POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

USFWS Delisted Species

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted in 2007 by the USFWS, because the population has recovered beyond the ESA criteria for listing. The status of the bald eagle population is currently monitored by the USFWS and the species is still afforded federal protection under the MBTA and the BGEPA. Bald eagles may occur as summer and/or winter residents in Texas. Eagles typically nest from October to July. The bald eagle is found primarily near rivers and large lakes and will build large nests in tree tops or on cliffs usually near large bodies of water. TXNDD (2016) data identifies several occurrences of this species within the study area surrounding the northern portion of Lake Conroe and the San Jacinto River. This species is known to occur within the study area as a breeding and wintering resident where suitable habitat is present (Campbell 2003; Lockwood and Freeman 2014).

The peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) was federally delisted in 1999 due to recovering populations. However, the peregrine falcon is included by TPWD on their annotated county list as a threatened species and the listing includes two subspecies: the American peregrine falcon (F.p. anatum) and arctic peregrine falcon (F.p. tundrius) due to similarities in appearance (TPWD 2016c). The American peregrine falcon nests in the mountains of the Trans-Pecos and is a rare migrant statewide; but it occupies many kinds of habitats during migration, including urban. Stopover habitat during migration typically includes lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands and the falcon is also a resident breeder in west Texas (Lockwood and Freeman 2014; TPWD 2016c). The arctic peregrine falcon is an uncommon migrant to uncommon winter resident along the Texas coast, typically occurring near bays and estuaries (Lockwood and Freeman 2014). This species may occur in the study area as a non-breeding winter migrant, if suitable habitat is present (Campbell 2003; Lockwood and Freeman 2014).

The Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) was once a common inhabitant of forested regions of eastern Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Today, small remaining populations are located in the Atchafalaya and Tensas river basins of Louisiana (Schmidly 2004). In Texas, the bear is a rare inhabitant of bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of undisturbed forested areas. Suitable habitat is present within the Big Thicket National Preserve and the Lower Neches River Corridor which are located east and southeast of the study area; however, field studies conducted by TPWD conclude both of these locations have high potential human/bear conflict zones (Campbell 2003; Garner and Willis 1998). USFWS federally delisted this species on March 10, 2016 due to recovery of its population. Occurrence of the Louisiana black bear is not anticipated within the study area since the study area is outside of the current known range of the species.

Extirpated Species

The red wolf (Canis rufus) historically occurred throughout the eastern half of the state in forests, brushlands, and prairies. The red wolf was known to prey on rabbits, deer, rodents, prairie chickens, crabs, and livestock (Schmidly 2004). Changes in land use and over hybridization with the coyote (Canis latrans) are thought to have extirpated the red wolf from Texas. Since the red wolf is considered extirpated, is not anticipated to occur within the study area.

TPWD Listed Species

The Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) is a state-listed bird and is a habitat specialist found primarily in open pine or oak forests where the understory is composed of tall grasses and sometimes scattered patches of shrubs (Lockwood and Freeman 2014). The Bachman's sparrow is found in the

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 92

'211 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Pineywoods region and nests on the ground against tufted grass or under low shrubs (TPWD 2016c). This species may occur within the study area as a breeding resident if suitable habitat exists (Lockwood and Freeman 2014).

The white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) prefers freshwater marshes, swamps, ponds, river, sloughs. and irrigated rice fields, but will also use brackish and saltwater habitats. This species is a colonial nester and forages on insects, newts, leeches, earthworms, snails, crayfish, frogs, and fish. This species is a locally common to uncommon resident along the Texas Gulf Coast (Lockwood and Freeman 2014). TXNDD (2016) data identifies three potential wading bird rookeries within the study area. This species may occur within the study area as a breeding resident within suitable wetland habitats (Lockwood and Freeman 2014).

The wood stork (Mycteria americana) inhabits prairie ponds, flooded pastures or fields, ditches, and other shallow standing water, including saltwater areas. This species is an uncommon to locally common visitor that frequents coastal regions as well as lakes and reservoirs of eastern and central Texas (Lockwood and Freeman 2014). This species usually roosts communally in tall snags, sometimes in association with other wading birds and formerly nested in Texas (TPWD 2016c). This species may occur within the study area as a non-breeding visitor within suitable wetland habitats (Lockwood and Freeman 2014).

The blue sucker (Cycleptus elongates) is a large freshwater fish that occurs in limited numbers within major rivers in Texas, usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current. The blue sucker is mostly carnivorous and feeds within bottom sediments. Spawning occurs during spring within smaller tributaries (Thomas et al. 2007). This species may occur within the study area within suitable aquatic habitats.

The creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus) is a freshwater fish that inhabits tributaries of the Red, Sabine, Neches, Trinity, and San Jacinto Rivers (Thomas et al. 2007). The creek chubsucker prefers headwaters and spawn in river mouths, pools, riffles, and lake outlets. The young are usually in headwater rivulets or marshes (TPWD 2016c). This species may occur within the study area within suitable aquatic habitats.

The paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) has a unique long, paddle-shaped snout with large jaws and small teeth (Thomas et al. 2007). The paddlefish is a filter feeder that prefers large, free flowing rivers but will utilize tributaries (TPWD 2016c). The species spawns in fast, shallow water over gravel bars and the larvae may drift from reservoir to reservoir (TPWD 2016c). This species may occur within the study area within suitable aquatic habitats.

The sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) is a federally listed species in north-central and west Texas; however, USFWS (2016b) does not list the species within the study area counties. The sharpnose shiner is endemic to the Brazos River drainage and prefers large turbid waters with sand, gravel, and clay-mud bottoms (TPWD 2016c). This species has not been observed within the study area (TXNDD 2016); however, this species may occur within the western portions of the study area within the Brazos River Basin, within suitable aquatic habitats.

The Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquii) inhabits lowland pine-hardwood forests and generally roosts in tree cavities, under bark or dry leaves, or in man-made structures. This species forages primarily on moths, but will consume other insects. The study area lies along the southeastern border of the Rafinesque's big-eared bats range (Tuttle 2003). Although a review of TXNDD (2016) data does not indicate any recorded occurrences within the study area, one observation of this species

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 93 '220 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line was recorded approximately 3.3 miles northeast of the study area. This species may occur within the study area, if suitable habitat exists.

There are four additional mollusk species listed as threatened by TPWD (2016c) for the study area counties which include the Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii), sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus), and Texas pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi). The Louisiana pigtoe may be found within streams and moderate sized rivers in the Sabine, Neches, and Trinity River basins. The Louisiana pigtoe inhabits mud, sand, and gravel substrates, not usually within impoundments (TPWD 2016c). The sandbank pocketbook may be found in small to large rivers from the Sulfur River south to the San Jacinto and Neches river basins. The pocketbook may inhabit moderate flowing waters with swift currents with gravel, gravel-sand, and sand bottoms (TPWD 2016c). The Texas heelsplitter may be found in the calm waters or reservoirs along the Sabine, Neches, and Trinity river basins within with mud or sand substrates (TPWD 2016c). The Texas pigtoe may be found in east Texas rivers with mud, sand, and fine gravel, usually in areas protected by structures or fallen trees (Howells 2013; TPWD 2016c). These species may occur within the study area where suitable aquatic habitats exist.

The alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) inhabits freshwater ecosystems, such as lakes, streams, rivers, creeks, bayous, and ponds, usually within muddy or thick vegetated substrates (Dixon 2013). The alligator snapping turtle may migrate several miles along rivers or streams and are most active from March through October (TPWD 2016c). TXNDD (2016) includes an element occurrence record of this species in the San Jacinto River north of Lake Conroe. This species may occur within the study area, within suitable freshwater habitats.

The Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) inhabits a variety of habitats including open desert, grasslands and shrublands in arid and semiarid habitats that contain bunch grasses, cacti, and yucca on soils varying from pure sands and sandy loams to coarse gravels, conglomerates, and desert pavements (Henke and Fair 1998). Their primary prey item is the harvester ant (Pogonornyrmex barbatus) and they will aestivate beneath the soil during winter periods. Over the past 25 years this species has almost vanished from the eastern half of the state. According to Henke and Fair (1998) and Donaldson et al. (1994), the Texas horned lizard no longer occurs in Texas east of an imaginary line from Fort Worth to Corpus Christi, except for small, isolated populations. Although, not anticipated, this species may occur within the study area within suitable upland habitats.

The timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus) inhabits dense ground cover in swamps, floodplains, upland pine, deciduous woodlands, riparian zones, abandoned farmland, and limestone bluffs (TPWD 2016c). The timber rattlesnake is robust and feeds on small rabbits, squirrels, reptiles, amphibians, mice, rats, and occasionally birds. According to Dixon (2013), the timber rattlesnake has been recorded in each of the study area counties. This species may occur within the study area where suitable habitat is available.

Species of Concern

TPWD also maintains a list of animal species of concern (rare) within each county (TPWD 2016c) as shown in Table 3-8. Only federally listed threatened and endangered species are protected under the ESA. While not regulated as state or federal listed threatened or endangered species, species of concern may receive protection under other federal and/or state laws, such as the MBTA, Chapters 64-67, and 78 under Title 5 of the TPWD Code, and Chapters 65 and 69 under Title 31 of the TAC. TPWD generally recommends consideration for these species when routing linear utility corridors.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 94 221 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-8 SPECIES OF CONCERN POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

SPECIES COUNTY LISTED* COMMON NAME SCIENTIRC NAME GRIMES MONTGOMERY WALKER Amphibians Southern crawfish frog Lithobates areolatus areolatus X X Birds Sprague's pipit Anthus spragueii X X Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii X X Insects Gulf Coast clubtail Gomphus modestus - X X Texas emerald dragonfly Somatochlora margarita - X X A mayfly Tricorythodes curyatus - X - A mayfly Plauditus gloveri - X - Mammals Southeastern myotis bat Myotis austroriparius X X X Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta X X X Source: TPWD 2016c

The preferred habitat for the southern crawfish frog (Lithobates aerolatus aerolatus) is abandoned crawfish holes and small mammal burrows in riparian areas with shallow water and patches of herbaceous grasslands. The southern crawfish frog spends nearly all of its time in burrows and only leaves the burrow area to breed (Dixon 2013; TPWD 2016c). TXNDD (2016) data identifies one occurrence of this species within the far northeast portion of the study area along SH 190. This species may occur within the study area, within suitable wetland habitats.

There are two bird species of concern, including the Henslow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) and the Sprague's pipit (Anthus spragueii). Both of these species are rare to uncommon migrants and/or winter residents within Texas. The Henslow's sparrow generally forages on insects, caterpillars, and seeds on the ground occurring in eastern and southern pineywoods or winter residents along coastal plains (Lockwood and Freedman 2014). The Sprague's pipit is strongly tied to native upland prairie and can be locally common in coastal grassland. They are sensitive to patch size and avoid habitat edges (TPWD 2016c). Both of these species may occur as non-breeding migrants or winter residents, if suitable habitat exists.

Four insect species are listed including two mayflies (Tricorythodes curvatus and Plauditus gloveri), Gulf Coast clubtail (Gomphus inodestus), and Texas emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita). Little is known about the full life histories of most of these species. Both mayfly species may be found in bankside or riparian vegetation in its adult stages, but are differentiated in their aquatic larval stage (TPWD 2016c). The Gulf Coast clubtail is a dragonfly that occurs near streams with moderate gradient and silty, sandy, or rocky bottoms. The adults forage in trees near the streams or rivers and flight season is late April to late June (TPWD 2016c). The Texas emerald dragonfly is found within the east Texas pineywoods along small sandy forested streams with moderate current and bogs. These species may occur within the study area, if suitable stream habitats exist.

The plains spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius interrupta) typically inhabits open fields, prairies, croplands, wooded and brushy areas and tallgrass prairies (TPWD 2016c). This omnivorous skunk

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 95 22Z POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

forages on birds, insects, mice, rats, and plants. Litters are born from April to July. TXNDD (2016) data identified one occurrence of this species within the northeastern portion of the study area. This species may occur within the study area, if suitable habitat is present.

The southeastern myotis (Myotis austroriparius) inhabits lowland oak/hickory and mixed conifer/hardwoods forests. This insectivorous myotis generally roosts in hollow tree cavities, but has also been observed within culverts, caves, mines, bridges, bat houses, and manmade structures (Tuttle 2003: TPWD 2016c). TXNDD (2016) identified one occurrence of this species approximately six miles north of the study area. This data also identified two known bat colonies occurring just north of the study area. This species may occur within the study area, if suitable habitat is present.

3.2 Community Values

The term "community values" is included as a factor for the consideration of transmission line route approval under PURA § 37.056(c)(4)(A-D); however, the term has not been defined by the PUCT. The PUCT CCN application requires information concerning the following items related to community values:

• Public open-house meetings. • Approval or permits required from other governmental agencies. • Brief description of the area traversed. • Habitable structures within 300 feet of the centerline for transmission lines of 230 kV or less. • AM and FM radio, microwave, and other electronic installations in the area. • FAA registered public use airports, private airstrips, and heliports located in the area. • Irrigated pasture or croplands utilizing center-pivot or other traveling irrigation systems. • Parks and recreation areas. • Historical and archeological sites.

In addition, POWER also evaluated the proposed Project for community values and resources that might not be specifically listed by the PUCT, but that might be of importance to a particular community as a whole. The term "community values" is not formally defined in PUCT rules. However, in several dockets the following has been used as a working definition: the term "community values" is defined as a shared appreciation of an area or other natural resource by a national, regional, or local community. Examples of a community resource would be a park or recreational area, historical and archeological sites, or a scenic vista (aesthetics). POWER mailed consultation letters to various local elected and appointed officials and hosted six public open-house meetings to identify and collect information regarding community values and community resources.

3.2.1 Land Use

Existing land uses within the study area were identified and placed into the following categories: urban/developed, planned land use, transportation features, air facilities, utility features, and communication. Parks and recreation areas are discussed in Section 3.3. The primary sources of land use information were obtained from interpretation of aerial photographs, USGS topographical maps, and vehicular reconnaissance surveys from accessible public viewpoints.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 96 223 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Urban/Developed

The urban/developed classification represents concentrations of surface disturbing land uses, which include habitable structures and other developed areas characterized with low, medium and high intensities. The various levels of development include a mix of institutional, commercial, and/or industrial land uses. Developed low, medium and high intensity areas were identified using aerial photograph interpretation and reconnaissance surveys. These classifications are defined below:

• Developed Low Intensity areas typically include rural settings with single-family housing units. • Developed Medium Intensity areas typically include single-family housing units that are grouped in residential subdivisions and might include peripheral commercial structures. • Developed High Intensity includes highly developed areas where people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses, and commercial/ industrial parks. Areas with the highest concentration of development are typically located within or near the towns and communities in the study area.

The majority of the study area is in a rural setting with the exception of medium to high intensity developed urban areas associated with cities of Conroe, Huntsville, Montgomery, and Willis. A majority of rural areas are predominantly federally managed forest lands. Pasture and rangelands are also interspersed, primarily throughout the northern and western rural portions of the study area in Grimes and Walker counties. Lake Conroe is a predominant reservoir in the study area and has attracted a significant amount of development. The majority of the study area has been impacted by land improvements associated with agriculture, residential and commercial development, roadways, and various utility corridors. Overall, the study area viewscape consists of forest land and lake fronts from Lake Conroe with gently rolling hills dissected by the San Jacinto River.

Habitable structures were identified using aerial photographs and reconnaissance surveys from public view points and plotted on the constraints map. The PUCT definition of a habitable structure was used for this routing study. The PUCT's Substantive Rule 25.101(a)(3) defines habitable structures as "structures normally inhabited by humans or intended to be inhabited by humans on a daily or regular basis. Habitable structures include, but are not limited to, single-family and multi-family dwellings and related structures, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial structures, industrial structures, business structures, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and schools."

Schools

The study area is located within the following eight districts: Anderson-Shiro Consolidated Independent School District (ISD), Conroe ISD, Huntsville ISD, Montgomery ISD, Navasota ISD, New Waverly ISD, Richards ISD, and Willis ISD. There are 32 existing public schools identified within the study area: one head start. one pre-k, 15 elementary, four middle schools, three intermediate, one junior high, five high schools, and two alternative schools (Texas Education Agency 2016). Montgomery ISD has three proposed school campuses within the study area. Sam Houston State University is also located within the study area in Huntsville.

Planned Land Use

The planned land use component identifies objectives and/or policies regarding land use goals and plans, including conservation easements, managed lands, and proposed developments. Cities and

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 97

2.24t. POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

counties typically prepare comprehensive land use plans to provide strategic direction by goals and objectives for the individual county or city. City and county websites were reviewed and correspondence was submitted to local and county officials to identify any planned land use conflicts. Three of the study area cities, including Conroe. Huntsville, and Willis, each have a comprehensive land use plan; however, no planned land use conflicts were identified in any of the comprehensive plans. Several planned residential subdivision developments were identified within the study area and were considered during route development phase.

Conservation Easements

A conservation easement is a restriction landowners voluntarily place on specified uses of their property to protect natural, productive, or cultural features. The property owner retains legal title to the property and determines the types of uses to allow and which to restrict. The property can still be bought, sold and inherited, but the conservation easement is tied to the land and binds all present and future owners to its terms and restrictions. Conservation easement language will vary as to the individual property owners allowances for additional developments on the land. The land trusts facilitate the easement and ensure compliance with the specified terms and conditions.

A review of numerous governmental and non-governmental groups (e.g., the USDA NRCS, National Conservation Easement Database [NCED], The Nature Conservancy [TNC], Texas Land Conservancy [TLC]) that are land trusts for conservation easements within the East Texas Region indicated six conservation easements within the study area (NCED 2016; TNC 2016; TLC 2016). The first easement is held by the NRCS and is referred to as Grassland Reserve Program Easement Number 971492 with a reported area of approximately 67 acres. The second easement is also held by the NRCS and is referred to as the Grassland Reserve Program Easement Number 961609 with a reported area of approximately 126 acres (NCED 2016). The third easement is held by the TLC and is referred to as the Lone Oak Ranch with a reported area of approximately 22 acres. The fourth easement is held by the TLC and is referred to as Pawelek with a reported area of approximately 22 acres. The fifth easement is also held by the TLC is referred to as the Spellbottom Mitigation Bank with a reported area of approximately 847 acres (TLC 2016). The final easement is held by the Legacy Land Trust and is referred to as Mussel Pond Reserve with a reported area of approximately 22 acres (Montgomery County 2016).

3.2.2 Agriculture

Agriculture is a significant segment of the economy throughout Texas, and the study area counties have active agricultural sectors. According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service's 2012 Census of Agriculture, the total market value for agricultural products sold for the study area counties was $106,401,000, a decrease of 11 percent over the 2007 market value. Livestock sales, (primarily cattle and calves in Montgomery and Walker counties, and poultry and eggs in Grimes County) accounted for the majority of agricultural sales. Dominant crop sales within study area counties include nursery, greenhouse, floriculture, sod and hay. The number of farms in the study area counties decreased from 4,927 in 2007 to 4,844 in 2012 (a decrease of two percent). Detailed agricultural information for the study area counties is provided in Table 3-9.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 98 2z5 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-9 AGRICULTURE INFORMATION FOR COUNTIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF DISTRIBUTION OF NUMBER OF FARMS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PRODUCTS pm COUNTY CROP LIVESTOCK 2007 2012 CHANGE 2007 2012 CHANGE SALES SALES Grimes County $49,917,000 $48,052,000 -4% 23% 77% 1,853 1,683 -9% Montgomery $42,637,000 $23,836,000 -44% 48% 52% 1,886 1,601 -15% County Walker County $26,909,000 $34,513,000 28% 54% 46% 1,188 1,560 31% Source. USDA 2012

3.2.3 Transportation/Aviation

Transportation

Federal, state, and local roadways were identified using TxDOT county transportation maps, Texas Natural Resource Information System (TNRIS) data, and reconnaissance surveys. The roadway transportation system within the study area includes the following major roadways: IH 45, SH 19, SH 30, SH 75, SH 90, SH 105, and Loop 336.The roadway transportation within the study area also includes the following FM roads: 149, 247, 980, 1097, 1374, 1375, 1486, 1696, 1774, 1791, 2296, 2432, 2445, 2550, 2562, 2620, 2793, 2819, 2821, 2854, and 3083 (TxDOT 2016a). Numerous county and local roads (paved and unpaved) were also identified.

The TxDOT's "Project Tracker'. which contains detailed information by county for every project which is or could be scheduled for construction was reviewed to identify any state roadway projects planned within the study area. The TxDOT Project Tracker indicated that there are six roadway safety projects either scheduled or finalized for construction in Grimes County within the study area boundary. There is one roadway landscaping, two maintenance, three safety, three widening, and five repair projects either scheduled or finalized for construction in Montgomery County within the study area boundary. There is one roadway repair, one upgrade interchange, five maintenance projects, and ten safety projects either scheduled or finalized for construction in Walker County within the study area boundary (TxDOT 2016b).

Four railroads were identified within the study area with two oriented in a north to south direction and two oriented in an east to west direction.

Aviation

POWER reviewed the Houston Sectional Aeronautical Chart (FAA 2016a) and the Chart Supplement for the South Central US (formerly the Airport/Facility Directory) (FAA 2016b) to identify FAA registered facilities within the study area subject to notification requirements listed in 14 CFR Part 77.9. Facilities subject to notification requirements listed in 14 CFR Part 77.9 include public-use airports listed in the Airport/Facility Directory (currently the Chart Supplement), public-use or military airports under construction, airports operated by a federal agency or Department of Defense (DoD), or an airport or heliport with at least one FAA-approved instrument approach procedure.

The Chart Supplement for the South Central US used in conjunction with the Houston Sectional Aeronautical Chart, contains all public-use airports, seaplane bases and heliports, military facilities,

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 99 22(o POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

and selected private-use facilities specifically requested by the DoD for which a DoD Instrument Approach Procedure has been published in the US Terminal Procedures Publication.

POWER also received correspondence from TxDOT's Aviation Division, which also lists public-use facilities within the study area (refer to Appendix A).

One public-use FAA registered airport subject to 14 CFR Part 77.9, Huntsville Municipal Airport, was identified in the northern portion of the study area north of Huntsville, located on the east side of IH 45 (FAA 2016b).

No public-use heliports or heliports with an instrument approach procedure are listed for the study area in the Chart Supplement for the South Central US (FAA 2016b).

In addition, POWER also reviewed the FAA database (FAA 2016c), the AirNav website (AirNav 2016), USGS topographic maps, recent aerial photography, and conducted field reconnaissance from publicly accessible areas to identify private-use airstrips and private-use heliports not subject to notification requirements listed in 14 CFR Part 77.9. Eight private-use airstrips and six private use heliports are located within the study area.

3.2.4 Communication Towers

Review of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) database indicated that there is one AM radio transmitter located within the study area. The FCC database also indicated that there are 161 FM radio transmitters/microwave towers/other electronic installations within the study area (FCC 2012).

3.2.5 Utility Features

Utility features inventoried include existing electrical transmission lines, distribution lines, pipelines, water wells, and water tanks. Data sources used to identify existing electrical transmission and distribution lines include utility company and regional system maps, aerial imagery, USGS topographic maps, additional available planning documents, and reconnaissance surveys. Transmission lines identified include five 345 kV transmission lines, one 230 kV transmission line, and numerous 138 kV transmission lines within the study area. Distribution lines are prevalent throughout the developed portions of the study area; however, these features are not mapped or inventoried.

In addition, numerous water wells and pipelines are located throughout the study area (TWDB 2016c; RRC 2016c).

3.2.6 Socioeconomics

This section presents a summary of economic and demographic characteristics of Grimes, Montgomery, and Walker Counties and provides a brief description of the socioeconomic environment of the State of Texas and the study area. Literature sources reviewed include publications of the US Bureau of the Census (USBOC), and the Texas State Data Center (TxSDC).

Over the next three decades (2010 to 2040) Grimes County's population is projected to increase by 10 percent, nine percent, and six percent: and Walker County's population is projected to increase by six percent, five percent, and four percent, respectively. The largest population increases for the next two

HMI 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 100 2277 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

decades (201 0 to 2 0 3 0) are projected to occur in Montgomery County at 2 4 percent, 2 4 percent, and then a decrease for 2040 by 41 percent, respectively. By comparison, the population of Texas is expected to experience population increases of 15 percent, 13 percent, and 12 percent over the next three decades, respectively (TxSDC 2 014). Table 3-1 0 presents the past population trends and projections for the study area counties and for the state of Texas.

TABLE 3-10 POPULATION TRENDS FOR COUNTIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

PAST PROJECTED STATE/COUNTY 2000 2010 2020 2040 Texas 20,851,820 25,145,561 28,813,282 32,680,217 36,550,595 Grimes County 23,552 26,604 29,320 31,885 33,839 Montgomery County 293,768 455,746 564,926 698,439 412,789 Walker County 61,758 67,861 72,239 76,209 79,290 Source. USBOC 2000, 2010; TxSDC 2014.

Employment

The civilian labor force (CLF) in two of the study area counties increased from 2 000 to 2014 with the corresponding population growth, while one county saw a decrease. Montgomery County's increase in CLF of 68 percent (9 7,1 6 5 people) was the largest of the study area counties, while Walker County saw a decrease in CLF at six percent (1,3 84 people) from 2000 to 2014. By comparison, the CLF at the state level grew by 30 percent (2,9 61,03 1 people) over the same time period (USBOC 2000, 2 014). Table 3-1 1 presents the CLF for the study area counties and the state of Texas for the years 2 000 and 2014.

Between 2 000 and 2 01 4, two of the study area counties experienced an increase in their unemployment rates, while one experienced a decrease. Montgomery County experienced the largest increase in the unemployment rate, from a low of 4.5 percent in 2000 to a high of 6.7 percent in 2014. Walker County experienced a decrease from 8.8 percent to 5.2 percent in the unemployment rate. By comparison, the state of Texas also experienced a small increase in the unemployment rate over the same time period. The state's unemployment rate increased from 6.1 percent in 200 0 to 7.7 percent in 2 014 (USBOC 2000, 201 4). Table 3-1 1 presents the employment and unemployment data for the study area counties and the state of Texas for the years 200 0 and 2014.

TABLE 3-11 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT FOR COUNTIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

STATEICOUNTY 2000 2014 Texas Civilian Labor Force 9,830,559 12,791,590 Employment 9,234,372 11,809,010 Unemployment 596,187 982,580 Unemployment Rate 6.1% 7.7% Grimes County Civilian Labor Force 9,495 10,522 Employment 8,905 9,820

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 101 22g POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-1 1 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT FOR COUNTIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

STATE/COUNTY 2000 2014 Unemployment 590 702 Unemployment Rate 6.2% 6.7% Montgomery County

Civilian Labor Force 143,120 240,285 Employment 136,618 224,133 Unemployment 6,502 16,152 Unemployment Rate 4.5% 6.7% Walker County

Civilian Labor Force 24,726 23,342 Employment 22,554 22,124 Unemployment 2,172 1,218 Unemployment Rate 8.8% 5.2% Source: USBOC 2000, 2014

Leading Economic Sectors

The major occupations in Grimes County in 2014 are listed under the category of management, business, science, and arts occupations. followed by the category of sales and office occupations. The major occupations in Montgomery County in 2014 are listed under the category of management, business, science, and arts occupations, followed by the category of sales and office occupations. The major occupations in Walker County in 2014 are listed under the category of management, business, science, and arts occupations, followed by the category of service occupations (USBOC 2014). Table 3-12 presents the number of people employed in each occupation category during 2014 in the study area counties.

TABLE 3-12 OCCUPATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

MONTGOMERY OCCUPATION GRIMES COUNTY WALKER COUNTY COUNTY Management, business, science, and arts 2,497 84,182 6,986 occupations

Service occupations 1,645 35,591 6,049

Sales and office occupations 2,170 55,665 5,340 Natural resources, construction, and 1,695 23,217 1,811 maintenance occupations Production, transportation, and material moving 1,813 25,478 1,938 occupations Source: USBOC 2014.

In 2000 and 2014, the industry group employing the most people in Grimes, Montgomery, and Walker counties was educational services, and health care and social assistance (USBOC 2014). Table 3-13 presents the number of persons employed in each of the industries in the study area counties for the years 2000 and 2014.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 102 771 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-13 INDUSTRIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

GRIMES MONTGOMERY WALKER COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY INDUSTRY GROUP 2000 2014 2000 2014 2000 2014

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, 608 986 4,743 11,469 813 915 and mining Construction 894 829 13,865 18,709 1,410 971 Manufacturing 1,277 1,343 15,682 22,873 1,433 982 Wholesale trade 309 171 6,418 9,115 427 219 Retail trade 911 1,146 17,608 25,276 2,563 2,382 Transportation and warehousing, and 695 712 10,828 16,025 710 789 utilities Information 75 69 3,166 2,780 327 202 Finance and insurance, and real estate and 379 392 8,344 13,075 903 757 rental and leasing

Professional, scientific and management, and administrative and waste management 461 770 14,578 25,556 1,008 1,105 services

Educational services, and health care and 1,660 1,732 21,338 42,513 5,330 6,332 social assistance

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and 419 840 8,055 18,631 1,980 1,930 accommodation and food services

Other services, except public administration 381 330 7,042 11,022 1,090 1,132

Public administration 836 500 4,951 7,089 4,560 4,408 Source. USBOC 2000, 2014

3.3 Recreational and Park Areas

The PUCT recognizes parks and recreational areas as those owned by a governmental body or an organized group, club, or church. Federal and state databases searches, including a review of the Texas Outdoor Recreation Inventory (TORI), the Texas Outdoor Recreation Plan (TORP), the Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan (LWRCRP) web viewer, spatial data from the SHNF, and county/local maps were reviewed to identify any parks and/or recreational areas within the study area. Reconnaissance surveys were also conducted to identify any additional park or recreational areas.

3.3.1 National/State/County/Local Parks

No national parks were identified within the study area; however, one national forest was identified within the study area. The SHNF is located north of Houston and the forest contains approximately 163,037 acres between Huntsville, Conroe, Cleveland, and Richards. Recreation in the forest includes

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 103 230 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, and boating (National Park Service [NPS] 2016a). One state park was also identified within the study area (TPWD 2016d). The Huntsville State Park is located on Lake Raven south of Huntsville. The park contains 21 miles of trails, playgrounds, and a nature center. The park activities include camping, hiking, biking, picnicking, horseback riding, fishing, swimming, paddling, geocaching, and nature studying (TPWD 2016e).

Three county parks were identified within the study area within Montgomery County. Charles Traylor Memorial Park is located on Rogers Road in Willis and offers a 61 acre facility with eight lighted baseball fields, four lighted softball fields, one regulation lighted football field, and a covered horse area with concession stand and restrooms. Lake Conroe Park is located on SH 105 in Montgomery. Texas and offers 13 acres of grounds with barbeque pits, picnic tables, restrooms, swimming area, fishing piers, two covered pavilions, a softball field, and volleyball areas. West Montgomery County Park is located on FM 149 in Montgomery. Texas and offers a 50 acre park with five lighted baseball fields, four lighted softball fields, two football fields, restrooms, two concession stands and picnic areas (Montgomery County 2016). One county park was identified within the study area within Walker County. The Walker County Fair Grounds is located on SH 30 west of Huntsville and offers a main building, livestock barn, and rodeo area (Walker County Fair Grounds 2016).

Numerous local parks or recreation areas and school playgrounds or athletic facilities have been identified within the study area boundary (TPWD 2012a, 2012b, and 2015). There are also 12 golf courses identified within the study area.

One TPWD public hunting area was identified within the study area. The Huntsville State Park hunting area is 2,087 acres and offers squirrel hunting on the state park grounds (TPWD 2016e). Lake Conroe also offers recreational activities, such as boating, fishing, and water sports, to residents and visitors. Additional recreational activities such as hunting and fishing might occur on private properties throughout the study area, but are not considered to be open to the general public.

3.3.2 Wildlife Viewing Trails

Review of the TPWD Great Texas Wildlife Trails Prairies and Pineywoods East Wildlife Trail indicates that there is one wildlife viewing trail located within the study area. The Big Sandy Loop offers two sites with the study area, Huntsville State Park and Stubblefield Recreational Area (TPWD 20160.

The westem portion of the Lone Star Hiking Trail is located within the study area. The Lone Star trail extends 128 miles crossing the extent of the Sam Houston National Forest. The trail extends from near Richards, Texas to northwest of Cleveland, Texas at Winters Bayou in San Jacinto County, Texas.

3.4 Aesthetic Values

Section 37.056(c)(4)(C) of the Texas Utilities Code incorporates aesthetics as a consideration when evaluating proposed electric transmission facilities. There are currently no formal guidelines provided for managing visual resources on private, state, or county owned lands. For the purposes of this study, the term aesthetics is defined by POWER to accommodate the subjective perception of natural beauty in a landscape and measure an area's scenic qualities. The visual analysis was conducted by describing the regional setting and determining the viewers sensitivity ratings. Related literature, aerial photograph interpretation, and reconnaissance surveys were used to describe the regional setting and to determine the landscape character types for the area.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 104 -2.3) POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Consideration of the visual environment includes a determination of aesthetic values (where the major potential effect of a project on the resource is considered visual) and recreational values (where the location of a transmission line could potentially affect the scenic enjoyment of the area). POWER considered the following aesthetic criteria that combine to give an area its aesthetic identity:

• Topographical variation (hills, valleys, etc.). • Prominence of water in the landscape (rivers, lakes, etc.). • Vegetation variety (woodland, meadows). • Diversity of scenic elements. • Degree of human development or alteration. • Overall uniqueness of the scenic environment compared with the larger region. With the exception of portions of the SHNF, the majority of the study area has been impacted by land improvements associated with agriculture, residential and commercial development, roadways, and various utility corridors. Overall, the study area viewscape consists of forest land and lake fronts along Lake Conroe with gently rolling hills dissected by the San Jacinto River.

No known designated views, or designated scenic roads or highways were identified within the study area. The study area is located within the 18-county Texas Brazos Trail Region; however, there are no sites of interest within the study area (THC 2016a). The study area is also located within the 35- county Texas Forest Trail Region; there are 13 sites of interest within the study area. The sites of interest include: N.H. Davis Pioneer Complex and Museum, the Southern Empress, Lake Conroe, SHNF, Huntsville State Park, Sam Houston Statue/Visitor Center, Big Creek Scenic Area and Trails, Sam Houston Memorial Museum, Gibbs-Powell Home Museum/Walker County Historical Museum, Samuel Walker Houston Museum and Cultural Center, Oakwood Cemetery — Sam Houston's Grave, HEARTS Veterans Museum, and the Texas Prison Museum (THC 2016b).

A review of the NPS website did not indicate any National Wild and Scenic Rivers Systems (NWSRS), National Parks, National Monuments, National Historic Sites, National Historic Trails, or National Battlefields within the study area (NWSRS 2016; NPS 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). There is one National Historic Landmark identified within the study area boundary (NPS 2016b). Woodland was the residence for Sam Houston from 1847 to 1859 and is located on the grounds of Sam Houston State University (Sam Houston Memorial Museum 2016).

Based on these criteria, the study area exhibits an equivalent moderate degree of aesthetic quality for the region. The majority of the study area maintains the atmosphere of a rural community. In summary, although some portions of the study area might be visually appealing, overall, the aesthetic quality of the study area is not distinguishable from that of other adjacent areas within the region.

3.5 Historical (Cultural Resource) Values

Section 37.056(c)(4)(A-D) of the Texas Utilities Code incorporates historical and aesthetic values as a consideration when evaluating proposed electric transmission facilities. The PUCT's Standard Application for a CCN further stipulates that known historical sites within 1,000 feet of an alternative route will be listed, mapped, and their distance from the centerline of the alternative route documented in the application filed for consideration. Archeological sites within 1,000 feet of a route will be listed and their distance from the centerline documented, but they need not be shown on maps for the protection of the site. Sources consulted to identify known sites (national, state, or local commission) shall also be listed.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 105 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

The THC is the state agency responsible for preservation of the state's cultural resources. The THC, working in conjunction with the TARL, maintains records of previously recorded cultural resources as well as records of previous field investigations. Information from the THC's restricted-access Texas Archeological Sites Atlas (TASA) was acquired in addition to GIS shapefiles acquired from TARL to identify and map locations of previously recorded cultural (archeological and historical) resources within the study area. TxDOT's historic bridges database was also reviewed for bridges that are listed or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. At the national level, NPS websites and data centers were reviewed to identify locations and boundaries for nationally designated historic landmarks, trails and battlefield monuments.

Together, archeological and historical sites are often referred to as cultural resources. Under the NPS standardized definitions, cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. For this study, cultural resources have been divided into three major categories: archeological resources, historical resources, and cemeteries. These three categories correlate to the organization of cultural resource records maintained by the THC and TARL.

Archeological resources are locations on the ground surface or buried within the earth where human activity has measurably altered or left deposits of physical remains (e.g., burnt rock middens, stone tools, petroglyphs, house foundations, bottles). Archeological resources can date to either prehistoric times or the historic era.

Historical Resources typically include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, outbuildings), but can also include structures (dams, canals, bridges, roads, silos), and districts that are non-archeological in nature.

Cemeteries are places of intentional human interment and might include large public burial grounds with multiple burials, small family plots with only a few burials, or individual grave sites. In some instances, cemeteries might be designated as Historic Texas Cemeteries (HTCs) by the THC and might be recognized with an Official Texas Historical Marker (OTHM). Other cemeteries might also be documented as part of the THC's Record, Investigate, and Protect (RIP) program.

3.5.1 Cultural Setting

The study area is located in the Southeast Texas archeological region (Patterson 1995; Story et al. 1990; Perttula 2004) within the Eastern Planning Region (Kenmotsu and Perttula 1993). This region extends from the Sabine River along the upper Texas coast southwestward to the Brazos River delta, and encompasses the gulf coastline as well as the adjacent inland coastal plain. Very generally, the sequence of recognized archeological manifestations in southeast Texas has been divided into three periods: Paleoindian. Archaic, and Ceramic/Late Prehistoric periods. Ricklis (2004) proposes a prehistoric cultural sequence for inland southeast Texas consisting of four occupational periods: Paleoindian (circa [ca.] 11,500 to 8,000 years before present (B.P.), Archaic (ca. 8,000 to 1,500 B.P.), the Ceramic Period (ca. 2,000 to 1,200 B.P.), and the Late Prehistoric period (ca. 1,200 to 300 B.P.).

Paleoindian Period (ca. 11,500 — 8,000 B.P.)

The earliest well-established human occupations of North America are referred to as Paleoindian. In southeast Texas, evidence of the Paleoindian period is indicated almost exclusively by isolated projectile points collected from the ground surface. The earliest of these artifacts are represented by large fluted Clovis and Folsom points found primarily along major water sources (Ricklis 2004).

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017)141830 LD PAGE 106

2.33 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Later Paleoindian occupation is represented by San Patrice and Scottsbluff points closer to the coastline and Plainview and Angostura points along the western margin of the southeast Texas archaeological region (Ricklis 2004). Story et al. (1990) summarized the distribution and context of Paleoindian remains in southeast Texas, and found that except for well inland of the modern coastline, Paleoindian artifacts on the upper Texas coast are from disturbed or secondary contexts.

Because such limited data exist for the Paleoindian period in this area, only certain assumptions can be made regarding Paleoindian cultural development in the region. The presence of large projectile points suggests that hunting large mammals was undoubtedly an important component of the subsistence strategy; although a collection of readily available plant foods probably also contributed to the diet (Collins 2002). Environmental changes that brought about the extinction or dislocation of Rancholabrean megafauna triggered a shift away from Paleoindian adaptations toward a broad-based subsistence orientation termed Archaic (Willey and Phillips 1958).

Archaic Period (ca. 8,000 — 1,500 B.P.)

Inland, the Archaic period generally extended from 8,000 to 1,500 B.P. (Ricklis 2004). Numerous sites dating to this period have been found along primary streams throughout the region and contain stone projectile points that are diverse and reduced in size from the earlier Paleoindian period. These dart points also tend to be made of poor quality local resources suggesting reduced group mobility and tighter group territories. A lack of faunal and botanical remains at inland archeological sites precludes inferring more than a generalized hunting and gathering subsistence system. Well- established cemeteries appear in the archaeological record of inland southeast Texas by the middle Archaic. By the late Archaic, cemeteries have increased substantially in size and most burials contain a diverse array of grave goods (Ricklis 2004). Story (1985) suggests that the abundance of cemeteries on the western margin of the coastal prairie zone indicates increased territoriality amongst groups in response ever-increasing population density. Hall (2000) concurs and posits that highly productive environments such as river valley bottoms and the floodplains of major streams were home to an aggregate of resources that were predictable, concentrated, and fixed on the landscape. Such resources allowed late Archaic groups to operate within smaller, more exclusive territories. Aten (1979, 1983) hypothesized the establishment of seasonal rounds, including regular movements from littoral to inland areas during the late Archaic. Historic native groups have been demonstrated to move in a yearly round from small, dispersed band-sized or less groups during the warm seasons to aggregated villages during the colder months (Aten 1979; Newcomb 1961). Grave goods from 41AU36 indicate the inhabitants of the site during the late Archaic were involved in an import-export sphere extending as far as Arkansas (Hall 1981).

Ceramic Period (ca. 2,000 — 1,200 B.P.)

Pottery first appeared in southeast Texas along the coast around 2,000 years ago, ushering in the Ceramic period. Based on stylistic elements, pottery arrived in the region via diffusion from Louisiana or the Lower Mississippi River Valley, suggesting an increasing interregional influence from neighboring groups. There were no apparent major shifts in lifeways following the introduction of pottery. The contents of shell-bearing sites along the upper Texas coast during the early Ceramic period vary little from the late Archaic shell middens, except for the addition of pottery and a few evolving dart point types, primarily Gary and Kent types (Ricklis 2004). Discrete cemeteries located close to major streams continue to reinforce the notion of well-established group territories in response to increasing population densities as seen during the Archaic period (Aten 1983). Ceramics appeared in inland southeast Texas several centuries later and most likely disseminated from the coastal zone where sandy-paste wares had become commonplace (Ricklis 2004).

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 107 .3tt POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1200, — 300 B.P.)

Around 1,300 years ago, small, light, straight and expanded stem arrow points began to appear in archaeological assemblages, indicating the introduction of the bow and arrow — a hallmark of the Late Prehistoric period in southeast Texas. Findings at the Mitchell Ridge site on Galveston Island suggest that the Late Prehistoric period in the region can be divided into two sub-periods. The initial Late Prehistoric is associated with the introduction of the bow and arrow as evidenced primarily by the presence of Scallorn arrow points. The final Late Prehistoric period in southeast Texas correlates with changes taking place throughout much of Texas. These changes include the appearance of bison bone in archaeological assemblages around 700 to 800 years ago in association with a variety of stone tools. Stone tools associated with the appearance of bison include Perdiz arrow points, thin bifacial knives, expanded base drills and perforators, and unifacial end scrapers. The occurrence of bison bone with these tools suggests a significant shift towards reliance on bison and other large game hunting and the processing of meat and hides (Ricklis 2004).

Although the adoption of the bow and arrow and shift to bison and large game hunting was occurring across much of eastern Texas, some areas adapted more slowly to the new technology and subsistence strategy. In the southern Post-Oak Savannah region, the continued presence of large dart points in archaeological assemblages indicates that the atlatl continued to be a popular tool even after the bow and arrow were introduced. This was particularly true during the first half of the Late Prehistoric period. At the Jewett Mine site, a full one-third of the projectile points were large dart points. Overall, there appears to have been a subsistence economy that used a variety of animals, as well as a variety of plant foods including hardwood nuts, seeds, and tubers (Fields 2004).

Ceramics in the region continued to evolve during the Late Prehistoric period. Grog and bone tempering are introduced and decorative elements become more elaborate. The change in external design elements along the upper Texas coast reflect those of various types of the Coles Creek- Plaquemine sequence occurring in coastal Louisiana and the Lower Mississippi River Valley, suggesting a continued interaction with groups from the east (Ricklis 2004). As noted above, ceramics were introduced to inland populations several centuries after they appeared on the east Texas Coast. Archaeological evidence also indicates that the use of ceramics remained comparatively unimportant to inland groups into the Late Prehistoric period. Ceramic sherds in Late Prehistoric contexts at Jewett Mine and Gibbons Creek Mine sites are generally equal in number to shaped stone tools. The ratio of ceramic sherds to shaped stone tools is significantly higher in the Sabine River valley (Fields 2004).

Historic Period

At the time of European contact, much of the study area was inhabited by the Bidai and the Cenis tribes. The Cenis Indians were an agricultural group that lived in the area that is now Walker County. between the Trinity and San Jacinto rivers (Leffler 2016). They traded with western tribes until they were wiped out in the late 1700s by invading tribes and driven out to their own ancestral lands along the Mississippi River (Leffler 2016). The Bidai were a migratory hunting and foraging group with limited agriculture (Long 2016a; Jackson 2016). A generally peaceful group, the Bidai openly traded with Spanish and French settlers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Tensions between Spain and France put the Bidai in a precarious position. The Spanish suspected the Bidai of working against them by trading guns and munitions with the French and their allies, the Lipan Apaches (Jackson 2016; Sjoberg 1951). A single epidemic, introduced by Europeans, decimated the Bidai such that by the early 1800s, approximately 100 members remained. They continued to live peacefully among white settlers as well as other neighboring tribes, often serving as protection against raids from the Comanches and Apaches (Jackson 2016). As European settlements expanded west, the remaining

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 108 z3S— POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Bidai were eventually moved to reservations in Oklahoma where their identity was lost (Jackson 2016).

The first Europeans believed to set foot in the area were Luis de Moscoso Alvarado of Spain in 1542, and Frenchman Rene Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle in 1687. Alonso De Leon was dispatched in 1689 by the Viceroy of New Spain to counter the French threat presented by La Salle's expedition. In their effort, De Leon's men cleared a lane that became known as La Bahia Road, which passes through Walker and Grimes counties (Leffler 2016). Originally a Native American trail, the road saw continued used throughout the nineteenth century as a cattle trail, during which it became known as the Opelousas Road.

Stephen F. Austin founded a colony of 300 settlers between the Brazos and Colorado Rivers in the early 1800s (Barker 2016; Jackson 2016). Fertile land and numerous creeks and rivers attracted settlers to his colony, including Jared Groce, who in 1821 established the Bernardo Plantation. The Bernardo Plantation was the first cotton plantation in Texas, west of present day Hempstead in Waller County (Christian and Leffler 2016; Holbrook 1970). Groce's three league tract, located in present- day Grimes County, influenced many other settlers to acquire land. Most settlers during this time emigrated from Alabama, bringing their slave-holding ideals and culture. In the 1830s, Pleasant Gray and his brother Ephraim set up the Huntsville trading post. Named after Pleasant's former town, Huntsville. Alabama, the site would eventually become the town of Huntsville, Texas.

The Texas Revolution. which began with the Battle of Gonzales in October 1835 and ended on April 21, 1836 at the battle of San Jacinto, did little to dissuade settlement in the area (Barker and Pohl 2016). The battle and advancing Mexican military would cause families and homesteaders to abandon their homes temporarily but only to repopulate quickly after the threat passed. In 1846, Texas became the 28th state in the Union and its status helped to promote further settlement in the state. Immigrants that would have the greatest effect on the population and culture of Texas were those from the lower States whose cotton plantation-based economy helped incorporate Grimes, Montgomery and Walker counties into the antebellum culture of the Deep South (Campbell 2016). By 1850, slaves would make up 50 percent of the population and the crops and money they produced would affect the economy and local government significantly (Jackson 2016; Leffler 2016; Holbrook 1970).

From the Texas Revolution to the eve of the Civil War, Texas saw a shift from a frontier life of raising cattle, sheep, and oxen to that of major agricultural production. By 1860, corn and cotton were the primary crops in Grimes and Walker counties. The livestock economy, though diminished, increased over 275 percent in value. The number of slaves continued to grow in the last decade leading up to the Civil War, particularly in Grimes County, where slaves made up 53 percent of the population (Jackson 2016; Long 2016a).

The Huntsville Penitentiary, also known as Walls, was constructed in 1848 and became the state's first enclosed penitentiary for convicted felons (Walker 2016). With the help of gifts of rock and timber from private citizens, construction on the facility began quickly. The prison was built in a manner that would allow the convicts to be self-sufficient and offset prison costs by building their own workshops, hospitals, warehouses, outbuildings, and library. The prison location off the Trinity River was also strategically chosen in order to allow material crafted by the inmates to be transported to distant markets. During the Civil War, the prison was able to make substantial profits selling fabric to the civilian population and Confederate military (Walker 2016).

In 1859, the Texas Central Railroad reached Grimes County, serving to expand the economy as well as transport soldiers and supplies during the Civil War. The antebellum culture that dominated southeast Texas and its reliance on slaves for agriculture made succession from the US an easy

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 109

Z30 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line decision (Jackson 2016; Long 2016a). During the war, the area saw another influx of immigration from southern farmers seeking refuge, bringing with them their property and slaves (Leffler 2016). The defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves brought slow recovery to the area as the economy struggled to rebuild itself. Epidemics of cholera and yellow fever contributed to the slow recovery and added to the hostilities toward recently freed slaves. The Freedman's Bureau was established to oversee legal contracts and protect emancipated slaves from exploitation and violence and despite their efforts, violence toward the freed group continued to grow (Jackson 2016).

In 1868, the Ku Klux Klan spread into Navasota and emerged as a vigilante effort against African- Americans. In response, the Loyal League was forrned, serving as a means to better organize and protect against the violence of the Ku Klux Klan. The size of the African-American population in Grimes and Walker counties assured Republican support in local government until the establishment of the White Man's Union in 1898, which used intimidation to keep African-American and other minorities from the polls (Jackson 2016; Long 2016b). The hostile tactics of the White Man's Union resulted in a massive migration from the area and temporarily crippled the economy, allowing for a growing Hispanic population to take jobs that were previously held by African-Americans (Long 2016a). The continuing immigration of Germans, Czechs, Polish, French and other European and Asian populations helped to diversify the area culturally as small enclaves established themselves, such as the German settlement of Rodolph, north of Anderson in Grimes County (Jackson 2016).

Recovery after the Civil War was slow and violent, and the economy did not reach its pre-civil war levels until the twentieth century (Jackson 2016; Leffler 2016). The development of railroads in Walker and Montgomery counties helped to spur the local economy near the turn of the century. With the aid of the railroad, the lumber industry soon became one of the leading industries in the region. However, by the late 1920s, the lumber resources were nearly depleted (Leffler 2016). The development and improvement of shipping channels to the south and the expansion of the petroleum industry throughout the country in the early 1900s resulted in a shift in the regional economy away from logging and agriculture (Jackson 2016). A boll weevil outbreak and exhausted soils greatly diminished the role of the cotton industry in the area before 1930. During the Great Depression in the 1930s, the population of Grimes County decreased over 16 percent, as the population of the US became increasingly urban (Jackson 2016). Of the 15 manufacturing companies that existed in the county prior to the Great Depression, only six companies survived through the downturn (Jackson 2016). The oil industry fell slightly during the Great Depression but still remained an important job source for the area. The discovery of oil in Montgomery County in 1931, in what is presently known as the Conroe Oilfield, helped to not only diversify the economy but provide jobs to the dwindling working class (Long 2016a; Smith 2016).

In 1942, Camp Huntsville was established to accommodate over 4,000 German prisoners during World War II. Two years later, the German prisoners were sent to Camp Hearne to make way for Japanese prisoners. At the end of the war in 1945, the camp was closed and the prisoners repatriated. During and after World War II, the number of farms in Grimes and Montgomery counties dropped, shifting into industries like livestock, greenhouse products and lumber (Jackson 2016; Long 2016a). Oil was not discovered in Grimes County until 1954. Despite the discovery, the population continued to decline until the 1970s, when the oil industry in the area expanded into the 1980s (Jackson 2016). From the mid-twentieth century onward, the city of Houston's continued growth and rapid sprawl allowed many to work within the city but live in out skirting counties such as Walker and Montgomery, allowing their populations to increase (Leffler 2016; Long 2016a).

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 110 237

POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

3.5.2 Records Review

The THC, working in conjunction with TARL, maintains records of previously recorded cultural resources as well as records of previous field investigations. Shapefiles containing the locations of archeological sites in and near the study area were obtained from TARL on March 21, 2016. Information pertaining to cultural resources and surveys was obtained from the THC's online restricted-access TASA in March through October 2016 (THC 2016c). The locations of and information pertaining to State Antiquities Landmarks, NRHP properties, cemeteries, HTCs, and OTHMs within the study area were obtained from the THC's online Texas Historical Sites Atlas (THSA) and TASA in March 2016 (THC 2016c, 2016d). TxDOT's historic bridges database was reviewed for bridges that are listed or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP within the study area. At the national level, the NRHP database (NPS 2016d) and NPS websites for National Historic Landmarks (NPS 2016b), and National Historic Trails (NPS 2016c) were reviewed as well. The cultural resources recorded in the study area are summarized in Table 3-14 and discussed in more detail below.

TABLE 3-14 CULTURAL RESOURCES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

RECORDED STATE NRHP-LISTED COUNTY ARCHEOLOGICAL ANTIQUMES CEMETERIES OTHM PROPERTIES SffES LANDMARKS Grimes 12 0 0 28 6 Montgomery 157 0 1 30 40 Walker 165 11 3 38 45 Source. THC 2016c and 2016d.

Based on the file review, 334 archeological sites have been previously recorded within the study area. Of these, 206 are prehistoric in age, 29 are historic, and 14 sites have prehistoric and historic components (THC 2016c). Aside from location data, no site information is available for 85 sites. The SHPO has determined 51 sites and portions of 11 sites to be ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Ten sites have been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP (THC 2016c). The remaining sites have not been formally evaluated for listing in the NRHP. No archeological sites within the study area are listed on the NRHP. Site 41WA046, however, is a State Antiquities Landmark (SAL) located within the Sam Houston House property, a National Historic Landmark near the SAL-designated Sam Houston Memorial Museum. Site 41WA046 is the original location of the Sam Houston House. As discussed below, six additional archeological sites, all prehistoric, are designated SALs.

A majority of the sites within the study area are prehistoric campsites and scatters of debitage, cobbles, bifaces, and ceramic sherds. Campsites within the project area typically consist of burned rock, burned clay nodules, carbonized nutshell and bone, and lithic and ceramic scatters. SAL sites 41WA047, 41WA048, 41WA202, 41WA203, 41WA204 and 41WA298, are campsites that represent extended occupation. Sites 41WA047 and 41WA048 also include burials. Site 41WA047 saw occupation from the Early Archaic to the Late Prehistoric periods. Ceramics, silicified wood and chert debitage, stone tools, non-human bone fragments, burned clay and wood charcoal are also reported from the site. In addition to the burial at 41WA048, Late Caddo period bone-tempered pottery, groundstones, debitage, stone tools, and fresh water mussel shells are reported from the site. Sites 41WA202, 41WA203 and 41WA204 are Late Prehistoric campsites that contain ceramic sherds, charcoal, and debitage within thick intact deposits. Site 41WA298 is a Late Prehistoric campsite with several types of projectile points, grinding and nutting stones, and mortars.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 111 2.3a POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Historic archeological sites recorded within the study area generally consist of early nineteenth to mid-twentieth century farmsteads and home sites with scatters of ceramic sherds, metal fragments, glass shards, and other domestic household and construction debris. Structural remnants are also recorded at a few house sites, such as wells (e.g., 41GM418 and 41WA190) and chimneys (e.g., 41MQ306). Site 41GM5 is an early nineteenth to twentieth century community complex that may be associated with the Branham syrup mill ruins. The complex consists of a house and school site, slave quarters and a well. Site 41WA286 is the mid-nineteenth century to early twentieth century Hightower Plantation, including the location of the plantation main house. The area has been cleared and all that remains is a well, cemetery, and depressions where fireplaces once stood. Sites 41GM463, 41MQ304, 41WA046, 41WA220, 41WA283 and 41WA267 are all recorded to have partial or standing structures. Site 41MQ304 is a partial structure in ruin, dating to the early twentieth century. Ceramic sherds, metal fragments, a glass bottle, window fragments, brick and other domestic household items are recorded at site 41MQ304. Site 41WA283, also known as Camp Huntsville World War 11 Prisoner of War Camp, was built in 1942 to accommodate German and Japanese prisoners. The site consisted of more than 400 structures. Some of the buildings that remain include the electrical house, barracks, army headquarters, a hospital, and chow hall. After the war, the camp was donated to the Sam Houston State Teachers College. Site 41WA267 is the ca. 1895 house and possible blacksmith shop site ofJoshua Houston, Jr., the former servant of Sam Houston. The philanthropist, businessman, and political leader was a blacksmith and wheelwright by trade. He built the two story house and ran a blacksmith shop across the street from his home. Site 41WA046 is the original location of Sam Houston's House, and includes the original support piers and associated buried midden.

Site 41WA054, is a designated SAL and multi-component site that contains Late Prehistoric ceramics, and one piece of historic lead shot. The site is located near a road depicted on a map dating to 1840, so may contain contact-era data. The archeological sites in the study area are summarized in Table 3-15.

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHP° DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIPTION Early 19th to 20th century Barnum complex; syrup mill, house site, cistern/well, 41GM5 Undetermined community school house and slave quarters Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage and one broken projectile 41GM6 Undetermined point Late prehistoric campsite: burned rock, silicified wood and chert debitage, 41GM82 Undetermined ceramic sherds 41GM125 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: silicified wood and chert debitage 41GM418 Undetermined Early 19th to 20th century brick-lined well 41GM419 Ineligible within ROW Prehistoric campsite: ceramic sherds, debitage and one mano 41GM422 Ineligible within ROW Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41GM423 Ineligible within ROW Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41GM426 Ineligible within ROW Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41GM427 Ineligible within ROW Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherd Late Prehistoric scatter: debitage and a ceramic sherd; Mid-20th century glass, 41GM428 Ineligible within ROW metal, and nail Early 18th century to mid-20th century Roans Farmstead and Roan Family cemetery: double pen log barn, a frame structure with pegged mortise-and-tenon 41GM463 Undetermined joinery in ruin, two structural foundations, two possible privies, cistern, and a dump 41MQ3 Undetermined Late Prehistoric village on rise/mound: debitage, biface fragments, ceramics, and

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 112 3C1 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHPO DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIPTION dart points 41MQ4 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Archaic and Late Prehistoric campsite: dart points, arrow points, ceramic sherds, 41MQ5 Undetermined bifaces, cores, and a clay lump Archaic and Late Prehistoric campsite: debitage, ceramic sherds and bifacial 41MQ6 Undetermined stone tools Archaic and Late Prehistoric campsite: debitage, arrow points, drill, and ceramic 41MQ7 Undetermined sherds Archaic and Late Prehistoric campsite: dart points, arrow point, ceramic sherds, 41MQ8 Undetermined and biface fragments 41MQ9 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ10 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ11 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ12 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ13 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Archaic and Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage, dart points, ceramic 41MQ14 Undetermined sherds, and bifaces 41MQ15 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and a core 41MQ16 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ17 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Archaic and Late Prehistoric artifact scatter debitage, dart points, arrow points, 41MQ18 Undetermined ceramic sherds, and biface fragments 41MQ19 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ20 Undetermined Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds and bifaces 41MQ21 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds and arrow points 41MQ22 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ23 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds and debitage 41MQ24 Undetermined Prehistoric artifact scatter: lithic debitage ceramic sherds 41MQ25 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage, bifaces 41MQ26 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ27 Undetermined Archaic and Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds and projectile points 41MQ28 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage, and arrow point 41MQ29 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ30 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ31 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage, and arrow point 41MQ32 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherds 41MQ33 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherds 41MQ34 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherd Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage, bone fragments, and 41MQ35 Undetermined dart point fragment Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage, ceramic sherd, biface fragment, and 41MQ36 Undetermined piece of daub Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage, lithic tools, and projectile 41MQ39 Undetermined points Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage, lithic tools and 41MQ40 Undetermined projectile points 41MQ41 Ineligible Prehistoric campsite: debitage, burned rock, and projectile point tip

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 113 2 0 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHPO DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIPTION 41MQ42 Ineligible Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and bone fragments Paleoindian, Archaic and Late Prehistoric campsite and lithic scatter: Paleo- 41MQ43 Undetermined Indian projectile point, pitted stone, dart and arrow points, ceramic sherds, knives, bifaces and burned rock Late Archaic to Early Ceramic artifact scatter: bifaces, bone, Gary and Darl dart 41MQ50 Undetermined points 41MQ53 Undetermined Pre-Caddo to Early Ceramic artifact scatter: debitage, cores, and ceramic sherd 41MQ54 Undetermined Late Archaic to Early Ceramic artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherd Late Archaic to Early Ceramic artifact scatter: dart and arrow points, ceramic 41MQ58 Undetermined sherds, awls, scrapers, bones (possible cemetery/burial) Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage, tested cobble, and 41MQ121 Undetermined biface Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage, and marine shell 41MQ122 Undetermined fragment 41MQ123 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ124 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Late Archaic to Early Ceramic and Late 19th to early 20th century artifact scatter: 41MQ125 Undetermined debitage and Gary dart point; historic handmade brick and cut nails 41MQ129 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ130 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ131 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ133 Undetermined Prehistoric campsite: debitage and fire cracked rock 41MQ135 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ136 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ137 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and a biface tip 41MQ138 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: silicified wood and chert debitage 41MQ139 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherd 41MQ140 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ141 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Late Prehistoric and ca. 1920 to 1930 artifact scatter: prehistoric ceramic sherds 41MQ144 Undetermined and debitage; historic metal, nails and glass Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage; historic scatter: ceramic sherds, metal and 41MQ145 Undetermined nails 41MQ146 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ147 Undetermined No information available on TASA Late Prehistoric campsite: ceramics sherds, bone, bifaces, cobble, fire cracked 41MQ148 Undetermined rock, and debitage 41MQ149 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: silicified wood and chert debitage 41MQ150 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ151 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ152 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ153 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ154 Undetermined Prehistoric: No other information available on TASA 41MQ155 Undetermined Historic: No other information available on TASA 41MQ156 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ159 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ160 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 114 74( POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHPO DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIFDON 41MQ161 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ162 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ163 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ164 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ166 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ167 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ168 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ169 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ170 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ171 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ172 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ173 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41MQ181 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherd, debitage and utilized bifacial 41MQ201 Ineligible fragment 41MQ202 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ203 Ineligible Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherd 41MQ204 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ205 Ineligible Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds 41MQ206 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ207 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ208 Ineligible Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherds 41MQ209 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ210 Ineligible Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage and arrow point tip 41MQ211 Ineligible within ROW Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ212 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ213 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ214 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Prehistoric campsite: debitage, tested cobble, fire-cracked rock, core, and 41MQ215 Ineligible silicified wood awl 41MQ217 Undetermined Prehistoric campsite: ceramic sherds and debitage Early to mid-twentieth century cemetery: fifteen grave stones marking 16 graves, 41MQ250 Ineligible within ROW ornamental fencing stacked near a grave. Human femur found in bush 41MQ251 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: heat-treated chert debitage Late Archaic campsite: debitage, hammerstone, biface, scrapper, Kent dart 41MQ252 Ineligible point, and a low-fired lump of clay 41MQ253 Undetermined Late Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and Alba arrow point 41MQ254 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ255 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage, carbonized nutshell, and quartzite bifacial 41MQ256 Undetermined tool 41MQ257 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ258 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage, and tested cobble 41MQ259 Undetermined Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage, biface fragment, and ceramic sherds 41MQ260 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ261 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and ceramic sherds

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 115 2.42. POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHP0 DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIPTION Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage, ceramic sherds, cobble, and Perdiz arrow 41MQ262 Undetermined point 41MQ263 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ264 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ265 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ266 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherds 41MQ267 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and tested cobble Late Paleo to Early Archaic/Late Archaic to Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: 41MQ268 Undetermined debitage, a ceramic sherd, Angostura, Kent and Gary projectile points, projectile point fragments, bifaces, tested cobbles, and bone fragments 41MQ269 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ270 Undetermined Prehistoric high density lithic scatter: debitage, cobbles and cores 41MQ271 Undetermined Late Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage, dart point and biface fragment 41MQ272 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Late Archaic to Late Prehistoric campsite: debitage, ceramic sherds, Kent dart 41MQ273 Undetermined point, biface fragments, and fire-cracked rock. 41MQ274 Undetermined Historic cemetery/burial: a single red-brick above-ground crypt 41MQ275 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Middle Archaic to Woodland/Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage, ceramic 41MQ276 Undetermined sherds, Kent dart points, Bonham arrow point, and biface fragment Prehistoric campsite: debitage, burned clay fragments, an expedient tool and 41MQ277 Undetermined partial biface 41MQ278 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ279 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Late Prehistoric campsite: debitage, ceramic sherds, stone drill, Bassett, 41MQ280 Undetermined Catahoula, and Clifton arrow points, modified quartzite cobble, hammerstones, biface, biface fragments and burned clay 41MQ281 Undetermined Prehistoric and Historic artifact scatter: debitage and amber glass shard. Late Archaic to Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: quartzite, chert, petrified wood, 41MQ282 Undetermined quartz, and quartz crystal debitage; Gary projectile point; quartz cobble fragments, bifaces and historic iron fence staple 41MQ283 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Middle to Late Archaic artifact scatter: debitage, a ceramic sherd, a Palmillas 41MQ284 Undetermined dart point, biface fragment 41MQ285 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ286 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ287 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherds Prehistoric and Historic artifact scatter: prehistoric debitage, a unknown chert 41MQ288 Undetermined biface, and a historic automobile safety glass shard Late Archaic to Late Ceramic campsite; Early 20th century historic Raleigh 41MQ289 Ineligible Rogers farmstead: collapsed chimney and cistern 41MQ290 Ineligible No other information available on TASA 41MQ292 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ293 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ294 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41MQ295 Ineligible within ROW Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and a core fragment Late Prehistoric campsite: debitage, biface, ceramic sherds, core fragment, shell 41MQ296 Ineligible within ROW fragment, burned earth. Historic artifact scatter: iron nail, glass and bone

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 116 2143 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHPO DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIFTION Early to mid-20th century artifact scatter: glass bottles, window shards and metal 41MQ303 Ineligible fragments Early to mid-twentieth century partial structure/ruin and artifact scatter: ceramic 41MQ304 Ineligible sherds, metal fragments, a glass bottle, window shards, brick, and miscellaneous domestic household items Early to mid-twentieth century artifact scatter: glass bottle, window shards and a 41MQ305 Ineligible ceramic sherd Early to mid-twentieth century house site: chimney base and two oak yard trees, 41MQ306 Ineligible glass bottle and window shard 41MQ314 Undetermined Possible ca. 1890 Montgomery Jail House site 41MQ316 Undetermined Ca. 1935 railroad berm 41MQ317 Undetermined Ca. 1935 railroad berm 41MQ318 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and projectile point Prehistoric lithic scatter and 20th century domestic artifact scatter: prehistoric 41WA008 Undetermined debitage and ceramics; historic glass, ceramics, stoneware, plastic, and tin cans 41WA037 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and bifacially modified flake 41WA039 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA044 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Mid to late 19th century Sam Houston House: three standing structures and 41WA046 SAL, NRHP-eligible artifact scatter, midden of cut nails, ceramics and glass. Early Archaic to Late Prehistoric occupation site and burial: burial, ceramic 41WA047 SAL, NRHP-eligible sherds, chert and petrified wood debitage, bifaces, projectile points, animal bone fragments, burned clay/soil, charcoal and carbonized tree nuts Late Prehistoric campsite: burial, ceramic sherds, groundstones, arrow points, 41WA048 SAL, NRHP-eligible side scrapper, debitage and freshwater mussel shells 41WA049 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: biface 41WA051 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Prehistoric ceramic sherds, bifaces, and projectile points. Historic lead balls 41WA054 SAL, NRHP-eligible (ammunition) 41WA056 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and projectile point 41WA057 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and Gary-like dart point fragment 41WA058 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and Gary-like dart point fragment 41WA059 Undetermined Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramics Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, arrow point and projectile point 41WA060 Undetermined fragment 41WA061 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA062 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and two projectile points 41WA067 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA068 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA073 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA076 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage, ceramic sherds and a projectile point fragment 41WA077 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA080 Undetermined No information available on TASA Historic family cemetery: three graves with rough homemade concrete 41WA081 Undetermined headstones 41WA082 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and burned rock 41WA087 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and dart point 41WA089 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage, ceramics, and projectile point fragment

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 117 2114 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHPO DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIPTION 41WA094 Undetermined Early Ceramic/Woodland lithic scatter: debitage, ceramic sherds, and cores 41WA096 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and ceramic sherds 41WA099 Undetermined Middle to Late Archaic campsite/occupation: Merrill dart point, debitage 41WA101 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: biface 41WA113 Undetermined Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage, dart points, and ceramics 41WA115 Undetermined Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and bone fragments 41WA117 Undetermined Early 20th century farmstead: house site, barn, well and log crib 41WA118 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA119 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA122 Undetermined Archaic lithic scatter: dart points (one possible Pedernales dart point) 41WA123 Undetermined Archaic lithic scatter: debitage and dart points 41WA126 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA127 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA128 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA129 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA130 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA131 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA132 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA133 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA134 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA135 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA136 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA137 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA138 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA139 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA140 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA141 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA142 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA143 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA144 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA145 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA146 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA147 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA148 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA149 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA150 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA151 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA152 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA153 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA154 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA155 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA156 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA157 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA158 Undetermined No information available on TASA

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 118 2tic- POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHPO DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIPTION 41WA159 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA160 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA161 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA162 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA163 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA164 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA165 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA166 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA167 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA168 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA169 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA170 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA171 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA172 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA173 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA174 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA175 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA176 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA177 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA178 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA179 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA180 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA181 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA182 Undetermined No information available on TASA Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage, stone tools, Gary-like 41WA183 Undetermined dart point. Mid 18th to 20th century house site, part of the Hardy Hightower Plantation: metal, clear flat glass and handmade brick fragments 41WA184 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA185 NRHP-eligible Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramics 41WA186 Ineligible in ROW Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage, ceramics, and bone Late 18th to 20th century farmstead/house site: possible well covered with boards, 41WA190 Undetermined brick, mortar, sandstone cobble, ceramic sherds, stoneware, and cut nail 41WA192 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage, and a core fragment Late Prehistoric campsite: ceramic sherds and quartzite, chert and petrified wood 41WA202 SAL, NRHP-eligible debitage Late Prehistoric campsite: ceramic sherds, quartzite, chert and petrified wood 41WA203 SAL, NRHP-eligible debitage. Late Prehistoric campsite: ceramic sherds, quartzite, chert and petrified wood 41WA204 SAL, NRHP-eligible debitage 41WA205 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA206 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Possible Middle Archaic to Late Prehistoric campsite/occupation: ceramics 41WA208 Ineligible sherds, collapsed ceramic vessel, debitage, a biface fragment, a Pedernales point and possible Edgewood point 41WA210 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA211 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and bifacial tool

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 119 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHPO DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIPTION Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage; ca. 1860-1900 historic ceramic sherds, 41WA212 Undetermined stoneware, glass shards, and metal fragments 41WA213 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA217 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA218 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA219 Undetermined No information available on TASA 19th Century J.A. Thomason Plantation: structural remains of two house sites and two outbuildings, landscape features and associated scatter including 41WA220 NRHP-Eligible Republic of Texas uniform button, bottle glass, whiteware, machine-cut nails, wire nails, flat glass, brick fragments, mortar, stoneware, shell buttons Prehistoric campsite: quartzite and petrified wood debitage, and carbonized nut 41WA224 Undetermined shells 41WA225 Undetermined Prehistoric campsite: quartzite and petrified wood debitage Prehistoric campsite: quartzite and petrified wood debitage and carbonized nut 41WA226 Undetermined shell 41WA227 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA228 Ineligible Late Prehistoric campsite: ceramic sherds, debitage and carbonized nut shell 41WA230 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter debitage 41WA231 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA232 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA233 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA234 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: ceramic sherds, debitage and Bonham-like arrow 41WA235 Undetermined point Late Prehistoric campsite: ceramic sherds, debitage, carbonized bone and 41WA236 Undetermined nutshell 41WA237 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Late Prehistoric campsite: ceramic sherds, debitage, Bonham-like dart point, 41WA238 Undetermined carbonized bone and nutshell 41WA245 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA258 Undetermined No information available on TASA 41WA260 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA261 Undetermined Late Prehistoric artifact scatter: debitage and ceramic sherds 41WA262 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage and a hammerstone 41WA263 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA264 Ineligible No other information available on TASA 41WA265 Ineligible No other information available on TASA 41WA266 Ineligible No other information available on TASA 41WA267 Undetermined Ca. 1895 Joshua Houston Jr., house site and possible site of blacksmith shop Ca. 1910 Goree Unit Cemetery: women's prison cemetery with two marked 41WA282 Undetermined graves WWII German and Japanese POW Camp: over 400 structures including 41WA283 Undetermined electrical plant, water and sewage system, army headquarters, hospital, chow hall, and barracks Ca. 1840 to present farmstead: late 19th to early 20th century structure 41WA285 Undetermined foundations, possibly associated with J.A. Thomason Plantation Mid-19th to early-20th century Hightower Plantation and cemetery: plantation 41WA286 Undetermined house site (destroyed in 1930s), a cistern, cemetery with three graves, and

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 120 z 4'7 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-15 ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TRINOMIAL SHPO DESIGNATION SITE DESCRIPTION fireplace depressions Bowden farm site: ca. 1871 to early 1900s cotton plantation and prison farm with 41WA287 Undetermined cistern, well, one grave, brick, glass, and iron fragments 41WA288 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA290 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA291 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA293 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage 41WA294 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage Late Prehistoric campsite and late 19th to early 20th century domestic artifact 41WA295 Undetermined scatter; prehistoric debitage, ceramics and charred material, and historic ceramics and glass Ca. 1906 to 1930 Sam Houston Industrial & Training School location: brick, glass 41WA297 Undetermined and metal fragments Middle Archaic to Late Prehistoric campsite; Dawson, Gary and Perdiz projectile 41WA298 SAL points, grinding/nutting stones and mortars 41WA300 Ineligible Prehistoric campsite; lithic debitage, charcoal and early stage projectile point 41WA301 Undetermined Prehistoric scatter of lithic debitage and charcoal 41WA302 Ineligible Late Prehistoric artifact scatter; lithic debitage, ceramic, and charcoal 41WA303 Ineligible Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage 41WA304 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: quartzite and petrified wood debitage, quartzite cobble 41WA305 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter: quartzite and petrified wood debitage Prehistoric lithic scatter: debitage. Late 19th to 20th century historic artifact 41WA306 Undetermined scatter: nails, glass shards, ceramic sherds, live and spent bullets of various calibers 41WA307 Undetermined Prehistoric lithic scatter; debitage 41WA308 NRHP-eligible Early-to mid-19th century tram; berm is all that remains Middle Archaic to Early Woodland lithic scatter; Kent-like or Gary-like dart points, 41WA309 Undetermined debitage 41WA310 Undetermined Railroad tram berms and shallow cuts, bottle 41WA311 Undetermined Railroad tram berms and shallow cuts, riveted steel plate 41WA312 Undetermined Railroad tram berms and shallow cuts Source: THC 2016c and 2016d.

Four NRHP-listed properties, the Sam Houston House, the Arnold-Simonton House, the John W. Thomason House, and Austin Hall are recorded within the study area (THC 2016c; NPS 2016d). The Sam Houston House, a National Historic Landmark, sits within the Sam Houston Memorial Museum Complex along with the Sam Houston Memorial Museum and the Steamboat House. Archeological site 41WA046 is the archeological component at the site of the original Sam Houston house location. The Sam Houston Memorial Museum and site 41WA046 are SALs, and the Steamboat House is a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark (RTHL). The Sam Houston House was built in 1847 by Sam Houston and was occupied by him and his wife until 1859, when he was deposed as Governor of the State of Texas (NRHP 1974). The Arnold-Simonton House, now a museum in the Fernland Historical Park, was constructed in 1845 by Dr. E.J. Arnold, and remained in the family until 1976. After serving as the Montgomery City Hall for a short time, the house was donated to the Montgomery Historical Society and moved to Fernland Historical Park in 1977 (NRHP 1979). The John W. Thomason House, constructed in three phases from 1890 to 1911, was home to Dr. John W. Thomason and his wife. A separate outbuilding functioned as a doctor's office, which as of the early

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 121 zLeS POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

1980s, was still being used as an office by Dr. Thomason's grandson (NRHP 1982). Austin Hall, also known as Austin College, stands as one of the oldest buildings on the Sam Houston University campus (NRHP 2013). Austin Hall was the first building to be constructed on "Capitol Hill" and stands uphill from the historic Peabody Memorial Library, a SAL and RTHL. The NRHP properties are summarized in Table 3-16.

TABLE 3-16 NRHP LISTED PROPERTIES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA NAME COUNTY DATE OF SIGNIFICANCE Ca. 1850-1874, 1875-1899 (One of the oldest Arnold-Simonton House Montgomery houses in the county). Ca. 1890 ground floor, 1905 second floor and John W. Thomason House Walker attic, 1 91 1 sleeping porch and etc. Austin Hall Walker Ca. 1852-1962

Sam Houston House aka 'Woodlands Walker Ca. 1847 (Houston residence until 1859). Source. THC 2016c, NPS 2016d, NRHP 1974,1979,1982, 2013.

A review of previously recorded archeological sites, USGS topographic maps, and the TASA (THC 2016c) identified 96 cemeteries within the study area. Eleven of the cemeteries are designated HTC's. Seven cemeteries have been recorded within or as archeological sites. The BSA Burial site (41WA047) is a SAL and has one known burial within the site boundaries. Cemeteries within the study area are listed in the table below (Table 3-17).

TABLE 3-17 CEMETERIES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

THC CEMETERY NAME COUNTY DESIGNATION NUMBER Apolonia GM-0013 Grimes Baker Family Plantation GM-0060 Grimes HTC Butler Family Cartwright-Sunday GM-C172 Grimes Coaxberry Baptist Church GM-0012 Grimes David Chapel GM-0O27 Grimes Fairview GM-0O26 Grimes Henderson Family GM-0073 Grimes Hill Family Graves GM-C134 Grimes

Kennard Family Cemetery #1, Roans Prairie GM-0079 Grimes Mason GM-0014 Grimes Midway Baptist Church GM-0O21 Grimes Mustang GM-0019 Grimes Oakland GM-0O28 Grimes Old Oakland Cemetery-Roans Prairie GM-0094 Grimes Oliver GM-C132 Grimes

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 122 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-17 CEMETERIES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

THC CEMETERY NAME COUNTY DESIGNATION NUMBER Ratliff aka Hadley Hill GM-C104 Grimes HTC Red Top GM-0O20 Grimes Roan Family GM-0030 Grimes

Saint Marys Catholic Cemetery, Plantersville GM-C109 Grimes

Shiro GM-0017 Grimes Smith-Floyd GM-C171 Grimes Spanish GM-C113 Grimes Unknown (Independence Church) GM-0018 Grimes Unnamed GM-C144 Grimes Walker Family GM-C119 Grimes Waller GM-0016 Grimes Walnut GM-C130 Grimes Zuber-Edwards Family GM-C177 Grimes 41MQ250 Montgomery 41MQ274 Montgomery Bays Chapel MQ-0062 Montgomery HTC Bethel MQ-0041 Montgomery Cartwright-Sunday MQ-0048 Montgomery HTC Coplan Chapel MQ-0045 Montgomery Crawford MQ-0042 Montgomery Garden Park MQ-0014 Montgomery Jacob Shannon Evergreen MQ-0039 Montgomery HTC Keenan MQ-0047 Montgomery Martin #1 MQ-C146 Montgomery HTC Martin #2 MQ-0052 Montgomery Montgomery Memorial MQ-0054 Montgomery HTC Mt. Pleasant MQ-0057 Montgomery Pool's Cemetery Inc., MQ-0060 Montgomery Post Oak MQ-0040 Montgomery Sapp MQ-0043 Montgomery Shepard MQ-0059 Montgomery Spring Branch MQ-0053 Montgomery Unknown MQ-0044 Montgomery Unknown MQ-0061 Montgomery

HOU 146-020 (PER-02 ) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 123 750 MC CEMETERY NAME COUNTY DESIGNATION NUMBER Unknown (Dobbin) MQ-0038 Montgomery Unknown (Montgomery) MQ-0055 Montgomery Unknown (Montgomery) MQ-0056 Montgomery Unknown (Pleasant Rose Church) MQ-0015 Montgomery Unknown (Scott Ridge Church) MQ-0058 Montgomery Unknown (Willis) MQ-0016 Montgomery Womack MQ-0051 Montgomery Yell MQ-0049 Montgomery Yell MQ-0050 Montgomery 41WA081 Walker Allen WA-0034 Walker Bowden Farm (41WA287) Walker Brushy WA-0014 Walker BSA Burial Site (41WA047) Walker SAL Buck Foster WA-0018 Walker HTC Cline Prairie WA-0003 Walker

Foster WA-0017 Walker Goree Unit Cemetery (41WA282) Walker Harper WA-0040 Walker Hightower WA-0033 Walker Hightower Plantation (41WA286) Walker Hill WA-0046 Walker Holloway WA-0032 Walker Hume WA-0035 Walker Joe Byrd WA-0037 Walker HTC Lee WA-0011 Walker

Mitchell WA-0049 Walker Northside WA-0039 Walker POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-17 CEMETERIES RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

TH; CEMETERY NAME COUNTY DESIGNATION NUMBER' Ross WA-0016 Walker Sam Houston Memorial Grave Site* WA-0041 Walker South Side WA-0036 Walker St. Joseph WA-0047 Walker Union Hill WA-0008 Walker Unknown (East Sandy) WA-0009 Walker Unknown (Harmony Grove Church) WA-0002 Walker Unknown (Pine Prairie Church) WA-0001 Walker Unknown (Mt. Prairie Church) WA-0012 Walker Unknown (Mt. Zion Church) WA-0031 Walker Unknown grave WA-0059 Walker Unknown grave WA-0060 Walker Source. THC 2016c *Located in Oakwood Cemetery

There are 92 OTHMs located in the study area (THC 2016c). Twenty-eight of these are designated RTHLs. All of the RTHLs within the study area are the homes of notable families, businesses or churches that have contributed to the local community. Of the most notable RTHLs are the Sam Houston House, also a NHL, and the Steamboat House. Built in 1858, the Steamboat House was gifted by Dr. Rufus Bailey to his son, who refused to live in due to its unusual architectural style. The house sat empty until Sam Houston rented it shortly before he died in 1863 (THC 2016c). In 1936, the house was dismantled and moved to the Sam Houston Memorial Museum Complex. The OTHMs are summarized in the table below (Table 3-18).

TABLE 3-18 OTHMS RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

NAME COUNTY DESIGNATION

Apolonia Cemetery Grimes Haynie-Sanders Farm Home Grimes Hurry, James Hurry and Missouri House Grimes RTHL Kennard, Anthony Drew Grimes Oakland Baptist Church Grimes RTHL Old Oakland Cemetery Grimes Bays Chapel Methodist Church Montgomery RTHL Bennett, Joseph L. Montgomery Cartwright, Mathew W. Montgomery Cartwright, William Montgomery Cathalorri Montgomery RTHL

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 125 2-S 2. POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-18 OTHMS RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

NAME COUNTY DESIGNATION

Danville Montgomery Davis Law Office Montgomery RTHL Davis, N.H. Cottage Montgomery RTHL Esperanza Montgomery RTHL First State Bank of Montgomery Montgomery RTHL Frontier Colonial Home Montgomery RTHL Griffith, J.S. Montgomery RTHL Magnolia Montgomery RTHL Magnolia Methodist Montgomery Methodist Churchyard Montgomery Methodist Parsonage Montgomery RTHL Montgomery Montgomery Montgomery Baptist Church Building Montgomery RTHL Montgomery County, C.S.A. Montgomery Mt. Pleasant Cemetery Montgomery New Cemetery of Montgomery Montgomery Palmer, Reuben Johnathan Montgomery Powell, William P. Montgomery RTHL Railroad to Montgomery Montgomery San Jacinto River Montgomery Shannon, Jacob, Evergreen Cemetery Montgomery HTC Shelton-Smith House Montgomery Shiro Presbyterian Church Montgomery Steger, M.B. Montgomery RTHL Stewart, Charles Bellinger Montgomery Sunday-Moore House Montgomery RTHL Taylor, William S. Montgomery Telegraph Road Montgomery Thomas Chapel United Methodist Church Montgomery RTHL Wade, John M. Montgomery Willis Montgomery Willis Cigar Factory Montgomery Willis Male and Female College Montgomery Willis Methodist Church Montgomery RTHL Wood-Valda Home Montgomery RTHL

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 126 2 53 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-18 OTHMS RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

NAME COUNTY DESIGNATION

A.F. & A.M. Forrest Lodge No.19 Walker Akin Hill Walker Andrew Female College Walker Austin College Building/Austin Hall Walker SAL, RTHL, NRHP

Ball, The Reverend Thomas H. Walker Besser, John Slater, General Walker Boettcher House Walker RTHL Branch, Anthony Martin Grave* Walker Camp Huntsville Walker Crabb, Hillary Mercer Walker Cunningham, Minnie Fischer Walker East Sandy Community Walker Eastham-Thomason House Walker RTHL Ebenezer Baptist Church Walker Emancipation Park Walker Faris, Hezekiah Walker Farris Chapel Methodist Church Walker RTHL First Baptist Church of Huntsville Walker First Christian Church of Huntsville Walker First Presbyterian Church of Huntsville Walker First United Methodist Church of Huntsville Walker Gibbs Store Walker RTHL Harmony Grove Missionary Baptist Church Walker Henry Opera House Walker Historic Indian Post Walker Houston, Sam Walker Houston, Sam Memorial Grave Site" Walker Huntsville Wall Unit Walker

Huntsville Spring Walker Jardine-Browne House Walker RTHL Martha's Chapel Walker Oakwood Cemetery Walker HTC Old Main Building Walker SAL Parker, Jesse Grave* Walker Peabody Library Building Walker SAL, RTHL

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 127 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-18 OTHMS RECORDED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

NAME COUNTY DESIGNATION

Sallie E. Gibbs Walker Sam Houston Industrial and Training School Walker Site of Andrew Female College Walker Site of Boettcher's Mill Walker Site of Cumberland Presbyterian Church Walker St. James United Methodist Church of Huntsville Walker State Penitentiary C.S.A. And Texas Civil War Manufacturing Walker Steamboat House Walker RTHL Union Hill Church Walker Walker County Walker Woodland, Home of Sam Houston Walker RTHL, NRHP Source. THC 2016c and 2016d *Located in Oakwood Cemetery

3.5.3 Previous Investigations

Professional cultural resource management surveys have been undertaken in the study area since the 1960s beginning with the Texas Archeological Salvage Projects (also known as the Texas Archeological Survey, and later known as the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory) in advance of reservoir projects such as Lake Conroe (Shafer 1966, 1968; Bartholomew and Cloud 1986). Other surveys undertaken in the study area include, but are not limited to, surveys undertaken in advance of transportation projects (State Department of Highways and Public Transportation [SDHPT] 1984 and 1987; Pickering and Hughey 2005; Hughey 2004; Peyton et al. 2007), housing developments (Crow 2007; King and Kauk 2010; Pickering and Hughey 2006; Scott and McGuire 2008), wastewater treatment improvements (Moore and Moore 1992; Kotter et al. 2000; Ringstaff and McNatt 1998; Moore and Moore 1999; Garcia-Herreros and Enderli 2008; Moore 2010; Moore and Baxter 2011; Shelton and Davis 2012), oil and gas projects (Perttula and Nelson 2008; Marek and Butler 2014), projects in national forest land (Shafer and Baxter 1975; Skiles and Kingsborough 1992; Drake 1999; Kotter et al. 1999; Tiemann et al. 2011) state park investigations (Greaves 2002; McNatt 1978) and other developments (Boes 1992; Clark 1980; Pevey 1981; Meyers 1998; Moore and Moore 1990; Moore 1993; Moore 1997; McNatt et al. 2001; Greaves 2002; Skinner 2006; Driver 2007; King and Kauk 2010; Soltysiak 2010; Driver and Moore 2012) (Table 3-19).

TABLE 3-19 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

INVESTIGATING SITES RECORDED WITHIN REPORT TITLE INSTITUTION THE STUDY AREA N/A Barnum Place Survey 41GM82 Espey, Huston & Walker-Matagorda Co. 41GM125 Associates, Inc.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 128 255 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-19 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

INVESTIGATING SITES RECORDED WITHIN REPORT TITLE INSTITUTION THE STUDY AREA Texas Archeological Archeological Surveys of Honea, Pat Mayse, and Halsell 41MQ4-36, 41WA051 Salvage Project Reservoirs, Texas (Shafer 1966) A Cultural Resource Evaluation and Assessment for Selected Texas Archeological Sites in a Ten County Area, East Texas. 41MQ3, 41MQ58 Survey (Bartholomew et al. 1986) Texas Archeological Archeological Investigations in the San Jacinto River Basin, 41MQ39-43 Salvage Project Montgomery County, Texas (Shafer 1968). An Archeological Survey of Scotfs Ridge and Kaygall Recreation Texas A&M University Sites, SHNF, Montgomery and Walker Counties, Texas (Shafer 41MQ41, 41MQ42, 41MQ43 and Baxter 1975) US Forest Service Raven Ranger District, Compartment 40 41MQ53 Only location information available on TASA 41MQ58 US Forest Service Only location information available on TASA 41MQ121 An Intensive Pedestrian Survey of the FM 2854 Expansion HRA Gray & Pape, LLC. Project in Montgomery County, Texas (Pickering and Hughey 41MQ122 2005) Raven Ranger District site preparation Compartment 16 Stand US Forest Service 41MQ123 15 Moore Archeological Montgomery County Municipal Utility District Number 15 Sewage 41MQ124 Consulting, Inc. Treatment Plant Survey (Moore and Moore 1992) Moore Archeological An Archeological Survey of the Proposed Montgomery Plaza, 41MQ125 Consulting, Inc. Ltd. Project Montgomery County, Texas (Moore 1993) 41MQ129, 41MQ160, Cultural Resources Impact Assessment of Selected Existing Trail 41MQ161, 41MQ161, Paul Price & Associates Segments Within the Raven Ranger District of the SHNF (Kotter 41MQ162, 41MQ163, et al. 1999) 41MQ164, 41WA224, 41WA225, 41WA226 41MQ129, 41MQ130, 41MQ131, 41MQ133, 41MQ135, 41MQ136, US Forest Service 94-04-009-T FY94 Green Sales 41MQ138, 41MQ139, 41MQ140, 41MQ141, 41MQ144, 41MQ145 Cultural Resources Investigation Report for Texas Energy Sphere3Environmental, 41MQ148, 41MQ149, Acquisition's Raven Forest Seismic Project in the SHNF Inc. 41MQ262-288 (Tiemann et al. 2011) SWCA, Inc. Archaeological Survey Conducted Within Areas Proposed for a Environmental Drill Site for Lone Star No. 1 Well, SHNF, Montgomery County, 41MQ173 Consultants Texas (Drake 1999) Intensive Pedestrian Survey of the proposed Fish Creek HRA Gray & Pape, LLC. Thoroughfare Expansion Project Area, Montgomery County, 41MQ181 Texas (Hughey 2004) 41M Q201, 41MQ202, Archaeological Survey on 100 Acres Proposed for Residential 41M Q203, 41MQ204, HRA Gray & Pape, LLC. Development Along White Oak Bayou, Montgomery County, 41M Q205, 41M Q206, Texas (Pickering and Hughey 2006) 41M Q207 An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey and Subsequent NRHP Horizon Environmental 41MQ208 Eligibility Testing of the USACE Jurisdictional Areas within the

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 129 2.54, POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-19 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

INVESTIGATING SITES RECORDED WITHIN REPORT TITLE INSTITUTION NE STUDY AREA Proposed 4.5 Mile Townsen Road Right-of-Way, Montgomery and Harris Counties, Texas (Peyton et al. 2007) Archaeological Survey of the Fountains of Conroe, Montgomery AR Consultants, Inc. 41MQ209, 41MQ210 County, Texas (Skinner 2006) A Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Improvements in the Moore Archeological Peckinpaugh Preserve and for One Proposed Spring Creek 41MQ211 Consulting, Inc. Greenbelt Trail System Component, Montgomery County, Texas (Driver 2007) Archaeological Survey of 224 Acres Proposed for the Graystone HRA Gray & Pape, LLC. Hills Development, Montgomery County, Texas (Scott and 41MQ212, 41MQ213 McGuire 2008) Archaeological Testing of Site 41MQ214, for the Proposed Gulf Coast Archaeology Montgomery Waste Water Treatment Plant, Montgomery County, 41MQ213 Group, LLP. Texas (Garcia-Herreros and Enderli 2008) SWCA Environmental Archaeological Investigations at the 290-Acre Lake Conroe East 41MQ215 Consultants Development, Montgomery County, Texas (Crow 2007) An Archaeological Survey for the City of Conroe Capital Projects Brazos Valley Research LaSalle to League Line Gravity Sewer Main Project in 41MQ215 Associates Montgomery County, Texas (Moore and Baxter 2011) An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the 51-Acre Willis ISD SWCA Environmental Manners Site Development, Montgomery County, Texas (King 41MQ250 Consultants and Kauk 2010) An Intensive Pedestrian Cultural Resources Survey of 59 Acres HRA Gray & Pape, LLC. Proposed for an H.E.B. Store Site in Montgomery County, Texas 41MQ251, 41MQ252 (Soltysiak 2010) Moore Archeological Test Excavations at 41MQ289, Montgomery County, Texas 41MQ289 Consulting, Inc. (Driver and Moore 2012) 41GM5, 41GM419, 41GM422, 41GM423 Intensive Archaeological Survey of Portions of the Proposed SWCA Environmental 41GM426, 41GM427, Texas Express Pipeline Project, Skellytown to Mont Belvieu, Consultants 41G M428, 41MQ292, Texas (Marek and Butler 2014) 41M Q293, 41M Q294 , 41MQ295, 41MQ296 41MQ303, 41MQ304, US Forest Service Burton Tract Wildlife Restoration 41MQ305, 41MQ306 Brazos Valley Research Texas Jail Survey 41MQ314 Associates Deep East Texas 41MQ316, 41MQ317, Archaeological Sam Houston Trails Coalition 41MQ318 Consultants The Woodlands: Archeological Investigations at the Sam Prewitt & Associates, Inc. 41WA046 Houston Home, Huntsville, Texas (Clark 1980) The Sam Houston Home, 41WA046, Huntsville, Walker County, Prewitt & Associates, Inc. Texas: 1980-1981 Archeological Investigations and Monitoring 41WA046 (Pevey 1981) Archeological Testing and Monitoring at Huntsville State Park, TPWD 41WA047 Walk County, Texas (Boes 1992) 41WA047, 41WA054, Archeological Survey and History of Huntsville State Park, TPWD 41WA202, 41WA203, Walker County, Texas (McNatt et al. 2001) 41WA204, 41WA205,

HOU 146-020 (PER-02 ) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 130 257 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-19 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

INVESTIGATING SITES RECORDED WITHIN REPORT TITLE iNsTrrunoN THE STUDY AREA 41WA206, 41WA228

Center for Archeological Archaeological Survey of Huntsville State Park and Excavations 41WA047 Studies at 41WA047, Walker County (Greaves 2002) TPWD Only location information available on TASA 41WA048 N/A Sandy Hill Trailer Park 41WA049 An Archaeological Survey for the Water Distribution Brazos Valley Research Improvement Project at Lake Falls Estates in Walker County, 41WA056 Associates Texas (Moore 2010) CRA: CR 139: Bridge Replacement at Cedar Creek, 1.8 Miles SDHPT 41WA056 East of FM 960 (SDHPT 1987) 41WA057, 41WA058, 41WA060, 41WA061, Private No other information available on TASA 41WA062, 41WA067, 41WA068, 41WA076, 41WA077 CR 166: At Caney Creek, 4.0 Miles North of SH 19 (SDHPT SDHPT 41WA073 1984) An Archeological Survey of Scotts Ridge and Kaygall Recreation Texas A&M University 41WA81 Sites, SHNF (Shafer and Baxter 1975) Archeological Investigations at the Kaygall Recreation Area Site Texas A&M University 41WA082 (41WA082), Walker County, Texas (McNatt 1978) US Forest Service Only location information available on TASA 41WA094 An Archeological Survey of a Proposed Addition to Thomason Moore Archeological Park, City of Huntsville, Walker County, Texas (Moore and 41WA099 Consulting, Inc. Moore 1990) Only location information available on TASA 41WA101 Moore Archeological Kemp-1 Seismic Survey 41WA115 Consulting, Inc. An Archaeological Survey of the Cincinnati Substation, Texas Brazos Valley Research Department of Corrections, Ellis Unit Number Two Tie Line in 41WA117 Associates Walker County, Texas (Moore 1991) An Archeological Survey of the Proposed Foster Estate Land US Forest Service Exchange, SHNF, San Jacinto and Walker Counties, Texas 41WA119 (Skiles and Kingsborough 1992) Only location information available on TASA 41WA190 Brazos Valley Research Private investigation 41WA183 Associates Moore Archeological An Archeological Survey of a Proposed Trinity River Authority 41WA184, 41WA185, Consulting, Inc. Water Line Project, Walker County, Texas (Moore et al. 1999) 41WA186 US Forest Service Steely Land Exchange 41WA192 Brazos Valley Research An Assessment of Prehistoric Site 41WA208 in Walker County, 41WA208 Associates Texas (Moore 1997) 41WA211, 41WA212, Frontera Archaeology Partners for Wildlife 41WA213 Moore Archeological Cultural Resource Investigations at Thomason Plantation, City of 41WA220 Consulting, Inc. Huntsville, Walker County, Texas (Meyers 1998)

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 131

25S POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 3-19 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA

INVESTIGATING SITES RECORDED WITHIN REPORT TITLE INSTITUTION THE STUDY AREA

Huntsville State Park Wastewater Line Survey, 1998 Annual TPWD Report, Texas Antiquities Permit 1935 (Ringstaff and McNatt 41WA227, 41WA228 1998) 41WA231, 41WA232, Final Report on the Archeological Survey Of The Fish Hatchery 41WA232, 41WA233, Paul Price & Associates Road And Robinson Creek Municipal Wastewater Improvements 41WA234, 41WA235, Walker County, Texas (Kotter et al. 2000) 41WA236, 41WA237, 41WA238 Moore Archeological Archeological Survey of the Proposed City of Huntsville Golf 41WA260, 41WA261, Consulting, Inc. Course Walker County, Texas (Terneny 2002) 41WA262, 41WA263 Private Joshua Houston Jr., House 41WA267 Private Goree Unit Cemetery 41WA282 Private Sugar Hill Farm Spring 41WA285 Private Hightower Plantation 41WA286 Archeological and Archeological Survey on Texas Department of Criminal Justice 41WA290, 41WA291, Environmental and Texas General Land Office Tracts, ONEOK's Arbuckle 41WA292, 41WA293, Consultants, LLC. Pipeline, Walker County, Texas (Perttula and Nelson 2008) 41WA294, 41WA295 Archaeological Survey of the Old Colony Road Sewer Segments 41WA300, 41WA301, AR Consultants, Inc. 5 and 6, City of Huntsville, SHNF, Walker County, Texas 41WA303, 41WA308 (Shelton and Davis 2012) Source. THC 2016c.

3.5.4 High Probability Areas

Review of the previously recorded cultural resource sites data indicates that the study area has not been fully examined during previous archeological and historical investigations. Consequently, the records review results do not include all possible cultural resources sites within the study area. To further assess and avoid potential impacts to cultural resources, high probability areas (HPAs) for prehistoric archeological sites will be defined during the route analysis process. Within the study area, prehistoric site locations are heavily biased toward proximity to natural water sources, along the margins of streams. Stream terraces and topographic high points that would provide flats for camping and expansive landscape views as well as access to fresh water sources are considered to have a high probability for containing prehistoric archeological sites. HPAs are also defined near previously recorded archeological sites.

Historic age resources are also likely to be found near water sources. However, they will also be located in proximity to primary and secondary transportation routes (e.g., trails. roads, and railroads) that provided access to the sites. Buildings and cemeteries are also more likely to be located within or near historic communities, such as Montgomery, Huntsville, Willis, Conroe, Dobbin, Honea and other towns in the study area. Review of current maps and aerials shows that development activities may have diminished the number of historic-period building sites that once existed in the region. The small sample of historic period archeological sites in the study area appear to be characterized by relatively ephemeral mid-to-late nineteenth to early twentieth century farming activities and house sites. Consequently, the locations and patterns of distribution for historic-period archeological sites are not readily predictable or quantifiable and the route analysis process discussed in Section 4.0

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 132 z59 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quan-y to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

considers only recorded archeological sites listed with official state and federal agencies, proximity to historic towns and ranches as shown on USGS topographic quadrangles. and HPAs developed for prehistoric archeological resources within the study area.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 133 2(00 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

(This page left blank intentionally.)

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 134 2‘21 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

This section discusses potential impacts of the primary alternative routes. POWER evaluated the potential impacts of each of the primary alternative routes identified in Section 2.1.8 by tabulating the data for the environmental evaluation criteria in Table 2-2 (relating to community values, parks and recreation areas, aesthetics, environmental integrity, and cultural resources). The results of the tabulation are presented by routes in Table 4-1, and by segment in Table 4-2. Additionally, through the identification of key evaluation criteria and a consensus process, POWER recommended to ETI the alternative route that best addresses the requirements of PURA and PUCT Substantive Rules (see Section 7.0) from the perspective of land use, community values, aesthetics, ecology, and cultural resources.

4.1 Impacts on Environmental Integrity

4.1.1 Impacts on Physiography and Geology

Construction of the proposed transmission line is not anticipated to have any significant adverse effects on the physiographic or geologic features/resources of the area. Erection of the structures will require the excavation and/or minor disturbance of small quantities of near-surface materials, but should have no measurable impacts on the geologic resources or features along any of the alternative routes. No geologic hazards are anticipated to be created. No geologic hazards or hazardous waste sites were identified within the study area.

4.1.2 Impacts on Soils

Activities associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of electrical transmission lines typically do not adversely impact soils when appropriate mitigative measures are implemented during the construction phase. Potential impacts to soils include erosion, compaction, and conversion of prime farmland soils.

The highest risk for soil erosion and compaction is primarily associated with the construction phase of a project. Areas with vegetation removed would have the highest potential for soil erosion and the movement of heavy equipment down the cleared ROW creates the greatest potential for soil compaction. Prior to construction, ETI would develop a SWPPP to minimize potential impacts associated with soil erosion, compaction, and off ROW sedimentation. Implementation of this plan would incorporate temporary and permanent BMPs to minimize soil erosion on the ROW during significant rainfall events. The SWPPP would also establish the criteria for mitigating soil compaction and re-vegetation to ensure adequate soil stabilization during the construction and post construction phases. The native herbaceous layer of vegetation would be maintained, to the extent practical, during construction and most denuded areas with a low erosion potential would be allowed to re-vegetate with native herbaceous species. Areas with a high erosion potential, including steep slopes and areas with shallow topsoil, may require seeding and/or implementation of permanent BMPs (i.e., soil berms or interceptor slopes) to stabilize disturbed areas and minimize soil erosion potential during the post construction phase. The ROW will be inspected routinely in accordance with the SWPPP and Construction General Permit TXR150000 to ensure that potential high erosion areas are identified and appropriate BMPs are implemented and maintained.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 135 2402 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

While soils designated as "Prime Farmland or State Important"' may be present within the study area, the USDA-NRCS does not consider the limited area of direct impact associated with the structure to be a significant conversion of these soils because the site can still be used for agricultural use after construction. Potential impacts to soils, primarily erosion and compaction, would be minimized with the development and implementation of a SWPPP. The magnitude of potential soil impacts are considered equivalent for all of the alternative routes. No conversions of prime or state important soils are anticipated related to proposed Project activities for any of the alternative routes.

4.1.3 Impacts on Surface Water

The minimization of potential impacts to surface waters and associated wetlands was considered throughout the routing process. Major surface water features in the study area include Lake Conroe, Lewis Creek Reservoir, Lake Raven, West Fork San Jacinto River, Lewis Creek, Lake Creek, Caney Creek, and Sandy Creek. Several additional named and unnamed perennial and intermittent streams, creeks, lakes, canals, retention, ponds, and levees were also identified within the study area.

All 19 alternative routes cross several named and unnamed streams and canals. The number of stream/river crossings range from 53 for Route 19, to 76 crossings for Route 12. However, these stream crossings are calculated from the NHD and the hydrology of some of these streams may have been altered or affected by construction of drainage ditches/canals, levees, impoundments, residential areas, etc. Only Routes 7, 8, 11, and 12, cross the West Fork San Jacinto River.

All 19 alternative routes were identified to parallel (within 100 feet) of a stream or river for some distance. The length of route parallel (within 100 feet) to streams or rivers ranges from approximately 1.02 miles for Route 16, to approximately 2.87 miles for Route 12.

All 19 alternative routes cross open waters, ranging from approximately 0.06 mile for Route 16, to approximately 0.30 mile for Route 18.

ETI proposes to span all surface waters crossed by any of the alternative routes. Structure locations would be outside of the ordinary high water lines for any surface waters. Hand-cutting of woody vegetation within the ordinary high water lines may be implemented if practical and limited to the removal of woody vegetation exceeding ten feet in height. The shorter understory and herbaceous layers of vegetation may remain, where allowable, and BMPs would be implemented in accordance with the SWPPP to reduce the potential for sedimentation outside of the ROW.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 136 z(03 OVERSIZED DOCUMENT(S)

TO VIEW

OVERSIZED DOCUMENT(S)

PLEASE GO TO

CENTRAL RECORDS

(512) 936-7180

POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

4.1 .4 Coastal Natural Resource Areas

As mentioned in Section 3.1.4, the proposed Project is not located within the CMZ and no impacts to CNRA's would occur by any alternative route or facility.

4.1.5 Impacts on Groundwater

The construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Project are not anticipated to adversely affect groundwater resources within the study area. The potential area of disturbance due to construction activities is insignificant relevant to the total potential recharge area available for the aquifer in the region. During construction activities, another potential impact for both surface water and groundwater resources is related to potential fuel and/or other chemical spills. As a component of the SWPPP, standard operating procedures and spill response specifications relating to petroleum product storage, refueling, and maintenance activities of equipment are provided to avoid and minimize potential contamination to water resources.

4.1 .6 Impacts on Floodplains

FEMA floodplain mapping was reviewed for the study area counties. Detailed FEMA flood hazard boundary maps show the 100-year floodplain within the study area includes portions along the West Fork San Jacinto River and larger creeks/streams and their tributaries. All 19 alternative routes extend into the existing 100-year floodplains. Length of route across FEMA mapped 100-year floodplains range from approximately 1.67 miles for Route 9, to approximately 4.91 miles for Route 12. Construction activities would not be anticipated to significantly impede the flow of water within this watershed, significantly impact the overall function of the floodplain, nor adversely affect adjacent or downstream properties. ETI will coordinate with local floodplain administrators as needed to satisfy any permitting requirements prior to construction.

4.1.7 Impacts on Wetlands

Measurements (in linear feet) were taken at the intersections of each proposed alternative route within N WI mapped wetland areas and converted to miles for the data tabulation. Potential wetlands were initially identified utilizing NWI mapping; however, where NWI mapped forested or scrub/shrub wetlands coincide with ETI existing transmission line ROW that is currently maintained as a cleared emergent vegetation type, POWER adjusted the measurements accordingly. As such, measurements in these areas were included in the emergent wetland criterion on Tables 4-1 and 4-2 as opposed to the forested or scrub/shrub wetland criterion.

As discussed in Section 3.1.7, N WI maps are based on topography and interpretation of infrared satellite data and color aerial photographs. As such, NWI data is useful for planning and comparative analysis purposes, but should not be relied upon for determining USACE or other regulatory jurisdiction. NWI mapped wetland types identified along the alternative routes include PEM, PSS, and PFO wetlands. PEM wetlands are primarily associated with emergent freshwater vegetation located in depressional areas of fields, wet meadows, pastures, and cleared areas. PEM wetlands may also occur along the margins of open water areas. PFO and PSS wetlands are forested and scrub-shrub woodland vegetation types typically occurring in low lying areas, floodplains, and bottomland and riparian areas adjacent to streams and rivers.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 151 278 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

As indicated in Table 4-1, all 19 alternative routes cross some length of NWI mapped forested or scrub/shrub and/or emergent wetlands. Since many of the alternative routes utilize existing maintained ROW for considerable distances, the presence of potential forested or scrub/shrub wetlands measured by POWER along these alternatives is considerably low as compared to routes that do not utilize existing maintained ROW. As indicated in Table 4-1, the length of routes across potential forested or scrub/shrub wetlands ranges from approximately zero (0) mile for Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, to 1.93 miles for Route 12. The length of routes across NWI mapped emergent wetlands ranges from approximately 0.02 mile for Route 11, to approximately 0.25 mile for Route 13.

Impacts to forested and or shrub/scrub wetlands resulting from ROW clearing would not result in a loss of wetlands, but would result in the conversion of forested or scrub/shrub wetlands to emergent wetlands. No permanent loss of wetlands as a result of ROW clearing along any of the alternative routes is anticipated. To further minimize potential impacts. ETI may opt to hand clear woody vegetation within USACE jurisdictional forested and/or scrub/shrub wetlands and span wetland areas where practical. Impacts to emergent wetlands would be considered temporary and minor, and these areas would be allowed to reestablish after construction.

It is anticipated that construction activities that would occur in wetlands by each of the alternative routes would be authorized by the USACE under NWP 12. As discussed in Section 1.5.3, NWP 12 authorizes utility line activities having a minimal impact that would not result in the loss of greater than 0.5 acre of wetlands. As such, none of the alternative routes are anticipated to have a significant impact on jurisdictional wetlands. Upon PUCT approval of a route, on the ground surveys will be conducted to verify and delineate the presence of potential jurisdictional areas along the approved route and ETI will coordinate with USACE as needed.

4.1.8 Impacts on Vegetation

Potential impacts to vegetation would result from clearing new ROW of woody vegetation and/or mowing/clearing herbaceous vegetation. These activities facilitate ROW access for structure construction, line stringing and future maintenance activities. The proposed ROW width for the 230 kV transmission line may be up to 125 feet wide depending on the route selected. In some instances where an alternative route utilizes or parallels existing ROW, removal of vegetation may not be necessary or is already required as part of routine maintenance of the existing ROW and would not be considered an impact from this project. Removal of woody vegetation within new ROW would be required within upland forested, bottomland/riparian and forested wetland areas. Mowing and/or shredding of herbaceous vegetation may be required within pasturelands. Future ROW maintenance activities may include periodic mowing and/or herbicide applications to maintain the herbaceous vegetation layer within the ROW.

Clearing trees and shrubs from forested or woodland areas typically generate a degree of habitat fragmentation. The magnitude of habitat fragmentation is typically minimized by paralleling an existing linear feature such as a roadway, transmission line, or railway. During the route development process, consideration was given to avoid forested areas and to maximize the length of the routes parallel to or utilizing existing linear corridors where practical.

Impacts to vegetation would be limited to the ROW that is necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed transmission line. ROW clearing activities would be completed while minimizing the impacts to existing groundcover vegetation, when practical. The most common vegetation types crossed by the alternative routes include grasslands, bottomland/riparian and upland woodlands.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02 ) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 152 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

As indicated in Table 4-1, all 19 alternative routes cross through both bottomland/riparian woodland and upland forest areas. Alternative route lengths through bottomland/riparian woodland areas range from approximately 0.88 mile for Routes 4 and 5, to approximately 5.16 miles for Route 12. Alternative route lengths through upland forest range from approximately 5.35 miles for Route 1, to approximately 24.87 miles for Route 16. These woodlands were interpolated from aerial photography and route lengths were digitally measured for these tabulations.

4.1.9 Impacts to Wildlife and Fisheries

The primary impacts of construction activities on terrestrial wildlife species are typically associated with temporary disturbances from construction activities and with the removal of vegetation (habitat modification/fragmentation). Increased noise and equipment movement during construction may temporarily displace mobile wildlife species from the immediate workspace area. These impacts are considered short-term and normal wildlife movements would be expected to resume after construction is completed. Potential long-term impacts include those resulting from habitat modifications and/or fragmentation. All the alternative routes cross areas of upland forest which can represent the highest degree of habitat fragmentation by converting the area within the ROW to an herbaceous habitat. During the routing process. POWER attempted to minimize forested habitat fragmentation by utilizing or paralleling existing compatible ROW or other linear features to the extent feasible.

Construction activities may also incidentally impact small, immobile, or fossorial (living underground) animal species. Indirect impacts to these species may occur due to equipment or vehicular movement on the ROW, or by direct impact due to the compaction of the soil if the species is fossorial. Potential impacts of this type are not typically considered significant and are not likely to have an adverse effect on any species population dynamics.

If ROW clearing occurs during the nesting season, potential impacts could occur within the ROW area related to potential takes of bird eggs and/or nestlings. Increases in noise and equipment activity levels during construction could also potentially disturb breeding or other activities of species nesting in areas immediately adjacent to the ROW. ETI proposes to implement applicable avian protection plan guidelines recommended by USFWS and construction activities compliant with the MBTA to avoid or minimize these potential impacts.

Transmission lines can also present additional hazards to birds due to electrocutions and/or collisions. Measures can be implemented to minimize this risk with transmission line engineering designs. The electrocution risk to birds should not be significant since the engineering design distance between conductors, conductor to structure or conductor to ground wire for the proposed 230 kV transmission line is greater than the wingspan of any bird typically within the area (i.e., greater than eight feet). The structures and lines could be a collision hazard to birds in flight. However, potential for wire strikes can be reduced by marking the lines with swan-flight diverters within areas of potential high avian use.

Potential impacts to aquatic systems would include effects of erosion, siltation and sedimentation. Vegetation clearing of the ROW may result in increased suspended solids entering surface waters traversed by the transmission line. Increases in suspended solids may adversely affect aquatic organisms that require relatively clear water for foraging and/or reproduction. Implementation of the SWPPP would minimize these potential impacts.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 153 .z30 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Physical aquatic habitat loss or alteration could result wherever riparian vegetation is removed and at temporary crossings required for access roads. Increased levels of siltation or sedimentation may also potentially impact downstream areas primarily affecting filter feeding benthic and other aquatic invertebrates. No significant adverse irnpacts are anticipated to any aquatic habitats crossed or adjacent to the ROW for any of the alternative routes.

Construction of any of the alternative routes is not anticipated to significantly adversely impact general wildlife and fisheries resources within the study area. Indirect impacts would be associated with the loss of forested habitat which is reflected in the vegetation analysis discussed above. Habitat fragmentation was minimized for all the alternative routes within forested areas by utilizing existing compatible ROW or paralleling existing compatible ROW or other linear features to the extent feasible. While mobile animals may temporarily be displaced frorn habitats near the ROW during the construction phase, normal movement patterns should return after proposed Project construction is complete.

4.1.10 Impacts to Threatened and Endangered Species

In order to determine potential impacts to threatened or endangered species, a review utilizing available information was completed. Known element occurrence data for the study area was obtained from the TXNDD (2016). Spatial data was also obtained from the SHNF. Current county listings for federal and state listed threatened and endangered species and USFWS designated critical habitat locations were included in the review. Review of the TXNDD (2016) report did not indicate any known occurrences of federally-listed species crossed by the alternative routes. The absence of TXNDD data does not preclude the need for additional habitat evaluations for potential suitable habitat or the need for any species specific surveys for any listed species for the PUCT approved route. No federally designated critical habitat (USFWS 2016) occurs within the study area; therefore, none of the 19 alternative routes cross any known habitat or designated critical habitat for federally listed animal species (TXNDD 2016).

There is only one potentially occurring federal and state-listed endangered plant species within the study area which is the Navasota ladies'-tresses. Although this species has been identified within the study area; none of the 19 alternative routes crosses any known occurrences of this species (TXNDD 2016). After the PUCT approves a route, field surveys may be performed, if necessary, to identify potential suitable habitat for listed plant species and also determine the need for any additional species-specific surveys. With the development of an avoidance and impact minimization plan, the potential for any of the primary transmission line routes to adversely affect federally listed plant species is not anticipated to be significant.

Construction activities along the ROW may temporarily displace wildlife species. Although not anticipated to occur, if state-listed species are observed during construction, they would be allowed to leave the area or could be relocated out of the construction area by a permitted individual. Overall, impacts of the proposed Project are expected to be minimal and temporary; displaced organisms would be expected to return after construction or permanently relocated. Spanning surface waters, wetlands and implementing the SWPPP to the extent practicable, will avoid and minimize significant adverse impacts to aquatic species; such as fish and mollusks.

Bald eagles are known to nest and winter within the study area, and are usually associated with mature trees near large bodies of water. Suitable nesting habitat was identified within the study area. If in the course of further biological surveys and/or construction activities, any bald eagle roost or nest trees are identified within the vicinity of the project, ETI will refer to the National Bald Eagle

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 154 281 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Management Guidelines to avoid and minimize harm and disturbance of bald eagles as recommended by the USFWS.

The RCW is known to inhabit and nest within the study area counties and TXNDD (2016) data and spatial data from the SHNF identifies known RCW clusters within the study area, primarily within properties owned and managed by the SHNF. These areas were considered and avoided throughout the routing process. If in the event threatened or endangered species are identified during a field survey of the PUCT approved route. ET1 will further coordinate with the USFWS and/or SHNF as needed to determine avoidance or mitigation strategies.

Other federally listed avian migrant species such as the interior least tern, peregrine falcon, piping plover, red knot, and whooping crane are not expected to occur except as possible migrants that pass through the study area and potentially occupy habitats temporarily or seasonally. These seasonal habitats may be spanned or avoided entirely; the proposed Project is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts to these species. If any potential suitable habitat for federally-listed threatened or endangered species is identified during a field survey of the PUCT approved route, ETI will further coordinate with the USFWS to determine avoidance or mitigation strategies.

The construction of a transmission line does not include activities associated with collecting, hooking, hunting, netting, shooting, or snaring by any means or device, and does not include an attempt to conduct such activities. Therefore, "take" of state-listed species as defined in Section 68.015 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code is not anticipated by this project.

Other state-listed species such as the Bachman's sparrow, white-faced ibis, wood stork, blue sucker, paddlefish, creek chubsucker. Rafinesque's big-eared bat, Louisiana black bear, Louisiana pigtoe, sandbank pocketbook, smooth pimpleback, Texas fawnsfoot, Texas heelsplitter, Texas pigtoe, triangle pigtoe, alligator snapping turtle, and timber rattlesnake may occur within the study area if suitable habitats are present. The Texas horned lizard is not anticipated to occur within the study area due to extirpation in the eastern half of the state (Henke and Fair 1998). Some of these species habitats may be spanned or avoided entirely. If present, species may be susceptible to minor temporary disturbance during construction efforts, but the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to these species.

4.2 Impacts on 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 applicable to this specific project's location and characteristics, and do not include objections to electric transmission lines in general.

Potential impacts to community resources can be classified into direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are those that would occur if the location and construction of a transmission line results in the removal or loss of public access to a valued resource. Indirect effects are those that would result from a loss in the enjoyment or use of a resource due to the characteristics (primarily aesthetic) of the proposed transmission line, tower structures, or ROW.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 155 22'2- POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

4.2.1 Impacts on Land Use

The magnitude of potential impacts to land use resulting from the construction of a transmission line is determined by the amount of land (land use type) temporarily or permanently displaced by the actual ROW and by the compatibility with adjacent land uses. During construction, temporary impacts to land uses within the ROW might occur due to the movement of workers, equipment, and materials through the area. Construction noise and dust, as well as temporary disruptions of traffic flow, might also temporarily affect local residents and businesses in the area immediately adjacent to the ROW. Coordination between ETI, its contractors, and landowners regarding ROW access and construction scheduling should minimize these disruptions.

The evaluation criteria used to compare potential land use impacts include proximity to habitable structures, overall alternative route length, route length parallel to existing transmission ROW, length parallel to other existing linear ROW, length paralleling property lines, and effects upon agriculture. An analysis of the existing land use within and adjacent to the proposed ROW is required to evaluate the potential impacts.

Overall Length

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 would result. The total lengths of the alternative routes vary from approximately 33.14 miles for Route 19, to approximately 45.42 miles for Route 11. The differences in route lengths reflect the direct or indirect pathway of each alternative route between the proposed Project endpoints. The length of the alternative routes may also reflect the effort to minimize land use impacts by utilizing or paralleling existing transmission line ROWs, other existing linear features including other compatible ROW and apparent property boundaries, and provides geographic diversity of the alternative routes.

Habitable Structures

Generally, the most important measure of potential land use impacts is the number of habitable structures located in the vicinity of each route. Based on direction provided by the PUCT, habitable structure identification is included in the CCN filing. Habitable structure information for each alternative route is shown in Appendix E (Habitable Structures and Other Land Use Features in the Vicinity of the Primary Alternative Routes) and Tables 7-2 through 7-20 (Appendix F). POWER determined the number of habitable structures located within 300 feet of each alternative route centerline and their distance from the centerline through the use of GIS, interpretation of aerial photography, and verification during reconnaissance surveys.

As shown in Table 4-1, all of the 19 alternative routes have habitable structures located within 300 feet of their centerlines. Route 12 has the least number of habitable structures located within 300 feet of its centerline at 73, with 68 of these considered "newly affected." Routes 1 and 2 have the most habitable structures located within 300 feet of its centerline at 288 each, with 26 of these each considered "newly affected."

Although the term "newly affected habitable structure" is not specifically defined by the PUCT, POWER defines it as a habitable structure that is not already located within 300 feet of an existing transmission line of 230 kV or less, or a habitable structure already within 500 feet of an existing

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 156 283 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

transmission line greater than 230 kV. Habitable structures that already have a transmission line within 300 feet (or within 500 feet respective of voltage) will have a quantitative change potentially affecting their visual environment and certain land uses, versus a qualitative change for habitable structures not already having a transmission line present. Thus, newly affected habitable structures are an important consideration to the aesthetic values factor that the PUCT must consider. If the new transmission line is proposed within or parallel and adjacent to an existing transmission line ROW, most habitable structures located within 300 feet (or within 500 feet respective of voltage) would not be considered "newly affected" habitable structures, because they are already located within 300 feet (or within 500 feet respective of voltage) of an existing transmission line.

For example, Routes 1, 2. 3, and 18 utilize significant lengths of existing transmission line ROW cornpared to other alternative routes (36.97, 36.36, 33.93, and 31.88 miles respectively). In addition, Routes 1, 2, and 3 parallel 4.04 miles of additional existing transmission line ROW, and Route 18 parallels 10.74 miles of additional existing transmission line ROW. Therefore, although Routes 1, 2, 3, and 18 have considerably higher habitable structure counts within 300 feet compared to other routes, they have significantly less newly affected habitable structure counts, as all but those habitable structures counted as newly affected along Routes 1, 2, 3, and 18 (26, 26, 27, and 10 habitable structures, respectively) are currently within 300 feet of an existing transmission line of 230 kV or less, or within 500 feet of an existing transmission line greater than 500 kV. All but those habitable structures counted as newly affected would have a quantitative change potentially affecting their visual environment and certain land uses, versus a qualitative change. All known habitable structures within 300 feet of the alternative routes are shown on the aerial base map in Appendix E.

Utilizing or Paralleling Existing Compatible ROW

16 TAC § 25.101(b)(3)(B) requires that the PUCT consider whether new transmission line routes are within existing compatible ROWs, including the use of vacant positions on existing multiple- circuit transmission lines; whether the routes parallel existing compatible ROWs; whether the routes parallel apparent property lines, or other natural or cultural features; and whether the routes conform with the policy of prudent avoidance. Criteria were used to evaluate the use of compatible ROW, length parallel to existing transmission line ROW, length of route parallel to other existing linear ROWs, and length of route paralleling apparent property lines, or other natural or cultural features. It should also be noted that if a segment utilizes or parallels more than one existing linear corridor, only one linear corridor was tabulated (e.g., a segment parallels both an apparent property line and a roadway, but it was only tabulated as paralleling the roadway).

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 indicate the length of each route and segment tabulated as utilizing or paralleling existing transmission line ROW. Tabulations for utilizing existing transmission line ROW include proposed instances of rebuilding existing transmission line structures to allow for double-circuiting within existing ETI ROW, as well as instances of paralleling an existing transmission line within available vacant space of the existing ROW. Some instances may require the expansion of the existing ROW utilized. Some instances may also include available space within ETI owned property that is not currently occupied or maintained.

All of the alternative routes except for Route 11 utilize existing ETI ROW for some portion of their length. Route 11 does not utilize any existing transmission line ROW. Lengths of alternative routes that utilize portions of existing transmission line ROW vary from approximately 2.27 miles for Routes 14, 16, and 19, to approximately 36.97 miles for Route 1.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 157 -2sLI POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmrssion Line

When not utilizing existing transmission line ROW, all routes except for Routes 11, 12, 16, and 19 parallel existing transmission line ROW for some portion of their length. Routes 11, 12, 16, and 19 do not parallel any existing transmission line ROW. Lengths of alternative routes that parallel to existing transmission line ROW vary from approximately1.15 miles for Route 14, to approximately 10.74 miles for Route 18.

When not utilizing or paralleling existing transmission line ROW, less impact to land use generally results from locating new lines parallel to other existing compatible linear ROW (highway, road, railway, etc.). All routes except for Route 18 parallel other existing compatible ROW when not paralleling or utilizing existing transmission line ROW. The length of alternative routes that parallel other existing linear ROWs ranges from approximately 0.80 mile for Routes 1, 2, and 3, to approximately 26.10 miles for Route 11.

Paralleling Apparent Property Lines (or Other Natural or Cultural Features)

Paralleling apparent property lines (or other natural or cultural features) is also generally considered a positive routing criterion to minimize impacts to existing and planned property uses when not utilizing or paralleling existing transmission line or other compatible ROW. Property lines created by existing roads, highway, and railway, etc., are not "double-countee in the length of route parallel to property lines (or other natural or cultural features) criterion. All routes except for Route 18 parallel apparent property lines (or other natural or cultural features) for some portion of their length. The length of alternative routes that parallel apparent property boundaries (or other natural or cultural features) ranges from approximately 0.66 mile for Routes 1 and 2, to approximately 21.19 miles for Route 19.

To evaluate the length of each of the alternative routes that utilize or parallel existing compatible ROWs, and apparent property lines (or other natural or cultural features) relative to the overall length of the route (not including paralleling existing pipeline ROW), the percentage of each total route length utilizing or parallel to any of these features was estimated. These percentages can be calculated by adding up the total length utilizing or parallel to existing transmission lines, other existing compatible ROW, and apparent property lines (or other natural or cultural features) criteria and then dividing the result by the total length of the alternative route. All of the alternative routes parallel existing linear features for over 80 percent of their lengths. The percentage of each route that utilizes or parallels existing linear features ranges from 82 percent for Route 11, to 98 percent for Routes 1, 2, and 3.

Paralleling Existing Pipeline ROW

Although not specifically included in TAC § 25.101(3)(B)(ii) as compatible, pipeline ROWs are linear cultural features and paralleling them when it is compatible and practical to do so minimizes impacts to the landowner's existing and planned property uses and reduces wildlife habitat fragmentation. By paralleling existing utility corridors such as pipeline ROW, adverse impacts to ecological resources and land uses may be reduced by avoiding and/or minimizing the impacts to undisturbed habitats (refer to TPWD recommendations in Appendix A).

POWER tabulated instances of alternative routes parallel to existing pipeline ROW when an alternative route was not already utilizing or paralleling existing transmission line, other compatible ROW, or parallel to apparent property boundaries (or other natural or cultural features). lf an alternative route is utilizing an existing transmission line ROW that is also currently paralleled by a

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 158 285

POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

pipeline ROW, then no tabulation of paralleling existing pipeline ROW was included in Table 4-1 for that portion of the alternative route. However, if an alternative route is paralleling an existing pipeline ROW and the pipeline ROW is located between the alternative route and another existing compatible ROW, then that portion of the alternative route was tabulated in Table 4-1 as paralleling the existing pipeline ROW and no tabulation was provided in Table 4-1 for paralleling the existing compatible ROW. Routes 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 were all tabulated in Table 4-1 as paralleling pipeline ROW for some portion of their length. These lengths tabulated range from 0.17 mile for Routes 14, 15, and 17, to 1.06 miles for Route 18.

4.2.2 Impacts on Agriculture

Impacts to agricultural land can generally be ranked by the degree of potential impact, with the highest degree of potential impact occurring to cultivated cropland areas, including hayfield production. However, due to the relatively small area affected (beneath the structures), and the short duration of construction activities at any one location, such impacts should be both temporary and minor. Alternative route lengths crossing cropland areas range from approximately zero (0) mile for Routes 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 to approximately 0.20 mile for Route 12.

Since the ROW for this proposed Project would not be fenced or otherwise separated from adjacent lands, no long-term or significant displacement of grazing or managed wildlife activities would occur. Most existing grassland uses, including grazing on rangelands and pastures may be resumed following construction. Alternative route lengths crossing pastureland or rangeland areas range from approximately 11.35 miles for Route 14, to approximately 34.65 miles for Route 18.

None of the alternative routes cross agricultural lands with rolling irrigation systems.

4.2.3 Impacts on Transportation/Aviation

Transportation

Potential impacts to transportation could include temporary disruption of traffic, and conflicts with proposed roadway and/or utility improvements. Traffic disruptions would include those associated with the movement of construction equipment and materials to and from the ROW, and increased traffic flow and/or periodic congestion during the construction phase of the project. Such impacts are usually temporary and short-terrn.

All of the alternative routes have 1H. US, and SH crossings. The number of IH, US, and SH crossings range from one crossing for Route 19, to 16 crossings for Route 8.

The number of FM roads crossed by the alternative routes range from five road crossings for Route 12, to 11 road crossings for Route 3. ETI would be required to obtain road-crossing permits from TxDOT for any crossing of state-maintained roadways.

Aviation

The proposed Project is not anticipated to have significant effects on aviation operations within the study area.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 159 210a POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

One FAA registered public-use airport with at least one runway longer than 3,200 feet is identified within 20,000 feet of 12 of the alternative routes (Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17). Huntsville Municipal Airport (TE03) is registered in the Chart Supplement for the South Central US (formerly known as the Airport/Facility Directory) (FAA 2016b) and is therefore subject to 14 CFR Part 77.9 notification requirements.

There are no FAA registered airports with only runways less than 3,200 feet identified within 10,000 feet of any of the alternative routes.

Three total known private airstrips not subject to 14 CFR Part 77.9 notification requirements are located within 10,000 feet of the alternative routes. All of the alternative routes have at least one private airstrip within 10,000 feet. The number of private airstrips within 10,000 feet of the alternative routes ranges from one for Routes 11, 14, 15, 16, and 17, to three for Route 12.

There are three private heliports located within 5,000 feet of the alternative routes. These heliports are private-use and are not listed in the Chart Supplement as having an instrument approach procedure and are therefore not subject to 14 CFR Part 77.9 notification requirements. At least one of these private heliports is within 5,000 feet of Routes 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19. The number of heliports within 5,000 feet of the alternative routes ranges from zero (0) for Routes 1, 2, 3, 12. 13, and 18, to three for Routes 15 and 17.

Following PUCT approval of a route for the proposed transmission line, ET1 will make a final determination of the need for FAA notification, based on specific route location and structure design of the approved route. The result of this notification, and any subsequent coordination with the FAA, could include changes in the line design and/or potential requirements to mark the conductors and/or light the structures.

The distance for each airport/airstrip/heliport was measured from the nearest segment using GIS software and aerial photography interpretation (Table 4-3). All known airport/airstrip/heliport locations are shown on aerial base map in Appendix E.

TABLE 4-3 AIRPORT/AIRSTRIPS AND HELIPORTS

DISTANCE FROM APPENDIX E ALTERNATIVE NEAREST AIRSTRIP NEAREST MAP ID ROUTES SEGMENT SEGMENT (FEET)* Huntsville Municipal Airport 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1600 GT2 3,502 (FAA Public) 9, 10, 15, 17 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Sandy Creek 1602 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, BQ1 1,503 (Private Airstrip) 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 Estates Airpark 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1603 BT 8,227 (Private Airstrip) 9, 10, 12, 13 GDAP Air Ranch 1604 12, 19 BZ 8,100 (Private Airstrip) Huntsville Memorial Hospital Heliport 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 1609 AP2 2,839 (Private Heliport) 15, 17 New Waverly ESD #2 Heliport Pad 1 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1610 BS1 2,733 (Private Heliport) 19

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 160 227 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV TransmissIon Line

TABLE 4-3 AIRPORT/AIRSTRIPS AND HELIPORTS

DISTANCE FROM APPENDIX E ALTERNATIVE NEAREST AIRSTRIP NEAREST MARIO ROUTES SEGMENT SEGMENT (FEET)* New Waverly ESD #2 Heliport Pad 2 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1611 BS1 2,706 (Private Heliport) 19 IFAA 2016c; POWER aerial photo and USGS interpretation.

4.2.4 Impacts on Communication

The proposed transmission line would have a minimal effect on communication operations in the area. As indicated in Table 4-1, one AM radio transmitter was identified within 10,000 feet of 1 5 of the alternative routes (Routes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 1 0, 1 1, 1 5, 1 6, 1 7, and 1 8). All of the alternative routes are within 2,000 feet of multiple FM radio transmitters, microwave towers, or other similar electronic installations. The number of FM radio transmitters, microwave towers, or other similar electronic installations within 2,00 0 feet of the alternative route centerlines ranges from three for Route 13, to nine for Routes 1 1, 1 6, and 1 8. The distance of each electronic communication facility from the nearest segment was measured using GIS software and aerial photograph interpretation (Table 4-4). All known communication facilities locations are shown on aerial base map in Appendix E.

TABLE 4-4 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION FACILITIES

DISTANCE FROM APPENDIX NEAREST TOWER TYPE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES NEAREST E MAP ID SEGMENT SEGMENT (FEET)* 1500 AM radio transmitter 1, 2, 3, 18 GT1 4,759 1501 AM radio transmitter 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 AP2 1,626 1502 Other electronic installation 18 HG 40 1503 Other electronic installation 18 HG 1,293 1504 Other electronic installation 18 HG 1,604 1505 Other electronic installation 18 HG 956 1506 Other electronic installation 18 HG 1,852 1507 Other electronic installation 18 HG 958 1508 Other electronic installation 1, 2, 3 GT2 1,974 1509 Other electronic installation 1, 2, 3 GT2 776 1510 Other electronic installation 1, 2, 3 GT2 923 1511 Other electronic installation 1, 2, 3 GT2 330 1512 FM radio transmitter 1, 2, 3, 18 GT1 644 1513 Other electronic installation 1, 2, 3, 18 GT1 623 1514 Other electronic installation 4, 5, 6, 15, 17 GU 1,570 1515 Other electronic installation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, 17 GS 402 1516 FM radio transmitter 4, 5, 6 AP2 1,626 1517 Other electronic installation 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, 17 GX 1,043 1518 Other electronic installation 4, 5, 6 HA 265

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 161 zgg POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 4-4 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION FACILITIES

DISTANCE FROM APPENDIX NEAREST TOWER TYPE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES NEAREST E MAP ID SEGMENT SEGMENT (FEET)* 1519 Other electronic installation 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19 GP 171 1520 Other electronic installation 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19 AB1B 279 1521 Other electronic installation 7, 8, 11, 12 GE 426 1522 Other electronic installation 7, 8, 11, 12 AA 599 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1543 Other electronic installation CI 1,825 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 1544 Other electronic installation 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 CB 780 1545 Other electronic installation 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 CB 1,705 1546 Other electronic installation 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 CB 1,309 1547 Other electronic installation 12, 19 BZ 1,125 1548 Other electronic installation 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 BV2 1,393 1549 Other electronic installation 7, 8, 10, 12 BL2 237 1550 Other electronic installation 11, 12, 16 AW 388 1551 Other electronic installation 11, 12, 16 AW 586 "POWER aerial photo and USGS interpretation; FCC 2016.

4.2.5 Impacts on Utility Features

Utility features, including existing electrical transmission lines and distribution lines, are crossed by most of the alternative routes. Water wells and water tanks are scattered throughout the study area and were mapped and avoided to the extent practicable. If these utility features are crossed by, or are in close vicinity to, the route approved by the PUCT, ETI will coordinate with the appropriate entities to obtain necessary permits or permission as required.

Several existing electric transmission lines were identified within the study area. All of the alternative routes cross existing transmission lines except for Routes 11, 15, and 17. The number of transmission line crossings ranges from zero (0) for Routes 11, 15, and 17, to five crossings for Routes 2, 5, and 9.

Pipelines that are crossed by the PUCT approved route will be indicated on engineering drawings and flagged prior to construction. ETI will coordinate with pipeline companies as necessary during transmission line surveys, construction and operation. A11 of the alternative routes have multiple pipeline crossings. The number of times an alternative route crosses one or more pipelines ranges from approximately eight pipeline crossings for Routes 9 and 10, to approximately 24 pipeline crossings for Route 12.

Several oil and gas wells were identified within the study area based on shapefile data obtained from the RRC. The oil and gas wells that are located within 200 feet of the centerline also include dry hole and plugged wells. As depicted in Table 4-1, Routes 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17 have one or more oil and/or gas wells within 200 feet. The number of oil and gas wells within 200 feet of the route centerline ranges from approximately zero (0) for 10 of the alternative routes, to approximately two for Route 6.

Several water wells were identified with the study area based on shapefile data obtained from the TWDB. As depicted in Table 4-1, all of the routes except for routes 15 and 17 have one or more waterwells within 200 feet. The number of water wells within 200 feet of the route centerline ranges

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 162 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quan-y to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

from approximately zero (0) for Routes 1 5 and 17, to approximately two for nine of the alternative routes.

4.2.6 Impacts on Socioeconomics

Construction and operation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to result in a significant change in the population or employment rate within the study area. For this project, some short-term employment would be generated. ETI normally uses contract labor supervised by ETI employees during the clearing and construction phase of transmission line projects. Construction workers for the proposed Project would likely commute to the work site on a daily or weekly basis instead of permanently relocating to the area. The temporary workforce increase would likely result an increase in local retail sales due to purchases of lodging, food, fuel, and other merchandise for the duration of construction activities. No additional staff would be required for line operations and maintenance.

ETI is also required to pay sales tax on purchases and is subject to paying local property tax on land or improvements as applicable.

This proposed Project is intended to have a positive impact to the economics of the region. As stated in further detail in Section 1.2, the purpose of this proposed Project is to upgrade the electric transmission system to more effectively move lower cost power into and within the southeast Texas area for all customers served from ETI's transmission system. This ability to import lower cost power into the region will help reduce the cost of producing electric energy in the electric system, which may further promote economic growth in the region.

4.3 Impacts on Recreation and Park Areas

Potential impacts to parks and recreational land uses include the disruption or preemption of recreational activities. As previously mentioned in Section 3.3, several parks and recreational areas were identified within the study area.

Several of the alternative routes have lengths crossing a park or recreational area. The lengths crossing a park or recreation area ranges from zero (0) mile each for Route 1 2, to 4.06 miles for Route 6. The number of additional parks or recreational area identified within 1,000 feet of the alternative route centerlines ranges from three each for six alternative routes, to six for Route 1 1.

The distance of each park or recreational area from the nearest segment was measured using GIS software and aerial photography interpretation (Table 4-5). No significant impacts to the use of the parks and recreation facilities located within the study area are anticipated from any of the alternative routes. All known park and recreation area locations are shown on aerial base map in Appendix E.

TABLE 4-5 PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS

DISTANCE FROM APPENDIX PARKS AND RECREATION NEAREST NEAREST ALTERNATIVE ROUTES E MAP ID AREAS SEGMENT SEGMENT (FEETr 1700 Country Campus Golf Course 18 HG 1701 Able's Gun Club 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 15, 17 GS 0 Huntsville High School Athletic 1702 1, 2, 3 GT2 218 Facilities

HOU 146-020 (PER-02 ) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 163 2q0 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 4-5 PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS

DISTANCE FROM APPENDIX PARKS AND RECREATION NEAREST NEAREST ALTERNATIVE ROUTES E MAP ID AREAS SEGMENT SEGMENT (FEET)* 1703 Raven Nest (SHSU) Golf Course 4, 5, 6, 15, 17 GW 39 Elkins Lake Golf Course and 1704 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 AT/AS 0 Recreation Area Possum Walk Hunting & Shooting 1705 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19 AH 0 Ranch 1706 Huntsville State Park 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 AK 59 Tri-County Barnstormers RC 1708 13 BQ1 65 Aircraft Club 1715 Charles Traylor Memorial Park 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 18 BY 187 1716 SCS Race Track 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 CB 366 Camp Robinwood (San Jacinto Girl 1717 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 CB Scouts) 1718-B SHNF 18 HG 0 1718-C SHNF 1, 2, 3, 18 GT1 287 1718-D SHNF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18 BA2 0 1718-E SHNF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 18 BA2 0 1718-F SHNF 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 18 BJ 0 1718-G SHNF 9, 10, 11, 16 BB 431 1718-H SHNF 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 AK 38 C. C. Hardy Elementary School 1719 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18 CD 952 Athletic Facilities 1720 Bayou Bend Park 1, 2, 3 GT2 832 1721 Sam Houston Statue Park 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16 AZ1 74 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, AK/AZ2/BA 1723 Lone Star Hiking Trail 0 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 2/BB/BC *POWER aerial photo and USGS interpretation.

4.4 Impacts on Aesthetic Values

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 recreational areas.

Construction of the proposed Project could have both temporary and permanent aesthetic effects. Temporary impacts would include views of the actual assembly and erection of the tower structures. If wooded areas are cleared, the brush and wood debris could have an additional negative temporary impact on the local visual environment. Permanent impacts from the proposed Project would involve the views of the cleared ROW, tower structures, and lines from public viewpoints including roadways and recreational areas.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 164 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

No rare, unique, pristine, very high quality landscapes, or landscapes protected from most forms of development or legislation are crossed by the alternative routes that would preclude construction of a transmission line. Potential visibility impacts were evaluated by estimating the length of each alternative route that would fall within the foreground visual zones (one-half mile with unobstructed views) of major highways, FM roads, and parks or recreational areas. The alternative route lengths within the foreground visual zone of major highways, FM roads, and parks or recreational areas were tabulated and are discussed below.

All of the alternative routes have some portion of their length located within the foreground visual zone of IH. US, and State highways. Route 8 has the longest length within the foreground visual zone of1H. US, and State highways, with approximately 17.52 miles. Route 19 has the shortest length within the foreground visual zone of US and State highways, with approximately 4.66 miles.

All of the alternative routes have some portion of their length located within the foreground visual zone of FM roads. Route 2 has the longest length within the foreground visual zone of FM roads with approximately 13.48 miles. Route 18 has the shortest length within the foreground visual zone of FM roads, with approximately 7.37 miles.

Several of the alternative routes have some portion of their lengths located within the foreground visual zone of parks or recreational areas. Routes 1, 2, and 3 have the longest length within the foreground visual zone of parks or recreational areas with approximately 10.58 miles while Route 19 has the shortest length with approximately 5.22 miles.

Please also refer to the discussion regarding habitable structures in Section 4.2.1

The residential and commercial developments within the study area, including existing transmission lines, have already impacted the aesthetic quality within the region from public viewpoints. The construction of any of the alternative routes is not anticipated to significantly impact the aesthetic quality of the landscape.

4.5 Impacts on Historical (Cultural Resource) Values

Methods for identifying, evaluating, and mitigating impacts to cultural resources have been established for federal projects or permitting actions, primarily for purposes of compliance with the NHPA. Similar methods are often used when considering cultural resources affected by state- regulated undertakings. In either case, this process generally involves identification of significant (i.e., national or state-designated) cultural resources within a project area, determining the potential impacts of the proposed Project on those resources, and implementing measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those impacts.

Impacts associated with the construction, operation, and maintenance of transmission lines can affect cultural resources either directly or indirectly. Construction activities associated with any proposed Project can adversely irnpact cultural resources if those activities alter the integrity of key characteristics that contribute to a property's significance as defined by the standards of the NRHP or the State of Texas Antiquities Code. These characteristics might include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association for architectural and engineering resources or archeological inforrnation potential for archeological resources.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 165 -242.

POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

4.5.1 Direct Impacts

Typically, direct impacts are caused by the actual construction of the line or through increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic during the construction phase. The construction of a transmission line might directly alter, damage, or destroy historic buildings, archeological sites, engineering structures, landscapes, or historic districts. Additionally, an increase in vehicular traffic might damage surficial or shallowly buried sites, while the increase in pedestrian traffic might result in vandalism of some sites. Direct impacts might also include isolation of a historic resource from or alteration of its surrounding environment.

4.5.2 Indirect Impacts

Indirect impacts to cultural resources include those effects caused by the proposed Project that are farther removed in distance or that occur later in time but are reasonably foreseeable. These indirect impacts might include introduction of visual or audible elements that are out of character with the resource or its setting. Indirect impacts might also occur as a result of alterations in the pattern of land use, changes in population density, accelerated growth rates, or increased pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Historic buildings, structures, landscapes, and districts are among the types of resources that might be adversely impacted by the indirect impact of the proposed transmission towers and lines.

4.5.3 Summary of Cultural Resources Impacts

The distance of each recorded cultural resource crossed or located within 1,000 feet from the proposed alternative routes was measured using GIS software and aerial photography interpretation. A review of the THSA and TASA (THC 2016c, 2016d) records indicated 28 of the 334 archeological sites recorded in the study area are recorded within 1,000 feet of alternative route centerlines. Three of these sites, 41WA054, 41WA202, and 41WA203, are designated SALs, and four sites, 41WA054, 41WA202, 41WA203, and 41WA220 are determined eligible for the NRHP. No NRHP-listed properties are recorded as crossed or within 1,000 feet of the alternative route centerlines. Seventeen cemeteries are recorded within 1,000 feet of the alternative route centerlines (see Table 4-1).

Routes 1, 2, and 3 each cross one recorded archeological site, 41WA309, and are within 1,000 feet of an additional five recorded archeological sites (41WA060, 41WA123, 41WA190, 41WA192, and 41WA220). Route 18 crosses three recorded archeological sites (41WA283, 41WA293, and 41WA294), and is within 1,000 feet of an additional seven sites (41WA059, 41WA192, 41WA290, 41WA291, 41WA300, 41WA301, and 41WA303). Routes 7 and 8 each cross one recorded archeological site, 41WA061, and are within 1,000 feet of one additional recorded site, 41WA080. Routes 4, 5, and 6 are within 1,000 feet of three recorded sites (41WA060, 41WA190, and 41WA220). No previously recorded archeological sites are crossed by or within 1,000 feet of Route 9. Route 10 is within 1,000 feet of previously recorded archeological site 41WA60. Five archeological sites, 41MQ250, 41WA119, 41WA236, 41WA237, and 41WA310, are recorded within 1,000 feet of Routes 11 and 16. Route 12 is within 1,000 feet of five recorded archeological sites (41WA054. 41WA077, 41WA202, 41WA203, and 41WA206. One archeological site. 41WA058, is recorded with 1,000 feet of Routes 13, 14, and 19. Routes 15 and 17 are within 1,000 feet of six recorded archeological sites (41WA058, 41WA060, 41WA190, 41WA220, 41WA236, and 41WA237).

Of the 28 sites crossed or within 1,000 feet of the alternative route centerlines, five (41MQ250, 41WA190, 41WA220, 41WA283, and 41WA310) are historic archeological sites. The sites consist of

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 166 24 3 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line a house site. community school, slave quarters, and a cistern. Site 41MQ250 is an early to mid- twentieth century cemetery that includes 15 grave stones with interments ranging in date from 1908 to 1948. Site 41WA190 is the earliest dated historic site, with artifacts dating to the late eighteenth century. Site 41WA190 was a former farmstead, with a possible well located near the site. Artifacts recovered from 41WA190 include brick, mortar, sandstone cobble, ceramics sherds, cut nails and stoneware. The J.A. Thomason Plantation site, 41WA220, consists of 60 features, including house sites, buildings and landscape features. The site, which dates to the nineteenth century, has been determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. Site 41WA283 is the remains of a World War 11 prisoner of war camp, and is commemorated in an OTHM. Site 41WA310 is an early to mid-twentieth century historic railroad tram. Sites 41WA190, 41WA283, and 41WA310 have not yet been evaluated by the SHPO for listing on the NRHP. Portions of site 41MQ250 have been determined ineligible for the NRHP. Of the historic sites, only 41WA283 is crossed by alternative routes.

Sites 41WA058, 41WA059, 41WA060, 41WA061, 41WA077, 41WA123, 41WA192, 41WA202, 41WA203, 41WA206, 41WA236, 41WA237, 41WA290, 41WA291, 41WA293, 41WA294, 41WA301, 41WA303, and 41WA309 are prehistoric sites. A majority of the sites with dateable components are Late Prehistoric sites (41WA058, 41WA060, 41WA192, 41WA202, 41WA203, and 41WA236). These campsites and lithic scatters consist of debitage, bifaces, projectile points, burned rock and ceramics sherds. Sites 41WA202 and 41WA203 are SALs that have been determined eligible for the NRHP.

Sites 41WA123 and 41WA309 date in part to the Archaic period. Site 41WA309 is the earliest, dating from the Middle Archaic to the Late Prehistoric. Site 41WA309 is consists of debitage and Middle Archaic to Late Prehistoric projectile points. Sites 41WA061, 41WA077, 41WA206, 41WA237, 41WA283, 41WA290, 41WA291, 41WA293, 41WA294, 41WA300, 41WA301, and 41WA303 are prehistoric lithic scatter sites with no dateable components. There is no descriptive information for sites 41WA080 and 41WA119 on the TASA. Sites 41WA058, 41WA060, 41WA061, 41WA077, 41WA080, 41WA119, 41WA123, 41WA192, 41WA206, 41WA236, 41WA301, and 41WA309 have not yet been evaluated by the SHPO for listing on the NRHP. Sites 41WA237, 41WA290, 41WA291, 41WA293, 41WA294, 41WA300, and 41WA303 have been determined ineligible for the NRHP. Sites 41WA202 and 41WA203 have been determined eligible for the NRHP. Sites 41WA202 and 41WA203 are designated SALs. Prehistoric sites 41WA061, 41WA293, 4IWA294, and 41WA309 are crossed by alternative routes, and the remaining sites are within 1,000 feet of alternative route centerlines (Table 4-6).

Site 41WA054 is a designated SAL and NRHP-eligible site that contains both prehistoric and historic components. The prehistoric component includes ceramic sherds, bifaces and projectile points, and the historic component consists of lead ball munitions.

TABLE 4-6 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE CENTERLINES

DISTANCE IN FEET SITE TRINOMIAL ALTERNATIVE ROUTE(S) COMMENTS FROM CENTERLINE Portion of site determined 41MQ250 884 11, 16 ineligible for NRHP

41WA054 429 12 SAL, NRHP-eligible

41WA058 697 13, 14, 15, 17, 19 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017)141830 LD PAGE 167 2.ati POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 4-6 RECORDED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTE CENTERLINES

DISTANCE IN FEET SITE TRINOMIAL ALTERNATIVE ROUTE(S) COMMENTS FROM CENTERLINE 41WA059 886 18 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined 962 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 17 41WA060 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined 968 10 NRHP Eligibility 41WA061 55 7, 8 Undetermined 41WA077 243 12 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined 41WA080 313 7, 8 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined 41WA119 509 11, 16 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined 41WA123 656 1, 2, 3 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined

41WA190 496 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 17 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined

41WA192 302 1, 2, 3, 18 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined 41WA202 135 12 SAL, NRHP-eligible 41WA203 892 12 SAL, NRHP-eligible 41WA206 436 12 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined

742 1, 2, 3 41WA220 Eligible for NRHP 469 4,5,6,15,17 41WA236 945 11, 15, 16, 17 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined 41WA237 233 11, 15, 16, 17 Ineligible for NRHP NRHP Eligibility 41WA283 0 18 Undetermined 41WA290 999 18 Ineligible for NRHP 41WA291 158 18 Ineligible for NRHP 41WA293 0 18 ineligible for NRHP 41WA294 0 18 ineligible for NRHP 41WA300 312 18 Ineligible for NRHP 41WA301 733 18 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined 41WA303 211 18 Ineligible for NRHP NRHP Eligibility 41WA309 0 1, 2, 3 Undetermined 41WA310 900 11, 16 NRHP Eligibility Undetermined Bold entnes are crossed by alternative route(s).

Six cemeteries are located within 1,000 feet of the alternative route centerlines. None of the cemeteries are crossed by alternative routes. The cemeteries and their distances from the alternative route centerlines are listed in Table 4-7. No impacts are anticipated for the cemeteries from any of the alternative routes.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 168 24)5 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 4-7 CEMETERIES WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTE CENTERLINES

DISTANCE IN FEET CEMETERY NAME FROM ALTERNATIVE ROUTE(S) CENTERLINE Ebenezer Cemetery 143 7, 8, 9 Hill Cemetery 290 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18 Hume Cemetery 637 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Longstreet Cemetery 359 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 Shepard Cemetery 978 19 St. Joseph Cemetery 85 13

No systematic cultural resource surveys have been conducted along the alternative routes. Thus, the potential for undiscovered cultural resources does exist along all alternative routes. To assess this potential, a review of geological, soils, and topographical maps was undertaken by a professional archeologist to identify areas along the alternative routes where unrecorded prehistoric archeological resources have a higher probability to occur. These HPAs for prehistoric archeological sites were identified along the West Fork San Jacinto River and near major streams and their tributaries, on terraces overlooking river and stream channels, and near previously recorded archeological sites. The larger streams near or crossed by alternative routes include Caney Creek, East and West Sandy Creek, McDonald Creek, Branch Creek and Lake Creek. To facilitate the data evaluation and alternative route comparison, each HPA was mapped using GIS and the length of each alternative route crossing these areas was tabulated.

All of the alternative routes cross IIPAs for prehistoric cultural resources. Routes 19, 14, 16, 9, and 10, cross the least amount of HPA, with 24.31, 25.04, 27.52, 28.38, and 28.60 miles of HPA, respectively. Routes 18, 17, 12, 1, and 2 cross the most HPA, with 31.51, 31.24, 31.19, 30.92, and 30.90 miles of HPA crossed, respectively.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 169 Z76 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

(This page left blank intentionally.)

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 170 2q7 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

5.0 AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

A list of federal, state and local regulatory agencies, elected officials and organizations was developed to receive a consultation letter in regarding the proposed Project. The purpose of the letter was to inform the various agencies and officials of the proposed Project and provide them with an opportunity to provide information regarding resources and potential issues within the study area. Various federal, state and local agencies and officials that may have potential concerns and/or regulatory permitting requirements for the proposed Project were contacted. POWER utilized websites and telephone confirmations to identify local officials. Copies of all correspondence with the various state/federal regulatory agencies and local/county officials and departments are included in Appendix A.

Federal, state and local agencies/officials contacted include:

• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) • Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) — Texas Office • Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) — Region 6 • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)— Region 6 • US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)— Fort Worth/Galveston District • US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • National Park Service (NPS) • Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) • Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) • Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) — Aviation Division, Environmental Affairs Division, Planning and Programming • Texas Historical Commission (THC) • Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) • Texas General Land Office (TGLO) • Grimes County Judge and Commissioners Court • Montgomery County Judge and Commissioners Court • Walker County Judge and Commissioners Court • Grimes County Floodplain Administrator • Montgomery County Floodplain Administrator • Walker County Floodplain Administrator • City of Conroe Officials • City of Huntsville Officials • City of Montgomery Officials • Anderson-Shiro CISD • Huntsville ISD • Montgomery 1SD • New Waverly ISD • Richards ISD • Willis ISD • The Nature Conservancy (TNC) — Texas • Houston-Galveston Area Council • Brazos Valley Council of Governments • San Jacinto River Authority-Lake Conroe

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 171 25 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

In addition to letters sent to the agencies listed, POWER also requested and reviewed TXNDD Element Occurrence Records from TPWD (TXNDD 2016). POWER also requested and reviewed previously recorded archeological site information from TARL, and reviewed the THC's TASA for additional cultural resource information. As of the date of this document, written responses to letters sent in April 2016 in relation to the study area that were received are listed and summarized below.

The USFWS Texas Coastal Ecological Serves Field Office responded with a letter dated February 1, 2016. The USFWS encouraged the use of USFWS's IPaC System for information regarding fish and wildlife resources.

The USFWS Texas Coastal Ecological Serves Field Office responded with a letter dated April 6, 2016 and assigned Consultation Number 02ETTXX0-2016-E-00647. The USFWS provided a list of the federally listed threatened and endangered species for the counties within the study area. The USFWS also provided the definitions of the affected determinations and referenced the MBTA. The letter also encouraged the use of USEWS's IPaC System for updated species information.

Frank Stranimier with the SI-INF responded by email on June 14, 2016, stating that placing the transmission line east of Hwy 75 would be the most logical location and would comply with the Forest Plan. Mr. Strainimier stated that habitat fragmentation and proximity to known RCW clusters is a concern and that the portion of the SHNF west of1-45 is home to the largest population of RCWs located on public lands west of the Mississippi River. Mr. Stranimier provided information and a summary of the special use authorization permit process. Mr. Stranimier also attended the August 2016 Public Meeting in Willis. POWER and ETI representatives explained to Mr. Strainirnier at the public meeting that the proposed Project is not a FERC project and the preliminary segments through the SHNF east of Hwy 75 would only require the rebuilding of existing structures within existing transmission line ROW and no new ROW would be required. Mr. Stranimier stated this course of action would be consistent with the Forest Plan and that only a revision to ETI's existing special use authorization permit for the existing ROW would be required and would be a much simpler process than applying for a new permit for new ROW.

The USACE Fort Worth District responded with an email letter dated April 6, 2016, stating that they had assigned a regulatory project manager and assigned Project Number SWF-2016-00130 and additional information to determine if a Department of the Army (DA) permit would be required for the proposed Project. However, there is the potential a DA permit may be required if the transmission lines were to impact waters of the US, including jurisdictional wetlands, due to the activities associated with the construction of the transmission line including (but not limited to) clearing of the ROW, construction of the pole footings, and any crossing of navigable waterways.

The USACE Fort Worth District responded with a letter dated August 3, 2016, stating that they had assigned a regulatory project manager and assigned Project Number SWF-2016-00276 and additional information to determine if a DA permit would be required for the proposed Project.

The USACE Galveston District responded with a letter dated April 12, 2016, stating that they had assigned a regulatory specialist and File Number SWG-2016-00244. The letter is an acknowledgement of the DA Permit Application submitted for the proposed Project.

The USACE Galveston District responded with a letter dated April 25, 2016, stating that they regulate the navigable waters of the US under Section 10 and Section 404. The USACE also explained that a Nationwide Permit may be required for the proposed Project along with a preconstruction notification prior to construction.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 172 2q9. POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

The NRCS responded with a letter dated April 8, 2016. The NRCS stated that they reviewed the proposed site as required by the FPPA and stated that the proposed Project would be exempt because transmission lines are not a conversion of Important Farmland Soils. The letter encouraged the use of accepted erosion methods during the construction of the proposed Project and enclosed a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form.

The NPS responded via an email dated April 21, 2016, stating that the NPS had reviewed the proposed Project and had no comments at this time.

The TGLO responded with a letter dated April 7, 2016, stating that the TGLO does not appear to have any environmental or land use constraints, but requested contact when a final route has been selected in order to determine if the proposed Project crosses any streambeds or Permanent School Fund land that would require an easement.

The TxDOT Aviation Division responded with a letter dated April 7, 2016, stating that the FAA would require notice of the proposed Project if criterion of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 77.9a or FAR 77.9b is met. TxDOT Aviation also stated that there are two public use airports in or near the study area, Conroe North Houston Regional Airport and Huntsville Municipal Airport. The letter acknowledged there are no public use heliports in or near the study area.

The TPWD responded with a letter dated June 2, 2016. The Wildlife Division of TPWD provided a tracking number (36452) and provided several recommendations. In summary, TPWD recommended using existing facilities whenever possible, avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to native vegetation, water resources, nesting migratory birds, listed or rare species, wetlands, TPWD properties, conservation easements, and recommended providing a mitigation plan.

The THC responded with a letter undated. The THC stated that the proposed area includes numerous landforms that have potential for cultural resources and numerous above-ground historic resources. Due to moderate to high probability of significant cultural resources, an archeological investigation will most likely be warranted. The THC offered to review the methodology and probability maps, when available.

Montgomery County responded via an email dated April 5, 2016, stating that they did not have any specific issues regarding the proposed Project. The letter did note that a permit would be required if the proposed Project were to be constructed in any Special Flood Hazard Areas. Montgomery County also stated that a permit would be required if a utility crosses or constructs in a County road ROW.

Grimes County responded via an email dated April 11, 2016, requesting a meeting at the next Commissioner's Court. They also requested aerial alignments sheets showing access and egress points along any county roads.

The Montgomeiy County Historical Commission responded via an email dated April 11, 2016, stating that the area along the Lewis Creek Power plant was a former historic cotton plantation and that there are a number of old cemeteries in the vicinity.

The Montgomery ISD responded via an email dated April 19, 2016, stating that they had plans for future school sites within the study area.

The Montgomery ISD responded via a second email dated May 2, 2016, providing a map of the Montgomery ISD territory that indicated the locations of their current and future schools.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 173 3 00 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

The Houston-Galveston Area Council responded via an email dated April 25, 2016, providing links to two online mapping tools that may be used during the data collection phase of the project.

The City of Huntsville responded with an email letter dated April 28, 2016, stating that they would like special consideration given to the areas around the Sam Houston Statue and the Huntsville Regional Airport. The city included a copy of their existing land use inventory and future land use plan. They also provided information regarding a new large subdivision currently under construction within the study area. Representatives from the City of Huntsville also attended the public meetings and conducted various discussions with ET1 representatives concerning the Sam Houston Statue, crossing of Veterans Memorial, and 1-45 improvements.

The SJRA responded with a letter dated October 14, 2016, stating that they were opposed to proposed Route EF. They believe that it would pose a threat to navigational safety on Lake Conroe and encumber their real property rights. If the route selected by the PUCT crosses any properties owned by the San Jacinto River Authority (i.e., Lake Conroe) then ETI would have to obtain an easement and would likely require SJRA Board Approval.

As a result of the revised study area boundary, a second set of agency correspondence was sent in November 2016. As of the date of this document, written responses to letters sent in November 2016 in relation to the study area that were received are listed and summarized below.

The NRCS responded via an email dated December 5, 2016. The NRCS stated that the transmission line would be exempt from provisions of FPPA. The letter also stated they would need precise locations of the proposed substation sites and alternatives to perform an evaluation.

The USACE Galveston District responded with a letter dated January 4, 2017, stating that they had assigned a regulatory specialist and File Number SWG-2016-00244. The letter is an acknowledgement of their receipt of the request for jurisdictional determination.

The USACE Galveston District responded with a letter dated February 10, 2017, stating that the study area contains waters of the US and wetlands. The waters of the US and the wetlands adjacent to them within the study area are under the jurisdiction of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The USACE also stated that the study area contains no navigable waters of the US subject to Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act.

The TGLO responded with a letter dated December 6, 2016, stating that the TGLO does not appear to have any environmental or land use constraints, but requested contact when a final route has been selected in order to determine if the proposed Project crosses any streambeds or Permanent School Fund land that would require an easement.

The THC responded with two letters dated December 13, 2016. The first THC stated that there are several recorded archeological sites in the area. They would like to review the alternative lines once they are available. The second letter stated that the proposed Project would cross in close proximity to a number of know archeological sites and crosses over areas that could be considered high-probability for the presence of archeological sites.

TxDOT Montgomery Area Office responded via an email dated December 20. 2016, stating since the proposed substations are not located in Montgomery County and the map did not show any proposed lines, they had no objections, recommendations, or comments.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 174 30) POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

The TPWD responded with an email letter dated January 18, 2017. The Wildlife Division of TPWD referred to their original letter and the recommendations that were provided. TPWD also recommended referencing information for protected species potentially occurring within the study area, obtaining updated information from TXNDD, and coordination with USFWS and USFS regarding the red-cockaded woodpecker.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 175 302— POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

(This page left blank intentionally.)

IIOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 176 303 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

6.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

ETI hosted six public meetings for the proposed Project within the surrounding communities to solicit comments, concerns and input from residents, landowners, public officials, and other interested parties. These meetings were held on the following dates and at the following locations:

• June 14, 2016 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Anderson Town Building located in Anderson, Texas. • June 15, 2016 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the North Montgomery County Community Center located in Willis, Texas. • August 23, 2016 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Huntsville Church of Christ located in Huntsville, Texas. • August 24, 2016 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the North Montgomery County Community Center located in Willis, Texas. • August 25, 2016 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Saint Stanislaus Catholic Church located in Anderson, Texas. • December 15, 2016 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Walker County Fair Grounds located in Huntsville, Texas.

The purpose of these meetings is to:

• Promote a better understanding of the proposed Project, including the purpose, need, potential benefits and impacts, and the PUCT CCN application approval process. • Inform the public with regard to the routing procedure, schedule, and decision-making process. • Ensure that the decision-making process adequately identifies and considers the values and concerns of the public and community leaders.

Public meetings were held at various times in the proposed Project area vicinity. At the meetings, engineers, GIS analysts, and biologists were available from ETI and POWER to answer questions regarding the project. Manned information stations were set up that provided typical 230 kV pole types, a list of agencies contacted, land-use and environmental criteria for transmission lines, and an environmental and land use constraints map on aerial base. POWER also provided two GIS interactive stations operated by GIS analysts. These computer stations allowed attendees to view more-detailed digital maps of alternative route segments and submit comments digitally and spatially. The information station format is advantageous because it facilitates one-on-one discussions and encourages personalized landowner interactions.

Each individual in attendance was asked to sign their name on the sign-in sheet and was offered three handouts. The first handout was an informative brochure that provided general information about the proposed Project. The second handout was a questionnaire that solicited comments on the proposed Project and an evaluation of the information presented at the public meeting. Individuals were asked to fill out the questionnaire after visiting the information stations and speaking with POWER and ETI personnel. The third handout was a Frequently Asked Questions document providing an overview of

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 177

soff POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line the proposed Project as well as a description of the regulatory process. Copies of the public notice letter with map, brochure, questionnaire, and Frequently Asked Questions are located in Appendix B.

In addition to hardcopy questionnaires, two computer stations with GIS personnel were set-up at the public meeting. Several digital comments were received in addition to the questionnaires. Respondent digital comments assisted in identifying structures and other land use concerns.

6.1 June 2016 Public Meetings (Anderson and Willis)

ETI and POWER presented 160 preliminary route segments to the public at public meetings held on June 14 and 15, 2016.

Invitation letters were sent to landowners who owned property within 300 feet from a preliminary alternative route segment. ETI mailed 2,244 invitation letters to landowners for the June Public Meetings. Each landowner that received an invitation letter also received a map of the study area depicting the preliminary alternative route segments as well as a map showing the location of the public meeting.

At the public meeting in Anderson. Texas, a total of 155 individuals attended according to the sign-in sheet, with 34 questionnaire responses being submitted at the meeting. At the second public meeting in Willis, Texas, a total of 184 individuals attended according to the sign-in sheet, with 29 questionnaire responses being submitted at the meeting. An additional 103 questionnaire responses were submitted via mail, fax, or email after the two public meetings. The total attendance for both meetings was 339 individuals with 166 questionnaire responses being submitted at or after the public meetings. Results from the questionnaires were reviewed and analyzed. Table 6-1 summarizes general response information from questionnaires.

TABLE 6-1 GENERAL RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONNAIRES (JUNE 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

PERCENTAGE (%) GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES OF RESPONDENTS Did you attend the Open House for this project? (YIN) Yes 83.7% No 11.4% N/A or No Response 4.9%

I was given an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers. Strongly Agree/Agree 71.1% Neutral 9.0% Disagree/Strongly Disagree 3.6% N/A or No Response 16.3%

ETI staff were knowledgeable about the meeting topic. Strongly Agree/Agree 61.4% Neutral 11.5% Disagree/Strongly Disagree 10.2%

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 178

305 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 6-1 GENERAL RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONNAIRES (JUNE 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

PERCENTAGE (%) GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES OF RESPONDENTS N/A or No Response 16.9%

ETI staff listened to my issues and concems. Strongly Agree/Agree 61.4% Neutral 18.1% Disagree/Strongly Disagree 3.0% N/A or No Response 17.5%

Potential line route location:* l have property located in the project area. 84.3% A potential line route segment is on my land or near my home or business. 80.7% An existing transmission line is on my land or near my home. 31.9% A potential substation site is on my land or near my home/business. 1.8%

Additional Contact Requested follow-up contact for project detail and/or progress. 25.9% No response to offer for more information or not related to additional contact. 74.1% *Respondents may have provided input in more than one category.

The questionnaire then discussed the many environmental and land use features taken into consideration during the routing process and asked about the known accuracy of these features shown on the maps. A summary of these questions is shown in Table 6-2. Questionnaire respondents were also asked to identify potential missing features from the maps and responses included: ponds, existing power lines, floodplains, homes, barns, churches, cemeteries, ecologic sensitive areas, wells, landing strip, parks, and creeks.

TABLE 6-2 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS MAP QUESTION SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONNAIRES (JUNE 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

Percentage (%) of GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES Respondents Were the exhibits and information provided in person or on the web site helpful? (YIN) Yes 74.7% No 12.7% No Response 12.6% POWER Engineers has shown these features on the Land Use and Environmental Constraints Map. Are those features accurately located? (Y/N) Yes 27.7% No 15.1% Don't Know 42.2% No Response 15.0%

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 179 So& POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 6-2 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS MAP QUESTION SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONNAIRES (JUNE 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES Pamlta90 (%) 01 Respondents Are you aware of any other features that are not shown on the Land Use and Environmental Constraints Map? (YIN) Yes 21.7% No 50.0% No Response 28.3%

Respondents were asked to indicate which route segments (links) they prefer and which segments they did not favor and why. A summary of these responses is shown in Table 6-3.

Respondents reasons for preferred segments included least impact on farming/timber/agricultural operations, shortest route, least impact to wildlife and vegetation, least effect on homes and properties, uses/parallels existing linear features/ROW, and do not want on/near my property.

Respondents' reasons for not favoring segments included impact on property values, near homes/property/businesses, impact on farming/timber/agricultural operations, impact on wildlife/vegetation, does not use existing linear features/ROW, too many existing power lines, routes too long/expensive, near landing strips, and impact on flood zones.

TABLE 6-3 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENT SEGMENT PREFERENCES (JUNE 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

Segments # of % of Segments Not # of % of Preferred* Respondents Respondents Favored* Respondents Respondents EF 19 11.4% FA 12 7.2% CV 13 7.8% V 7 4.2% CX 13 7.8% EK 6 3.6% DY 11 6.6% U 6 3.6% AB 9 5.4% AA 5 3.0% EC 9 5.4% AE 5 3.0% FB 9 5.4% AH 5 3.0% P 9 5.4% BU 5 3.0% AF 6 3.6% W 5 3.0% DI 6 3.6% AF 4 2.4% ED 6 3.6% BT 4 2.4% BS 5 3.0% CN 4 2.4% EA 5 3.0% BV 3 1.8% Al 4 2.4% BY 3 1.8% BJ 4 2.4% CT 3 1.8% BT 4 2.4% DW 3 1.8% CK 4 2.4% EX 3 1.8% CS 4 2.4% FB 3 1.8% AK 3 1.8% T 3 1.8% AR 3 1.8% Z 3 1.8% BM 3 1.8% AD 2 1.2% BY 3 1.8% AG 2 1.2% BZ 3 1.8% AJ 2 1.2%

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 180 307 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 6-3 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENT SEGMENT PREFERENCES (JUNE 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

Segments # of % of Segments Not # of % of Preferred* Respondents Respondents Favored* Respondente Respondents C 3 1.8% AQ 2 1.2% CL 3 1.8% BJ 2 1.2% DN 3 1.8% BS 2 1.2% FC 3 1.8% BW 2 1.2% T 3 1.8% BX 2 1.2% U 3 1.8% CB 2 1.2% Y 3 1.8% CR 2 1.2% A 2 1.2% CV 2 1.2% AG 2 1.2% CX 2 1.2% AJ 2 1.2% DR 2 1.2% AL 2 1.2% EF 2 1.2% BR 2 1.2% EJ 2 1.2% BU 2 1.2% EM 2 1.2% CI 2 1.2% EQ 2 1.2% CU 2 1.2% EV 2 1.2% DL 2 1.2% EZ 2 1.2% DW 2 1.2% F 2 1.2% E 2 1.2% Q 2 1.2% N 2 1.2% X 2 1.2% W 2 1.2% Y 2 1.2% AC 1 0.6% A 1 0.6% AD 1 0.6% AB 1 0.6% AE 1 0.6% AC 1 0.6% AH 1 0.6% AK 1 0.6% AN 1 0.6% AO 1 0.6% AQ 1 0.6% AP 1 0.6% AT 1 0.6% AR 1 0.6% AV 1 0.6% AS 1 0.6% AW 1 0.6% AT 1 0.6% AX 1 0.6% AV 1 0.6% BA 1 0.6% B 1 0.6% BB 1 0.6% BC 1 0.6% BF 1 0.6% BD 1 0.6% BL 1 0.6% BF 1 0.6% CB 1 0.6% BG 1 0.6% CD 1 0.6% BL 1 0.6% CH 1 0.6% BM 1 0.6% CY 1 0.6% BN 1 0.6% D 1 0.6% BZ 1 0.6% DE 1 0.6% CA 1 0.6% DS 1 0.6% CC 1 0.6% DU 1 0.6% CE 1 0.6% DV 1 0.6% CF 1 0.6% DZ 1 0.6% CK 1 0.6% EG 1 0.6% CO 1 0.6% ES 1 0.6% CS 1 0.6% ET 1 0.6% D 1 0.6%

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017)141830 LD PAGE 181

30g POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 6-3 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENT SEGMENT PREFERENCES (JUNE 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

Segments # of % of Segments Not # of % of Preferred* Respondents Respondents Favored* Respondents Respondents EU 1 0.6% DA 1 0.6% EV 1 0.6% DC 1 0.6% EX 1 0.6% DG 1 0.6% FA 1 0.6% DI 1 0.6% FD 1 0.6% DJ 1 0.6% L 1 0.6% DK 1 0.6% Use existing linear 18 10.8% DL 1 0.6% features/ROW Not on/near my 15 9.0% DM 1 0.6% property North of Lake 9 5.4% DO 1 0.6% Conroe/SHNF Prefer no routes 8 4.8% DP 1 0.6% Southern Routes 4 2.4% DQ 1 0.6% Don't Know 2 1.2% DV 1 0.6% No response or not 47 28.3% DY 1 0.6% related *Respondents may have provided multiple segments EA 1 0.6% ED 1 0.6% EE 1 0.6% EG 1 0.6% EH 1 0.6% El 1 0.6% EN 1 0.6% ER 1 0.6% EU 1 0.6% EW 1 0.6% EY 1 0.6% FC 1 0.6% FD 1 0.6% G 1 0.6% H L 1 0.6% I 1 0.6% L 1 0.6% M 1 0.6% N 1 0.6% P 1 0.6% S 1 0.6% Not on/near my 11 6.6% property Use existing linear 5 3.0% features/ROW Prefer no routes 4 2.4% Southern Routes 3 1.8% No response or not 42 25.3% related *Respondents may have provided multiple segments

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 182 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

The questionnaire presented a list of 12 factors (including other) that are taken into consideration for a routing study. The questionnaire asked the respondents to rank these criteria, with one being the factor most important, and 12 being the least important factor. The average ranking given by the respondents is listed next to each criterion in Table 6-4. Other factors respondents added included near existing power lines, minimize damage to properties, impacts on timber production, impacts to future residences, impacts on livestock, impacts on small acreage land owners, and health concerns.

TABLE 6-4 QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY OF FACTORS RANKED IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE (JUNE 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

Ranking Criteria Average Rank* Maintain reliable electric service 5.51 Use or parallel existing electric transmission line right of way where possible 3.03 Parallel other existing compatible right of way (e.g. roads, highways) where possible 3.79 Parallel property lines where possible 5.63 Maximize distance from residences 1.98 Maximize distance from schools, churches, nursing homes, etc. 4.65 Maximize distance from commercial buildings 6.40 Maximize distance from historic sites or areas 5.02 Maximize distance from parks and recreational areas 6.54 Minimize visibility of the lines 5.05 Minimize environmental impacts 5.31 Other 3.10 *Note. Many respondents ranked multiple categories equally or did not respond

Respondents were also asked if there were any other concerns they have with the alternative routes or if there was any other information they would like the proposed Project team to know or take into consideration when evaluating the alternative routes for the new line. Responses included: additional information on potential routes, concerns about impacts on home/property aesthetics, preference of property lines to follow, impacts to future development plans, powerlines already near/on property, avoid lakes/vegetation, potential health/safety concerns, potential lengthy/costly segments, impacts on wildlife/habitats/environment, recommending shortest routes, concerns of property damage and respecting landowners rights, cultural resource impacts, minimize impacts to businesses, landing strips, structure placement, requests for compensation information, minimize impacts to property values, impacts on agricultural practices, requests to use existing ROW/linear features, and some respondents expressed their concerns and/or preference for route placement.

In addition to hardcopy questionnaires, two computer stations with GIS personnel were set-up at the public meeting. These computer stations allowed attendees to view alternative route segments and submit comments spatially and digitally. Several digital comments were received in addition to questionnaires. Respondent digital comments assisted in identifying structures and other land use concerns.

6.2 August 2016 Public Meetings (Huntsville, Willis, and Anderson)

After the June 2016 public meetings, the preliminary study area was then expanded to include additional alternative route segments from three Rocky Creek Substation options. ET1 and POWER

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 183 3)0 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line presented 198 preliminary route segments at public meetings held on August 23-25, 2016 to accommodate newly affected landowners.

Invitation letters were sent to newly affected landowners who owned property within 300 feet from a preliminary alternative route segment. ETI mailed 2,760 invitation letters to landowners for the August public meetings. Each landowner that received an invitation letter also received a map of the study area depicting the preliminary alternative route segments as well as a map showing the location of the public meeting.

At the first August public meeting in Huntsville. Texas, a total of 148 individuals attended according to the sign-in sheet, with 33 questionnaire responses being submitted at the meeting. At the second meeting in Willis, Texas, a total of 106 individuals attended according to the sign-in sheet, with 16 questionnaire responses being submitted at the meeting. At the third meeting in Anderson, Texas, a total of 74 individuals attended according to the sign-in sheet, with 12 questionnaire responses being submitted at the meeting. An additional 87 questionnaire responses were submitted via mail, fax, or email after the three public meetings. The total attendance for both meetings was 328 individuals with 148 questionnaire responses being submitted at or after the public meetings. Results from the questionnaires were reviewed and analyzed. Table 6-5 summarizes general response information from questionnaires.

TABLE 6-5 GENERAL RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONNAIRES (AUGUST 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

PERCENTAGE (%) GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES OF RESPONDENTS Did you attend the Open House for this project? (YIN) Yes 89.9% No 8.1% N/A or No Response 2.0%

I was given an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers. Strongly Agree/Agree 81.8% Neutral 4.7% Disagree/Strongly Disagree 1.4% N/A or No Response 12.1%

ETI staff were knowledgeable about the meeting topic. Strongly Agree/Agree 75.7% Neutral 8.1% Disagree/Strongly Disagree 2.7% N/A or No Response 13.5%

ETI staff listened to my issues and concems. Strongly Agree/Agree 76.4% Neutral 6.8% Disagree/Strongly Disagree 1.4% N/A or No Response 15.4%

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 184 311 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 6-5 GENERAL RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONNAIRES (AUGUST 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

PERCENTAGE (%) GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES OF RESPONDENTS Potential line route location:* l have property located in the project area. 87.8% A potential line route segment is on my land or near my home or business. 83.1% An existing transmission line is on my land or near my home. 31.8% A potential substation site is on my land or near my home/business. 1.4%

Additional Contact Requested follow-up contact for project detail and/or progress. 18.2% No response to offer for more information or not related to additional contact. 81.8% *Respondents may have provided input in more than one category.

The questionnaire then discussed the many environmental and land use features taken into consideration during the routing process and asked about the known accuracy of these features shown on the maps. A summary of these questions is shown in Table 6-6. Questionnaire respondents were also asked to identify potential missing features from the maps and respondents identified a shooting range, new and potential developments, water wells, a children's camp, wildlife/environmental features, agricultural/timber operations, existing pipelines/power lines, commercial areas, homes, landing strips, erosional areas, churches, and potential historical sites.

TABLE 6-6 LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTSTRAINTS MAP QUESTION SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONAIRES (AUGUST 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES PERCENTAGE (%) OF RESPONDENTS Were the exhibits and information provided in person or on the web site helpful? (YIN) Yes 83.1% No 6.1% No Response 10.8% POWER Engineers has shown these features on the Land Use and Environmental Constraints Map. Are those features accurately located? (Y/N) Yes 45.3% No 7.4% Don't Know 37.8% No Response 9.5% Are you aware of any other features that are not shown on the Land Use and Environmental Constraints Map? (YIN) Yes 23.0% No 56.1% No Response 20.9%

Respondents were asked to indicate which route segments (links) they prefer and which segments they did not favor and why. A summary of these responses is presented in Table 6-7. Respondents' reasons for preferred segments included: least impact on property values, least impact on homes and

HOU 146-020 (PER-02 ) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 185

312 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line businesses, follow or utilize existing ROW/linear features, stay off my property, prefer most direct route, be cost effective, avoids wooded areas, parallel property boundaries, least impact to area aesthetics, least impacts to environmentally sensitive areas, impact to agricultural/timber operations, and avoid future developments.

Respondents reasons for not favoring segments included near homes/property/businesses, impact on wildlife and environmentally sensitive areas, impact on property values, impact on agricultural/timber operations, impact to area aesthetics, health and safety concerns, follow or utilize existing ROW/ linear features, on/too close to property, impact to new/future developments, impact to recreational areas, impact to landing strips, and segment bisects property.

TABLE 6-7 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENT SEGMENT PREFERENCES (AUGUST 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

SEGMENTS SEGMENTS #OF % OF # OF % OF NOT PREFERRED* RESPO14DENTS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS FAVORED* BT 15 10.1% V 13 8.8% BR 11 7.4% U 8 5.4% BJ 10 6.8% GE 7 4.7% BY 10 6.8% W 7 4.7% EF 7 4.7% AQ 6 4.1% GS 7 4.7% EF 6 4.1% BA2 6 4.1% BU 5 3.4% GO 6 4.1% FA 5 3.4% CV 5 3.4% FK 5 3.4% DI 5 3.4% GR 5 3.4% EA 5 3.4% BQ 4 2.7% 145 5 3.4% BV 4 2.7% BZ 4 2.7% FH 4 2.7% DY 4 2.7% GP 4 2.7% GQ 4 2.7% T 4 2.7% P3 4 2.7% X 4 2.7% AF 3 2.0% AA 3 2.0% BI 3 2.0% AD 3 2.0% BM 3 2.0% AE 3 2.0% E 3 2.0% F1 3 2.0% FJ 3 2.0% FB 3 2.0% FL 3 2.0% AB1 2 1.4% GP 3 2.0% AR 2 1.4% GT 3 2.0% BG 2 1.4% HC 3 2.0% BL 2 1.4% P1 3 2.0% BS 2 1.4% P2 3 2.0% BW 2 1.4% Y 3 2.0% BZ 2 1.4% AH 2 1.4% CA 2 1.4% AJ 2 1.4% CN 2 1.4% AK 2 1.4% CV 2 1.4%

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 186 313 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 6-7 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENT SEGMENT PREFERENCES (AUGUST 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

SEGMENTS SEGMENTS # OF % OF *OF % OF NOT PREFERRED* RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS FAVORED* AV 2 1.4% CZ 2 1.4% BS 2 1.4% E7 2 1.4% BU 2 1.4% EJ 2 1.4% BV 2 1.4% FC 2 1.4% CK 2 1.4% GT 2 1.4% CU 2 1.4% GZ 2 1.4% DL 2 1.4% HB 2 1.4% EC 2 1.4% Q 2 1.4% ED 2 1.4% Y 2 1.4% F 2 1.4% Z 2 1.4% FA 2 1.4% A01 1 0.7% FG 2 1.4% A02 1 0.7% GJ 2 1.4% Al2 1 0.7% HE 2 1.4% AB2 1 0.7% AA2 1 0.7% AF 1 0.7% AB 1 0.7% AG 1 0.7% AB1 1 0.7% AH 1 0.7% AB2 1 0.7% AS 1 0.7% AG 1 0.7% AW 1 0.7% AM 1 0.7% BA2 1 0.7% B2 1 0.7% BD 1 0.7% BA1 1 0.7% BF 1 0.7% BB 1 0.7% BJ 1 0.7% BF 1 0.7% BK 1 0.7% BX 1 0.7% BM 1 0.7% CO 1 0.7% BN 1 0.7% CR 1 0.7% BT 1 0.7% CS 1 0.7% BX 1 0.7% DC 1 0.7% BY 1 0.7% DQ 1 0.7% CB 1 0.7% DV 1 0.7% CR 1 0.7% EN 1 0.7% CX 1 0.7% ED 1 0.7% DE 1 0.7% F1 1 0.7% DQ 1 0.7% FB 1 0.7% EA 1 0.7% FC 1 0.7% EC 1 0.7% FE 1 0.7% ED 1 0.7% G 1 0.7% EE 1 0.7% GR 1 0.7% EN 1 0.7% I 1 0.7% EQ 1 0.7% QR 1 0.7% EU 1 0.7% RT 1 0.7% EX 1 0.7%

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 187

314 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 6-7 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONDENT SEGMENT PREFERENCES (AUGUST 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

SEGMENTS SEGMENTS S OF % OF # OF % OF NOT PREFERRED* RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS RESPONDENTS FAVORED* T 1 0.7% F2 1 0.7% U 1 0.7% GL 1 0.7% Use existing linear 23 15.5% GY 1 0.7% features/ROW Not on/near my 7 4.7% HC 1 0.7% property North of Lake 6 4.1% 145 1 0.7% Conroe/SHNF Southern 3 2.0% P1 1 0.7% Routes Through SHNF 2 1.4% P2 1 0.7% No response or 58 39.2% TK 1 0.7% not related *Respondents may have provided multiple segments Not on/near my 17 11.5% property Use existing linear 3 2.0% features/ROW Southern 2 1.4% Routes No response or 36 24.3% not related *Respondents may have provided multiple segments.

The questionnaire presented a list of 1 2 factors (including other) that are taken into consideration for a routing study. The questionnaire asked the respondents to rank these criteria, with one being the factor most important, and 1 2 being the least important factor. The average ranking given by the respondents is listed next to each criterion in Table 6-8. Other factors respondents added included stay off my property, use existing easements, avoid mature trees, safe distance for aircrafts/airports, avoid too many powerlines in one area, and minimize timber/agricultural impacts.

TABLE 6-8 QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY OF FACTORS RANKED IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE (AUGUST 2016 PUBLIC MEETINGS)

AVERAGE RANKING CRITERIA RANK* Maintain reliable electric service 4.53 Use or parallel existing electric transmission line right of way where possible 3.09 Parallel other existing compatible right of way (e.g. roads, highways) where possible 3.82 Parallel property lines where possible 5.46 Maximize distance from residences 2.20 Maximize distance from schools, churches, nursing homes, etc. 4.50 Maximize distance from commercial buildings 6.62 Maximize distance from historic sites or areas 5.37 Maximize distance from parks and recreational areas 6.04

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 188 Stg" POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Minimize visibility of the lines 4.74 Minimize environmental impacts 5.07 Other 3.00 *Note: Many respondents ranked multiple categories equally or did not respond

Respondents were also asked if there were any other concerns they have with the alternative routes or if there was any other information they would like the proposed Project team to know or take into consideration when evaluating the alternative routes for the new line. Responses included: health and safety concerns, impacts property values and future developments, aesthetics, follow existing easements, stay away from homes/businesses/recreational areas, impacts to agricultural/timber/deer breeding operations, impacts to wildlife/vegetation and the environment, use the SHNF, too many existing easements on property, concerns on construction damage to properties, and impacts on aircrafts and airstrips.

6.3 December 2016 Public Meeting (Huntsville)

The study area was again expanded after the August public meetings to include additional alternative route segments from the Quarry Substation option. ETI and POWER identified 192 preliminary route segments that were presented at a public meeting on December 15, 2016 to accommodate newly affected landowners.

Invitation letters were sent to newly affected landowners who owned property within 300 feet from a preliminary alternative route segment. ET1 mailed 215 invitation letters to landowners for the December public meeting. Each landowner that received an invitation letter also received a map of the study area depicting the preliminary alternative route segments as well as a map showing the location of the public meeting.

At the final public meeting in Huntsville. Texas, a total of 24 individuals attended according to the sign-in sheet, with two questionnaire responses being submitted at or after the meeting. Results from the questionnaires were reviewed and analyzed. General response information from the questionnaires is summarized below. All of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed they had been given an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers, ET1 staff were knowledgeable about the meeting topic, and ETI staff listened to their issues and concerns.

Both questionnaires indicated they have property located in the proposed Project area and a potential line route segment is on their land or near their home or business. Both questionnaires also agreed the exhibits and information provided in person or on the website was helpful, but did not know if the Land Use and Environmental Constraints Map features are accurately located. Neither respondent was aware of any other features that were not shown on the constraints map.

Respondents were asked to indicate which route segments (links) they prefer and which segments they did not favor and why. Segments preferred included BY and BT. Respondents reasons for preferred segments included follow or utilize existing ROWs. Segments not preferred included BX. Respondents' reasons for not favoring this segment included does not utilize existing transmission line ROW, would be using all new ROW, and affecting homes.

The questionnaire presented a list of 12 factors (including other) that are taken into consideration for a routing study. The questionnaire asked the respondents to rank these criteria, with one being the factor most important, and 12 being the least important factor. The average ranking given by the respondents is listed next to each criterion presented in Table 6-9.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017)141830 LD PAGE 189 ai0 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 6-9 QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY OF FACTORS RANKED IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE (DECEMBER 2016 PUBLIC MEETING)

AVERAGE RANKING CRITERIA RANK* Maintain reliable electric service 6.0 Use or parallel existing electric transmission line right of way where possible 1.0 Parallel other existing compatible right of way (e.g. roads, highways) where possible 2.0 Parallel property lines where possible 3.0 Maximize distance from residences 4.0 Maximize distance from schools, churches, nursing homes, etc. 7.0 Maximize distance from commercial buildings 8.0 Maximize distance from historic sites or areas 5.0 Maximize distance from parks and recreational areas No Response Minimize visibility of the lines No Response Minimize environmental impacts No Response Other No Response *Note. Many respondents ranked multiple categories equally or did not respond

Respondents were also asked if there were any other concerns they have with the alternative routes or if there was any other information they would like the proposed Project team to know or take into consideration when evaluating the alternative routes for the new line. Responses included use the SI-INF and other government lands, and concerns on environmental impacts.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 190 3 I -7

POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

7.0 ROUTE SELECTION

The purpose of this study was to delineate and evaluate alternative routes for ETI's proposed Project. POWER completed the environmental analysis of 19 alternative routes (Section 4.0), the results of which are shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2. The environmental evaluation was a comparison of 19 alternative routes from a strictly environmental viewpoint based upon the measurement of land use, aesthetics, ecology, and cultural resource criteria. POWER used this information to select a route for recommendation that provided the best balance between land use, aesthetics, ecology, and cultural resource factors. ETI used this information along with monetary cost, landowner and agency concerns, engineering requirements, reliability issues, future transmission and distribution plans, ROW easement procurement, and construction issues to identify a route that best addresses the requirements of PURA and PUCT Substantive Rules. POWER's evaluation is discussed below.

7.1 POWER's Environmental Evaluation

POWER used a consensus process to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the alternative routes. POWER professionals with expertise in different environmental disciplines (land use, ecology, and archeology) evaluated the 19 alternative routes based on the environmental conditions present along each route. This evaluation was based on data collected for separate environmental criteria, comments from local, state, and federal agencies, and field reconnaissance of the study area. Each POWER technical expert independently analyzed the routes and the environmental data presented in Table 4-1. 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 19 alternative routes based strictly upon the environmental data considered.

Based on best professional judgment, the evaluators believed that all 19 alternative routes overall potential impacts are minimal and all were viable and acceptable from an overall environmental perspective. The evaluators each ranked the alternatives from lst to 19th (with 1st having the least potential impact and 19th the greatest potential impact) from the perspective of their own area of expertise. In ranking each route, the evaluators considered the competing advantages and disadvantages of each route among the various criteria. For example, routes that pass through developed areas typically have higher land use impacts but lower ecological impacts. The results of this ranking are summarized in Table 7-1.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017)141830 LD PAGE 191 3Ig POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

TABLE 7-1 POWER'S ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES

CULTURAL ALTERNATIVE LAND USE ECOLOGY PROJECT RESOURCES CONSENSUS ROUTE SPECIAUST SPECIAUST MANAGER SPECIALIST Route 1 4th 4th 18th 4th 4th Route 2 3rd 3rd 17th 3rd 3rd Route 3 2nd 1st 16th 2nd 2nd Route 4 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th Route 5 5th 5th 7th 5th 5th Route 6 7th 7th 6th 7th 7th Route 7 10th llth 15th 14th 12th Route 8 llth 9th 14th 13th llth Route 9 8th 8th 1st 8th 8th Route 10 9th 10th 4th 9th 9th Route 11 19th 18th 10th 19th 19th Route 12 13th 19th 11th 15th 14th Route 13 12th 15th 5th llth 13th Route 14 17th 17th 3rd 12th 17th Route 15 15th 14th 12th 17th 16th Route 16 18th 16th 9th 18th 18th Route 17 14th 13th 13th 16th 15th Route 18 1st 2nd 19th 1st 1st Route 19 16th 12th 2nd 10th 10th

The land use evaluation placed the greatest importance on length of route utilizing existing transrnission line ROW, length paralleling existing electric transmission line ROWs, overall length of route and number of habitable structures within 300 feet of the route centerline, including newly affected habitable structures. Comparing the 19 alternative routes from a land use perspective, Route 18 was selected as having the least-potential land use impact, followed in ranking by Routes 3, 2, 1, and 5.

All of the alternative routes are viable from an ecological impact perspective based on the evaluation of available ecological resource information. The potential ecological impacts were compared for each alternative route in order to rank each route for the purpose of POWER's consensus team recommendation. The potential ecological impacts for the alternative routes are minimal between each route when taking into consideration typical impact minimization strategies such as spanning these resources or minimize clearing by utilizing existing transmission line ROW or paralleling other compatible ROW. The length of each route proposed crossing NWI mapped wetlands, length crossing upland and bottomland woodlands, and length through 100-year floodplains were the primary ecological criteria used to differentiate and rank each alternative route. The overall length of each route and length of each route utilizing existing transmission line ROW or paralleling other compatible ROW as a means to minimize fragmentation and clearing was also considered. From an ecological impact perspective. Route 3 was ranked as having the least potential impact, followed by Route 18, Route 2, Route 1, and Route 5.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 192 3ser POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Based on the review of cultural resources information, all of the alternative routes are viable from a cultural resources perspective. The cultural resources specialist ranked the routes based primarily on the number of recorded cultural resources crossed by and within 1,000 feet of the alternative routes, followed by the percentage of the routes across HPAs. Route 9 was identified as having the least potential impact from a cultural resources perspective, followed by Routes 19, 14, 10, and 13.

The POWER project manager also ranked the alternative routes, considering all of the criteria. The length of route utilizing existing transmission line ROW, length paralleling existing transmission line ROW, proximity to previously and newly affected habitable structures, and length of route through bottomland/riparian woodlands and upland forest were considered the more important factors given the nature of the study area. Route 18 was selected by the POWER Project Manager as the best- balanced route considering all the criteria reviewed, followed by Routes 3, 2, 1, and 5.

Based on group discussion of the relative value and importance of each set of criteria (human, natural resources, and cultural) for this specific project, it was the consensus of the group that the length of route utilizing existing transmission line ROW, length paralleling existing transmission line ROW, proximity to previously and newly affected habitable structures, and length of route through upland forests were the primary factors in their decision for selecting the route and ranking the alternative routes. Following the evaluation by discipline, the group of POWER evaluators discussed the relative importance and sensitivity of the various criteria as they applied to all of the alternative routes and the study area. Among these alternatives, and considering the environmental data in Table 4-1, it was the decision of the group that both land use and ecological criteria should be primary route selection factors.

Following this decision, the group selected Route 18 as the route that best addresses PURA and PUCT routing criteria from strictly an environmental, land use, and cultural resource perspective and then agreed on a ranking for the remaining alternatives, starting with the alternative route with the least potential impacts. The result of their discussion and decision is presented in Table 7-1. Following Route 18, the next top five routes were ranked as follows: Routes 3, 2, 1, 5, and 4, in order of preference. The decision to recommend Route 18 was based primarily on the following advantages among the objective criteria:

Route 18:

• has the least number of newly affected habitable structures (10) within 300 feet of the centerline; • has the fourth greatest length utilizing existing transmission line ROW, at 31.88 miles (72 percent of its length); • has the greatest length of paralleling existing transmission line ROW, at 10.74 miles (24 percent of its length); • has the third highest percent of utilizing or paralleling existing linear features (transmission line ROW, other existing compatible ROW, or apparent property lines or other natural or cultural features) for approximately 96 percent of its length; • has the fourth shortest length across bottomland/riparian woodlands, at 1.20 miles; • has the 4th shortest length across upland forest, at 6.31 miles; • has the second shortest length across NWI mapped forested or scrub/shrub wetlands, at 0.10 mile; and • has the second shortest length of route (within 100 feet) to streams and rivers, at 1.15 miles.

In addition, Route 18:

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 193 320 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

• does not cross land irrigated by traveling systems; • does not cross any gravel pits, mines, or quarries; • has no heliports within 5,000 feet of the route centerline; • is not within 20,000 feet of a public use airport having a runway greater than 3,200 feet; • is not within 10,000 feet of a public use airport having a runway less than 3,200 feet; • has no oil and gas wells within 200 feet of its ROW centerline; • crosses no known/occupied habitat of federally endangered or threatened species; and • does not cross or is within 1,000 feet of any sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP.

POWER's Project Manager reviewed all of the data and evaluations produced by the task managers and concurred with the rankings and recommendations for the alternative routes. Therefore, based upon its evaluation of this particular proposed Project and its experience and expertise in the field of transmission line routing, POWER recommends Route 18 from an overall environmental and land use perspective and the remaining routes as alternatives. Considering all pertinent factors, it is POWER's opinion that these routes best satisfy the criteria specified in PURA § 37.056(c)(4) for consideration in the granting of CCNs.

The specification and inclusion of this route within the CCN application does not guarantee its approval by the PUCT. It is included to facilitate the PUCT administrative approval process, but all routes and route segments filed in the application are available for selection and approval by the PUCT.

The map in Appendix E (Habitable Structures and Other Land Use Features in the Vicinity of the Primary Alternative Routes) shows the approximate locations of habitable structures (or groups of habitable structures) within 300 feet of the alternative routes and other land use features in the vicinity of all of the alternative routes. Habitable structures and other land use features, such as communication towers and airports/airstrips, are listed including their distance and direction to the alternative routes in Tables 7-2 through 7-20 (Appendix F).

7.2 ETI's Route Selection

ETI used a consensus process to independently select Route 3 as the primary alternative route that ETI representatives believe best addresses the requirements of PURA and PUCT Substantive Rules for this project. ETI initially reviewed POWER's evaluation and recommendations, followed by a review of each alternative route. This review included the consideration of all of the factors and criteria listed in PURA and the PUCT Substantive Rules including potential environmental, cultural, and land use impacts, engineering and construction constraints, reliability issues, plans for identified transmission and future distribution facilities, and estimated costs. ETI concluded, after reviewing the results of POWER'S routing study and a wide range of factors that Route 3 is the route which best overall addresses the requirements of PURA and the PUCT Substantive Rules. Route 3 is POWER's second ranked route and therefore ranks very well from an environmental and land use perspective. As such, POWER supports ETI's route selection. Overall, ETI selects Route 3 based on the following advantages:

Route 3:

• Has the lowest overall cost of each of the alternative routes at $120,453,450;

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017)141830 LD PAGE 194 321 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quany to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

• has the fourth fewest number of newly affected habitable structures (27) within 300 feet of the centerline; • has the third greatest length utilizing existing transmission line ROW at 33.93 miles; • is tied with two other routes for having the highest percentage of utilizing or paralleling existing linear features (transmission line ROW, other existing compatible ROW, or apparent property lines or other natural or cultural features) for approximately 98 percent of its length; • is tied with three other routes for the second fewest pipeline crossings, at nine; • has the second shortest length across bottomland/riparian woodlands, at 1.02 miles; • has the third shortest length across upland forest, at 5.49 miles; • is tied with two other routes has having the third fewest number of stream or river crossings, at 57; • is tied with two other routes with the third shortest length parallel to streams or rivers, at 1.25 miles; and • is tied with three other routes for having the sixth shortest length across FEMA mapped 100- year floodplains, at 2.33 miles; and

Route 3:

• does not cross land irrigated by traveling systems; • does not cross any gravel pits, mines, or quarries; • has no heliports within 5,000 feet of the route centerline; • is not within 10,000 feet of a public use airport having a runway less than 3,200 feet; • has no oil and gas wells within 200 feet of its ROW centerline; • crosses no N WI mapped forested or scrub/shrub wetlands; • crosses no known/occupied habitat of federally endangered or threatened species; and • does not cross or is within 1,000 feet of any sites listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 195 322. POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

(This page left blank intentionally.)

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 196 3z. 3 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS RESPONSIBILITY NAME TITLE Project Manager Gary McClanahan Project Manager II

Steve Hicks Senior Biologist II Assistant Project Managers Montana Patin Environmental Specialist II Steve Hicks Senior Biologist II Natural Resources David Morgan Biologist I Land Use/ Aesthetics Denise Williams Environmental Planner II

Gary McClanahan Project Manager II Scott Childress GIS Analyst II Gray Rackley GIS Analyst III Austin Streetman GIS Analyst III Public Involvement Kirsten Severud GIS Analyst II Steve Hicks Senior Biologist II Denise Williams Environmental Planner II Darren Schubert Cultural Resource Specialist II Stephen Ross Biologist II Darren Schubert Cultural Resource Specialist II Cultural Resources Jahleen Sefton Field Archeologist Scott Childress GIS Analyst II Maps/Figures/Graphics Gray Rackley GIS Analyst III

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 197 3-zLI POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

(This page left blank intentionally.)

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 198 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

9.0 REFERENCES

AirNav, LLC (AirNav). 2016. Airport Locator internet tool- the pilot's window into a world of aviation information. Available on the internet: http://airnav.com/ (accessed August 2016).

Aten, Lawrence E. 1979. Indians of the Upper Texas Coast: Ethnohistoric and Archaeological Frameworks. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin.

. 1983. Indians of the Upper Texas Coast. New York: Academic Press.

Barker, Eugene C. 2016. "Austin, Stephen Fuller," Handbook of Texas Online. Available on the internet: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/faul4 (accessed July 2016).

Barker, Eugene C. and James W. Pohl. 2016. "Texas Revolution," Handbook of Texas Online. Available on the interne: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qdt01) (accessed July, 2016). Bartholomew, Wayne and Andy Cloud. 1986. A Cultural Resource Evaluation and Assessment for Selected Sites in a Ten County Area, East Texas. Texas Archeological Survey, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, Austin, Texas.

Blair, W.F. 1950. The Biotic Provinces of Texas. Texas Journal of Science. 2:93-117.

Boes, Thomas C. 1992. Archeological Testing and Monitoring at Huntsville State Park, Walker County, Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Brune, Gunnar. 2002. Springs of Texas, Volume I. Texas A&M University Press. College Station, Texas. 566.

Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG). 1992. Geologic Atlas of Texas, Beaumont Sheet. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin. Austin, Texas.

. 1996. Physiographic Map of Texas. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas. Austin, Texas.

Campbell, L. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Animals of Texas: Their Life History and Management. Endangered Resource Branch. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Campbell, Randolph B. 2016. "Antebellum Texas," Handbook of Texas Online. Available on the internet: http://www.tshaonline.orgThandbook/online/articles/npa01 (accessed July 2016).

Chadde, S.W. 2012a. Wetland Plants of Texas, Volume One Monocots. A Bogman Guide. 360pp.

. 2012b. Wetland Plants of Texas, Volume Two Dicots. A Bogman Guide. 506pp.

Christian, Carole E. and John Leffler. 2016. -Waller County," Handbook of Texas Online. Available on the interne: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcw02 (accessed July 2016).

Clark, Jr., John W. 1980. The Woodlands: Archeological Investigations at the Sam Houston Home, Huntsville, Texas. Prewitt & Associates, Inc. Austin, Texas.

Collins, Michael B. 2002. The Gault Site, Texas and Clovis Research. Athena Review 3(2):24-36.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 199 326 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter. F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.

Crow, Michael. 2007. Archaeological Investigations at the 290-Acre Lake Conroe East Development, Montgomery County, Texas. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Houston, Texas.

Dixon, J.R. 2013. Amphibians and Reptiles of Texas: With keys, taxonomic synopses, bibliography, and distribution maps. W.L. Moody Jr. Natural History Series. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. 447 pp.

Dixon J.R. and J.E. Werler. 2005. Texas Snakes — A Field Guide. University of Texas Press. Austin, Texas. 364 pp.

Donaldson, W., A.H. Price, and J. Morse. 1994. The current status and future prospects of the Texas homed lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) in Texas. Texas Journal of Science 46:97-113.

Drake, Doug. 1999. Archaeological Survey Conducted Within Areas Proposed for a Drill Site for Lone Star No. 1 Well, Sam Houston National Forest, Montgomery County, Texas. SWCA, Inc. Environmental Consultants, Austin, Texas.

Driver, David. 2007. A Cultural Resource Survey of Proposed Improvements in the Peckinpaugh Preserve and for One Proposed Spring Creek Greenbelt Trail System Component, Montgomery County, Texas. Moore Archeological Consulting, Inc. Houston, Texas.

Driver, David and Roger Moore. 2012. Test Excavations at 41MQ289, Montgomery County, Texas. Moore Archeological Consulting, Inc., Houston, Texas.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2016a. National Aeronautical Charting Office. Houston Sectional Aeronautical Chart, 97th Edition, Effective March 3, 2016.

2016b. Chart Supplement South Central US (Formerly known as the Airport/Facility Directory South Central US). Available on the internet: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/ flight_info/aeronav/digital_products/dafd/ (accessed August 2016). Effective 21 July, 2016.

. 2016c. Airport Data and Contact Information. Available on the internet: http://www.faa.gov/ airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/ (accessed April 2016) (Last Updated February 4, 2016).

Federal Communication Commission (FCC). 2016. Geographic Information Systems — Licensing Database Extracts. Available on the internet: http://wirelessfec.gov/ (last updated June 2012) (accessed March 2016).

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016. National Flood Hazard Layer. Available on the internet: https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/NFHLWMSkmzdownload (accessed June 2016).

Fields, Ross C. 2004. The Archaeology of the post Oak Savanna of East-Central Texas. . In The Prehistory of Texas Ed. Timothy Pertulla. Texas A & M University Press. College Station, Texas.

Freeman, B. 2012. Birds of the Oaks and Prairies and Osage Plains of Texas, A Field Checklist. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas. 16pp.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 200 327 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Frye, R.G., L. Brown, and C.A. McMahan. 1984. Vegetational Areas of Texas Map. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas.

Garcia-Herreros, Jorge and Anna N. Enderli. 2008. Archaeological Testing of Site 41MQ214, for the Proposed Montgomery Waste Water Treatment Plant, Montgomery County, Texas. Gulf Coast Archaeology Group, LLP, Houston, Texas.

Garner, N.P. and S.E. Willis. 1998. Suitability of habitats in east Texas for black bears. Project No. 85. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Gould, F.W., G.O. Hoffman, and C.A. Rechenthin. 1960. Vegetational areas of Texas. Texas Agricultural Extension Service. L-492.

Greaves. R. D. 2002. Archaeological Survey of Huntsville State Park and Excavations at 41WA47, Walker County, Texas. Archaeological Survey Report, No. 327. Center for Archeological Studies, University of Texas, San Antonio.

Griffith, G., S. Bryce, J. Omernik, and A. Rogers. 2007. Ecoregions of Texas. Project Report to Texas Cornmission on Environmental Quality. Austin, Texas. 125 pp.

Hall, Grant D. 1981. Allens Creek: A Study in the Cultural Prehistory of the Lower Brazos River Valley, Texas. Research Report No. 61. Austin: The University of Texas at Austin, Texas Archeological Survey.

. 2000. Pecan Food Potential in Prehistoric North America. Economic Botany 54: 103-112.

Hatch. S.L., K. Handhi, and L. Brown. 1990. Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Texas. MP-1655. Texas A&M University, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas.

Henke S.E. and W.S. Fair. 1998. Management of Texas Horned Lizards. Wildlife Management Bulletin of the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute. Texas A&M University- Kingsville. No. 2.

Holbrook, Abigail Curlee. 1970. Cotton Marketing in Antebellum Texas. The Southwestern Historical Quarterly (1970): 431-455.

Howells, Robert G. 2013. Field Guide to Texas Freshwater Mussels. Biostudies. Kerrville, Texas. 141 pp.

Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards, and G.P. Garrett. 2008. An annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of Texas, with keys to identification of species, 2"d Edition. Texas Journal of Science 43(4):187.

Hughey, James. 2004. Intensive Pedestrian Survey of the proposed Fish Creek Thoroughfare Expansion Project Area, Montgomery County, Texas. HRA Gray & Pape, Houston, Texas.

Jackson, Charles Christopher. 2016. "Grimes County," Handbook of Texas Online. Available on the internet: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcgl 1 (accessed July 2016).

Kenrnotsu, N.A. and T.K. Perttula (Editors). 1993. Archeology in the Eastern Planning Region, Texas: A Planning Document. Department of Antiquities Protection, Cultural Resource Management Report 3. Texas Historical Commission, Austin, Texas.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 201 328" POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

King, Allison and Crystal Kauk. 2010. An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey of the 51-Acre Willis ISD Manner's Site Development, Montgomery County, Texas. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Houston, Texas.

Kotter, Steven M., Eric A. Schroeder, and James T. Jones. 2000. Final Report on the Archeological Survey of the Fish Hatchery Road and Robinson Creek Municipal Wastewater Improvements Walker County, Texas. Paul Price & Associates, Austin, Texas.

Kotter, Steven M., Eric Schroeder, and Tina Prikryl. 1999. Cultural Resources Impact Assessment of Selected Existing Trail Segments within the Raven Ranger District of the Sam Houston National Forest. Paul Price & Associates, Austin, Texas.

Leffler, John. 2016. "Walker County," Handbook of Texas Online. Available on the internet: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcw01 (accessed July 2016).

Lockwood, M.W. and B. Freeman. 2014. The TOS handbook of Texas birds, Second edition, Revised. Texas A&M University Press. College Station, Texas. 403 pp.

Long, Christopher Long. 2016a. "Montgomery County," Handbook of Texas Online. Available on the intemet: https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hcm17 (accessed July 2016).

. 2016b. "White Man's Union Associations," Handbook of Texas Online. Available on the internet: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/vcw02 (accessed July 2016).

Marek, Marianna and Todd L. Butler. 2014. Intensive Archaeological Survey of Portions of the Proposed Texas Express Pipeline Project, Skellytown to Mont Belvieu, Texas. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Austin, Texas.

McMahan, G.A., R.G. Frye, and K.L. Brown. 1984. The Vegetation Types of Texas - Including Cropland. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Austin, Texas. Available on the Internet: http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bn_w7000_0120.pdf (accessed June 2016).

McNatt, Logan D. 1978. Archeological Survey and History of Huntsville State Park, Walker County, Texas. Cultural Resources Program, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin, Texas.

McNatt, Logan D., Christine G. Ward, Paul Schuchert, Amy Ringstaff, and Margaret Howard. 2001. Archeological Survey and History of Huntsville State Park, Walker County, Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Meyers, Allan D. 1998. Cultural Resource Investigations at Thomason Plantation, City of Huntsville, Walker County, Texas. Moore Archeological Consulting, Inc., Houston, Texas.

Montgomery County. 2016. Parks. Available on the internet: http://www.mctx.org/departments_d- k/departments J-p/parks/index.html (accessed April 2016).

Moore, Roger G. and William E. Moore. 1990. An Archeological Survey of a Proposed Addition to Thomason Park, City of Huntsville, Walker County, Texas. Moore Archeological Consulting, Inc., Houston, Texas.

Moore, William E. 1993. An Archeological Survey of the Proposed Montgomery Plaza, Ltd. Project Montgomery County, Texas. Moore Archeological Consulting, Inc., Houston, Texas.

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017)141830 LD PAGE 202 371 POWER ENGINEERS, INC. The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

. 1997. An Assessment of Prehistoric Site 41WA208 in Walker County, Texas. Brazos Valley Research Associates, Bryan, Texas.

. 2010. An Archaeological Survey for the Water Distribution Improvement Project at Lake Falls Estates in Walker County Texas. Brazos Valley Research Associates, Bryan, Texas.

Moore, William E. and Edward Baxter. 2011. An Archaeological Survey for the City of Conroe Capital Projects LaSalle to League Line Gravity Sewer Main Project in Montgomery County, Texas. Brazos Valley Research Associates, Bryan, Texas.

Moore, William E. and Roger G. Moore. 1992. An Archeological Survey of the Site of the Proposed Montgomery County Municipal Utility District Number 15 Sewage Treatment in Montgomery County, Texas. Moore Archeological Consulting, Houston, Texas.

. 1999. An Archeological Survey of a Proposed Trinity River Authority Water Line Project, Walker County, Texas. Moore Archeological Consulting, Houston, Texas.

National Conservation Easement Database (NCED). 2016. NCED Easements. Available on the internet: http://nced.conservationregistry.org/browse/map (accessed April 2016).

National Park Service (NPS). 2016a. National Parks. Texas. Available on the internet: http://www.nps.gov/state/tx/index.htm?program=all (accessed July 2016).

. 2016b. National Historic Landmarks Program — Lists of National Historic Landmarks - Texas. Available on the internet: http://www.nps.gov/nhl/find/statelists.htm (accessed July 2016) (last updated July 2016).

. 2016c. National Trail System. Available on the internet: https://www.nps.gov/nts/ (accessed July 2016) (last updated April 2016).

. 2016d. National Register of Historic Places Program: Research. Available on the interne: http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm (accessed May and July 2016) (last updated September 2015).

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 1974. Sam Houston House aka "Woodlands," Walker County, Texas, National Register #74002097.

. 1979. Arnold-Simonton House, Montgomery County, Texas, National Register #79002996.

. 1982. John W, Thomason House, Walker County, Texas, National Register #82004528.

. 2013. Austin Hall, Walker County, Texas, National Register #12001134.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1996. Published Soil Survey for Grimes County, Texas. Available on the internet: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/surveylist/soils/ survey/state/?stateld=TX (accessed June 2016).

. 2016. NRCS Soil Web Survey. Available on the internet: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov. usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (accessed June 2016).

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). 2016. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System Wild and Scenic Rivers by State. Available on the interne: http://rivers.gov/map.php (accessed April 2016).

IIOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 203

330 POWER ENGINEERS, INC The Proposed Rocky Creek or Quarry to Lewis Creek 230 kV Transmission Line

Newcomb, W.W. 1961. The Indians of Texas: From Prehistoric to Modern Times. University of Texas Press. Austin, Texas.

Patterson, L.W. 1995. Southeast Texas Archeology. Report Number 12. Houston Archeological Society.

Perttula, Timothy K. and Bo Nelson. 2008. Archeological Survey of Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Texas General Land Office Tracts, ONEOK's Arbuckle Pipeline, Walker County, Texas. Archeological and Environmental Consultants, LLC, Austin, Texas.

Pevey, Jody C. 1981. The Sam Houston Home, 41WA46, Huntsville, Walker County, Texas: 1980- 1981 Archeological Investigations and Monitoring. Prewitt & Associates, Inc. Austin, Texas.

Peyton, Abigail, Russel Brownlow, Jeffery Owens. 2007. An Intensive Cultural Resources Survey and Subsequent NRHP Eligibility Testing of the USACE Jurisdictional Area within the Proposed 4.5 Mile Townsen Road Right-of-Way, Montgomery and Harris Counties, Texas. Horizon Environmental Services, Inc., Austin, Texas.

Pickering, Thomas and James Hughey. 2005. An Intensive Pedestrian Survey of the FM 2854 Expansion Project in Montgomery County, Texas. HRA Gray & Pape, LLC. Houston, Texas.

. 2006. Archaeological Survey on 100 Acres Proposed for Residential Development Along White Oak Bayou, Montgomery County, Texas. HRA Gray & Pape, LLC, Houston, Texas.

Poole, J.M., W.R. Carr, D.M. Price. and J.R. Singhurst. 2007. Rare Plants of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas. 640 pp.

Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC). 2016a. Texas Uranium Exploration Program. Available on the internet: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/mining-exploration/programs/uranium-exploration- program/ (accessed May 2016).

2016b. Historical Coal Mining. Available on the internet: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/mining- exploration/historical-coal-mining/ (accessed May 2016). . 2016c. Public GIS Viewer (Map). Available on the internet: http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/about- us/resource-center/research/gis-viewers/ (accessed June 2016).

. 2016d. Texas Railroad Commission Maps. Available on the intemet: http://wwwsrc.texas.gov (accessed March 2016).

Ricklis, Robert A. 2004. The Archaeology of the Native American Occupation of Southeast Texas. In The Prehistory of Texas Ed. Timothy Pertulla. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, Texas.

Ringstaff, Amy and Logan McNatt. 1998. Huntsville State Park Wastewater Line Survey, 1998 Annual Report, Texas Antiquities Permit 1935. Cultural Resources Program, Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin, Texas.

Sam Houston Memorial Museum. 2016. Available on the internet: http://samhoustonmemonalmuseum. corn/ (accessed Apri12016).

San Jacinto River Authority (SJRA). 2016. Lake Conroe Division. Available on the internet: http://www.sjra.net/lakeconroe/ (accessed June 2016).

HOU 146-020 (PER-02) ENTERGY (4/3/2017) 141830 LD PAGE 204

33/