the Gulf Coastal Plain physiographic province (Story, 1990). Very little evidence of the earliest occupations has been found, although current archaeological theory suggests that prehistoric population density in the area increased with the passage of time and that artifact assemblages reflect a higher degree of regional specialization through time. The seasonal food-gathering activities of these people gradually gave way to

441829/070031 3-60 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

PRAIRIE FOREST UPLAND FOREST WHITE RIVER BOTTOMLANDUPLAND FOREST

ARKANSAS OZARKS

CROWLEY’S RIDGE

WESTERN LOWLAND

UPLAND WISCONSIN AGE TERRACES IDDLE AR FOREST EASTERNST. FRANCIS LOWLAND BASIN M KA WHITE RIVER NS AS RI NORTHEAST VE R V ALL OUACHITA MOUNTAINS E Y LOWLAND

GRAND PRAIRIE

RIDGE SOUTHWEST

ARKANSAS LOWER WHITE RIVER RIVER BASIN MIDDLE LOWLAND SALINE

MIDDLE LITTLE OUACHITA RIVER SOUTHEAST LITTLE MISSOURI

FELSENTHAL

GREAT BEND BARTHOLOMEW MACON

Engineering Environmental Consulting Surveying north Figure 3-10 0 100 LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA COUNTIES scale in miles IN RELATION TO THE CULTURAL RESOURCES REGIONS OF ARKANSAS Source: Davis, 1994 l:\projects\hc1\aep\441829\cad\figure3-10.ai 3-61 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-62 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

PLAINS PLANNING REGION PRAIRIE- SAVANNA

NORTHEAST TEXAS

EASTERN PLANNING REGION TRANS-PECOS PLANNING REGION SOUTHEAST TEXAS

CENTRAL & SOUTHERN PLANNING REGION

Engineering Environmental Consulting Surveying north Figure 3-11

100 0 100 200 LOCATION OF BOWIE COUNTY IN RELATION TO scale in miles THE CULTURAL RESOURCES PLANNING REGIONS OF TEXAS Source: Mercado-Allinger, et al, 1993 l:\projects\hc1\aep\441829\cad\figure3-11.ai 3-63 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-64 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

semipermanent food-producing activities due in part to the rich environment. Agricultural sedentism became widespread among prehistoric culture groups after approximately A.D. 800 with the advent of the Caddo. By the time the first Europeans began to explore the Red River, the cultures they encountered had established an adaptive system that allowed flourishing populations.

3.9.1 Prehistoric Period

3.9.1.1 Paleoindian Period (10,000 B.C.–ca. 6500 B.C.)

The Paleoindian period began at the end of the Pleistocene (about 9500 B.C.) and ended at about 6500 B.C. With the close of the Pleistocene came a period of climatic warming and a consequent rise in sea level as surface water was released from glaciers and polar ice. Paleoindian cultural developments in the Gulf Coastal Plain region, as in most areas of North America, appear to have been intimately related to these gradual but vast changes in the world climate and local environmental conditions.

This period is alternatively referred to as the time of the “Big Game Hunting” tradition due to a presumed heavy reliance upon now-extinct species of Pleistocene megafauna as a food source during the early part of the period (Willey, 1966). It should be noted, however, that such megafaunal remains are rarely found in association with Paleoindian cultural remains, and this presumed heavy reliance on megafauna is probably overemphasized. Shafer and Bryant (1977) have demonstrated that the Paleoindian diet was based, in large part, on the gathering of edible plants and the hunting of small mammals.

Societal organization was likely at the simplest form, the band level, wherein populations are considered to have been composed of small, loosely structured, highly mobile groups composed of several nuclear families referred to as bands. These groups practiced a hunting and gathering mode of subsistence and migrated widely in pursuit of seasonal resources. Sites of this period are often representative of transient camps along small streams occupied by band-sized or smaller groups. Base camp-sized occupation loci are relatively rare and usually associated with lithic procurement activities. The population density is thought to have been rather low during this period.

Clovis and Folsom point types are generally thought to be representative of the earlier part of the Paleoindian period, and point types such as Dalton, San Patrice, Scottsbluff, and Plainview are thought to represent the later part of the period. Although a Paleoindian presence is clearly evident in southwestern Arkansas, many of the finds are out of context, limited generally to surface finds or to sites where Paleoindian materials are in association with Archaic materials.

3.9.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 6500 B.C.–ca. 200 B.C.)

Artifact assemblages from archaeological sites dating to the Archaic period begin to exhibit signs of regional specialization and tend to be more functionally varied (Story, 1990). Stone-lined hearths, baking pits, milling implements, and polished stones serve as indicators of new technologies. Settlements tend to be located on or near terraces and floodplain prominences. River and stream confluences were also

441829/070031 3-65 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

favored areas for occupation. In the region, this time period is represented by three archaeological subdivisions: the Early, Middle, and Late Archaic. These subdivisions coincide with episodic shifts in the Holocene climate and environment. While the Archaic period may generally be characterized as a period of increasing population, as well as a period of increased cultural and economic diversification, it is also thought to have retained lifestyles and subsistence strategies developed during the previous Paleoindian period.

It has been observed that Archaic lithic technologies appear to show an increased diversity of functional types and styles over those associated with the Paleoindian period, while the level of craftsmanship and the use of fine exotic materials appear to have declined. In addition, the greater array of Archaic projectile point styles appears to reflect a greater degree of regional specificity (Story, 1990). From these apparent changes in the lithic technologies of Archaic cultures, Story (1990) surmises that Archaic period human populations may have become denser, with individual bands covering less overall territory on their seasonal rounds. According to Thurmond (1990), point types that can be ascribed to the Early Archaic include Bulverde, Calf Creek, Carrollton, Dawson, Morrill, San Patrice, and Wells. The Middle Archaic period is characterized by expanding and parallel stemmed dart points such as Evans, Edgewood, Ellis, Lone Oak, Palmillas, Trinity, and Yarbrough.

Sites dating to the Late Archaic period, from about 1000 to 200 B.C., tend to be more abundant and are usually located on sandy knolls and other high terraces along perennial streams. Many Late Archaic sites have been found within the confines of the various reservoir projects of eastern Texas and southwestern Arkansas (Hall, 1981; McClurken, 1968; Prewitt and Mallouf, 1977; Shafer, 1966) and as a consequence have been subjected to a considerable amount of excavation and analysis. Typically, Late Archaic sites tend to be relatively small and only rarely contain specialized tools or specific indicators of subsistence technology. Projectile points from this period include expanded and rectangular forms such as Kent, Woden, and Ponchartrain (Story, 1990).

3.9.1.3 Poverty Point Culture (1500–800 B.C.)

During the Late Archaic, the Poverty Point Culture flourished from 1500–800 B.C. and was named after the type site, 16WC5, in West Carroll Parish, Louisiana. This culture represents a transition from the hunting and gathering subsistence mode of the Archaic period to the semisedentary food production of the Woodland period. Distinctive artifacts of this culture include baked clay objects, products of lapidary industry, and Motley projectile points (Kelley, 1991; Webb, 1977).

The nearest Poverty Point cultural remains occur at a few sites in the Great Bend region of the Red River, east of the study area. These have been interpreted as being ephemeral locations rather than prolonged occupations (Schambach, 1982b). It has been postulated that the Poverty Point trade network might extend to the vicinity of the Great Bend region (Schambach, 1982b).

441829/070031 3-66 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

3.9.1.4 Fourche Maline Culture (ca. 200 B.C.–ca. A.D. 800)

The Fourche Maline is essentially a Woodland culture indigenous to southeastern Oklahoma and southwestern Arkansas. The Woodland period peoples on the Gulf Coastal Plain of southwestern Arkansas are considered to have been Fourche Maline (Schambach, 1982a). The most important characteristic of Fourche Maline culture is the presence of ceramics, which appeared about 200 B.C. (Galm, 1984). There is evidence in the archaeological record of a partial reliance on cultigens and prolonged occupations of specific areas. Sites of this time period are typically found on blufflines above river valleys, but several Fourche Maline sites have been located on a variety of landforms, including active floodplains (Mallouf, 1976). Artifact inventories of sites dating to this period include Williams Plain and Cooper Boneware ceramics, Gary dart points, and double-bit chipped stone axes. Pottery is usually grog tempered (Williams Plain), but bone-tempered types (Cooper Boneware) are not uncommon in southwest Arkansas. Sand-tempered wares, while very common in east Texas, have been found only in the Little River valley, where a sandy paste variety of Williams Plain has been recovered from excavations associated with the construction of Millwood Reservoir (Hoffman, 1970; Story, 1990).

3.9.1.5 Caddoan Culture (A.D. 800–1680)

The Caddoan culture is regarded as being an indigenous development in the area that is now northeast Texas, southeast Oklahoma, southwest Arkansas, and northwest Louisiana (Kelley, 1991; Neuman, 1984; Perttula, 1992; Schambach, 1982b; Story, 1990; Woodall, 1969). It has been described by Story (1990) as a “culmination of local conditions and processes.” Several loci or centers of initial Caddoan culture have been postulated, one of which developed in the Red River valley. This is referred to as the Central Caddo Subtradition (Schambach, 1982b; Story, 1990) or Subarea (Perttula, 1992). This subtradition stretches across the geographic area described above, with a southern boundary at the Sulphur River in Texas.

Three major groups of Caddoan peoples, referred to as confederacies, were recognized in early historic times (Swanton, 1942). Each confederacy was composed of a varying number of tribes exhibiting a linguistic and cultural affiliation among them that was much greater than their affiliation with tribes outside the confederacy. Each confederacy occupied a discrete geographic locale. Historic documents generated by Spanish and French expeditions into the area indicate that the area of the Red River valley within the study area was populated by tribes of the Kadohadacho confederacy. This confederacy was composed of the Nanatsoho, Upper Natchitoches, Upper Nasoni, and Kadohadacho tribes, and spanned the area from the Great Bend Region westward to just beyond the current Texas-Arkansas-Oklahoma border (Swanton, 1942; Williams, 1964, cited in Smith, 1994).

The earliest secure radiocarbon dates for the advent of Caddoan culture within the study area suggest that the first Caddoan sites were occupied by at least A.D. 900. Other forms of analysis, primarily ceramic seriation, have served to aid in the construction of temporal frameworks for the area. The most detailed of these has been established for the Little River basin, where Hoffman (1983) has proposed a chronology of successive phases. This chronology is based upon the work done in association with the construction of Millwood Reservoir. This is one of the best developed and most refined local chronologies ever

441829/070031 3-67 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

developed for the Caddoan area (Story, 1990). The chronology established for the Great Bend region is another highly refined chronology (Kelley, 1991; Schambach, 1982b). Other, broader, chronologies differ in their delineation of the traditional Caddo I through V periods.

Based on archaeological and ethnographic data, it is known that the Caddo were sedentary horticulturalists and hunters who became dependent on maize and other domesticated crops around A.D. 1300 (Perttula, 1995). The Caddo were also distinguished from their local predecessors by their use of earthen mounds for temple platforms and burials. Caddoan material culture during this period included corner-notched, rectangular-stemmed arrow points, siltstone and greenstone celts, perforators, large bifaces, a variety of expedient tools, and ceramic pipes, earspools, figurines and vessels (Perttula, 1995). Caddoan period archaeological sites are common throughout the Pineywoods, Post Oak Savanna and Great Bend Region of Texas and the west Gulf Coastal Plain of Arkansas; significant sites include Crenshaw Site (3MI6), ca. A.D. 700–1200, the Oak Hill Village site (41RK214), ca. A.D. 1200/1300– 1450, and the Hatchel-Mitchell Site (41BW3), ca. A.D. 1400–1680 (Perttula, 1995; Creel, 2007).

3.9.2 Historic

By the time the first Europeans ventured into northeast Texas and southwestern Arkansas around 1542, the area was a well-established Caddo territory. As part of their coexistence with newly arriving French and Spanish settlers, the Caddo established themselves as preeminent traders between the Europeans and other native tribes. As a consequence, they were heavily influenced by European goods and eventually came to completely embrace the foreign material culture. Caddo sites from this period prominently feature European trade goods. Two National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed sites of this period, Tilson Mounds-Lake Sommerville Place site (41BW14), A.D. 1500–1749, and Roseburough Lake site (41BW5), A.D. 1700–1749, are located within southern portion of the study area. Due to continuing predation of the Caddo by the Osage and effects of European-introduced diseases, the Caddo abandoned the area at the end of the eighteenth century (Harper, 2007).

3.9.2.1 European Exploration and Settlement

Southern Arkansas and northeastern Texas were at the crossroads of Spanish (and later Mexican), French, and ultimately American colonial interests. The area near the Red River was disputed by all three as part of their respective territories. The earliest European exploration of the area may have been that of the Hernando de Soto Expedition led by Spaniard Luis de Moscoso in 1542 (Rowe, 2007; Stephens and Holmes, 1989; Leet, 1982). Years later, the Spanish returned and established two missions near the Neches River among the Caddo in 1690. During this time, Don Domingo Teran de los Rios led a Spanish expedition through the Red River area in 1691, stopping at the Nasoni Caddo village now known as the Hatchel-Mitchell site (41BW3) (Perttula, 2003), located to the west of the study area in Bowie County, Texas.

French forays into this southwestern corner of Arkansas began when Henry Joutel accompanied by seven Frenchmen, remnants of La Salle’s “Lost Colony,” made their way through the area in 1687 after

441829/070031 3-68 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

abandoning the Texas coast to search for a route to the Mississippi River and on to Canada (Smith, 1994; Hanson and Moneyhon, 1989). Between 1718 and 1719, French troops returned under the command of Jean Baptiste Bénard de La Harpe and established Le Poste des Cadodaquious near present day Roseborough Lake as a territorial military fortification, supply base for expeditions, and trading post (Harper, 2007; Jennings and Varner, 1976; Britton, 2007; Leet, 1982). The post was abandoned after cession of Louisiana to Spain in 1762 (Britton, 2007). The archaeological remains of two possible trading post sites, one of which may be that of La Harpe, have been identified along the south bank of the Red River and are among the most important historical sites in the study area (Mirior et al., 1975; Gilmore, 1986).

The area now encompassed by Miller, Hempstead, and Little River counties became part of the United States as a result of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803. In order to secure the commonly disputed territory along the Red River, explorers Thomas Freeman and Dr. Peter Custis were dispatched to the area at the direction of President Thomas Jefferson in 1806. That expedition traveled up the Red River as far as the current study area and provided important documentary records of the area and its native inhabitants (Tyler, 1996).

Another well-documented excursion, the Featherstonaugh expedition of 1834, followed along the Southwest Road, also known as the Old Texas Trail, which was a major artery for immigration extending from the Missouri Territory across the study area and into Texas (Hanson and Moneyhon, 1989). Throughout the nineteenth century, Arkansas served as a crossroads territory through which many military and civilian transportation routes passed. Many of the earliest communities developed in this period, primarily along navigable waterways and major transportation routes.

The principal cultural traditions transplanted along the way included those of the hill folk of the Appalachian Mountains and the upper southern planters from the states of Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky. As a matter of cultural tradition, these different cultural groups settled into portions of Arkansas that geographically resembled their places of origin and thus provided the basis for an economy and lifestyle already familiar to them. The Appalachian hill folk settled primarily in the Ozark and Ouachita mountains north of the study area, whereas the broad floodplains of the Mississippi and Red rivers were cleared and cultivated by the planters, often with the aid of slave labor, for agricultural purposes.

To facilitate a policy of westward expansionism into Missouri, Louisiana, and later the Arkansas territories, the United States government undertook to relocate virtually all Native American tribes into the Indian Territory, generally located west of the current western boundary of Arkansas. The history of relations between the Native American tribes and the United States government in this period is especially complex, although one aspect of that history that has become especially well known is the forced march of Indian tribes along routes that became known as the Trail (or Trails) of Tears. While this term refers most specifically to a particularly harsh episode in the relocation of the Cherokee tribesmen, the term is sometimes used in a more general sense to refer to the relocation of all Indian tribes.

441829/070031 3-69 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

During the period of Indian resettlement, the United States also undertook to facilitate the sale and settlement of lands in the territory by embarking upon a territory-wide land survey according to Thomas Jefferson’s rectilinear system of townships and ranges. The survey was begun in the eastern part of the Arkansas Territory in 1815 but was not completed across the western portion until after Arkansas had become a state in 1836.

It was in this period that early governmental organizations in southwestern Arkansas were created. Hempstead County (1819) and Miller County (1820) were among the earliest counties created within the Arkansas Territory prior to Arkansas’ admission to statehood in 1836. Hempstead County was one of the first five counties organized under the laws of Missouri Territory. Originally, the county covered most of southwestern Arkansas including the lands now included in Miller and Little River counties (No Author, 1890). As a result of international boundary disputes between Spain, the United States, and later Mexico, the southern boundary of Miller County also once extended well into Texas. Following the settlement of the international boundary dispute by the Adams-Onis Treaty, Miller County was abolished and eventually reestablished according to its current configuration in 1874. Little River County was formed in 1867 and its original county seat was established at the community of Richmond in 1880 but later moved to Foreman (New Rocky Comfort) in 1902 and then to Ashdown in 1905 (Trusley, 2007).

3.9.2.2 Mexican Rule and Texas Independence

After Mexico established independence from Spain in 1821, several efforts to colonize Texas were launched. In 1826, Benjamin Milam, appointed by Mexican General Arthur Goodall Wavell, began colonizing the area between the Red and Sulphur rivers largely with Anglo-Americans who had already settled in the area (Leet, 1982; Jennings and Varner, 1976). Known as Wavell’s Colony, settlers struggled for legal rights to their lands amongst border disputes with the U.S. and ineptitude of Mexican authorities (Leet, 1982). After Texas won its independence from Mexico in 1836, titles were issued from the Republic and the U.S. relinquished all claims to lands south of the Red River. That same year the area that had been initially designated Miller County, Arkansas, became Red River County, Texas. In 1840, Bowie County was carved out of Red River County and named for James Bowie (Harper, 2007). Texas was annexed by the U.S. and was granted statehood in 1845.

3.9.2.3 Civil War and Late Nineteenth-Century Development

During much of the nineteenth century, southwestern Arkansas was dominated by a cotton cash crop economy. As a consequence, slavery, tied so closely with Southern cotton agriculture, was predominant— so much so that in the antebellum period, slaves outnumbered free inhabitants (Harper, 2007). In large part to protect the institution of slavery and the agricultural economy that it supported, Bowie County voted to secede from the Union on February 23, 1861, and Texas joined the Confederacy on March 5, 1862. Although never invaded by Union forces, which spared the county of physical destruction, the war wreaked havoc on the local economy by depriving citizens of a market for their cotton and drove up prices and limited the availability of household goods (Harper, 2007). Additionally, there was the human toll of warfare. Muster rolls indicate that 71 Bowie County men volunteered to fight as part of Captain

441829/070031 3-70 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

George Morris’ Company K of Colonel W. C. Young’s 11th Texas Cavalry in June of 1861, joining the Confederate forces under General Wheeler as the in October of that year. The Regiment served in Arkansas and east of the Mississippi River beginning in 1863 (Jennings and Varner, 1976). Undetermined numbers did not return home.

During the post-war Reconstruction period, many area citizens suffered under diminished property values, loss of economic viability, and the psychological burden of defeat, while others struggled to navigate their new-found freedom. Former slaves were often targets of Anglo angst through intimidation and violence. To maintain order, federal troops under Major George Starkley were stationed in Clarksville in 1868.

The gloom of the Reconstruction period slowly began to lift by the latter part of the nineteenth century. Texas was readmitted to the Union in 1870, property values began to rebound by 1871, and the Texas and Pacific Railway was constructed through Bowie County in 1873. The railway created shipping centers such as Texarkana and spurred the expansion of manufacturing and urbanization (Harper, 2007).

3.9.2.4 Twentieth Century Development

Despite railway development, the foundation of the local economy continued to be agricultural through the remainder of the nineteenth century and on into the early twentieth century. Cotton endured as the dominant crop, and production increased steadily to a peak of over 30,000 bales in 1929. As production rose, more and more cotton farmers in the county operated as sharecroppers or tenant farmers who did not own the land they cultivated. In 1880, census records indicate that 36% of all county farmers were tenants. By 1930, this number had risen to 64% (Harper, 2007).

The ensuing years of the Great Depression swept over Bowie County like the rest of the nation, ushering in a period of strife and poverty. The effects were first felt by area farmers. By 1930, the average value of family farms decreased dramatically; down from $3,498 in 1920 to $2,373 (Harper, 2007). The dismal conditions associated with the high number of unemployed in the county’s major urban center, Texarkana, and the depressed value of farm goods did not begin to abate until World War II (Leet, 1982).

Two massive military installations, the Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant (LSAAP) and Red River Army Depot (RRAD), were constructed in the county in 1941, employing thousands. At it’s height during the Korean War, RRAD employed over 11,000 people. In 1982, the LSAAP employed over 2,000 county citizens (Leet, 1982). Both LSAAP and RRAD are still operating today and together employ 4,700 people (LSAAP, n.d.; RRAD, 2006).

Throughout the 1940s, the number of county farms decreased as a federal land conservation program was instituted. Further frustrated by a decline in farm prices after the war, tenant farmers increasingly opted for better jobs in the cities. These conditions led to consolidation of farm land and more mechanized agriculture (Harper, 2007). Between 1940 and 1980, cotton was slowly replaced by cattle as the county’s leading agricultural commodity. During the same period, agriculture was replaced by manufacturing and wholesale and retail trade as the county’s economic cornerstone. After 1944, oil and gas extraction also

441829/070031 3-71 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

became factors in the area economy (Harper, 2007). Today, Bowie County is home to over 90,000 residents (census estimate, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/48037.html). Its major industries are agribusiness, lumbering, government services, and some manufacturing (Harper, 2007).

3.9.3 Previous Investigations

The earliest scientific work in the region was sponsored by the Philadelphia Academy of Science in 1911 and 1912. The project was directed by Clarence B. Moore and involved the exploration of the Red River from its mouth to the Great Bend area. After 5 months of fieldwork, a total of 44 sites had been excavated. None of these sites are located within the current project area (Guy, 1990).

The Museum of the American Indian, located in New York, funded a second expedition along the Red River in 1916. This project was inspired by the results of the earlier Moore expedition. The museum consulted Moore in 1915 regarding the undertaking of further research in the area. Moore suggested that the second exploration should study the Red River upstream of Fulton, where the first project was ended, but flooding in the valley rendered many of the mound sites inaccessible. M.R. Harrington, who directed the fieldwork, shifted the focus of investigation northward, toward the Little River. Harrington’s published study was the first in which mounds were attributed to historically known Indian tribes (Harrington, 1920).

A.T. Jackson of the University of Texas at Austin (UT) tested the Hatchel site (41BW3) in northern Bowie County in 1931. This site and two others adjacent to it (Moore [41BW2], Mitchell [41BW4]) were subsequently excavated by Jackson in 1932 (Jackson, 1933; Krieger, 1946; Creel, 1984). UT returned to sites 41BW3 and 41BW4 in the late 1930s with the financial assistance of the Works Progress Administration. The work at the Hatchell and Mitchell sites was directed by William Beatty and Arthur Woolsey, respectively. The Hatchel excavations centered on a large ceremonial mound and adjacent village areas, while the Mitchell excavations concentrated on a large Caddo cemetery (Creel, 1984; Krieger, 1946).

From the 1930s to the 1950s, it is estimated that more than 500 prehistoric burials were excavated within an 80-kilometer radius of Texarkana (McWilliams, 1961). He investigated a number of major sites in the Texarkana vicinity, including the Hatchel and Mitchell sites, Roseborough Lake (41BW5), and the Hargrove Moore site. Roseborough Lake was studied for over 15 years by the Dallas Archeological Society and several Texarkana avocationalists. In the publication on their excavations, they claimed that Roseborough Lake was the location of Bernard La Harpe’s 1719 trading post at the Upper Nasoni Caddo village (Mirior et al., 1975). Kathleen Gilmore of North Texas State University later disputed this claim, placing La Harpe’s post at the Eli Moore site (41BW2) (Gilmore, 1986).

3.9.4 File Review

The file review was conducted utilizing the maps and records at both the Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS) and at the office of the SHPO, AHPP, and DAH, as well as the THC and Texas Archeological

441829/070031 3-72 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Research Laboratory (TARL). All recorded archaeological sites and recorded historic structures were plotted on 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps and then available site records were copied for both the archaeological sites and the historic structures in the ROW. The NPS’s NRHP webpage and Arkansas’ state preservation webpage were also consulted but did not yield additional information concerning NRHP properties within the study area.

3.9.5 Additional Investigations

Pursuant to the Programmatic Agreement, to which the SHPO, SWEPCO, the Caddo Nation, and USACE are parties, SWEPCO will undertake investigation of cultural resources along the transmission line route.

441829/070031 3-73 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 3-74 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Section 4.0

Environmental Impacts of the Alternative Routes

08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

4.1 IMPACTS ON PHYSIOGRAPHY/GEOLOGY/SOILS

Construction of any of the alternative transmission line routes will have no significant effect on the physiographic or geologic features/resources of the area. The erection of the structures will require the removal and/or minor disturbance of small amounts of near-surface materials, but will have no measurable impact on the geologic resources or features along any of the alternative routes and no geologic hazards are anticipated to be created.

The construction and operation of transmission lines normally create very few long-term adverse impacts on soils. The major potential impact upon soils from any transmission line construction would be erosion and soil compaction. The potential for soil erosion is generally greatest during the initial clearing of the ROW; however, the utility does employ erosion control measures during the clearing and construction process. Construction of the transmission line would require minimal amounts of clearing in areas that have already been cleared for pastures, crops, and existing road, railroad, transmission line and pipeline ROW. The most important factor in controlling soil erosion associated with construction activity is to revegetate areas that have potential erosion problems immediately following construction. Impacts from soil erosion caused by construction activity should be minimized due to the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) designed in the SWPPP.

Prime farmlands, as defined by the NRCS, are soils that are best suited for producing food, feed, forage, or fiber crops. The USDA recognizes the importance and vulnerability of prime farmlands throughout the nation and encourages the wise use and conservation of these soils where possible. The project will cross prime farmland soils. In addition to construction related impacts described above, the major impact of the project on prime farmland soils would be the physical occupation of small areas by the support structures. These areas would not be available for agricultural production and could become obstacles to farm machinery. However, the majority of the ROW would be available for agricultural use once construction of the transmission line is completed.

4.2 IMPACTS ON WATER RESOURCES

4.2.1 Surface Water

Construction and operation of the transmission line would have little adverse impacts to the surface water resources within the study area. Short-term disturbances resulting from construction activities would result primarily from increased erosion and accidental spills of petroleum and other chemical products. Additionally, activities such as clearing of vegetation may temporarily increase local stormwater runoff volumes and sediment loading. Potential impacts would be avoided whenever possible by spanning surface waters, diverting construction traffic around flowing streams via existing roads, and eliminating

441829/070031 4-1 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

unnecessary clearing of vegetation. Although impacts would be avoided to the extent possible, unavoidable impacts would occur. Use of existing ROW would minimize these impacts, as would reducing vegetation removal around stream banks and minimizing ground disturbance. Although the possible impacts are anticipated to be minor and temporary, the use of erosion control measures such as silt fences and selective clearing, and best management practices regarding the use of chemicals would also minimize potential impacts. Impacts occurring from construction of the proposed transmission line would, however, be short-term and minor because of the relatively small area that would be disturbed at any particular time and the short duration of the construction activities.

The most prominent waterbodies crossed by any of the alternative routes are the Red River and Little River. Other streams crossed by one or more of the proposed routes are Hudson Creek, Yellow Creek, Forky Deer Creek, Mill Creek, Red Branch, and Barkman Creek. Numerous bayous, which include McKinney Bayou, Bois d’ Arc Bayou, and Finn Bayou, as well as several unnamed perennial and intermittent streams. Several streams are crossed by each of the routes, as shown in Table 6-1 in Section 6.0. All of the routes make 2 River crossings. Route 1 has the most stream crossings (30). Route 3 has the second-most number of stream crossings (29) Followed by Route 5 (28), Route 9 (19), Route 8 (18), Route 12 (17), routes 2, 10, 11, 13, and 14 (16), and Route 4 (15). Routes 6 and 7 make 14 stream crossings, less than any other alternative route.

Each of the alternative routes would also be parallel to (within 100 ft) streams and would cross open waterbodies, such as ponds or lakes. Routes 12 and 13 have ROW within 100 ft and parallel to approximately 3,500 ft of streams, more than any of the other alternatives (Table 6-1). The route that is parallel to the least amount of streams is Route 7, which is parallel to and within 100 ft of approximately 500 ft of streams. Routes 8 and 9 cross the largest amount of open water habitat, approximately 2,175 ft, and routes 5, 6, and 13 cross the least amount of open water, approximately 1,120 ft (see Table 6-1).

Proposed construction would likely result in locating some transmission line structures within 100-year floodplains and wetlands, particularly in the vicinity of stream and river crossings. These structures would be designed and constructed so as not to impede the flow of any waterway or create any hazard during flooding. Construction activities in floodplains would be limited to the project ROW, and significant effort should be made to keep structures from being located in obvious flood channels. Some scour could occur around structures if flood-flow depths and velocities become great enough. However, this project should not have significant impacts on the function of the floodplains. No adverse effects from flooding to adjacent downstream property owners are anticipated as a result of constructing this transmission line. Although each of the alternative routes would cross 100-year floodplains, impacts would be minor. Route 8, 9, and 14 would cross the most 100-year floodplain, approximately 25.5, 25.3, and 23.9 miles, respectively. Routes 5, 1, and 3 would cross the least amount of 100-year floodplain, approximately 16.3, 17.1, and 17.3 miles, respectively. The remaining routes would cross between approximately 17.8 (Route 6) to 23.7 miles (Route 10) of 100-year floodplain (see Table 6-1). Generally, water resources do not present a major constraint to transmission line construction, unless there are navigable river crossings and/or extensive

441829/070031 4-2 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

wetlands that would warrant USACE permitting, or areas that would require extensive forest clearing near streams, presenting potential erosion control problems.

4.2.2 Groundwater

No adverse impacts to groundwater are expected to occur from the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. The amount of recharge area disturbed by construction is minimal when compared with the total amount of recharge area available for the aquatic systems in the region. Additionally, the accidental spillage of fuel, lubricants, or other petroleum products from normal operation of heavy equipment during construction activities is unlikely to result in any groundwater contamination. Any accidental spills would be promptly responded to in accordance with state and federal regulations. AEPSC will take all necessary and available precautions to avoid and minimize the occurrence of such spills.

4.3 IMPACTS ON TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

4.3.1 Vegetation

Impacts to vegetation resulting from the construction and operation of transmission lines are primarily associated with the removal of existing vegetation within the ROW. The linear extent of vegetation communities and potential wetlands crossed by the proposed alternative routes were determined using digital aerial photography (scale at 1 inch = 800 ft), USGS 7.5-minute topographic maps, and FWS NWI maps and are presented in Table 6-1 in Section 6.0.

The main vegetation types crossed by each of the alternative routes are cropland and grazingland. The amount of these combined habitat types crossed by the routes is between approximately 12.1 (Route 5) and 21.1 miles (Route 14). Routes 11 and 14 cross the most grazingland, approximately 10.5 and 10.6 miles, respectively, and Route 9 crosses the most cropland, approximately 13.4 miles. The least amount of grazingland crossed is approximately 4.7 miles by Route 5. Route 13 crosses the least amount of cropland, approximately 5.6 miles, followed by routes 2 and 11, which both cross approximately 5.9 miles of cropland. Only minimal clearing would be necessary in croplands and grazinglands; however, the ROW might be temporarily unavailable for grazing or other activities during construction. Following construction of the facility, only areas directly beneath the structures would be unavailable for grazing or other activities.

Bottomland/riparian forest is crossed by each of the alternative routes. Because this habitat type often corresponds closely with forested wetlands, the distances estimated for bottomland/riparian habitat may include some forested wetlands. Routes 4 and 3 cross the least amount of bottomland/riparian habitat, approximately 2.7 and 2.8 miles, respectively; and the remaining routes cross between approximately 3.0 to 5.1 miles. Removal of vegetation in hydric habitat increases the potential for erosion and sedimentation, which can be detrimental to downstream plant communities and aquatic life. Placement of rock berms, siltation fences, or brush downstream of disturbed areas would help dissipate the flow of

441829/070031 4-3 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

runoff at stream and drainage crossings. Placement of silt fences or hay-bale dikes between streams and disturbed areas would also help prevent siltation into the waterway. Any placement of fill material within waterways and wetlands would represent a permit action that may require notification of the USACE.

Areas that potentially support forested or emergent wetlands are also crossed by all the alternative routes. The amount of potential wetland habitat crossed by each route was based on FWS NWI maps for the study area. The majority of possible wetlands crossed by the routes would be forested wetlands that occur in bottomland/riparian forest in floodplains adjacent to streams. Because of this overlap in habitat type, forested wetlands may also be included in the distance estimated for bottomland/riparian forest. All of the routes cross potential wetlands, ranging from approximately 0.8 mile (Route 14) to 3.1 miles (Route 3). More detailed field studies would be required to verify the amount of jurisdictional wetlands that may be impacted. Possible emergent wetlands crossed by the proposed alternative routes may be impacted from construction activities. However, precautions would be taken throughout the construction process to avoid and minimize impacts to wetland habitat. These areas are generally easily spanned, although they cannot always be avoided by construction equipment. After construction is complete, impacted nonforested wetlands are likely to recover.

Construction of the facility within the ROW would be performed to minimize adverse impacts to vegetation and to retain existing ground cover whenever possible. Additionally, AEPSC should minimize damage to local vegetation and retain native ground cover wherever possible. Clearing should occur only where necessary to provide access and working space and to protect conductors. Where necessary, soil conservation practices should be undertaken to protect local vegetation and ensure a successful restoration program for areas disturbed during construction. Activities associated with electrical transmission facilities in wetlands are regulated by the USACE under the Clean Water Act. The proposed transmission line project will likely encounter areas where construction activities will be regulated by the Individual Permit to be issued by the USACE for the John W. Turk, Jr. Generation Facility and its associated transmission lines, related to possible impacts to jurisdictional waters pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. If necessary, AEPSC will coordinate with the USACE prior to clearing and construction, to ensure compliance with the appropriate regulations associated with construction- related impacts to water bodies and wetland features, including adherence to guidelines established under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act that are designed to minimize impacts to wetlands.

4.3.2 Endangered and Threatened Plant Species

No plants currently listed as threatened or endangered by the FWS, TPWD, or ANHC are known to occur along the proposed transmission line routes. Rare species that may occur within the project area are described in Section 3.4.4. No significant impacts to any federally or state-protected plant species are expected to result from this project.

441829/070031 4-4 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

4.3.3 Wildlife

AEPSC is a participant on the Edison Electric Institute APLIC that authored guidance available in the manual entitled Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines and is committed to implementing the manual’s guidance to address any avian protection concerns.

Typical impacts from transmission lines on wildlife can be classified as either short-term effects resulting from physical disturbance during clearing and construction or long-term effects resulting from habitat modification or loss. The net effect on local wildlife of these two types of impacts is usually minor. Clearing of vegetation and other construction-related activities will directly and/or indirectly affect most animals that reside or wander within the transmission line ROW. Some small, low-mobility forms, including several species of amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, may be directly affected mortally by heavy construction machinery. Additionally, if construction occurs during the breeding season, the young of many species, including nestling and fledgling birds, may be lost. Fossorial animals (i.e., those that live underground), such as mice and shrews, may also be negatively impacted as a result of soil compaction caused by heavy machinery. Maintenance clearing activities during the breeding season may destroy some nests and broods.

Although larger, more-mobile species, such as birds, jackrabbits, and foxes may avoid the initial clearing and construction activities by moving into adjacent areas outside the ROW, these animals may be indirectly impacted by habitat loss. Habitat changes within the ROW may reduce the carrying capacity of some species and increase it for others. For example, in woodlands, a linear clearing may slightly reduce population levels of strictly forest-dwelling animals while increasing those populations preferring ecotonal or “edge” habitat. Edge species that typically benefit from such changes include recreationally important species such as white-tailed deer, northern bobwhite, and cottontail rabbits. Wildlife in the immediate area may experience a slight loss of browse or forage material during construction; however, the prevalence of similar habitats in adjacent areas and re-growth of vegetation in the ROW following construction would minimize the effects of this loss.

The increased noise and activity levels during construction could potentially disturb breeding or other activities of species inhabiting the areas adjacent to the ROW. These impacts are expected to be temporary in most cases, however. Although the normal behavior of many wildlife species may be disturbed during construction, no significant permanent impact to their populations should result.

Construction of the proposed transmission line primarily within or adjacent to existing cleared ROW would reduce potential impacts to forest-dwelling species. Additionally, because residents within the cleared ROW are acclimated to operation and maintenance activities, impacts should be temporary and minor, related primarily to construction activities and impacts caused by heavy machinery. Once construction is completed and the vegetation has recovered, most forms of wildlife will move back into the ROW.

441829/070031 4-5 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Impacts on birds from electric transmission lines are considered to be both positive and negative. Much of the published information comes from the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC), a collaboration of FWS and power companies to address issues of avian protection and electric power reliability. Positive impacts of transmission lines and structures on avian species, particularly raptors, include additional nesting and roosting sites and resting and hunting perches, particularly in open, treeless habitats (Olendorff et al., 1981; APLIC, 1996). The red-tailed hawk, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), American crow, American kestrel (Falco sparverius), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), loggerhead shrike, and eastern meadowlark are a few of the more common species that may take advantage of these benefits. In fact, it is believed that transmission lines have significantly contributed to the increased raptor populations in several areas of the U.S. (APLIC, 1996). Additionally, edge-adapted species (e.g., blue jay, some flycatchers, northern cardinal, northern bobwhite, Cooper’s hawk [Accipiter cooperii], brownheaded cowbird [Molothrus ater], northern mockingbird [Mimus polyglottos]) may flourish along changed vegetation areas adjacent to transmission ROWs (Rochelle et al., 1999). Structures (single poles, H-frames, lattice towers, etc.) and lines are attractants to many bird species and may provide resting, hunting, and nesting foundations for birds that use open and edge habitats (APLIC, 1994, 2006).

Adverse impacts to avian species from electric transmission lines range from conductor, ground wire, and structure interactions (electrocution and/or collision) to habitat loss and fragmentation from ROW construction and maintenance. Sources of annual avian mortality estimates compared in APLIC (2006) and Erickson et al. (2005) indicate that the most significant anthropogenic (human-influenced) causes of avian mortality, other than habitat destruction, are window/building collisions (97 to 980 million), electric transmission line collisions (up to 174 million), vehicle collisions (60 to 100 million), cats (39 to 100 million), poisoning (72 million), communication towers (4 to 50 million), and wind turbines (10 to 40 thousand) (APLIC, 2006). Although electrocution from electric power lines (distribution and transmission lines) may claim thousands of birds per year, electrocution impacts are highly unlikely for this project. Typically, electrocution is not a threat from electric transmission lines greater than 69 kV, as the distance between conductors or conductor and structure or ground wire are greater than the wingspan of most birds (i.e., greater than 6 ft) (APLIC, 1996, 2006).

The transmission line (structures and wires) could present a hazard to flying birds, particularly migrants. Collision may result in disorientation, crippling, or mortality (New York Power Authority, 2005). Mortality is directly related to an increase in structure height; number of guy wires, conductors, and ground wires; and/or use of solid or pulsating red lights (an FAA requirement on some structures) (Erickson et al., 2005). Collision hazards are greatest near habitat “magnets” (e.g., wetlands, open water, edges, and riparian zones) and during the fall when flight altitudes of dense migrating flocks are lower in association with cold air masses, fog, and inclement weather. The greatest danger of mortality exists during periods of low ceiling, poor visibility, and drizzle when birds are flying low, perhaps commencing or terminating a flight, when they may have difficulty seeing obstructions (Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI], 1993). Most migrant species known to occur in the study area, including passerines, should be minimally affected during migration, since their normal flying altitudes are much greater than the heights of the proposed transmission structures (Willard, 1978; Gauthreaux, 1978). For resident birds

441829/070031 4-6 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

or for birds during periods of nonmigration, those most prone to collision are often the largest and most common in a given area (Rusz et al., 1986; APLIC, 1994); however, over time, these birds learn the location of transmission lines and become less susceptible to wire strikes (Avery, 1978). Raptors, typically, are uncommon victims of transmission line collisions, because of their great visual acuity (Thompson, 1978). In addition, many raptors only become active after sufficient thermal currents develop, which is usually late in the morning when poor light is not a factor (Avery, 1978).

While waterfowl (ducks, geese, swans, cranes, shorebirds, etc.) are among the birds most susceptible to wire strikes (Faanes, 1987; Erickson et al., 2005), it has been estimated that wire strikes (including distribution lines) account for less than 0.1% of waterfowl nonhunting mortality, compared with 88% from diseases and poisoning and 7.4% because of the weather (Stout and Cornwell, 1976). In some areas, hunting may affect 20 to 30% of waterfowl populations (Thompson, 1978). The proposed transmission line may traverse areas of seasonally high waterfowl use, although impacts to migrant waterfowl should be minimal because their normal flying altitudes are considerably greater than the heights of the proposed transmission structures. Therefore, no significant impacts to waterfowl are anticipated.

Habitat loss and fragmentation are other potential adverse impacts from transmission line construction and maintenance. Several studies indicate forest and grassland fragmentation have detrimental effects on some avian species that show a marked preference for large undisturbed and/or native habitat patches (Robbins et al., 1989; Terborgh, 1989; Faaborg et al., 1992; Hagan et al., 1996; Rochelle et al., 1999; Herkert et al., 2003). Species are not randomly distributed with regard to habitat patch size and fragmentation favors edge- and small-patch-adapted species. For those species dependent on larger patches and less adapted to edge, increases in woodland or forest edge effect can increase predation, brood parasitism, invasive species introduction, and reduce mating and nesting success. Changes in contiguous prairie habitats can do the same.

Collision potential and negative edge effects can be significantly reduced for some species through avian safe routing and design (APLIC, 2006). Routing and individual structure placement to avoid intense bird use areas (e.g., communal foraging or roosting areas, rookeries, wetlands, etc.) and increasing line visibility are important considerations (Avery, 1978; Beaulaurier, 1981; APLIC, 1994, 2006). The position of the individual structures can also help reduce collisions. Faanes (1987), in an indepth study in North Dakota, found that birds in flight tend to avoid the transmission line structures, presumably because such structures are visible from a distance. Instead, most appear to fly over the lines in the mid-span region. Where the transmission line would pass between roosting and foraging areas, the structures can be placed in the center of the flyway (i.e., where the birds are more likely to fly) to increase their visibility, in addition to marking the wires. Increasing wire visibility using markers, such as orange aviation balls, black-and-white ribbons, spiral vibration dampers, or avian flight diverters, particularly at midspan, can reduce the number of collisions. Beaulaurier (1981) reviewed 17 studies involving marking ground wires or conductors and found an average reduction in collisions of 45% compared with unmarked lines. Negative edge effects can be reduced through native revegetation of disturbed construction areas where necessary and appropriate for safe and reliable operation. Additionally, where lighting is required due to

441829/070031 4-7 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

aviation concerns, use of white strobe lighting is preferred over other options, in order to reduce avian collision potential with taller facilities (Erickson et al., 2005). And lastly, nest management through platform design, equipment protection, and other physical disincentives to bird use and nesting can avoid negative impacts to birds and power reliability (APLIC, 2006).

The greatest potential impact to wildlife would primarily result from the destruction of forest and wetland habitats. Forestlands, particularly, are relatively static environments that require greater regenerative time compared with grazingland, cropland, or emergent wetlands. In most cases, wetlands and small waterbodies can be spanned with little or no resulting impact to wildlife. In general, because vegetation provides habitat for wildlife, the preferred route from a vegetation standpoint is usually also the preferred route from a wildlife standpoint. Of the alternatives considered, routes 7, 14, 10, 9, and 8 would require the least amount of upland and bottomland/riparian forest clearing (combined approximately 6.4, 7.8, 8.2, 8.3, and 8.5 miles, respectively), and therefore represent the best routes, considering impacts to wildlife. Each of the other alternative routes would require more clearing of forested habitat (see Table 6-1). Routes 1 and 5 would require more clearing of forested habitat than any of the other alternatives (approximately 14.8 and 14.4 miles, respectively) and would therefore have the greatest impact on wildlife.

4.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Wildlife

The proposed project is not expected to present significant impacts to any federally listed endangered or threatened species potentially occurring in the study area. Of the six federally listed species identified on Table 3-1 (i.e., ivory billed woodpecker, interior least tern, American burying beetle, red wolf Ouachita rock pocketbook, and pink mucket) the red wolf is considered extirpated and would therefore not be affected by the project. Although the ivory-billed woodpecker is listed by the FWS as potentially occurring in suitable habitat throughout Arkansas, this species is considered to be extirpated throughout most of its historic range and is not expected to occur in the study area counties. The two mollusks, Quachita pocketbook and pink mucket, are aquatic species that would not be affected as all waterbodies that could potentially support them would be spanned. The greatest potential to federally listed species within the study area would be to the American burying beetle, which is known from western Little River County, and interior least tern at crossings of the Red River and Little River. Coordination with FWS may be necessary regarding these species. The interior least tern nests on sand and gravel bars located within the Red River. The utility may need to coordinate with FWS in areas where the proposed facility occurs within 1,000 ft of a nesting colony of interior least terns. At this time, the exact locations of nesting colonies are not known.

Although the bald eagle has been officially delisted, this species still receives protection under provisions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In areas where the placement of the facility is within or adjacent to existing ROW, impacts resulting to habitat loss and fragmentation would be minimized. As mentioned previously, the wood stork, which is listed as endangered in other states, is not listed as threatened or endangered in Arkansas or Texas. Species such as

441829/070031 4-8 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

the interior least tern, bald eagle, and wood stork, which may wander through the study area, may be impacted by the proposed facility. Larger birds are more prone to transmission line collisions because their large wingspans and lack of maneuverability make avoiding obstacles more difficult (APLIC, 1994). However, the normal flying altitudes of most migrant species are greater than the heights of the proposed transmission structures (Willard, 1978; Gauthreaux, 1978). The bald eagle and interior least tern are hunting birds with keen eyesight that are likely to see obstructions such as transmission lines and avoid collisions (Thompson, 1978).

Construction of the proposed transmission facility would not represent a significant impact to any federally threatened or endangered species that may occur in the study area. Some of the less mobile species listed in Table 3-1 may be affected, however, should they reside in the transmission line ROW during construction.

4.3.5 Critical Habitat

Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Secretary of the Interior may designate “critical habitat” for an endangered or threatened species. The ESA defines critical habitat as “… the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of this Act, on which are found those physical or biological features that are (I) essential to the conservation of the species, (II) which may require special management considerations or protection, and specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in accordance with the provisions of the ESA…, upon a determination by the Secretary {of the interior} that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.” No critical habitat has been designated in the study area for any endangered or threatened species.

4.4 IMPACTS ON AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

Typical aquatic impacts related to the construction and operation of electric transmission facilities are often the result of changes in water quality or available habitat. These impacts are commonly caused by sedimentation, stormwater volume increases, spills, and direct disruption of aquatic habitats from construction equipment or placement of structures. Sedimentation and turbidity caused by construction activities in or adjacent to streams, springs, or pools may clog respiratory or feeding structures, eliminate available habitat by covering bottom area, or inhibit the growth of plants, thus disrupting the food chain. These effects may be lethal to aquatic organisms such as insect larvae and other macroinvertebrates, mussels, and adult, juvenile, and larval fish. Placement of transmission facilities through bottomland/riparian forest, adjacent to (within 100 ft) streams, and across floodplains is more likely to result in increased sedimentation because removal of vegetation in these areas would increase the potential for soil and other substrates to enter the waterbody.

Increased stormwater runoff can scour floodplain habitats, reducing biodiversity in the area by disrupting habitat. Additionally, higher nutrient levels often occur following increased runoff, especially following clearing activities. Elevated nutrients can stimulate algal production and shift species assemblages or

441829/070031 4-9 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

cause algal blooms that may lower the available oxygen concentrations in the water at night or on cloudy days. Removal of riparian vegetation would increase runoff to nearby waterbodies. Therefore, impacts occurring in bottomland/riparian forest or adjacent wooded areas could have more of an effect than impacts in agricultural areas. Additionally, cropland often contains streams with heavier sediment loads and higher levels of fertilizer and pesticides than would be found in less disturbed forested areas. As a result, aquatic habitats in these areas are often of lower ecological value because of low diversity and the presence of less desirable species.

The accidental spilling or dumping of toxic compounds may be lethal to organisms, nearby or downstream, that are sensitive to water quality. Some toxic chemicals may be ingested or absorbed by algae or other organisms in low trophic (feeding) levels and passed up the food chain, increasing toxicity in each trophic level until lethal concentrations are reached.

Direct disruption of aquatic habitats is not likely to occur as a result of the proposed project because all waterbodies should be spanned and erosion control measures would be practiced at all crossings to reduce potential impacts. The severity of impacts at water crossings would be reduced when the proposed route is located adjacent to existing ROW, especially where that ROW is already cleared.

Each of the alternative routes crosses streams, open-water, 100-year floodplains, and are parallel to streams. All routes make 2 river crossings, that of the Red River and Little River. Routes 1 and 3 cross the highest number of streams (30 and 29, respectively). Routes 6 and 7 cross the fewest number of streams (14). However, routes 8 and 9 cross the greatest amount of open water, approximately 2,175 ft, routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 14 cross between 1,400 to 1,865 ft of open water, and routes 5, 6, and 13 cross the least amount of open water (1,120 ft). Routes 5, 1, 3, and 6 cross the least amount of 100-year floodplains (16.3, 17.1, 17.3, and 17.8 miles, respectively). The majority of open waterbodies in the study area are small ponds and reservoirs that can easily be spanned. All 14 routes are parallel to (within 100 ft) streams for 500 to 3,500 ft. Route 7 would be the most desirable route in regards to potential impacts to aquatic ecosystems because it crosses the fewest number of streams, has the least amount of ROW parallel (within 100 ft) to streams (500 ft).

4.4.1 Endangered and Threatened Aquatic Species

Two aquatic species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered occur in the study area. The Ouachita rock pocketbook and the pink mucket, are considered by FWS as endangered. These species are not likely to be impacted by the project because the proposed transmission line would span aquatic habitats that support such species. Short-term impacts may occur during construction, caused by increased siltation downstream from construction areas. However, the use of sediment reduction practices, such as installing silt fences or placing hay bales between the disturbance and the waterbody, should reduce potential impacts.

441829/070031 4-10 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

4.5 HUMAN RESOURCES IMPACTS

In accordance with Texas and Arkansas laws governing public utilities and regulated activities, as well as PUCT rules and APSC Rules of Practice and Procedure, measures have been taken to locate alternative transmission line routes, where possible, along compatible ROWs, existing property use lines, section lines, fence rows, ditches, creeks, streams, tree lines, and other natural boundaries. Alternatives were also developed in an effort to minimize both disruption to existing and planned property uses, and aesthetic displeasure.

4.5.1 Socioeconomic Impacts

For this project, minimal short-term local employment will be generated. AEPSC normally uses its own employees during the clearing and construction phases of transmission line projects. However, a portion of the project wages will find their way into the local economy through purchases such as fuel, food, lodging, and possibly building materials. ROW easement payments will be made to individuals whose lands are crossed by the transmission line based on the appraised land value, and this will result in increased income to those landowners. SWEPCO is subject to paying local property tax on land or improvements. Since SWEPCO will only require easements for the proposed line, none of this land will be taken off the tax rolls. The cost of permitting, designing, and constructing the line will be paid for through revenue generated by the sale of electrical service.

Potential long-term economic benefits to the community resulting from construction of this project are based on the requirement that electric utilities provide an adequate and reliable level of power throughout their service areas. Economic growth and development rely heavily on adequate public utilities, including a reliable electrical power supply. Without this basic infrastructure, a community’s potential for economic growth is limited.

4.5.2 Community Values

Adverse effects upon community values are defined as aspects of the proposed project that would significantly and negatively alter the use, enjoyment, or intrinsic value attached to an important area or resource by a community. This definition assumes that community concerns are identified with the location and specific characteristics of the proposed transmission line and do not include possible objections to electric transmission lines per se.

Impacts on community values can be classified into two areas: (1) direct effects, or those effects which would occur if the location and construction of a transmission line results in the removal or loss of public access to a valued resource; and (2) indirect effects, or those effects which would result from a loss in the enjoyment or use of a resource due to the characteristics (primarily aesthetic) of the proposed line, structures, or ROW. Impacts on community values, whether direct or indirect, can be more accurately gauged as they affect recreational areas or resources and the visual environment of an area (aesthetics). Impacts in these areas are discussed in detail in sections 4.5.4 and 4.5.5.

441829/070031 4-11 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

4.5.3 Impacts on Land Use

Land use impacts from transmission line construction are usually determined by the amount of land (of whatever use) displaced by the actual ROW and by the compatibility of electric transmission line ROW with adjacent land uses. During construction, temporary impacts to land uses within the ROW could occur due to the movement of workers and materials through the area. Construction noise and dust, as well as temporary disruption of traffic flow, may also temporarily affect residents and businesses in the area immediately adjacent to the ROW. Coordination between AEPSC, its contractors, and landowners regarding access to the ROW and construction scheduling should minimize these disruptions.

The primary criteria considered to measure potential land use impacts for this project include proximity to habitable structures (i.e., residences, businesses, schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, etc.), overall length, length using existing transmission line ROW, length paralleling property lines, and length parallel to other existing ROW (roads, highways, pipelines, etc.)

Generally, the most important measure of potential land use impact is the number of habitable structures located in the vicinity of each route. PBS&J staff determined the number and distance of habitable structures within 500 ft of each route by evaluating and measuring from aerial photography and ground- truthing that information (with a laser rangefinder) in the field, where possible. For this project, Route 13 had the greatest number of habitable structures within 500 ft of its ROW centerline (28), followed by Route 12 (25), routes 11 and 6 (23), Route 4 (22), Route 2 (17), Route 8 (14), and Route 14 (12). Route 9 had 11 habitable structures within 500 ft of its ROW centerline, Route 7 had 9, routes 5 and 10 had 6, and Route 3 had 5. Route 1 had no habitable structures within 500 ft of its ROW centerline.

The least impact to land use generally results from locating new lines either within or parallel to existing transmission line ROW. While none of the alternative routes use existing transmission line ROW, all of the routes parallel existing transmission line ROW for some distance. Route 12 parallels the most existing transmission line ROW with 21,895 ft, followed by routes 3 and 4 (21,670 ft each), Route 11 (10,695 ft), Route 14 (8,275 ft), routes 1 and 2 (8,170 ft each), Route 7 (8,050 ft), Route 13 (5,775 ft), and Route 10 (5,750 ft). Routes 5, 6, 8, and 9 each parallel the least amount of existing transmission line ROW with 5,550 ft each.

Paralleling other existing compatible ROW is also generally considered a positive routing criterion to minimize impacts to existing and planned property uses. For this project, routes 11, 12, 13, and 14 parallel the greatest amount of other ROW, with 16,850 ft. Routes 3 and 5 parallel the least amount of other compatible ROW with 4,000 ft each.

Because of the varying lengths of the alternative routes, it is best to judge the amount of ROW paralleled by percentage, rather than distance, so that the measure may be proportionate to the length of the route. In this regard, Route 12 has the greatest percentage of its length parallel to transmission line or other compatible ROW with 24%, followed by Route 4 (18 %), Route 11 (17%), routes 3 and 14 (16%), Route

441829/070031 4-12 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

13 (14%), Route 8 (12%), routes 2 and 7 (10%), Route 10 (9%), routes 1 and 6 (8%), Route 9 (7%), and Route 5 (6%).

Paralleling apparent property lines is also generally considered a positive routing criterion to minimize impacts to existing and planned property uses. Routes 8 and 9 has the greatest percentage of length parallel to apparent property lines (not on existing roads or highways) at 20% and 19%, respectively. Routes 3 and 5 have the least percentage of ROW paralleling apparent property lines, each with 10%.

Finally, the overall length of a particular alternative route can be an indicator of the relative level of land use impacts. That is, generally (all other things being approximately equal), the shorter the route, the less land is crossed and the fewer potential impacts will result. Route 12 is the longest route, at 31.2 miles (164,710 ft), followed by Route 1, at 30.3 miles (159,680 ft). Route 6 is the shortest route, at 27.9 miles (147,275 ft), followed by Route 7, at 28.0 miles (147,895 ft).

Since the ROW for this project will not be fenced or otherwise separated from adjacent lands, no long- term or significant displacement of farming or grazing activities will occur. Most existing agricultural land uses may be resumed following construction. No cropland or pastureland irrigated by circle-pivot or other above-ground mechanical means in the study area was identified either on aerial photos or during PBS&J field surveys.

4.5.4 Impacts on Recreation

Potential impacts to recreational land uses include the disruption or preemption of recreational activities. There are several recreational areas in the study area, including the Nacatoch Ravines State Natural Area and a road side park adjacent to US 71, which are near several routes. While none of the routes crosses any parkland or recreational areas, every route comes within 1,000 ft of at least one of the park or recreational areas mentioned. Routes 7, 10, and 14 each come within 1,000 ft of both recreational areas. The remaining routes all just come within 1,000 ft of the Nacatoch Ravines State Natural Area.

4.5.5 Impacts on Aesthetics

Aesthetic impacts, or impacts to visual resources, exist when the ROW, lines, and/or structures of a transmission line system create an intrusion into, or substantially alter the character of, the existing view. The significance of the impact is directly related to the quality of the view, in the case of natural scenic areas, or to the importance of the existing setting in the use and/or enjoyment of an area, in the case of valued community resources and recreation areas.

In order to evaluate aesthetic impacts, field surveys were conducted to determine the length of the proposed transmission line that would be visible from selected areas. These areas include those of potential community value, recreational areas, particular scenic vistas which were encountered during the field survey, and U.S. and state highways that cross the study area. Measurements were made to estimate the length of each alternative route that would fall within recreational or major highway foreground visual

441829/070031 4-13 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

zones (one-half mile, unobstructed by vegetation or topography). The determination of the visibility of the transmission line from various points was calculated from USGS maps and aerial photography.

Construction of the proposed 345-kV transmission line could have both temporary and permanent aesthetic effects. Temporary impacts would include views of the actual assembly and erection of the structures and clearing of the ROW. Where wooded areas are cleared, the brush and wood debris could have a temporary negative impact on the local visual environment. Permanent impacts from the project would involve the views of the structures and lines as well as views of the cleared ROW.

Several U.S. and state highways traverse the study area, including Interstate Highway (IH) 30, U.S. Highway (US) 71, State Highway (SH) 67, SH 108, and SH 355. All of the routes are located at least partially within the foreground visual zone of one or more of these highways. The most visible route is by far Route 8, with 46,680 ft (approximately 30% of its length) within the foreground visual zone of the study area highways. Route 8 is followed by Route 9, with 26,250 ft (17%), and routes 7, 10, and 14, with 18,600 ft. The least visible routes are routes 1, 3, and 5, each with 11,080 ft (7%) in the foreground visual zone of the study area highways.

Portions of each of the routes are also located within the foreground visual zone of one or more parks or recreational areas in the study area. The most visible of the routes from this perspective are routes 7, 10, and 14, each with 11,950 ft within the foreground visual zone of parks or recreational areas. Each of the remaining routes has 6,650 ft within the foreground visual zone of the study area parks and recreational areas.

Table 6-1 of this report presents specific data on line visibility for each of the primary alternative routes in each of the categories discussed above. AEPSC will attempt to mitigate, as much as possible, the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed project in the area.

4.5.6 Impacts on Transportation/Aviation/Telecommunications

Potential impacts to transportation could include temporary disruption of traffic, and conflicts with proposed roadway and/or utility improvements, and may include increased traffic during construction of the proposed project. Such impacts are usually temporary and short-term. Each of the alternative routes crosses at least one of the U.S. and state highways in the study area. Routes 7, 8, 9, 10, and 14 cross three state and/or U.S. highways, and routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 13 have two U.S. and/or state highway crossings.

The proposed transmission line facilities will have a minimal effect on aviation operations within the study area. Structure heights would vary, depending upon structure design and location. According to Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77 (FAA, 1975), notification of the construction of the proposed transmission line would be required if structure heights exceed the height of an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 ft from the nearest point of the nearest runway of a public or military airport having at least one runway longer than

441829/070031 4-14 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

3,200 ft. If a runway is less than 3,200 ft, notification will be required if structure heights exceed the height of an imaginary surface extending at a slope of 50 to 1 for a distance of 10,000 ft. Notification is also required for structure heights exceeding the height of an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 ft from the nearest point of the nearest landing and takeoff area for heliports.

There were no FAA-registered airports identified within 20,000 ft of any of the alternative routes. No heliports were identified within 5,000 ft of any of the alternative routes. Three private airstrips were identified in the study area, and routes 8 and 9 come within 10,000 ft of all three of these airstrips. Routes 7, 10, and 14 come within 10,000 ft of one airstrip. None of the other routes come within 10,000 ft of any of these airstrips.

The proposed transmission line would have a minimal effect on communication operations in the area. No AM radio transmitters were identified within 10,000 ft of any of the alternative routes. Three electronic communication towers were identified in the study area. Route 8 comes within 2,000 ft of two of these towers, and routes 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 13 each come within 2,000 ft of one tower. Routes 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14 do not come within 2,000 ft of any tower.

4.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS

Any construction activity has the potential for adversely impacting cultural resource sites. The impacts may occur through changes in the quality of the historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural characteristics of that cultural entity. These impacts may occur when an undertaking alters the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, construction, or association of the property that contributes to its significance according to the NRHP criteria. Impacts may be direct or indirect.

As discussed in 36 CFR 800, adverse impacts to NRHP or eligible properties may occur under conditions that include, but are not limited to:

1. destruction or alteration of all or part of a property;

2. isolation from or alteration of the property’s surrounding environment (setting); or

3. introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting.

4.6.1 Direct Impacts

Direct impacts to known or unknown cultural resources sites may occur during the construction phase of any project. Direct impacts are caused during the construction phase of the project or through increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic during the construction phase. The increase in vehicular traffic may damage surficial or shallowly buried sites, while the increase in pedestrian traffic may result in vandalism

441829/070031 4-15 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

of some sites. Additionally, the integrity of the character of any unrecorded, significant historic structures could also be visually impacted by the construction of this transmission line.

4.6.2 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts include those caused by the undertaking that occur later in time or are further removed in distance, but are reasonably foreseeable. These indirect impacts may include alteration in the pattern of land use, changes in population density, accelerated growth rates, or increased pedestrian or vehicular traffic. All of which may have an adverse impact on properties of historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance. Historical sites and landscapes might be adversely impacted by the visibility of the transmission towers and lines.

4.6.3 Mitigation

The preferred form of mitigation for cultural resources is avoidance. An alternative form of mitigation of direct impacts can be developed for archaeological and historical sites with the implementation of a program of detailed data retrieval. Additionally, relocation may be possible for some historic structures. Indirect impacts on historical properties and landscapes can be lessened through careful design considerations and landscaping. Mitigation measures for impacts to cultural resources, if any, during line construction will be undertaken pursuant to the PA, discussed in Section 1.6.6 above.

4.6.4 Summary of Potential Cultural Resources Impacts

One of the methods utilized to assess an area for potential cultural resources is to identify high probability area (HPA). When identifying HPA, topographic setting, environment, the availability of raw material, water and subsistence resources, and the results of previous investigations are all taken into consideration. Previous investigations and numerous previously recorded sites were identified in the study area during a file review conducted at the AAS and at the office of the SHPO, AHPP, and DAH. The NPS’s NRHP webpage and Arkansas’s state preservation webpage were also consulted but did not yield additional information concerning NRHP properties within the study area.

The study area was delineated on 7.5-minute USGS topographic maps, and the proposed transmission line alignments were plotted on these maps. HPA was quantified by measuring distance to water; generally the distance would encompass landforms within approximately 1,000 ft of any perennial and/or intermittent drainage. Also considered were the types of landform on which sites have been previously recorded. Similar landforms along each of the proposed alignments were identified as HPA. Because recorded sites exist in the proximity of the proposed alignments, it can be surmised that the environmental setting of the area would have provided either adequate food or lithic resources.

Geological processes are important, because they have the potential for protecting the integrity of an archaeological site by burying it within deep sediments or destroying it by erosional processes. This type of process was considered when delineating the floodplain of the Red River as a HPA.

441829/070031 4-16 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Based on all of the above-listed variables, it was determined by PBS&J archaeologists that the entire project area was an archaeologically sensitive area. All of the cultural resources concerns will be mitigated under the guidance of the PA among the USACE, the SHPO, the Caddo Nation, and SWEPCO.

Fourteen alternative routes were evaluated for the proposed transmission line for their potential for containing previously unrecorded cultural resources. There are 25 links that are used in unique combinations to make up the 14 routes. Each of the links was individually assessed for the probability of containing cultural resource sites before each of the routes was evaluated as a whole. Eight of the links (B, D, E, E’, O”, Q, RR, and TT) are not located within 1,000 ft of any recorded cultural resources sites. Five links (F, O’, OO, XX, and YY) cross previously recorded archaeological sites and in addition Link H and Link O’ each cross a NRHP site. Besides crossing a previously recorded site Link F is also within 1,000 ft of a NRHP-listed site. Links with non-NRHP-listed sites located within 1,000 ft of the transmission line alignment are A, A’, A”, F, F’, F”, H, N, N’, NN, NN’, O, O’, O’”, OO, PP, Q’, R, S, SS, and YY.

Link O’ crosses NRHP listed sites 3MI3/30; Link H bisects a corner of the Hatchel Mound NRHP District and Link F is located within 1,000 ft of sites 41BW591, 41BW492, and 41BW593, all of which are within the boundaries of the Hatchel Mound District. These three sites are not themselves listed on the NRHP, but site records indicate that sites 41BW591 and 41BW592 may be associated with site 41BW3 (the Hatchel Mound Site).

Route 1 is located within 1,000 ft of 15 recorded sites. Additionally, the transmission line appears to cross one previously recorded site and contains approximately 30.30 miles of HPA.

Route 2 is located within 1,000 ft of 18 recorded sites and crosses one additional site. This route contains approximately 29.1 miles of HPA.

Route 3 appears to cross two previously recorded sites and contains approximately 30.1 miles of HPA. The ROW is also located within 1,000 ft of 17 additional recorded sites and a National Register District.

Route 4 contains approximately 29.0 miles of HPA. Additionally, 20 previously recorded sites and a National Register District are located within 1,000 ft of the proposed alignment and 2 sites appear to be crossed by the transmission line alignment.

Route 5 also contains about 29.0 miles of HPA. This route is located within 1,000 ft of 11 recorded sites. Route 5 appears to cross one previously recorded site and a National Register District.

Route 6 is located within 1,000 ft of 15 recorded sites and crosses 2 additional sites, 1 of which is a National Register District. The route contains approximately 27.9 miles of HPA.

Route 7 contains approximately 28.0 miles of HPA and is located within 1,000 ft of 15 recorded sites. An additional recorded site appears to be crossed by this route.

441829/070031 4-17 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Route 8 is located within 1,000 ft of 13 recorded sites and also appears to cross 3 additional sites, 1 of which is NRHP eligible. The route contains approximately 29.6 miles of HPA.

Route 9 is located within 1,000 ft of 13 recorded sites. As with the previous route, there are three recorded sites bisected by Route 9. One of these sites is National Register eligible. Additionally, Route 9 contains approximately 29.4 miles of HPA.

Route 10 is located within 1,000 ft of 13 recorded archaeological sites and in addition crosses 2 other sites. None of the sites crossed or within 1,000 ft are NRHP listed. Approximately 29.5 miles of HPA are present along this route.

Route 11 contains about 29.9 miles of HPA, is within 1,000 ft of 17 previously recorded sites, and bisects 2 additional sites. None of the sites along this route are NRHP listed.

Route 12 is within 1,000 ft of 22 previously recorded sites. One of the 22 sites is a National Register District. In addition four non-NRHP listed sites are crossed by this route. The total amount of HPA along this route is 31.2 miles.

Route 13 crosses 1 National Register District, 3 non-NRHP listed sites, and is located within 1,000 ft of 15 previously recorded sites. The amount of HPA crossed by this route is about 30.1 miles.

Route 14 crosses about 30.2 miles of HPA. It is located within 1,000 ft of 16 previously recorded sites and crosses 3 additional sites. There are no NRHP eligible or listed properties within 1,000 ft of this route.

The factors designating the top five preferred routes in order of importance are the number of NRHP eligible or listed properties crossed or within 1,000 ft of the route, the number of previously recorded archaeological sites, and the amount of HPA crossed by each route.

The preferred alignment from a cultural resources perspective is Route 7. The second preferred route is Route 1, followed by routes 2, 10, and 11. Ranked sixth is route 4, followed by routes 3, 14, and 12. The lowest ranked routes, because of their proximity to NRHP-listed properties, are routes 6, 5, 9, 8, and 13.

In summary, routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 14 do not cross any previously recorded NRHP eligible or listed sites and are therefore believed to have the least direct impact on significant recorded cultural resources. Routes 5, 6, 8, 9, and 13 all utilize either Link H or Link O’. Both of these links go across NRHP-listed properties. Because of this, these routes are ranked as the least preferred routes from a cultural resources perspective.

441829/070031 4-18 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Section 5.0

Public Involvement Activities

08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

5.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES

5.1 PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE MEETING IN TEXAS

A public open-house meeting was held by AEPSC and PBS&J on June 28, 2007, at the Red Lick School cafeteria from 5:00 to 7:00 pm. This meeting was intended to solicit comments from citizens, landowners, and public officials concerning the proposed project. Specifically, the meeting had the following objectives:

• Promote a better understanding of the proposed project, including the purpose, need, and potential benefits and impacts; • Inform and educate the public with regard to AEP’s routing procedures, schedule, and decision process; and • Ensure that the decision-making process accurately identified and considers the values and concerns of the public and community leaders.

Public involvement contributed to the evaluation of issues and concerns by AEPSC and PBS&J, and to the selection of a preferred route for the project. Texas property owners within 500 ft of the preliminary alternative routes were notified of the public meetings through direct mailings. Copies of the public open- house related material are included in Appendix A.

At the meeting, rather than a formal presentation in a speaker-audience format, AEPSC and PBS&J staff utilized space by setting up several information stations. Each station was devoted to a particular aspect of the routing study and was manned. Displays using maps, illustrations, and photographs, explaining each particular topic were presented at the stations. Interested citizens and property owners were encouraged to visit each station in order, so that the process could be explained in the general sequence of development. The information station format is advantageous because it allows attendees to process information in a more relaxed manner and also allows them to focus on their particular interest and ask specific questions. More importantly, the one-on-one discussions with AEP/PBS&J staff encourage more interaction from those citizens who might be hesitant to participate in a speaker-audience format.

At the first station, visitors signed in and were handed questionnaires. The questionnaires solicited comments on citizen concerns as well as an evaluation of the information presented at the open house. Copies of the questionnaires can be found in Appendix A. PBS&J received completed questionnaires either at the meetings or later, by mail. The following is a summary of questionnaire responses received.

A total of 33 visitors signed in at the public meeting. Sixteen questionnaires were received at the public meeting and eight questionnaires were mailed in. Of the 24 respondents that turned in questionnaires, 75% indicated that the need for the project had been adequately explained. Eight-eight percent indicated the open-house format and the information provided was helpful in understanding the project.

441829/070031 5-1 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

When asked to rank criteria that should be considered of greatest concern in routing the transmission line, 42% of the respondents ranked proximity to residences as the number one concern. Use of existing ROW was ranked number 1 by 38% of the respondents. Twenty-one percent of the respondents indicated that cost was the least of their concerns.

Additional factors and other important features within the study area that land owners felt a need to comment on included the presence of cemeteries, historic and cultural sites, wetlands, current and future commercial and agricultural land uses, and potential impacts to existing homes and property values.

When asked to rate the acceptability of transmission line placement in respect to land use, 67% agreed that placing lines through residential areas was unacceptable. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents agreed that placing lines next to existing ROW was preferable, and 21% of the respondents agreed that placing new lines through undeveloped land was acceptable.

Seventeen of the 24 respondents expressed negative concern over certain Links. Some respondents commented on more than one Link. Link H received the most comments from respondents with 7. Link I received 6 comments; Links J, L, and N all received 5 comments each; Links A, K, and M received 4 comments each; Links G received 3 comments; Links D, O, P, and Q received 2 comments each; and Links B and C received 1 comment each.

Concerns with particular links given by 18 of the respondents generally regarded proximity to the individual’s home, farm, and/or business. Specific concerns included potential impacts to property values, potential impacts to future planned developments, potential impacts to wetlands and wildlife, potential impacts to historic and cultural resources, and potential impacts to agricultural resources and practices.

Seventy-nine percent of the respondents indicated that a potential route crosses near their home. Seventy- one percent of the respondents indicated that a potential route crosses their land, and 21% indicated that a potential route crosses near their business.

Additional comments were received from respondents which included reiterated concerns regarding proximity to homes, potential impacts to historic and cultural resources, potential impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and potential impacts to agricultural resources- especially pecan orchards.

5.2 CORRESPONDENCE WITH AGENCIES/OFFICIALS

The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were contacted by letter in February of 2007 by PBS&J to solicit comments, concerns and information pertaining to permits or approvals regarding the construction of a 345-kV transmission line within the study area. Maps of the study area were included with each letter. Copies of PBS&J’s letter and all responses are included in Appendix B.

• Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Department of the Interior • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Vicksburg District

441829/070031 5-2 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) • The Nature Conservancy (TNC) • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Water Quality Division • Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) • Texas General Land Office (GLO) • Texas Historical Commission (THC) • Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD) • Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) • Arkansas Archeological Survey (AAS) • Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) • Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism (ADPT) • Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP) • Arkansas History Commission (AHC) • Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC) • Arkansas Preservation Commission (APC) • Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) • Arkansas State Land Information Board (ASLIB) • Arkansas Waterways Commission (AWC) • Ark-Tex Council of Governments (A-TCG) • Southwest Arkansas Planning and Development District (SWAPDD) • Bowie County − County Judge − County Commissioners • City of Texarkana, Arkansas − Mayor • City of Texarkana, Texas − Mayor • Town of Fulton − Mayor • Town of Ogden

441829/070031 5-3 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

− Mayor • Town of McNab − Mayor • Texarkana Arkansas School District − Superintendent • Texarkana Independent School District − Superintendent

As of the date of this document, written replies had been received from the following agencies/offices: AGFC, DAH/AHPP, TNC, AHTD, DAH/ANHC, FWS, TCEQ, TxDOT, GLO, THC, Town of McNab, NRCS, Superintendent of the Texarkana Independent School District, a Bowie County Commissioner and a Bowie County Judge. Copies of all responses are included in Appendix B. All agency comments, concerns, and information received were taken into consideration by PBS&J in the preparation of this EIS and AEPSC in selection of the preferred route. Additionally the information received from the agencies will be taken into consideration by AEPSC before and during construction of the project. The following is a summary of the comments made by federal, state, and local officials that have responded as of this writing and the response to those comments, where appropriate.

The AGFC response indicated that they would vigorously oppose the loss of any amount of acreage for use as a transmission line ROW within the Bois d’ Arc WMA. It might be considered if the loss of current forested habitat was mitigated at a 2:1 replacement with high quality hardwood bottomland land. There are no set procedures for this process and the review process would begin at the field level. Recommendations would be built from the ground up if the ROW crossed state-owned land in the WMA. The legal division’s response indicated that the Commission is not obligated to grant an easement over state land and the private owners of the lease land need to be contacted directly for information about their land.

• Neither the proposed route nor any alternative route crosses Bois d’Arc WMA. • Neither the proposed route nor any alternative route crosses land owned by AGFC.

The DAH/AHPP response indicated that due to the small size of their office they could not compile the information requested but they would be glad to assist someone from PBS&J in completing the record check.

• PBS&J staff made arrangements with DAH/AHPP to personally get the requested documentation.

TNC of Arkansas indicated that it had reviewed the proposed project and provided a map displaying a current portfolio of priority sites in proximity to the proposed project. They requested that transmission

441829/070031 5-4 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

lines not go through the subject portfolio site boundaries to minimize possible threats to these areas of significant biodiversity.

• PBS&J followed up with a request for additional information regarding the two broad areas referred to as “portfolio site boundaries” and labeled as “Nacatoch Ravines” and Bois d’Arc” on the map attached to the TNC letter dated April 27, 2007. The mapped areas included in the “portfolio site boundaries” includes land in private ownership (including land owned by AEP) and land that has been impacted/developed (cropland, highways, railroads, pipelines, transmission lines, residences, etc.). • TNC responded by referring to their original letter and reiterating their request that the transmission lines not go through the subject portfolio site boundaries.

The AHTD response indicated that the proposed project should have minimal impact upon the Department’s existing highway network, but would require permits to cross any highway ROW. In addition, the AHTD provided information regarding a substantial, planned highway project located on the east side of Texarkana.

• In the event the selected route crosses a highway ROW, AEPSC will coordinate with the AHTD to obtain all necessary permits and approvals.

The DAH/ANHC provided responses on November 3, 2006, April 3, 2007, and July 10, 2007. The first letter was in response to a previous letter from the URS Corporation of September 19, 2006, which erroneously referenced four, instead of three, proposed transmission lines. The April and July, 2007, letters, which addressed the refined project study area accurate to the proposed project, were considered to supersede the earlier response. The April 3, 2007, letter indicated a total of 40 elements of special concern have been recorded within the study area. Annotated Hempstead, Miller, and Little River County Element Lists were provided to PBS&J. They also provided information regarding the Nacatoch Ravines Natural Area, Little River Bottoms WMA, Grassy Lake, the Bois d’Arc WMA, and the so-called Little River Bottoms. Once the transmission line corridors were refined, the ANHC provided more detailed information regarding the proximity of rare plant and animal occurrences, natural or scenic rivers, and other elements of special concern (July 10, 2007 letter). Thirteen species of conservation concern had been recorded within the refined search area; however, no elements had been recorded immediately within any of the study corridors. A list of general guidelines was provided to use as consideration in the placement of the transmission lines.

• Substantive discussion of the referenced endangered or threatened species is provided in sections 3.5.6, 3.6, and 4.3.4. Substantive discussion of the referenced species of state concern is provided in sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.3, and 4.4. Additional discussion of high quality natural communities in the study area is provided in sections 3.4, and 4.3. • Neither the preferred route nor any alternative route crosses the Nacatoch Ravines Natural Area, Little River Bottoms WMA, Grassy Lake, the Bois d’Arc WMA, or the so-called Little River Bottoms, as that area is defined in the map provided by DAH/ANHC.

441829/070031 5-5 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

• The provided guidelines mirror in many regards the constraints and factors considered by PBS&J and AEPSC in development of this EIS and selection of the preferred route. Thus, these guidelines have been considered and reviewed, as requested by DAH/ANHC, in the transmission line placement.

The FWS – Conway, Arkansas, provided response letters on March 26, 2006, and September 7, 2007. The March 26, 2006 letter noted the project should have no adverse impact on the Ouachita rock pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri), and although the project is planned in the vicinity of a nesting colony of interior least terns (Sterna antillarum athalassos), there should be no adverse affects, and no further consultation required on the interior least terns or their nesting habitat if the enclosed guidelines are incorporated into the operating policies of the project during and after construction.

• Substantive discussion of these two species is provided in sections 3.5.6 and 4.3.4 above. • As noted in Section 4.3.4 above, AEPSC will follow the FWS provided guidelines regarding the interior least tern.

The FWS letter of September 7, 2007, response listed four federally threatened or endangered species (American burying beetle, bald eagle, interior least tern, and Ouachita rock pocketbook), which occur or potentially occur with the study area. Information regarding preferred habitat, documented occurrences within the study area counties, and different FWS protocols for the four listed species was included in the correspondence. The response also inaccurately referenced four, instead of three, proposed transmission lines. The response further discussed that a section 404 permit may be required from the USACE.

• Substantive discussion of these four species is provided in sections 3.5.6, 3.6, and 4.3.4 above. • Pursuant to the comments received from FWS, further consultation may be necessary and should be requested in the event these species occur during construction. • AEPSC will comply with the guidelines provided by the FWS on the bald eagle. • Regarding the referenced Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC) (2006) and as noted in Section 4.3.3, above, AEPSC is a participant on the Edison Electric Institute APLIC that authored guidance available in the manual entitled Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines and is committed to implementing the manual’s guidance to address any avian protection concerns. • As noted above regarding the interior least tern, AEPSC will follow the FWS provided guidelines and requested buffer zone regarding the interior least tern. • Regarding the Ouachita rock pocketbook, no impact is anticipated from the project. However, in the unlikely event the species is encountered, AEPSC will consult further with FWS to address any concerns. • As discussed in Section 1.6.2, above, the proposed transmission line project may encounter areas where construction activities will be regulated by the Individual Permit to be issued by the USACE for the John W. Turk, Jr. Generation Facility and its associated transmission lines, related to possible impacts to jurisdictional waters pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act.

441829/070031 5-6 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

The FWS, Arlington, Texas, provided a response letter limited to the route originating from the NW Texarkana Substation located in Bowie County, Texas. The letter references a previous letter from the URS Corporation of September 19, 2006, that inaccurately described four, instead of three, proposed transmission lines.

• As the comments of FWS, Arlington, Texas, related to issues within its Texas jurisdiction, further discussion is not provided in this document, but will be addressed in the Texas proceeding, as appropriate.

The TCEQ response indicates that the proposed transmission line project will pose no significant impact upon air quality standards. Any minimal dust and particulate emissions should be controlled by using standard dust mitigation techniques.

• AEPSC will employ standard dust mitigation techniques to minimize dust and particulate emissions.

The Aviation Division of TxDOT lists one public use airport within the study area, Texarkana Regional Webb Field (TXK) and recommends coordination with the airport manager if any FAA airspace study is necessary. Information regarding distances from nearest runways and FAA’s notification requirements was included in the correspondence.

• If necessary, AEPSC will coordinate with the FAA for any portion of the route that is in proximity to FAA registered public use airports and, if warranted, the airport manager.

The Environmental Affairs Division of TxDOT reviewed the proposed project and provided information regarding the location of the proposed future Texarkana Northwest Loop stating that this proposed project could potentially be affected by the placement of the transmission lines.

• If necessary, AEPSC will coordinate with the TxDOT for any portion of the route that crosses the alignment of the Texarkana Northwest Loop.

In a telephone conversation, Mr. Ben Thompson of the GLO stated that the south bank of the Red River is the legal boundary between Texas and Arkansas, that this boundary changes frequently and can not be accurately determined without a survey..

• The Texas-Arkansas boundary used for the figures in this report were based on the south bank of the Red River as shown on the aerial photography flown specifically for this project.

The THC’s review of the study area finds that there is a moderate to high probability of containing significant cultural resources and an archeological investigation may be warranted.

• PBS&J performed archeological investigations for documented cultural resource sites in Texas and Arkansas. AEPSC will coordinate with the state archeological agencies regarding the need for additional archaeological investigations, as directed by the PUCT and APSC, or as otherwise required by state and/or federal law in accordance with the PA, discussed above.

441829/070031 5-7 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Mayor Conway of the Town of McNab (Town) stated the Town does not have any concerns or areas of interest in the proposed transmission line projects.

The NRCS determined that several WRP easements occur within the study area. WRP landowners do not have the right to give consent to allow transmission line ROW to cross their WRP property. Furthermore, the U.S. has limited rights to modify WRP easements, and the NRCS is bound to follow their own policy and request AEPSC to avoid the WRP easements. The Policy Regarding Infrastructure Projects on Easement Lands was provided by the NRCS Easement Programs Division.

• The NRCS was contacted to provide mapped locations of known WRP easements, and measures were taken to avoid all known WRP easements in the routing process.

The NRCS in Temple, Texas, also responded in a letter stating that the project study area may contain soils classified as Important Farmland; however, they do not normally consider power lines a conversion of “Farmland” because the soil can still be used after construction. They urged the use of accepted erosion control methods during construction.

• BMPs will be implemented as part of the SWPPP and required construction stormwater permits.

The Texarkana Independent School District provided maps identifying the location of various campuses and instructional facilities located in Texarkana, Texas.

• An effort was made in the routing process to avoid line placement adjacent to schools.

Bowie County Commissioner John Addington’s response indicated that permitting would not be required for the transmission line project, but he reserves the authority for approvals as they may affect county road ROW. Commissioner Addington would like to review and comment on the final route selected.

• AEPSC will coordinate with the appropriate county agencies for any permitting or approvals that may be required once a route is approved.

• Honorable James Carlow, Bowie County Judge, provided contact information if a septic system is needed and also indicated that if the project is located in a flood zone a construction permit would be needed. AEPSC will coordinate with the appropriate county agencies for any permitting or approvals that may be required once a route is approved.

441829/070031 5-8 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Section 6.0

Preferred Route Selection

08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

6.0 PREFERRED ROUTE SELECTION

The purpose of this study was to delineate and evaluate alternative routes for SWEPCO’s proposed transmission line between the proposed Turk and existing NW Texarkana stations in Hempstead, Miller, and Little River counties, Arkansas and Bowie County, Texas. After PBS&J completed the environmental analysis of 14 primary alternative routes (Section 4.0), the environmental data for alternative route evaluation (Table 6-1), and a summary of the environmental evaluation, and a ranking of alternate routes were presented to AEPSC. The environmental evaluation was a comparison of 14 alternative routes from a strictly environmental/land use viewpoint, based upon the measurement of 37 environmental/land-use criteria, and the consensus opinion of PBS&J’s group of evaluators. PBS&J’s evaluation is discussed below. AEPSC subsequently conducted an evaluation of environmental and cost factors, discussed these routes with their engineering, ROW, and regulatory staff, evaluated the agency comments received, and then selected a proposed route and alternate routes to be filed with the APSC and PUCT. Although the routes were evaluated in their entirety, for reference, tables 6-2 and 6-3 present information for Texas and Arkansas, respectively.

6.1 PBS&J’S ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

In evaluating the primary alternative transmission line routes, environmental factors and construction costs were considered separately. PBS&J used a consensus process to evaluate the potential environmental/land use impacts of the alternative routes. PBS&J professionals with expertise in different environmental disciplines (wildlife biology, plant ecology, land use/planning, and archaeology) evaluated the 14 alternative routes based on environmental/land use and cultural resource conditions present along each route. This evaluation was based on data collected for 37 separate environmental criteria; comments from local, state, and federal agencies; and field reconnaissance of the study area and proposed alternative routes. Each PBS&J technical expert independently analyzed the routes and the environmental data presented in Table 6-1. The evaluators then met as a group and discussed their independent results. The group as a whole determined the relationship and relative sensitivity among the major environmental factors. The group then ranked the 14 alternative routes based strictly upon the environmental data.

The evaluators believed that all 14 alternative routes were generally acceptable from an overall environmental/land-use standpoint. The evaluators each ranked the alternatives from first to fourteenth (first having the least potential impact and fourteenth the greatest potential impact) from the perspective of their own area of expertise. The results of this ranking are summarized in Table 6-4.

441829/070031 6-1 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 6-2 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

TABLE 6-1 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTE EVALUATION AEP/SWEPCO NW TEXARKANA TO TURK 345-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BOWIE COUNTY, TEXAS AND MILLER, LITTLE RIVER, AND HEMPSTEAD COUNTIES, ARKANSAS

PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CRITERIA 1 2 34567891011121314 LAND USE 1. Length of alternative route 159,795 153,835 158,885 152,925 153,235 147,275 147,895 156,380 155,300 155,625 157,890 164,710 159,060 159,680 2. Number of habitable structures1 within 500 ft of ROW centerline 0 17 5 22 6 23 9 14 11 6 23 25 26 12 3. Length of ROW paralleling apparent property lines 17,405 23,305 15,375 21,275 15,375 21,275 18,010 31,685 29,530 22,040 22,060 24,060 24,060 20,795 4. Length of Existing Transmission Line ROW used 00000000000000 5. Length of ROW parallel to existing transmission line ROW 8,170 8,170 21,670 21,670 5,550 5,550 8,050 5,550 5,550 5,750 10,695 21,895 5,775 8,275 6. Length of ROW parallel to other existing ROW (highways, pipelines, railroads, etc.) 5,040 7,535 4,000 6,495 4,000 6,495 6,495 12,755 5,295 7,535 16,850 16,850 16,850 16,850 7. Length of ROW through parks and/or recreational areas 00000000000000 8. Number of parks and/or recreational areas within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 11111121121112 9. Length of ROW through USDA Wetland Reserve Program Easements 00000000000000 10. Length of ROW through cropland 37,560 30,900 48,310 41,650 39,065 32,405 58,120 62,110 70,810 55,435 30,900 38,965 29,720 55,435 11. Length of ROW through grazingland 33,540 52,705 29,035 48,200 24,905 44,070 49,325 41,530 32,785 52,795 55,640 54,605 50,475 55,730 12. Length of ROW through pasture or cropland with mobile irrigation systems 00000000000000 13. Length of ROW across gravel pits, mines, or quarries 00000000000000 14. Number of transmission line crossings 22444444422222 15. Number of U.S. and state highway crossings 22222233332223 16. Number of FAA-registered airfields within 20,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 17. Number of private airstrips within 10,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000013310001 18. Number of heliports within 5,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 19. Number of commercial AM radio transmitters within 10,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 20. Number of FM radio transmitters, microwave towers, etc. within 2,000 ft of ROW centerline 01010102101110 AESTHETICS 21. Estimated length of ROW within foreground visual zone 2 of U.S. and state highways 11,080 12,080 11,080 12,080 11,080 12,080 18,600 46,680 26,250 18,600 12,080 12,080 12,080 18,600 22. Estimated length of ROW within foreground visual zone 2 of recreational or park areas 6,650 6,650 6,650 6,650 6,650 6,650 11,950 6,650 6,650 11,950 6,650 6,650 6,650 11,950 ECOLOGY 23. Length of ROW through upland forest 60,155 49,730 53,405 42,980 53,405 42,980 18,000 18,225 18,225 24,750 48,195 48,195 48,195 23,215 24. Length of ROW through bottomland/riparian forest 17,905 17,335 15,015 14,445 22,600 22,030 15,865 26,675 25,390 18,650 16,860 16,755 24,340 18,175 25. Length of ROW across potential wetlands 15,900 15,400 16,450 15,950 7,150 6,650 5,550 8,250 8,850 5,800 14,000 14,800 5,500 4,400 26. Length of ROW across known habitat of federally endangered/threatened species 00000000000000 27. Length of ROW across open water (lakes, ponds, etc.) 1,700 1,700 1,400 1,400 1,120 1,120 1,865 2,175 2,175 1,865 1,700 1,400 1,120 1,865 28. Number of stream crossings 30 16 29 15 28 14 14 18 19 16 16 17 16 16 29. Number of river crossings 22222222222222 30. Number of canal crossings 0606410211266102 31. Length of ROW parallel (within 100 ft) to streams 1,400 1,500 1,400 1,500 1,400 1,500 500 1,800 1,800 2,500 1,500 3,500 3,500 2,500 32. Length of ROW across 100-year floodplains 90,160 98,445 91,470 99,755 85,820 94,105 119,415 134,440 133,360 124,925 99,845 106,665 101,015 126,325 CULTURAL RESOURCES 33. Number of recorded historic or prehistoric sites crossed 11221112222433 34. Number of additional recorded historic or prehistoric sites within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 15 18 17 20 11 15 15 13 13 13 17 21 15 16 35. Number of National Register listed or determined eligible sites crossed 00001101100010 36. Number of additional National Register listed or determined eligible sites within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 00110000000100 37. Length of ROW through areas of high archaeological/historic site potential 159,795 153,835 158,885 152,925 153,235 147,275 147,895 156,380 155,300 155,625 157,890 164,710 159,060 159,680

1 Single-family and multi-family dwellings, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial structures, Route Links Route Links industrial structures, businesses, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and schools, etc. 1 A-A'-A"-F'-F"-R-NN'-OO-PP 8 B-D-E-E'-RR-SS-O-O'-O"-O'''-OO-PP 2 One-half mile, unobstructed. 2 A-A'-A"-F'-F"-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 9 B-D-E-E'-RR-SS-O-O'-TT-O'''-OO-PP NOTE: All length measurements are in feet. 3 B-D-E-E'-F-F'-F"-R-NN'-OO-PP 10 A-A' -YY-E'-RR-SS-N-N'-NN-NN'-OO-PP 4 B-D-E-E'-F-F'-F"-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 11 A-XX-A"-F'-F"-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 5 B-D-E-E'-RR-H-Q-Q'-R-NN'-OO-PP 12 A-XX-YY-E'-F-F'-F"-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 6 B-D-E-E'-RR-H-Q-Q'-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 13 A-XX-YY-E'-RR-H-Q-Q'-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 7 B-D-E-E'-RR-SS-N-N'-NN-NN'-OO-PP 14 A-XX-YY-E'-RR-SS-N-N'-NN-NN'-OO-PP

441829/070031 6-3 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 6-4 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

TABLE 6-2 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES IN TEXAS AEP/SWEPCO NW TEXARKANA TO TURK 345-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BOWIE COUNTY, TEXAS

CRITERIA 1 2 34567891011121314 LAND USE 1. Length of alternative route 33,355 33,355 32,445 32,445 51,125 51,125 55,265 53,185 53,185 62,995 37,410 44,230 62,910 67,050 2. Number of habitable structures1 within 500 ft of ROW centerline 005566899568911 3. Length of ROW paralleling apparent property lines 2,030 2,030 00005,025 8,160 8,160 9,055 785 2,785 2,785 7,810 4. Length of Existing Transmission Line ROW used 00000000000000 5. Length of ROW parallel to existing transmission line ROW 2,930 2,930 16,430 16,430 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 5,550 3,250 5,455 16,655 5,775 5,775 6. Length of ROW parallel to other existing ROW (highways, pipelines, railroads, etc.) 1,040 1,040 00000001,040 10,355 10,355 10,355 10,355 7. Length of ROW through parks and/or recreational areas 00000000000000 8. Number of parks and/or recreational areas within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 9. Length of ROW through USDA Wetland Reserve Program Easements 00000000000000 10. Length of ROW through cropland 10,890 10,890 21,640 21,640 21,790 21,790 30,620 18,740 18,740 27,935 10,890 18,955 19,105 27,935 11. Length of ROW through grazingland 5,840 5,840 1,335 1,335 10,210 10,210 8,315 18,820 18,820 11,785 8,775 7,740 16,615 14,720 12. Length of ROW through pasture or cropland with mobile irrigation systems 00000000000000 13. Length of ROW across gravel pits, mines, or quarries 00000000000000 14. Number of transmission line crossings 00223333310011 15. Number of U.S. and state highway crossings 00000011110001 16. Number of FAA-registered airfields within 20,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 17. Number of private airstrips within 10,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000011110001 18. Number of heliports within 5,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 19. Number of commercial AM radio transmitters within 10,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 20. Number of FM radio transmitters, microwave towers, etc. within 2,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 AESTHETICS 21. Estimated length of ROW within foreground visual zone 2 of U.S. and state highways 0000003,650 3,100 3,100 3,650 0 0 0 3,650 22. Estimated length of ROW within foreground visual zone 2 of recreational or park areas 0000002,950 0 0 2,950 0 0 0 2,950 ECOLOGY 23. Length of ROW through upland forest 8,790 8,790 2,040 2,040 2,040 2,040 2,040 2,040 2,040 8,790 7,255 7,255 7,255 7,255 24. Length of ROW through bottomland/riparian forest 7,565 7,565 4,675 4,675 14,270 14,270 10,085 8,490 8,490 12,870 7,090 6,985 16,580 12,395 25. Length of ROW across potential wetlands 4,100 4,100 4,650 4,650 5,050 5,050 5,550 6,650 6,650 5,800 2,700 3,500 3,900 4,400 26. Length of ROW across known habitat of federally endangered/threatened species 00000000000000 27. Length of ROW across open water (lakes, ponds, etc.) 300 300 0 0 70 70 865 1,065 1,065 865 300 0 70 865 28. Number of stream crossings 998899888109101110 29. Number of river crossings 00000000000000 30. Number of canal crossings 00004400000040 31. Length of ROW parallel (within 100 ft) to streams 0000000002,000 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 32. Length of ROW across 100-year floodplains 25,045 25,045 26,355 26,355 45,035 45,035 49,175 47,095 47,095 54,685 26,445 33,265 51,945 56,085 CULTURAL RESOURCES 33. Number of recorded historic or prehistoric sites crossed 00110000011322 34. Number of additional recorded historic or prehistoric sites within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 66882256675936 35. Number of National Register listed or determined eligible sites crossed 00001100000010 36. Number of additional National Register listed or determined eligible sites within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 00110000000100 37. Length of ROW through areas of high archaeological/historic site potential 33,355 33,355 32,445 32,445 51,125 51,125 55,265 53,185 53,185 62,995 37,410 44,230 62,910 67,050

1 Single-family and multi-family dwellings, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial structures, Route Links Route Links industrial structures, businesses, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and schools, etc. 1 A-A'-A"-F' 8 B-D-E-E'-RR-SS-O 2 One-half mile, unobstructed. 2 A-A'-A"-F' 9 B-D-E-E'-RR-SS-O * One park occurs within 1,000 ft of routes 7,10, and 14, but is located in the state of Arkansas 3 B-D-E-E'-F-F' 10 A-A' -YY-E'-RR-SS-N NOTE: All length measurements are in feet. 4 B-D-E-E'-F-F' 11 A-XX-A"-F' 5 B-D-E-E'-RR-H-Q 12 A-XX-YY-E'-F-F' 6 B-D-E-E'-RR-H-Q 13 A-XX-YY-E'-RR-H-Q 7 B-D-E-E'-RR-SS-N 14 A-XX-YY-E'-RR-SS-N 441829/070031 6-5 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 6-6 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

TABLE 6-3 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA FOR ALTERNATIVE ROUTES IN ARKANSAS AEP/SWEPCO NW TEXARKANA TO TURK 345-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, MILLER, LITTLE RIVER, AND HEMPSTEAD COUNTIES, ARKANSAS

CRITERIA 1 2 34567891011121314 LAND USE 1. Length of alternative route 126,440 120,480 126,440 120,480 102,110 96,150 92,630 103,195 102,115 92,630 120,480 120,480 96,150 92,630 2. Number of habitable structures1 within 500 ft of ROW centerline 0170170171 5 2 11717171 3. Length of ROW paralleling apparent property lines 15,375 21,275 15,375 21,275 15,375 21,275 12,985 23,525 21,370 12,985 21,275 21,275 21,275 12,985 4. Length of Existing Transmission Line ROW used 00000000000000 5. Length of ROW parallel to existing transmission line ROW 5,240 5,240 5,240 5,240 0 0 2,500 0 0 2,500 5,240 5,240 0 2,500 6. Length of ROW parallel to other existing ROW (highways, pipelines, railroads, etc.) 4,000 6,495 4,000 6,495 4,000 6,495 6,495 12,755 5,295 6,495 6,495 6,495 6,495 6,495 7. Length of ROW through parks and/or recreational areas 00000000000000 8. Number of parks and/or recreational areas within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 11111121121112 9. Length of ROW through USDA Wetland Reserve Program Easements 00000000000000 10. Length of ROW through cropland 26,670 20,010 26,670 20,010 17,275 10,615 27,500 43,370 52,070 27,500 20,010 20,010 10,615 27,500 11. Length of ROW through grazingland 27,700 46,865 27,700 46,865 14,695 33,860 41,010 22,710 13,965 41,010 46,865 46,865 33,860 41,010 12. Length of ROW through pasture or cropland with mobile irrigation systems 00000000000000 13. Length of ROW across gravel pits, mines, or quarries 00000000000000 14. Number of transmission line crossings 22221111112211 15. Number of U.S. and state highway crossings 22222222222222 16. Number of FAA-registered airfields within 20,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 17. Number of private airstrips within 10,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000003300000 18. Number of heliports within 5,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 19. Number of commercial AM radio transmitters within 10,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 20. Number of FM radio transmitters, microwave towers, etc. within 2,000 ft of ROW centerline 01010102101110 AESTHETICS 2 21. Estimated length of ROW within foreground visual zone of U.S. and state highways 11,080 12,080 11,080 12,080 11,080 12,080 14,950 43,580 23,150 14,950 12,080 12,080 12,080 14,950 22. Estimated length of ROW within foreground visual zone2 of recreational or park areas 6,650 6,650 6,650 6,650 6,650 6,650 9,000 6,650 6,650 9,000 6,650 6,650 6,650 9,000 ECOLOGY 23. Length of ROW through upland forest 51,365 40,940 51,365 40,940 51,365 40,940 15,960 16,185 16,185 15,960 40,940 40,940 40,940 15,960 24. Length of ROW through bottomland/riparian forest 10,340 9,770 10,340 9,770 8,330 7,760 5,780 18,185 16,900 5,780 9,770 9,770 7,760 5,780 25. Length of ROW across potential wetlands 11,800 11,300 11,800 11,300 2,100 1,600 0 1,600 2,200 0 11,300 11,300 1,600 0 26. Length of ROW across known habitat of federally endangered/threatened species 00000000000000 27. Length of ROW across open water (lakes, ponds, etc.) 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,400 1,050 1,050 1,000 1,110 1,110 1,000 1,400 1,400 1,050 1,000 28. Number of stream crossings 21 7 21 7 19 5 6 10 11 67756 29. Number of river crossings 22222222222222 30. Number of canal crossings 06060621126662 31. Length of ROW parallel (within 100 ft) to streams 1,400 1,500 1,400 1,500 1,400 1,500 500 1,800 1,800 500 1,500 1,500 1,500 500 32. Length of ROW across 100-year floodplains 65,115 73,400 65,115 73,400 40,785 49,070 70,240 87,345 86,265 70,240 73,400 73,400 49,070 70,240 CULTURAL RESOURCES 33. Number of recorded historic or prehistoric sites crossed 11111112211111 34. Number of additional recorded historic or prehistoric sites within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 9 12 9 12 9 13 10 7 7 612121210 35. Number of National Register listed or determined eligible sites crossed 00000001100000 36. Number of additional National Register listed or determined eligible sites within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 00000000000000 37. Length of ROW through areas of high archaeological/historic site potential 126,440 120,480 126,440 120,480 102,110 96,150 92,630 103,195 102,115 92,630 120,480 120,480 96,150 92,630

1 Single-family and multi-family dwellings, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial structures, Route Links Route Links industrial structures, businesses, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and schools, etc. 1 F"-R-NN'-OO-PP 8 O'-O"-O'''-OO-PP 2 One-half mile, unobstructed. 2 F"-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 9 O'-TT-O'''-OO-PP NOTE: All length measurements are in feet. 3 F"-R-NN'-OO-PP 10 N'-NN-NN'-OO-PP 4 F"-NN-NN'-OO-PP 11 F"-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 5 Q'-R-NN'-OO-PP 12 F"-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 6 Q'-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 13 Q'-S-NN-NN'-OO-PP 7 N'-NN-NN'-OO-PP 14 N'-NN-NN'-OO-PP

441829/070031 6-7 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 6-8 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

TABLE 6-4

PBS&J’S ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

Ranking Cultural Project Project Land Use Ecology Resources Director Manager Consensus Route 1 4th 14th 2nd 12th 5th 11th Route 2 5th 10th 3rd 4th 3rd 3rd Route 3 2nd 11th 7th 9th 4th 5th Route 4 11th 4th 6th 3rd 2nd 2nd Route 5 3rd 13th 11th 5th 10th 7th Route 6 10th 8th 10th 2nd 11th 4th Route 7 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st Route 8 7th 5th 13th 7th 13th 13th Route 9 6th 6th 12th 6th 12th 12th Route 10 8th 3rd 4th 8th 6th 6th Route 11 12th 9th 5th 10th 9th 9th Route 12 14th 7th 9th 14th 8th 10th Route 13 13th 12th 14th 13th 14th 14th Route 14 9th 2nd 8th 11th 7th 8th

The land use evaluation placed the greatest importance on proximity to habitable structures, overall length of the route, and length paralleling existing transmission line or other ROWs. Comparing the fourteen alternative routes from a land use perspective, Route 7 was selected as the preferred route.

The ecology evaluation, which was primarily based on potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife, considered combined bottomland and upland forest clearing as the primary consideration, taken in conjunction with potential wetland impacts, and use of existing cleared ROW. The ecology evaluator identified Route 7 as having the least potential impact, considering strictly ecological criteria.

The cultural resources evaluation considered proximity to documented cultural resource sites and amount of area having a high probability for the occurrence of cultural resource sites crossed. Route 7 was identified as the preferred route from a cultural resources perspective.

The PBS&J project manager and project director also ranked the alternatives, considering all of the criteria, with proximity to habitable structures, utilization of existing ROW/apparent property lines, overall length of routes, as well as potential impacts to aesthetics and natural resources being the more important factors.

Based on a group discussion of the relative value and importance of each set of criteria (human, cultural, and natural resources) for this specific project, it was the consensus of the group that the number of habitable structures within 500 ft of the centerline, the amount of forest clearing, relative percentage of

441829/070031 6-9 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

existing ROW paralleled, and the overall length of the route were the most important factors in their decision for selecting the preferred route and ranking the alternate routes.

The consensus of the group was that Route 7 is the preferred route, strictly from an environmental/land use standpoint. The group then ranked the remaining alternatives. The result of their discussion and consensus decision is presented in Table 6-4. Following Route 7 (preferred route), the routes were ranked as follows: routes 4, 2, 6, 3, 10, 5, 14, 11, 12, 1, 9, 8, and 13, in order of preference.

Routes 7, 4, and 2 were selected as the preferred route, first alternative and second alternative, respectively, considering the following:

• Route 7 was ranked first in all disciplines (land use, ecology, and cultural resources). Route 7 has a relatively low number of habitable structures within 500 ft of centerline (9), is the second- shortest route (147,895 ft), has a relatively high percentage of its length paralleling existing ROW (10%), crosses the least amount of bottomland/riparian forest, the least amount of combined bottomland/riparian and upland forest, the third least amount of potential wetlands, and second- least amount of archaeological HPA. • Although Route 4 was ranked eleventh from a land use perspective, mainly because of the relatively high number of habitable structures within 500 ft of centerline (22), the evaluators generally considered that 22 structures were a relatively low impact when considering the overall length of the route, impacts to forest, and potential for impacting cultural resources. Route 4 is the third-shortest route (5,032 ft longer than route 7 and 5,650 ft longer than Route 6). Although Route 4 has a relatively high number of habitable structures within 500 ft (22), a significant amount of its length (18%) parallels existing ROW (more than any other route except Route 12). • Route 2 ranked fifth with respect to land use. It has 17 habitable structures within 500 ft of centerline, is the fifth-shortest route (153,835 ft), with 10% of its length parallel to existing ROW. • Routes 4 and 2 were ranked fourth and tenth, respectively, considering ecological impacts. Route 4 crosses the least amount of bottomland/riparian forest (2.7 miles) and sixth-least amount of combined upland and bottomland/riparian forest (10.9 miles). Route 2 crosses the sixth-least amount of bottomland/riparian forest (3.3 miles) and 12.7 miles of combined upland and bottomland/riparian forest. • Routes 4 and 2 were ranked sixth and third, respectively, from a cultural resource prospective. Neither route crosses either of the two historic districts in the study area, as do alternative routes 5, 6, 8, 9, and 13. Route 4 crosses the third-least amount of HPA, and Route 2 crosses the fifth- least amount of HPA.

PBS&J is of the opinion that Route 7 stands out as the number one ranked route from an environmental/land use perspective, because of the limited number of habitable structures, the overall length of the route, the length of ROW through forested areas, and low amount of ROW within archaeological HPAs.

The following presents advantages of the preferred and alternate routes that were considered by the PBS&J project team in formulating their consensus opinion:

441829/070031 6-10 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

6.1.1 Advantages of Alternate Route 7 (Ranked First by Consensus)

• Second-shortest route (only 620 ft longer than the shortest route, Route 6) • Nine habitable structures within 500 ft of the centerline (less than routes 1 [0], 3 [5], 5 [6], and 10 [6]) • Eighth-ranked route regarding percentage of ROW paralleling existing ROW (10%) • Crosses the third-least amount of bottomland/hardwood forest (3.0 miles) and least amount of combined upland and bottomland/riparian forest (approximately 6.4 miles) • Crosses the third-least amount of potential wetlands (1.1 mile) • Ranked first regarding cultural resource factors, does not cross an archeological historic district and crosses the second-least amount of HPA

6.1.2 Advantages of Alternate Route 4 (Ranked Second by Consensus)

• Third-shortest route behind routes 6 and 7 (1.1 mile longer than shortest route, Route 6) • Seventh-least number of habitable structures (22) within 500 ft of the centerline • Second-highest percentage of length paralleling existing ROW (18%), behind Route 12 (23%) • Among the least visible routes from U.S./state highways and recreational areas • Crosses the least amount of bottomland/riparian forest and sixth-least amount of combined upland and bottomland/riparian forest • Among the routes crossing the second-least amount of open water (1,400 ft) • Among the routes with the third-least number of stream/river crossings (17) • Ranked sixth regarding cultural resource factors, does not cross archaeological historic districts and crosses the third-least amount of HPA

6.1.3 Advantages of Alternate Route 2 (Ranked Third by Consensus)

• Fifth-shortest route (1.2 miles longer than shortest route, Route 6) • Sixth-least number of habitable structures within 500 ft of the centerline (17) • Tied with Route 7 as the eighth-ranked route regarding percentage of ROW paralleling existing ROW (10%) • Among the least visible routes from U.S./state highways and recreational areas • Crosses the sixth-least amount of bottomland/riparian forest (3.3 miles) • Among the routes crossing the third-least amount of open water (1,700 ft) • Among the routes with the fourth-least number of stream/river crossings (18) • Third-ranked route regarding cultural resource factors, does not cross archaeological historic districts, and crosses the fifth-least amount of HPA

441829/070031 6-11 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Alternative routes 6, 3, 10, 5, 14, 11, 12, 1, 9, 8, and 13 were ranked fourth through fourteenth, respectively, mainly because of their relative overall length, length of ROW through forest, amount of HPA crossed, and/or for crossing archaeological historic districts. PBS&J believes, however, that these routes are viable alternatives, considering natural resources, as well as potential land use and cultural resources impacts, but are somewhat less desirable from an overall environmental/land use standpoint than preferred Route 7 and alternate routes 4 and 2 discussed above.

441829/070031 6-12 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Section 7.0

Preparers

08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

7.0 PREPARERS

This Environmental Assessment was prepared for AEPSC by PBS&J. AEPSC provided information for Section 1.0, Description of the Project. PBS&J employees with primary responsibilities for preparation of this document include the following:

Responsibility Name Title

Sr. Project Director Rob Reid Vice Pres., Principal Proj. Director Project Manager David Lyter Senior Project Manager

Assistant Project Manager Kelli Boren Project Manager

Physical Environment Thomas Ademski Sr. Planner Natural Resources Eric Cook Project Scientist

Cultural Resources Maria Cruse Archeology Lab Program Mgr.

Human Resources Thomas Ademski/Jill Schwager Sr. Planner/Staff Planner

441829/070031 7-1 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

(This page left blank intentionally.)

441829/070031 7-2 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Section 8.0

References

08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

8.0 REFERENCES

AirNav.com. 2007. Airport Information. (accessed on 20 February 2007).

American Fisheries Society (AFS). 1986. The paddlefish: status, management and propagation. Proceedings of a symposium. St. Louis, Missouri. December 1983.

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. 7th edition. Allen Press, Inc. Lawrence, Kansas.

———. 2000. 42nd supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 117:847–858.

———. 2002. 43rd supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 119:897–906.

———. 2003. 44th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 120:923–931.

———. 2004. 45th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 121:985–995.

———. 2005. 46th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 122:1026–1031.

———. 2006. 47th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 123:926–936.

———. 2007. 48th supplement to the check-list of North American birds. Auk 124:1109–1115.

Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism (ADPT). 2007. http://www.arkansas.com/ (accessed 20 February 2007).

Arkansas Games and Fish Commission (AGFC). 2004. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Snake Guide. Little Rock.

———. 2005. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Arkansas Backyard Birds. Little Rock.

———. 2006. 2005–2006 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, Furbearing Animal Report. Little Rock.

———. 2007a. 2005–2006 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Deer Season Summary. Little Rock. 40 pp.

———. 2007b. AGFC Wildlife Management Areas. http://www.agfc.com/data-facts-maps/maps/wildlife- mgt-areas.aspx (accessed 20 February 2007).

———. 2007c. AGFC Wildlife Management Areas: Bois d’Arc. http://www.agfc.com/data-facts-maps/ maps/wildlife-mgt-areas/bois-d-arc.aspx (accessed 28 March 2007).

Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC). 2006a. Department of Arkansas Heritage Inventory Research Program – Hempstead County. Last updated on October 19, 2006.

441829/070031 8-1 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

———. 2006b. Department of Arkansas Heritage Inventory Research Program – Little River County. Last updated on October 18, 2006.

———. 2006c. Department of Arkansas Heritage Inventory Research Program – Miller County. Last updated on October 18, 2006."

———. 2007a. Arkansas Heritage Program Rare Element Search Engine. (accessed on 26 March 2007).

———. 2007b. What is a Natural Area? http://www.naturalheritage.com/areas/ (accessed 28 March 2007).

———. 2007c. Natural Areas Locator Map. http://www.naturalheritage.com/areas/map.asp (accessed 28 March 2007).

———. 2007d. Rare Plant Species Profiles. http://www.naturalheritage.org/program/rare-species/rare/ plant-profiles/

Ashworth, J.B. 1988. Ground-water resources of the Nacatoch Aquifer: Texas Water Development Board Rept. 305, 50 p.

Avery, M.L. (editor). 1978. Impacts of transmission lines on birds in flight: Proceedings of a Workshop. Oak Ridge Associated Universities. Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Inter-agency Agreement No. 40-570-76 between U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Energy. FWS/OBS-78/48. 151 pp.

Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: the state of the art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. 77 pp. + apps.

⎯⎯⎯. 1996. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines. The state-of-the-art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute (EEI)/Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 125 pp. + apps.

———. 2005. Avian Protection Plan. Guidelines. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. 88 pp.

⎯⎯⎯. 2006. Suggested practices for raptor protection on power lines. The state-of-the-art in 2006 Edison Electric Institute (EEI)/Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 140 pp. + apps.

Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffmann, C.A. Jones, F. Reid, D.W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2003. Museum of Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Occasional Papers, Number 229. 1 December.

Bartlett, R., and P. Bartlett. 1999. A Field Guide to Texas Reptiles and Amphibians. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas. 331 p.

Beaulaurier, D.L. 1981. Mitigation of bird collisions with transmission lines. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

441829/070031 8-2 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Blair, F.W. 1950. The Biotic Provinces of Texas. Tex. J. Sci. 2:93–117 (and map produced by TPWD, http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/land/maps/gis/map_downloads/images/pwd_mp_e0100_107 0ae_6.gif (accessed August 14, 2007).

Briscoe, D., and James R. Duke. 1997. Official Guide to Texas State Parks. Texas Parks and Wildlife Press, University of Texas Press, Austin.

Britton, M.L. 2007. Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. “Le Poste des Cadodaquious.” http://www.tsha. utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/LL/qb18.html (accessed 1 March 2007).

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2006. U.S. Department of Labor. Local area unemployment statistics: data for state and county. http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/outside.jsp?survey=la (accessed 8 February 2007).

Coulter, M.C., J.A. Rodgers, J.C. Ogden, and F.C. Depkin. 1999. Wood Stork (Mycteria americana). In The Birds of North America, No. 409 (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Performed for Office of Biological Sciences, Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Department of Interior.

Creel, D.G. 1984. Hatchel-Mitchell Site. Ms. on file, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.

———. 2007. Handbook of Texas Online, s.v. “Hatchel-Mitchell Site.” http://www.tsha.utexas. edu/handbook/online/articles/HH/bbh.8.html (accessed 2 March 2007).

Crother, B.I., J. Boundy, J.A. Campbell, K. De Quieroz, D.R. Frost, D.M Green, R. Highton, J.B. Iverson, R.W. McDiarmid, P.A. Meylan, T.W. Reeder, M.E. Seidel, J.W. Sites, Jr., S.G. Tilley, and D.B. Wake. 2003. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico: update. Herpetological Review 34(3):196–203.

Crother, B.I., J. Boundy, J.A. Campbell, K. De Quieroz, D.R. Frost, R. Highton, J.B. Iverson, P.A. Meylan, T.W. Reeder, M.E. Seidel, J.W. Sites, Jr., T.W. Taggart, S.G. Tilley, and D.B. Wake. 2000. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular No. 29. November.

Crother, B.I., J. Boundy, K. De Quieroz, and D. Frost. 2001. Scientific and standard English names of amphibians and reptiles of North America north of Mexico: errata. Herpetological Review 32(3):152–153.

Davis, W.B., and D.J. Schmidly. 1994 (online version, 1997). The Mammals of Texas (online edition). http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/tmot1/Default.htm (accessed July 31, 2007).

441829/070031 8-3 08-098-U-Application Exhibit 4

Diamond, D.D., I. Butler, N.J. Craig, T.L. Foti, and S.P. Rust 1986. A Survey of Potential National Natural Landmarks of the West Gulf Coastal Plain Subregion: Biotic Themes. Natural Heritage Program.

Dice, Lee R. 1943. The biotic Provinces of North America. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Dickinson, M.B. (Editor). 1999. Field guide to the birds of North America. Third Edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C.

Discover Arkansas Labor Market Information Source. 2006. Employment and wages: 1st quarter 2001 and 2006. http://www.discoverarkansas.net/cgi/dataanalysis/AreaSelection.asp?tableName= Industry (accessed 8 February 2007).

Dixon, J.R. 2000. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas. Second Edition. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. 421 pp.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1993. Proceedings: Avian Interactions with Utility Structures. International Workshop, Miami, Florida, 13–16 September 1992. EPRI TR-103268, Palo Alto, California.

Erickson, W.P., G.D. Johnson, and D.P. Young, Jr. 2005. A summary and comparison of bird mortality from anthropogenic causes with an emphasis on collisions. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GET-191: 1029-1042. Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH&A). 1997. DEIS for U.S. Highway 71 from Texarkana, Texas to DeQueen, Arkansas in Little River, Miller, and Sevier counties, Arkansas and Bowie County, Texas. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, and TxDOT.

Faaborg, J., M. Brittingham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake. 1992. Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone: a perspective for managers. In: D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel (editors). Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-229. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Faanes, C.A. 1987. Bird behavior and mortality in relation to power lines in prairie habitats. Fish and Wildlife Technical Report 7, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 24 pp.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 1975. Objects affecting navigable air space. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.

———. 2007a. Memphis Sectional Aeronautical Chart (1:500,000 Scale) – 77th Edition. U.S. Department of Transportation – FAA – Office of Aeronautical Charting. September 28.

———. 2007b. Airport/Facility Directory: South Central U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 2007. FCC Audio Division AM/FM internet queries. http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/ (accessed 20 February 23, 2007).

441829/070031 8-4