Table 2-15 Potentially Occurring Winter Migrant Bird Species Within Hale and Floyd Counties, Texas ,

TABLE 2-15 POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WINTER MIGRANT BIRD SPECIES WITHIN HALE AND FLOYD COUNTIES, TEXAS , .... COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME American goldfinch Carduelis tristis American pipit Anthus rubescens American wigeon Anas americana Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Brown creeper Certhia americana Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Canada goose Branta canadensis Canvasback Aythya valisineria Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Chestnut-collared longspur Calcarius ornatus Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina Clark's grebe Aechmophorus clarkii Common goldeneye Bucephala clanqula Common loon Gavia immer Common merganser Merqus merqanser Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Coopers hawk Accipiter cooperii Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Eared grebe Podiceps niqricollis Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Field sparrow Spizella pusilla Gadwall Anas strepera Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Greater scaup Aythya marila Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorus Green-winged teal Anas crecca Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus Herring gull Larus arqentatus Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Horned grebe Podiceps auritus Lapland larkspur Calcarius lapponicus Lesser scaup Aythya affinis Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Long-eared owl Asio otus Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris McCown's longspur Calcarius Mccownii Merlin Falco columbaris

450 COMMON N SCIENTIFIC NAME Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Northern pintail Anas acuta Northern shoveler Pinas clypeata Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps Pine siskin Carduelis pinus Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Redhead Aythya americana Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris Ross goose Chen rossii Rough-legged hawk Buteo laqopus Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Ruddy duck Oxyurajamaicensis Sandhill crane Grus canadensis Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Snow goose Chen caerulescens Song sparrow Melospiza melodia Sora Porzana carolina Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus Swamp sparrow Melospiza qeorqiana Vesper sparrow Pooecetes qramineus Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Wilson's snipe Gallinaqo delicata Wood duck Aix sponsa Yellow-bellied sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-rumoed warbler Dendroica coronata Source: TPWD 2002; Lockwood and Freeman 2004.

TABLE 2-16 POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SUMMER MIGRANT BIRD SPECIES WITHIN HALE AND FLOYD COUNTIES, TEXAS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME American avocet Recurvirostra americana Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Black-chinned hummingbird Archilochus alexandri Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Blue grosbeak Passerina caerulea

451 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Blue-winged teal Anas discors Bullock's oriole Icterus bullockii Cassin's sparrow Aimophila cassinii Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica Cinnamon teal Anas cyanpterra Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Common poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii Dickcissel Spiza americana Eastern phoebe Sayornis niqricans Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Great egret Ardea alba Green heron Butorides virescens House wren Troglodytes aedon Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Lesser goldfinch Cardvelis psaltria Mississippi kite Ictinia mississippiensis Northern rough-winged swallow Stelqidopteryx serripennis Orchard oriole Icterus spurius Painted bunting Passerina ciris Purple martin Proqne subis Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Say's phoebe Sayornis saya Scissor-tailed flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus Swainson's hawk Buteo swainoni Turkey vulture Cathartes aura Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Source: TPWD 2002; Lockwood and Freeman 2004.

Mammals that may potentially occur in the study area based on current range maps and known county records are listed in Table 2-17 (Schmidly 2004). The occurrence of each species will be dependent on suitable habitat available with some species migrating through the study area.

TABLE 2-17 POTENTIALLY OCCURRING MAMMALIAN SPECIES WITHIN HALE AND FLOYD COUNTIES, TEXAS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME American badger Taxidea taxus American parastrelle Parastrellus hesperus Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus

452 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFII^^NAME Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Bobcat Lynx rufus Brazilian free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis Cave myotis bat Myotis velifer Common gray fox Urocyon cinereoarqenteus Coyote Canis latrans Desert cottontail rabbit Sylvilaqus audubonii Desert shrew Notiosorex crawfordi Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Eastern cottontail rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niqer Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis Eastern spotted skunk Spiloqale putorius Feral pig Sus scrofa Fulvous harvest mouse Reithrodontomys fulvescens Hispid cotton rat Siqmodon hispidus Hispid pocket mouse Chaetodipus hispidus Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus House mouse Mus musculus Least shrew Cryptotis parva Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Merriam's pocket mouse Perognathus merriami Mexican ground squirrel Spermophilus mexicanus Mountain lion Puma concolor Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus Northern grasshopper mouse Onychomys leucoqaster Northern pygmy mouse Baiomys taylori Norway rat Rattus norvegicus Ord's kangaroo rat Dipodomys ordii Palid bat Antrozous pallidus Plains harvest mouse Reithrodontomys montanus Plains pocket gopher Geomys bursarius Plains pocket mouse Peroqnathus flavescens Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Raccoon Procyon lotor Red fox Vulpes vulpes Ringtail Bassariscus astutus Rnnf rat Rattus rattus Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Southern plains woodrat Neotoma micropus Spotted ground squirrel Spermophilus spilosoma Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis Swift fox Vulpes velox Texas mouse Peromyscus attwateri

453 COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Townsend's big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii Virginia opossum Didelphis virqiniana Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus White-tailed deer Odocoileus virqinianus White-toothed woodrat Neotoma leucodon Yellow-faced pocket gopher Cratoqeomys castanops Source: Schmidly 2004

Aquatic Communities Open water aquatic habitats within the study area are primarily associated with the playa lakes, small alkaline ponds, and lakes, and the White and North Pease Rivers and associated tributaries. Emergent vegetation within the open water aquatic habitats is typically limited to the shallow areas along the shorelines with hydrophytic tree/shrub species growing near constant level water sources. The divisions of the biotic provinces were separated on the basis of terrestrial vertebrate distributions; however, the distribution of freshwater fishes generally corresponds with the terrestrial province boundaries (Hubbs 1957). The White River which flows inside of Blanco Canyon dissects the center of the study area. The North Pease River is located on the eastern portion of the study area. Both the White River and North Pease drainage systems only flow intermittently due to the high water use for irrigation and the lowered groundwater table.

Aquatic species supported by the ephemeral water regime are typically adapted to rapid dispersal and life cycle completion within pool habitats typically having fine-grained substrates. The intermittent flowing streams and seasonally and smaller ponds likely support aquatic species primarily adapted to ephemeral pool habitats. Because water is present seasonally, the aquatic species assemblage consists primarily of invertebrate species. These intermittent flowing surface waters may support populations of mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), minnows (Cyprinids), killifish (Fundulus spp.) and sunfishes (Lepomis spp.) (Thomas et al. 2007).

2.5.4.6 Threatened and Endangered Species For this routing study, emphasis was placed on obtaining known occurrences of federal and/or state listed threatened and endangered species or areas of their designated critical habitat for consideration in the route development process. Federal and state listings for Hale and Floyd Counties, Texas were reviewed for listed plant and animal species. A TXNDD (2013) report for occurrences of these species within the study area was also reviewed to determine the potential for occurrence within the study area. Species of conservation concern were also listed by TPWD and reviewed; however, these species are not afforded any regulatory protection.

The USFWS maintains a federal listing of all threatened, endangered and candidate species for each county (USFWS 2013b). By definition, under the ESA a threatened species is defined as likely to become endangered within the near foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Candidate species are those that have sufficient information on their biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support listing as threatened or endangered and are likely to be proposed for listing in the near foreseeable future. The ESA also provides for the conservation of "designated critical habitat," which is defined as the areas of land, water, and air space that an endangered species needs for survival. These areas include sites with food and water, breeding areas, cover or shelter sites, and

454 sufficient habitat to provide for normal population growth and behavior for the species. The primary threat to threatened/endangered species is the destruction or modification of critical habitat areas by uncontrolled land and/or water development. No USFWS designated critical habitat is within the study area (USFWS 2013c).

Plants No federal or state listed threatened or endangered plant species were listed for Hale or Floyd Counties (TPWD 2013b; USFWS 2013b).

Animals Threatened and endangered animal species lists were reviewed from the USFWS and TPWD for Hale and Floyd Counties and are summarized in Table 2-18 (TPWD 2013b; USFWS 2013b). Species not designated as federally threatened or endangered are not afforded any regulatory protection under the ESA; however, additional federal and state laws may provide additional regulatory protection.

TABLE 2-18 LISTED SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES FOR HALE AND FLOYD COUNTIES, TEXAS LISTED SPECIES COUNTY LEGAL STATUS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME HALE FLOYD USFWS' TPWD2 Birds Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X X DL T Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus X X DL T Whooping crane Grus americana X X E E Reptiles Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum X X - T Mammals Black-footed ferret Mustela niqripes X X E, EXT EXT Gray wolf Canis lupis X X E, EXT E, EXT Palo Duro mouse Peromyscus truei comanche X = T 1 USFWS 2013b 2 TPWD 2013b E - Federal and/or State Listed Endangered T - Federal and/or State Listed Threatened DL - Federally Delisted EXT - Extirpated

USFWS Listed Species The USFWS Southwest Region Ecological Services (USFWS 2013b) lists only one species as threatened or endangered for Hale and Floyd Counties that is not presumed extirpated from the region, the whooping crane (Grus americana). The federal status of species listed in TPWD Annotated County Lists of Rare Species has been included in Table 2-18 for consistency.

The study area is located outside of and to the west of the primary central migratory corridor within Texas for the whooping crane. The central migratory corridor is approximately 220 miles wide and extends from the nesting grounds located at Wood Buffalo National Park in northern Canada, to the wintering grounds at the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge along the Texas coast. The migratory pathway contains 95% of all confirmed whooping crane stopover sightings during migration through spring 2007 (USFWS 2009). Whooping cranes overwinter in Texas from November through March. During migration, they typically fly at altitudes greater than 1,000 feet but will roost and feed in areas away from human disturbance during nightly stopovers. Stopover areas include large rivers, lakes

455 and associated wetlands, playa lakes, pastureland and cropland (USFWS 2009). This species is not expected to occur in the study area except as a non-breeding incidental migrant.

TPWD Listed Species Additional state and federal listed threatened or endangered species included in TPWD annotated county lists of Rare Species (TPWD 2013b) for Hale and Floyd Counties include the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), Texas horned-lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum), black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes), gray wolf (Canis Lupis), and Palo Duro mouse (Peromyscus truei comanche). A brief life history of each species is summarized in the section below.

The bald eagle was delisted in 2007 by the USFWS because the population had recovered beyond the ESA criteria for listing. The status of the bald eagle population currently is monitored by USFWS and the species is still afforded federal protection under the BGEPA and MBTA. Bald eagles may nest and/or winter in Texas. 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. The bald eagle primarily preys on fish, but will also eat birds, small mammals, and turtles and will often scavenge or steal carrion. The study area is located outside of the known bald eagle nesting and wintering range in Texas (Campbell 2003). Bald eagles are not expected to occur within the study area, except as an uncommon migrant (TPWD 2002).

The peregrine falcon state listing includes two subspecies: American peregrine falcon (F. p. anatum) and Arctic peregrine falcon (F. p. tundrius). Although only the American subspecies is listed as state threatened, both sub-species are listed together due to their similarity of appearance (TPWD 2013b). Both subspecies have been delisted from federal listings due to the recovery of population numbers. The American peregrine falcon inhabits nests in tall cliff eyries and occupies many kinds of habitats during migration, including urban. Stopover habitat during migration may include lake shores and coastlines and the falcon is also a resident breeder in west Texas (TPWD 2013b). Diet primarily consists of other birds such as ducks, shorebirds and seabirds (Alsop 2002). This species is not anticipated to occur in the study area, except as an uncommon migrant (TPWD 2002).

The gray wolf was formerly known throughout the western two-thirds of the state inhabiting forests, brushlands and grasslands. The gray wolf preys on large herbivores such as deer and pronghorn antelope, but will also feed on rabbits, ground squirrels and mice (Schmidly 2004). However, the species is now considered extirpated from the state of Texas and occurrence of a gray wolf within the study area is not anticipated.

The federally-listed endangered black-footed ferret is associated primarily with prairie dog towns and historically ranged in Texas throughout the northwestern portion of the state including the Panhandle, much of the Trans-Pecos, and a considerable part of the Rolling Plains. However, the black footed ferret is now considered extirpated from Texas with the last records from Dallam County in 1953 and Bailey County in 1963 (Schmidly 2004). Therefore, the occurrence of the black-footed ferret within the study area is not anticipated.

TPWD lists the Texas homed lizard as state-listed threatened. The Texas horned lizard population has recently decreased due to collection, land use conversions, habitat loss and increased fire ant populations. The Texas homed lizard inhabits a variety of habitats including open desert, grasslands and shrubland in and 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. Their primary prey item is the harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex spp.), but may also consume grasshoppers, beetles and grubs. The Texas homed lizard thermo-regulates by basking or burrowing

456 into the soil and is active (not hibernating) between early spring to late summer (Henke and Fair 1998). This species may occur within the study area if suitable habitat exists.

The Palo Duro mouse is associated with the steep slopes of the eastern edge of the caprock escarpment where the Llano Estacado drops off into the Rolling Plains. The mouse utilizes rocky juniper-mesquite covered slopes and juniper woodlands within the canyons. The Palo Duro mouse is restricted to Palo Duro Canyon and adjacent canyons in Armstrong, Briscoe, and Randall Counties (Schmidly 2004). This species is not anticipated to occur within the study area, due to a lack of suitable habitat.

2.5.4.7 TPWD Species of Conservation Concern While not regulated, TPWD also lists vertebrate, invertebrate and vascular plant species of conservation concern (TPWD 2013b). Only federally listed threatened and endangered species are protected under the ESA. Species of concern may receive protection under other federal and/or state laws (e.g. the MBTA, TEx. PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE Chs. 64-67, and 78, and 31 TAC Chs. 65 and 69). TPWD generally recommends consideration for these species when routing linear utility corridors. Species of conservation concern are those within the state that are considered rare and carry a global conservation status as determined by Nature Serve (NatureServe 2012a). TPWD promotes the conservation of these species and their habitats. TPWD lists seven bird species, six mammal species and one plant species as species of conservation concern as shown in Table 2-19.

TABLE 2-19 STATE LISTED SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR HALE AND FLOYD COUNTIES, TEXAS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME HALE ,, FLOYD Birds Baird's sparrow Ammodramus bairdii X X Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis X X Mountain plover Charadrius montanus X X Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus X Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus X X Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypuqaea X X Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus X X Mammals Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis X X Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus X X Cave myotis bat Myotis velifer X Pale Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens X X Plains spotted skunk Spiloqale putorius interrupta X X Swift fox Vulpes velox X X Plants Correll's wild-buckwheat Erioqonum correllii X Source: TPWD 2013b

Birds Baird's sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) is a migrant species that inhabits shortgrass prairie with scattered low bushes and matted vegetation. This species is generally migratory with about 60% of the breeding populations in Canada. The non-breeding winter range may extend south to southwest Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Mexico. Habitat loss and degradation due to land conversion to

457 agriculture, grazing and drainage of wetlands have led to population declines in portions of its range. This species may occur within the study area as a rare non-breeding migrant (TPWD 2002; NatureServe 2012b).

The ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) inhabits open prairie, plains and badlands nesting in tall trees or structures. They are frequently observed near active prairie dog towns and primarily feed on rodents and rabbits. Historically, this species nested frequently in the Panhandle, but due to poaching and prairie dog eradication, their numbers have steeply declined. This species may occur within the study area as a non-breeding winter migrant (TPWD 2002; 2013c).

The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus), unlike many other plover species, is not typically found near water. Non-breeding habitat includes shrub steppe, shortgrass prairie, and bare ground landscapes, including plowed fields. This species nests on the ground in shallow depressions in high plains or shortgrass prairie habitats. The mountain plover is insectivorous and primarily forages on crickets, beetles and ants. On two separate occasions the mountain plover was ruled a proposed candidate as a federal threatened or endangered species. But on both occasions the USFWS determined the species was not threatened or endangered throughout all and a significant portion of its range (USFWS 2011 a; TPWD 2013b). This species may occur within the study area as a potential migrant.

The prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) inhabits open plains, grasslands, deserts and prairies, nesting on cliff faces. Wheat fields and other irrigated croplands also are used for foraging in winter. Winter roosts and nesting sites may be located far from foraging areas. These falcons generally prey on small mammals, birds and reptiles. The combination of many events and practices, such as the eradication of prey species, pesticides, habitat loss, change in land use and invasion of exotic species, may have led to population declines in portions of its range. This species may occur within the study area as a non-breeding winter migrant (TPWD 2002; NatureServe 2012c).

The snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) and the western subspecies (C. a. nivosus) both favor alkaline flats and lake or river shoreline habitats. They feed on small insects, crustaceans and other small invertebrates while probing sand or mud substrates. The western snowy plover is listed as federally threatened if within 50 miles of the Pacific coast. Populations are typically scattered and have declined due to habitat loss/degradation, disturbance of nesting sites and impacts by non-native predators. These species may occur within the study area as a transient or casual summer migrant along major waterways (Lockwood and Freeman 2004; NatureServe 2012d).

The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) inhabits open grasslands, such as prairie, plains and savanna, and sometimes in open areas, including vacant lots near human habitation or airports. This species nests and roosts in abandoned mammal burrows. They frequently use the burrow of the black-tailed prairie dog, but have also been observed utilizing other species such as canid (Canidae), mustelid (Musteloidea), and armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) burrows. This species was listed as an ESA candidate species from 1994-1996. They are listed as endangered in Canada and threatened in Mexico and still considered to be a Bird of Conservation Concern by USFWS. They are opportunistic feeders and primarily forage on arthropods, small mammals, amphibians and reptiles (USFWS 2003). This species was observed within the study area during initial field reconnaissance near active prairies dog colonies and near roadside burrows (personal observation, D. Morgan).

Mammals The big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops macrotis) is an opportunistic insectivore feeding primarily on moths, but may also feed on crickets, flying ants, beetles and true bugs. It roosts in rocky landscapes

458 roosting in rock crevices on high cliff faces, but may also roost on buildings. These bats will mate in the spring and give birth to a single pup in June or July. Nursery colonies may range from 20 to 150 individuals. It is thought that records observed in the Panhandle are juveniles dispersing from colonies in the Trans-Pecos (Tuttle 2003; Schmidly 2004). This species may occur within the study area, if suitable habitat is present.

The black-tailed prairie dog lives in large colonies, creating numerous burrows and primarily feeds on plant material. Females may give birth in March or April to a single litter of four or five young per year (Campbell 2003; Schmidly 2004). Historically, they inhabited the short-grass prairies and plains across west Texas and the Panhandle. Today, with the eradication and fragmentation of prairie dog towns associated with the conversion of prairies to agriculture, population numbers for this species decreased rapidly. It is estimated that 98% of the original Texas population has been lost. Populations have shown improvement in the past few years. After USFWS review in 2004, the black-tailed prairie dog was removed as a candidate federal threatened species. Recently, the USFWS announced after a 12-month review that no ESA protection of the species was warranted because potential impacts do not threaten the long-term persistence of the species (USFWS 2011b). TXNDD (2013) data shows two occurrences within the study area. Several additional observations were made within the study area during initial field reconnaissance (personal observation, D. Morgan); these prairie dog colony locations were recorded and mapped.

The cave myotis bat (Myotis velifer) is an insectivorous, cave dwelling, colonial species that also roosts in rock crevices, old buildings, bridges, culverts and bat houses, often near waterways in more and regions. Roosts are often shared with the Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis). Nursery colonies may range from a few dozen to 15,000 individuals and they may hibernate in the Edwards Plateau and Panhandle Regions during the winter (Tuttle 2003; TPWD 2013b). Although locally common, the disruption of roost sites and pesticides has caused threats in portions of their range (Schmidly 2004). This species may occur within the study area if suitable habitat is present.

The Pale Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) is an opportunistic insectivore that roosts in caves, mines and occasionally old buildings. The species hibernates in groups during the winter, and during breeding season maternal colonies are formed. Females may give birth to a single offspring in late May to June. This species may occur in suitable habitats, but historic blasting of caves and mine tunnels potentially destroyed large numbers of these bats (Schmidly 2004; TPWD 2013b).

The plains spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius interrupta) is one of three recognized sub-species of the eastern spotted skunk (S. putorius). The plains spotted skunk is a small slender skunk that lives in a variety of habitats but requires extensive vegetative cover. Habitats include, but are not limited to, wooded or brushy areas and tallgrass prairie, croplands, fence rows, farmyards and forest edges. This skunk is omnivorous and primarily feeds on arthropods rabbits, voles and rats (USFWS 2013b; TPWD 2013b). This species may occur within the study area if suitable habitat is present.

The swift fox lives in dens on sparsely vegetated short-grass prairies, open desert, grasslands and pastureland. Mating pairs are formed in the fall and litters of three to six young are born in March or April. They are largely nocturnal and prey on rabbits, rodents, small birds and insects. The swift fox is susceptible to trapping and historic efforts to eradicate other carnivore species have greatly reduced their numbers (Schmidly 2004). In 1995, the USFWS determined that the swift fox was a candidate to be listed as threatened, but was not listed due to higher priority species. Due to recent conservation and management efforts, in 2001 the USFWS decided not to list the fox and to remove it from candidate status. The TXNDD (2013) data reports six occurrences of the swift fox within the study

459 area. Five of these occurrences were recorded between 1961 and 1965. This species may occur within the study area if suitable habitat is present.

Plants Correll's wild-buckwheat (Eriogonum correllii) occurs on gypsum outcrops, flats, clay mounds, caprock, and rocky ledges on caliche and gypsum substrates within the Rolling Plains (Pool et al. 2007; TPWD 2013b).

2.5.4.8 TPWD Rare Plant Communities Other information typically included in TXNDD report data, but not on county lists, include rare natural plant communities. Review of the TXNDD (2013) element occurrence records did not indicate any rare natural plant communities within the study area (TPWD 2013d; TXNDD 2013).

460 3.0 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE DEVELOPMENT The objective of this EA was to develop and evaluate an adequate number of geographically diverse alternative routes that comply with the routing criteria in PURA § 37.056(c)(4)(A)-(D) and P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.101(b)(3)(B), including the PUCT's policy of prudent avoidance. This section describes the alternative route development process, which began with mapping constraints and 66 preliminary alternative links. Considering input received from an initial series of two public open- house meetings, the preliminary alternative links were modified and 83 preliminary alternative links were presented at an additional open-house meeting. The additional open-house meeting was held to provide information to and receive input from landowners potentially affected by modifications and additions to the preliminary alternative links presented at the initial open-house meetings. Ultimately 21 alternative routes were developed from 83 alternative links. Each phase of this alternative route development process is described in detail below.

3.1 CONSTRAINTS MAPPING In an effort to minimize potential impacts to sensitive environmental and land use features, the alternative route development process began with a constraints mapping process wherein POWER initially identified and mapped the geographic locations of environmentally sensitive and other restrictive areas within the study area. This mapping process resulted in an environmental and land use "composite constraints map" for the study area.

POWER considered the following in development of the composite constraints map:

• Resource Value: A measure of rarity, intrinsic worth, singularity, or diversity of a resource within a particular area. • Protective Status: A measure of the formal concern as expressed by legal protection or special status designation. • Present and Known Future Uses: A measure of the level of potential conflict with land management and land use policies. • Hazards: A measure of the degree to which construction and operation of the transmission line could be affected by a known resource hazard.

Through the constraints mapping process, POWER identified both constraint areas and areas of potential routing possibilities, and used the constraints map to develop and refine possible alternative links. To the extent feasible and practicable, POWER avoided identified constraints to minimize potential impacts or conflicts.

In accordance with PURA § 37.056(c) and P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25. 101 (b)(3)(B)(i)-(iii), POWER also considered opportunities to parallel or utilize existing compatible linear land uses, and identified numerous such opportunities. Locating a transmission line adjacent to linear land uses typically minimizes environmental impacts due to existing adjacent disturbances, improved access, and decreased habitat fragmentation. Examples of linear land uses identified within the study area include electrical transmission lines, roadways (though habitable structures are frequently located near these features), railways, pipelines, and apparent property boundaries.

3.2 ALTERNATIVE ROUTE IDENTIFICATION 3.2.1 Preliminary Alternative Links The POWER planning team-comprised of technical experts within the resource fields of land use, aesthetics, ecology, and cultural resources-used the composite constraints map, in conjunction with

461 existing aerial photography, to identify preliminary alternative links to connect the Project's endpoints. To the extent practicable, the POWER planning team sought to maximize the use of opportunity areas while avoiding areas of higher environmental constraint or conflicting land uses. Information that was used to identify the preliminary alternative links included the following:

• Input received from correspondence with local officials, regulatory agencies, and others; • Results of reconnaissance surveys of the study area; • Aerial photography; • Findings of various data collection activities; • Environmental and land use constraints data; • Apparent property boundaries; • Existing compatible linear land use opportunities; and • Location of existing development.

To comply with PURA § 37.056(c)(4)(A)-(D) and P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.101, POWER identified an adequate number of environmentally acceptable and geographically diverse preliminary alternative links while also considering such factors as community values, parks and recreation areas, historical and aesthetic values, environmental integrity, route length parallel to existing compatible corridors or parallel to apparent property boundaries, and the PUC's policy of prudent avoidance. The proposed links were also reviewed by Sharyland and POWER from an engineering and constructability standpoint.

Sharyland and POWER identified 66 preliminary alternative links. These preliminary alternative links were presented at public open-house meetings as further discussed below (see Figure 3-1 and the open-house handout map in Appendix B).

3.2.2 Initial Public Meetings Sharyland initially hosted two public open-house meetings within the study area to solicit comments from landowners, public officials, and other interested residents and parties regarding the preliminary alternative links. These meetings were held on the following dates at the following locations:

• August 6, 2013 - Floyd County Friends Unity Center, Halfway between Lockney and Floydada, Texas on Highway 70, at Muncy, Texas • August 8, 2013 - City of Abernathy City Hall, 811 Avenue D, Abernathy, Texas

Landowners along each of the preliminary alternative links as identified from the Hale and Floyd Counties Appraisal Districts' tax rolls were invited to attend. Sharyland also informed local and other elected officials of the open-house meetings. The purpose of the meetings was to:

• Promote a better understanding of the Project, including the purpose, need, potential benefits and impacts, and the PUCT CCN application submittal and approval process; • Inform and educate the public about the routing procedure, schedule, and decision-making process; • Solicit input from potentially affected landowners on the preliminary route alternatives; and • Ensure that the decision-making process adequately identifies and considers the values and concerns of the public and community leaders.

A public open-house meeting notice letter was mailed to 720 landowners who own property located within 500 feet of the preliminary alternative link centerlines. This notice included maps depicting the

462 preliminary alternative links and a questionnaire. An example of the notice letter, including its attachments, is provided in Appendix B.

Rather than a formal presentation in a speaker-audience format, each public meeting was held in an open-house format. Several information stations were set up around the meeting room. Each station was devoted to a particular aspect of the Project and was manned by representatives of Sharyland, Black & Veatch (Sharyland's engineering consultant), Coates Field Service, Inc. (Sharyland's property research consultant), and POWER. Large displays of maps, illustrations, photographs, and/or text explaining particular topics were presented at the stations. In addition to the manned stations, at each meeting attendees could watch a video that provided an overview of the Project.

Interested citizens and property owners were encouraged to first view the video and then visit each station in a particular order so the entire process and general Project development sequence could be explained clearly. The open-house or information station format is advantageous because it facilitates one-on-one discussions and encourages personalized landowner interactions. The open-house format also encourages more interaction from landowners who might be hesitant to participate in a speaker- audience format.

When individuals arrived at the open-house meetings they were asked to sign a sign-in sheet and if the individual was mailed a notice letter, then the individual was provided a card with information to assist in locating their property on aerial map boards displayed at the meetings. Attendees were also provided a questionnaire if they did not bring one from a mailed notice letter. The questionnaire solicited comments on the Project and an evaluation of the information presented at the public meeting. Other informational handouts were available and included maps of the preliminary links, frequently asked questions, the Landowner Bill of Rights, and a flyer describing GSEC's new generation project. Example copies of the questionnaires and other materials were posted on Sharyland's website and are provided in Appendix B.

After visiting the information stations, individuals were asked to complete the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were returned either at the meeting or later by mail; however, not all respondents answered every question.

3.2.2.1 Initial Public Meetings (August 6 and August 8, 2013) A total of 137 individuals attended the August 6, 2013 public open-house meeting held at the Floyd County Friends Unity Center according to the sign-in sheet, with 55 submitting questionnaire responses at the meeting. A total of 81 individuals attended the August 8, 2013 public open-house meeting held at City Hall in the City of Abernathy according to the sign-in sheet, with 32 submitting questionnaire responses at the meeting. Results from the questionnaires were reviewed and analyzed. Responses to general information questions are shown in Table 3-1.

463 (This page left blank intentionally)

464 N Z !n w ^a ^ -o S _ ^ J I• 1 . - J

Y> N t- N Y Y D C

W K C A E O Q C C a C J L T Y U N 'Ô a t0 C 'a ca c -,-z C O l0 N 2 l0 L O N O 8 ^ Q^ ot0 Q d w C C a e' a y N L ^~ m Q >~W E F 07 Q Ôl YO .. T tO N T > O ^• `n , W W 3 uî lLL N dl £ E m `-' in c ^ `r = °` aCi d s o 7E U, 0 0 s a.. E c EL (L a a` a w H (n LL U O^ c> 0 W^ c (^ "o 5 ^ ^- U) a) LJ 4I , Sg, . , w x a F- y^ ^ • ^ © © . ® ^ ^ . --- zw U d J : ^ 0

• ___ " _---- . I F; t .. n

-_ i__ ^ v.•a n '^ -_ -- _ ^_ ' _ _-_ ^•_ I -_. a rv

rr ^,- r ^ • ry ^" ^ ° _ _ _ ^ __- _ ____ a rv ^ 9 erp.ntl .... rv V _ - 1 rv rv - -- _ ^ -- ^ T _ . pentl Nun ^ n°J w Y ` ^' ^^'^ m .v PV .^ I , . crP.=aNmw] x. v s Sc ° rv - ^ = ey u ,rpeoa Nun _ o - --.... ° e^ -- .. ' e I q ^ i_ _ rv rv

H y rv ^ t pe• _ - m a m I ^e P aNU^ _ - ^ ^ ------, ' ^ I--ex e°yNunn] _ ^ ^„ m . rv N m ^ v f4unoD pAo13 = = W ---x ------33 p.°a-- ,unn]--- - - iWnoJ 3172H 0 0 $I '^ 33p.°L run°]^ ^ ^^a ^ e rv dP, ^ m ^. ------V a ------myNniw, -- F " - ^ a ` e ------' _ _ ^:, » I m „n ° L --- ,]P.ntl c------" '------e ^ rv ^ v " ^ ^ i ^ m - ---- yyP.°a .n°o ------^ ------

h ^, m" Mn e

` .oa^ u•o> :3vi p °aNnnoâ Î - - S ------^"^ ---- ^- - ti ------a ^-- e , o ri , = » - A.^^ aNun°] e ------hr.^------Âpe - " ^ ------m------t ------. srv m - _ rv : - g - - g ------.,..^ ^. r r "' a o ° R ^ I . ^ ^, _ - -_ ^ << n ^ ^_ rv ^ a q `^ _ o m „ rv ••] ^ ------m M..°a.^. ----: - - /nP.uanwn ]^-pa- ^.w, ------. ° Mp.• uNn"no] i m " & ------°--c------` ---- + v - - - .. r . - - =-a ------u^ê^ ------'.. ------..------^------^ a ------.a Nnne]------,.. ^ © s . a . ------'E ^-- -a ' _ ^p.atl -•^] --- - - a ------^ " " rv v e a s - -" - " ^ -- ^ " a ^ ^ -^ - - o ^ npeo yNu ]

------^ ov _ _------_-_ --_ -__ ------o p s m • ^ ^

o v v

. -_ ry pa un6 _-. . -!^ - • v I

v rv w n ^ ^ A

\ ° u m Pe°tl uno] ^ - - _-_P _ __ - ^c ::`------m c^ ^$ o o a Pe ° tlN nn]

o n - Q n " i . r ^ \ o ^ t ^ • ` .. lenaP uno +_ - ^ -y - -- -- +^

m - r m i - v u

E ° - s. m ui.w ° ^ ^ - ^^. 7

.20

»p.°a .^] ----- ^ - - - qx ------.r -- --_._.------^^ ------^ - a, ------_? - - _ s . e^ o _ ig w

e . c m a ^ peeaNMY ^ - e ------^ c - - - ^- - - e a --- - e^ rv wpee N a^ ------,^ ^ rv m " " m rv rv rv ^ v ° " a m " _^ _ < m

4) OI

ti Y @ , a `N^ ^ Y_C NT a a N O^ J ^ N Y^ y_^ ,. J Cd1o N UJ J n . - <. S t0 Y > YI ^ N N Z C f/J J T € W^ ^ ` p o YC YC a C J L T U y a ^ i N W J J J _ Y C C l0 'O f0 8 _ 0 S IO L n.^. C N C T w N O m O m o_o w e a 3 rn ^ m o m w W Q q Z t ^o >. E E :•' u bEi o y m 6i 11 q ^ m LL (n N A y c - _ a° E C o m m > x m m rn m 0 ~p 0= -BW -?: WW3? o CL a a a w r in LL U c> > 0 a u^ E ^^ CN'J v ^ , • ® © . ® ^ ^ . __ ^^ ^ 4f ,,^. g _-..... W zw^. ' o U a J ^ ^O

< ^ i ° ^^P Ic m = ^ rl m^r, xn.eaxt------.c ------_ i f.- c --- - ^ _-_- d b x ' -

O ------pe°aN.n ------r. -- zp y. v D ^' _- ry 00 ° ^ o 0 n n

4 N °a ^ 9Z2^u - _ - . -- ______- -._..., ° - ~ a m ^.! ..°yN -- - _ ¢

° ° ,. °^ ry e, m _ . ,. N o - -- - e ------°° i_' y __ ^ -- - • m p a^^.o^- -- 1 - 6 • ^ 0 0 - 0 ------^_ --^-..=a un°^ o a ------^- m,„ _ m a M. ^ --^ ------,.lp.ny unn^ m ^ r d ° r. ^ M v r m n. ° s a m, _

m € I > ^ .rt^ ^, ^- - _ "' v. «`° ^ 3 m m m ----- m - m o a• m u - ^' m m _ ---

i^ --- - • _ --___.. ° - -- ^- u^pennNun°9 ------qy p N nn^ ry rv

m . _ n ° ^- o •-- _ _ `° y _

------enaNun __ _ _ _^ o ° m m r t{ ^ a m ° <, ^ _^" r a un, a •^Q ^^^^ no^ , " ^ o ° n ° D Q „ -- - - m °e=a unn, ^ ^ x ---- ° : ^ ° •m ' ^ a ^ = i ------g i - .___ -- _-_-- zct °a ^un°u ! ^ m ; D . 9^r;^kv d a. m ^z m a _ ^ ., o - -_

_ _ _ u i a y i, __ p m ^ •.c .c .n vr^ ry n .. • I v: m -__ n u. v, ^ r r ^ r __ ^ __ -__

- ^ A Yx. m m m _ _ ------1t s ^ m penyNune. --- ,o' w^

^ i

- i ' rI , a; r m m m

^ r - - m --L - ^ = u°m S no m ° f o L m D r -_ __- _^ rv m n a ° . ^^ ^`' I u^ m ° r. • ____ pOpena un°^ '^.e, o elVmyR _ __ e r -_v- r u i e v

y unna m '° n ..o N m . - e, .Ip•°yNun°a m ^ m

G l0

u) Of c0 TABLE 3-1 GENERAL RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONNAIRES (INITIAL PUBLIC MEETINGS) GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES PERCENTAGE (%) OF RESPONDENTS Potential line route location* Near home 19.4% Near business 3.2% On Land 68.8% Other 8.6%

Property Land Use* Rangeland/ Native Pasture 11.51% CRP 22.30% Cultivated Farmland 24.46% Irrigated Farmland (Specify) 28.78% Row 23.08% Drip 36.92% Sprinkler 40.00% Non-Irrigated Farmland 8.63% Other 4.32% *Respondents may have provided input in more than one category

The questionnaire presented a list of 12 factors that are taken into consideration for a routing study (a complete list of the criteria listed on the questionnaire is provided in Appendix B). Respondents were asked to rank each of these criteria (with 1 being the most important factor, and 12 being the least important factor). The results are shown in Table 3-2.

TABLE 3-2 AVERAGE RANKING OF IMPORTANCE (INITIAL PUBLIC MEETINGS) CONSIDERATION FACTOR* AVERAGE RANK Maximize paralleling of existing ROW 3.71 Maximize distance from residences 4.07 Maximize distance from public parks 9.04 Maximize paralleling of property lines 3.82 Minimize visibility of the lines 7.25 Minimize impacts to agricultural lands 2.57 Minimize costs 5.79 Maintain reliable electric service 4.53 Minimize impacts to floodplains and wetlands 7.93 Maximize distance from historic sites and cultural resource sites 8.16 Minimize impacts to wildlife 7.89 Other 10.87 *Questionnaire asked to rank items in order of importance (1=Most Important; 12 = Least Important)

Respondents were also asked if there are other factors that should be considered, and if they had any comments regarding the listed factors. Responses included:

• Concerns on limiting agricultural land uses (crop production, irrigation, wells);

469 • Concerns about reduction of property values; • Impacts on future wind farm development; • Concerns about reduction in usable property; • Safety concerns for humans; • Concerns about visual impacts; • Possibility of underground transmission lines; • Compliance with National Electric Safety Code; • Concerns about impacts to CRP; and • Concerns about multiple easements on one property (even if paralleling existing transmission lines).

Respondents were also asked if there are other features in the study area that are important, and if so, to please describe them. Responses included:

• Pipeline locations; • Drilling of new water wells; • Current construction of another transmission line; • Current and abandoned irrigation water wells; • Pastures with livestock; • Underground drip/row irrigation; • Center pivot irrigation, sprinkler systems; • Barbed wire fences; • Landowner has health issues; • Potential new wind farm development; • Too close to residences; and • Cattle barns.

When asked if respondents preferred a combination of route segments, and if so, why, respondents listed several route segments. Reasons why they preferred these route segments included:

• It would cross our property; • Least impact to my property/cropland/CRP; • Not by residences; • Follows section/property lines; • Least impact on agricultural practices, CRP, wildlife, land; • Takes up less land; • None, I don't want it/impacts property values; • Distance from residences; • Runs parallel to existing lines; • Most direct route; • Unknown, effects on existing easements; and • Put it on our property, we need the money.

When asked if respondents had concerns with any particular links and why, respondents listed multiple links. Links 7, 25, and 50 were listed the most at five times; Links 32, 46, and 51 were listed four times; and Links 6, 18, and 34 were listed three times. Links 3b, 9, 44, 48, and 61 were listed twice; and Links 2, 3a, 5, 8, 19, 20, 24, 31, 38, 43, 49, 53, 54, 55, 57, 60, and 65 were each listed once. Respondents' concerns with these links included:

470 • Impacts to water wells and crop irrigation; • Impacts on farming practice and agricultural lands; • Impacts to property values/landowner income; • Impacts to internet and phone services; • Multiple transmission lines on landowners property; • Impacts on farming practice and agricultural lands; • Impacts to water wells and crop irrigation; • Crosses landowners property; • Proximity to grain elevator; • Proximity to residences; • Proximity to future land development; • Impacts to future wind turbine development; • Impacts to wildlife; and • Impacts to aerial spraying to croplands.

The questionnaire also provided a space for respondents to include any additional remarks and comments. Comments and responses included:

• Regrets for agreeing to allow other transmission lines on property; • Good meeting, thank you; • Can you tie into existing lines?; • Thank you for your consideration; • Quad structures are ugly, use H-frame structures; • Concerns about interference with crop irrigation; • Use non-irrigated cropland, less agricultural disruption • Concerns about impacts on wind farm development; • We would like this line to be on our land; and • The line would work better somewhere else.

3.2.2.2 Mailed Comments A total of 28 questionnaires and two letters commenting on the Project were received by Sharyland after Sharyland mailed the initial public meeting notices. Results from the questionnaires were reviewed and analyzed. Responses to general information questions are shown in Table 3-3.

TABLE 3-3 GENERAL RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONNAIRES (INITIAL PUBLIC MEETINGS MAILED COMMENTS)- GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES PERCENTAGE (%) OF RESPONDENTS Potential line route location* Near home 21.9% Near business 0.0% On Land 65.6% Other 12.5%

Property Land Use* Rangeland/Native Pasture 7.14% CRP 16.07%

471 GENERAL INFORMATION RESPONSES PERCENTAGE ( o) OF RESPONDENTS Cultivated Farmland 30.36% Irrigated Farmland (Specify) 30.36% Row 28.00% Drip 16.00% Sprinkler 56.00% Non-Irrigated Farmland 12.50% Other 3.57% "Respondents may have provided input in more than one category

TABLE 3-4 AVERAGE RANKING OF IMPORTANCE (INITIAL PUBLIC MEETINGS MAILED COMMENTS) CONSIDERATION FACTOR' AVERAGE RANK Maximize paralleling of existing ROW 3.83 Maximize distance from residences 3.33 Maximize distance from public parks 7.69 Maximize paralleling of property lines 4.07 Minimize visibility of the lines 5.92 Minimize impacts to agricultural lands 1.57 Minimize costs 6.64 Maintain reliable electric service 4.69 Minimize impacts to floodplains and wetlands 6.06 Maximize distance from historic sites and cultural resource sites 8.13 Minimize impacts to wildlife 6.42 Other 9.25 `Questionnaire asked to rank items in order of importance (1=Most Important; 12 = Least Important)

When asked if there are other factors that should be considered, and if they had any comments regarding the listed factors, respondents provided the following:

• Location of high-pressure gas lines; • Concerns about impacts on wind farm development; • Concerns about structure type and weed control; • Impacts of multiple transmission line on property; • Concerns with damage to CRP lands; • Underground drip/row irrigation; • Center pivot irrigation, sprinkler systems; and • Concerns about line placement in regards to existing Xcel Energy transmission lines.

Respondents also were asked if there are other features in the study area that are important, and if so, to please describe them. Responses included:

• Current and abandoned irrigation water wells;

472 • Abandoned barns/structures; • Concerns about potential wind farm development; • Residence/structure locations; • Underground drip/row irrigation; and • Center pivot irrigation, sprinkler systems.

When asked if respondents preferred a combination of route segments, and if so, why; respondents listed several route segments. Reasons why they preferred these route segments included:

• There are no gas lines; • No particular reason, I like the activity of the transmission and wind turbines; • Use railroad ROW; • Least impact on agricultural practices, CRP, wildlife, land; • Less irrigation to disrupt; • Crosses more dry farmland/CRP; • Most direct route; and • Least impact to my property/cropland/CRP.

When asked if respondents had concerns with any particular links and why, respondents listed multiple links. Links 25 and 35 were listed the most at three times; Links 10, 26, 44, and 50 were listed twice; and Links 6, 9, 21, 22, 24, 32, 36, 43, 55, and 57 were each listed once. Respondents' concerns with these links included:

• Impacts to CRP lands; • Impacts to future wind turbine development; • Human health concerns; • Proximity to residences; • Crosses landowners property; • Impacts on farming practice and agricultural lands; • Impacts to water wells and crop irrigation; • Impacts to wildlife; • Visibility of the line from residences; and • Multiple transmission lines on landowners property.

The questionnaire also provided a space for respondents to include any additional remarks and comments. Comments and responses included:

• We are willing to negotiate if our concerns are answered; • Concerns about human safety; • Concerns about loss of agricultural production; • Lands already impacted by existing transmission lines; • Concerns about using airplanes near lines to spray crops; and • Our land can be considered for a storage lot during construction if interested.

3.2.3 Correspondence Received From Agencies/Officials As described previously in Section 2.1.5, POWER contacted federal, state, and local regulatory agencies, elected officials, and organizations regarding the Project. As of the date of this document,

473 written replies to the letters sent in relation to the study area were received from the following agencies or offices:

• Federal: FEMA, NPS, NRCS, USACE; • State: GLO, TARL, THC, TPWD, TWDB, TXNDD, TxDOT; and • Local and Other Organizations: South Plains Association of Governments (SPAOG) and Lockney Independent School District (LISD).

Copies of all correspondence with these agencies and offices are included in Appendix A. All agency comments, concerns, and information received were taken into consideration by Sharyland, and POWER in the preparation of this EA. Additionally, the information received from the agencies and offices will be taken into consideration by Sharyland before and during construction of the Project. Written responses to letters sent in relation to the study area that were received as of the date of this document are listed and summarized below Although not included as written responses, POWER also reviewed TXNDD Element Occurrence Records from TPWD (TXNDD 2013). POWER also reviewed previously recorded archeological site information from the TARL, and reviewed the THC's Texas Historic Site Atlas (THC 2013) for additional cultural resource information.

The FEMA submitted a response letter dated May 16, 2013, requesting that the flood plain administrators for the counties included in the study area be contacted for possible permit requirements for the Project.

The NPS submitted a response email dated July 5, 2013, stating that it had no comments on the Project at the time of the letter.

The NRCS submitted a response letter dated May 14, 2013, stating that they had evaluated the study area as required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA). They encouraged the use of accepted erosion control methods and identified hydric soils in the study area as having the potential to be wetlands. The NRCS stated that transmission lines are exempt from the FPPA because they are not a conversion of important farmlands and the site can still be used after construction. The NRCS letter also stated that any new substations constructed in the study area would fall under FPPA and require a Form AD-1006. This statement is incorrect because the FPPA only applies to projects receiving federal funding or federal assistance. Since this Project is not federally sponsored, the FPPA does not apply.

The USACE submitted a letter dated June 5, 2013, that cited regulations under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and under Section 404 of the CWA. The USACE indicated that there are no Section 10 waters present, but that there are numerous Section 404 waters within the study area. The USACE requested that a site description and complete construction plans be submitted concerning any planned impacts to possible jurisdictional areas. The letter also stated that the USACE had assigned to the Project a regulatory project manager and Project Number SWT-2013-347. Prior to construction, Sharyland will conduct an assessment of the PUCT approved route to determine if there would be any planned impacts to possible jurisdictional areas. If necessary, Sharyland will coordinate with the USACE prior to clearing and construction to ensure compliance with Section 404 of the CWA.

The GLO responded with a letter dated May 16, 2013, and stated that the GLO 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 Project crosses any streambeds or Permanent School Fund (PSF) land that would require an easement.

474 The THC responded with a letter dated May 27, 2013, stating that the proposed area includes numerous archeological sites. After precise routes have been identified and a POWER archeologist has identified high probability areas, the THC offered to review the methodology and probability maps, when available.

The TPWD provided a response letter dated July 15, 2013. The Wildlife Division of TPWD provided a tracking number (ERCS-605 1) and provided several recommendations. In summary, TPWD recommended avoiding or minimizing potential impacts to native vegetation, nesting migratory birds, listed or rare species, and wetlands, and recommended providing a mitigation plan.

The TWDB provided a letter dated May 15, 2013, and stated that it appears the Project would not conflict with any recommended water management strategies in the regional or state water plans.

The TxDOT submitted a letter dated May 22, 2013, from the Environmental Affairs Division. It stated they had completed their review of the proposed study area and had no concerns.

The SPAOG submitted a letter dated May 23, 2013, stating that they have no authority to conduct reviews for transmission line projects.

The LISD submitted a letter dated May 14, 2013, stating that they are not aware of any environmental or land use constraints in the study area.

3.2.4 Modifications to Preliminary Alternative Links Following the initial public open-house meetings, Sharyland and POWER performed an analysis of the input, comments, and information received at and following the open house meetings, and from follow-up meetings and communication with landowners. The purpose of this analysis was to identify issues warranting modification to the preliminary alternative links, including whether new links should be developed that were not presented at the meetings. Several preliminary alternative links were modified and some new links were added. Below is a list summarizing these modifications:

• New links 67, 68, 69, 70, 73 and 74 were added to increase geographic diversity near the Project end points; • New links 71 and 72 were added as alternatives to links 28 and 39, as they would have fewer habitable structures within 500 feet of the route centerline; • Link 18 was moved slightly east to increase its distance from a pipeline; • Links 9, 16, 36, 38, 39, and 55 were straightened in places to reduce the number of angles; • Links 41 and 42 were moved to the north side of FM 37 in order minimize impacts to irrigation operations; • A portion of link 58 was modified (moved south) to avoid a cemetery; • A portion of link 7 was moved approximately 0.5 mile north to improve its paralleling of compatible ROW and apparent property lines; • A portion of link 9 was modified to minimize impacts to irrigation operations; • Link 48 was moved to the east side of CR S to avoid impacts to a municipal water supply pipeline; and • A portion of link 60 was moved 0.5 mile south to minimize impacts to agricultural operations and improve its paralleling of existing 345 kV transmission line ROW.

The following links were renamed (divided) due to new links being added:

475 • 3b divided into 3b, 3c, and 3d (result of new links 67, 68, and 69); • 5a divided into 5a and 5b, 5b renamed to 5c (result of new link 70); • 20 divided into 20a and 20b (result of new link 71); • 31 divided into 31a and 31b (result of new links 71 and 72); • 43 divided into 43a and 43b (result of new link 72); • 64 divided into 64a and 64b (result of new links 73 and 74); and • 65 divided into 65a and 65b (result of new links 73 and 74).

3.2.5 Additional Public Meeting (October 15, 2013) Based on modifications to the preliminary alternative links presented at the August 2013 public meetings, Sharyland determined it would hold an additional public open-house meeting for landowners affected by the modifications. A public meeting for these landowners was held on October 15, 2013 at the City of Abernathy City Hall, 811 Avenue D, Abernathy, Texas. A notice letter for the additional public meeting was mailed to 234 landowners with an updated preliminary alternative routes map. As with the August 6 and 8, 2013 public meetings, the purpose of the October 15, 2013 meeting was to:

• Promote a better understanding of the Project, including the purpose, need, potential benefits and impacts, and the PUCT CCN application approval process; • Inform and educate the public about the routing procedure, schedule, and decision-making process; • Solicit input from potentially affected landowners on the preliminary route alternatives; and • Ensure that the decision-making process adequately identifies and considers the values and concerns of the public.

As with the August 2013 public meetings, this public meeting was held in an open-house format with representatives of Sharyland, Black & Veatch (Sharyland's engineering consultant), Coates Field Service, Inc. (Sharyland's property research consultant), and POWER. Aside from updated preliminary alternative links, the same information was provided at the October 2013 public meetings as was provided at the August 2013 meetings and it was presented in the same format.

As at the August 2013 meetings, after visiting with Project representatives, individuals were asked to complete the questionnaire. Completed questionnaires were returned either at the meeting or later by mail; however, not all respondents answered every question.

A total of 56 individuals attended the October 15, 2013 public open-house meeting according to the sign-in sheet, with 25 submitting questionnaire responses at the meeting and one submitting the questionnaire by mail before the meeting. Results from the questionnaires were reviewed and analyzed. Responses to general information questions are shown in Table 3-5.

476 TABLE 3-5 GENERAL RESPONSE SUMMARY FROM QUESTIONNAIRES (ADDITIONAL PUBLIC MEETING) GENERAI. INFORMATION RESPONSES PERCENTAGE (%) OF RESPONDENTS Potential line route location* Near home 11.1% Near business 3.7% On Land 85.2% Other 0.0% Property Land Use* Rangeland/Native Pasture 13.33% CRP 15.56% Cultivated Farmland 24.44% Irrigated Farmland (Specify) 35.56% Row 31.82% Drip 36.36% Sprinkler 31.82% Non-Irrigated Farmland 8.89% Other 2.22% *Respondents may have provided input in more than one category

TABLE 3-6 AVERAGE RANKING OF IMPORTANCE (ADDITIONAL PUBLIC MEETING) CONSIDERATION FACTOR' AVERAGE RANK Maximize paralleling of existing ROW 4.21 Maximize distance from residences 4.00 Maximize distance from public parks 7.80 Maximize paralleling of property lines 4.07 Minimize visibility of the lines 7.20 Minimize impacts to agricultural lands 2.00 Minimize costs 6.11 Maintain reliable electric service 3.82 Minimize impacts to floodplains and wetlands 8.89 Maximize distance from historic sites and cultural resource sites 9.33 Minimize impacts to wildlife 6.11 Other 12.00 *Questionnaire asked to rank items in order of importance (1 =Most Important; 12 = Least Important)

When asked if there are other factors that should be considered, and if they had any comments regarding the listed factors, respondents provided the following:

Concerns about agricultural practices near line; Concerns about impacts on cropland; Underground drip/row irrigation;

477 • Center pivot irrigation, sprinkler systems; • Impacts of multiple transmission lines on property; • Concerns with distance from residences; and • Concerns about impacts on future wind farm development and oil/gas production.

Respondents also were asked if there are other features in the study area that are important, and if so, to please describe them. Responses included:

• Current and abandoned irrigation water wells; • Impacts to barns/fences; • Prairie dog town; • Concerns about visibility of the line from residences; • Underground drip/row irrigation; • Center pivot irrigation, sprinkler systems; • Pasture with livestock; and • Concerns about weed control.

When asked if respondents preferred a combination of route segments, and if so, why, respondents listed several route segments. Reasons why they preferred these route segments included:

• Least impact on agricultural practices, CRP, wildlife, land; • None, I don't want it; • Runs parallel to existing lines; • Crosses dry farmland; and • It does not involve my property.

When asked if respondents had concerns with any particular links and why, respondents listed multiple links. Links 3b, 9, 17, 38, 67, and 68 were each listed twice; and Links 3a, 3c, 3d, 25, 30, 34, 41, 42, 46, 51, 63, 66, 69, and 74 were each listed once. Respondents' concerns with these links included:

• Impacts on farming practice and agricultural lands; • Impacts to wildlife; • Visibility of the line from residences; • Impacts to water wells and crop irrigation; • Impacts to oil and gas production; • Impacts to cultural resources; • Impacts to water pipelines; and • Impacts to cattle barns.

The questionnaire also provided a space for respondents to include any additional remarks and comments. Comments and responses included:

• Public meeting was not very informative; • Landowners should be compensated monthly/yearly for maintenance and taxes on land; and • Thank you for making changes from first meetings.

478 3.2.5.1 Additional Public Meeting - Mailed Comments A total of four questionnaires commenting on the Project were received by Sharyland after the additional public meeting. Results from the questionnaires were reviewed and analyzed.

In responses to the general information questions, four of the respondents marked that a potential route crosses their land. One respondent marked that a potential route is near their home and crosses their land. When asked to describe their land use, one respondent marked Cultivated and Irrigated farmland; one respondent described their land use as CRP; one respondent described their land use as Rangeland/Native Pasture, one respondent described their land use as Other (Home), and one respondent described their land use as Rangeland/Native Pasture, CRP, Cultivated Farmland, Irrigated Farmland, and Non-Irrigated Farmland. One respondent specified their farmland as having drip, row water, and sprinkler irrigation.

TABLE 3-7 AVERAGE RANKING OF IMPORTANCE (ADDITIONAL PUBLIC MEETING MAILED COMMENTS) COMERATION FACTOR' AVERAGE RANK Maximize paralleling of existing ROW 6.50 Maximize distance from residences 4.25 Maximize distance from public parks 10.25 Maximize paralleling of property lines 5.0 Minimize visibility of the lines 8.75 Minimize impacts to agricultural lands 5.25 Minimize costs 6.25 Maintain reliable electric service 6.50 Minimize impacts to floodplains and wetlands 4.50 Maximize distance from historic sites and cultural resource sites 5.25 Minimize impacts to wildlife 7.75 Other - *Questionnaire asked to rank items in order of importance (1=Most Important; 12 = Least Important)

When asked if there are other factors that should be considered, and if they had any comments regarding the listed factors, Responses included:

Historical and cultural sites of Blanco Canyon; Distance to homes; and Impacts to farmlands.

Respondents also were asked if there are other features in the study area that are important, and if so, to please describe them. Responses included:

Residences; Small barn; and Animal pen.

479 When asked if respondents preferred a combination of route segments, and if so, why, respondents listed several route segments. Reasons why they preferred these route segments included:

• Most direct route; • I don't care; • Minimize effects on wind farm development; and • Minimize impacts to historical and cultural sites.

When asked if respondents had concerns with any particular links and why, two respondents listed Link 9. Only one respondent replied why they listed a particular link. The respondent's reasons for listing Link 9 included:

• Potential negative impacts to historical and cultural sites in Blanco Canyon; and • Believe it crosses their acreage.

The questionnaire also provided a space for respondents to include any additional remarks and/or comments. Comments and responses included:

• I don't care what you do out there; and • Minimize impacts to current and future wind farm developments.

3.2.6 Primary Alternative Links Following the October 15, 2013 public open-house meeting, no additional modifications were made to the preliminary alternative links, and the 83 preliminary alternative links presented at the additional public meeting were designated as primary alternative links (route links). Using the 83 primary alternative links, Sharyland and POWER identified primary alternative routes for the Project, with each of the 83 primary alternative links incorporated in at least one route. Ultimately, 21 primary alternative routes were selected that represent an adequate number of reasonable and geographically diverse primary alternative routes that reflect all of the previously discussed routing considerations. These 21 primary alternative routes were then specifically studied and evaluated by POWER staff, though of course, many more alternative routes might be formed by utilizing the links in different combinations.

The primary alternative routes, their link compositions, and approximate lengths are presented in Table 3-8 and are depicted in Figure 3-2 and Figure 5-1 in Appendix C. Potential impacts for each of the evaluation criteria (see Table 2-1) were tabulated for each of the primary alternative routes (see Section 4.0 and Table 4-1).

480 TABLE 3-8 LINK COMPOSITION AND APPROXIMATE LENGTH OF THE PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTES ALTERNATIVE LENGTH LINK COMPOSITION ROUTE (MILES) 1 1-11-17-37-47-53-54-55-57-60-61-64a-64b 52.1 2 2-4-11-17-37-41-42-48-54-58-62-65a-74 55.1 3 2-5a-70-18a-17-37-47-53-54-58-62-65a-73-64b 56.0 4 1-11-17-29-38-42-43a-43b-44-45-46-51-61-64a-64b 52.3 5 1-11-17-37-47-53-54-58-62-65a-65b 55.7 6 2-5a-5b-5c-6-13-28-39-49-58-62-63-64a-64b 56.0 7 1-11-18a-18b-19-20a-20b-21-22-23-24-34-51-61-64a-64b 53.4 8 2-5a-5b-5c-12-19-20a-20b-21-32-40-45-50-57-60-61-64a-64b 51.6 9 3a-66-5c-12-19-20a-20b-21-32-40-46-51-61-64a-64b 50.4 10 3a-3b-3c-3d-6-7-14-23-33-40-45-50-57-59-62-65a-74 55.0 11 1-11-17-29-30-31 a-31 b-39-44-50-57-59-62-65a-73-64b 54.9 12 2-5a-70-18a-17-29-30-31 a-72-43b-44-45-46-51-61-64a-64b 52.3 13 3a-66-5c-12-19-20a-71-72-43b-49-55-57-59-62-65a-74 52.8 14 3a-66-5c-6-13-28-39-49-58-62-63-64a-64b 55.6 15 67-69-3d-12-19-20a-71-72-43b-49-55-57-59-62-65a-65b 54.4 16 3a-3b-3c-3d-12-19-20a-20b-21-22-14-8-9-16-35 57.6 17 3a-66-5c-1 2-19-20a-20b-21-22-23-24-25-35 53.5 18 67-68-3c-3d-6-7-14-23-15-9-16-35 57.9 19 67-69-3d-12-19-20a-20b-21-22-23-24-25-26-36 54.4 20 67-69-3d-6-7-8-9-10-36 57.2 21 3a-3b-3c-3d-12-19-27-31 a-31 b-39-44-45-46-51-61-64a-64b 51.1

481 (this page left blank intentionally.)

482 4.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PRIMARY 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 3.0 by tabulating the data for the evaluation criteria in Table 2-1 (relating to community values, parks and recreation areas, cultural resources, aesthetics, and environmental integrity). The results of the tabulation are presented by route in Table 4-1 and by link in Table 4-2. Additionally, through the identification of key evaluation criteria and a consensus process, POWER recommended to Sharyland the alternative route that best addresses the requirements of PURA and the PUCT Substantive Rules (see Section 5.0) from the standpoint of ecology, community values, land use and cultural resources.

4.1 IMPACTS ON COMMUNITY VALUES, LAND USE, AND SOCIOECONOMICS An evaluation of adverse impacts or effects upon community values is conducted to identify 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 evaluation considers community concerns that are applicable to this Project's location and characteristics and does not include consideration of 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 result 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.

4.1.1 Impacts on Land Use The magnitude of potential impacts to land use resulting from the construction of a transmission line are determined by the amount of land temporarily or permanently displaced by the actual ROW and by the compatibility of the facilities 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 Sharyland, its contractors, local governmental agencies and landowners regarding road and ROW access and construction scheduling should minimize these disruptions.

The evaluation criteria used to compare potential land use impacts include overall route length, route length parallel to existing linear corridors (including apparent property boundaries), route proximity to habitable structures, route length across various land use types, and route proximity to park and recreational areas. An analysis of the existing land use within and adjacent to the proposed ROW is required to evaluate the potential impacts.

Alternative Route Length The total lengths of the alternative routes vary from 50.42 miles for Alternative Route 9 to 57.86 miles for Alternative Route 18. The differences in route lengths reflect the direct or indirect pathway of each alternative route between the Project endpoints. The lengths of the alternative routes may also reflect the effort to parallel existing transmission lines, other existing linear features, apparent property boundaries, and the geographic diversity of the alternative routes. The approximate length for each of the alternative routes is presented in Table 4-1.

483 Compatible ROW P.U.C. SUBST. R. 25.101(b)(3)(B) requires that the PUCT consider whether new transmission line routes are within existing compatible ROWs and/or parallel to existing compatible ROWs, apparent property lines, or other natural features. Criteria were used to evaluate compatible ROW utilization, length of route parallel and adjacent to existing transmission line ROW, length of route parallel to other existing linear ROWs, and length of route parallel to apparent property lines.

It should also be noted that if a link parallels more than one existing linear corridor, only one linear corridor was tabulated (e.g., Link 25 parallels both an existing transmission line and a roadway, but it was only tabulated as paralleling the transmission line).

None of the alternative routes utilize existing transmission line ROW. All of the alternative routes parallel some length of existing 345 kV transmission line ROW. The total alternative route lengths parallel and adjacent to existing 345 kV transmission line ROW vary from approximately 1.24 miles for Alternative Routes 2 and 3, to approximately 25.98 miles for Alternative Route 8. The lengths parallel and adjacent to existing 345 kV transmission line ROW for each of the alternative routes are presented in Table 4-1.

Most of the alternative routes parallel some length of existing transmission line ROW less than 345 kV. The total alternative route lengths parallel and adjacent to existing transmission line ROW less than 345 kV vary from approximately no (zero) miles for Alternative Route 7, to approximately 6.36 miles for Alternative Route 14. The lengths parallel and adjacent to existing transmission line ROW less than 345 kV for each of the alternative routes are presented in Table 4-1.

The alternative routes with lengths paralleling other existing linear features, including roadways, pipelines, and railways, range from approximately 17.59 miles for Alternative Route 8, to approximately 38.48 miles for Alternative Route 16. The lengths paralleling other existing linear features for each of the alternative routes are presented in Table 4-1.

The alternative routes were developed to parallel apparent property boundaries to the extent feasible in the absence of other existing linear corridors. The lengths paralleling apparent property boundaries range from approximately 0.87 mile for Alternative Routes 4 and 21, to approximately 17.87 miles for Alternative Route 10. The lengths paralleling apparent property boundaries for each of the alternative routes are presented in Table 4-1.

All of the alternative routes parallel existing linear features for at least 85% of their lengths. The percentage of each route that parallels existing linear features ranges from 87% for Alternative Routes 2, 3, 16, and 17, to 94% for Alternative Route 15.

4.1.1.1 Impacts on Urban and Residential Areas Typically, one of the most important measures of potential land use impacts is the number of habitable structures located in the vicinity of each alternative route. Based on direction provided by the PUCT, habitable structure identification is included in the CCN application. POWER determined the number of habitable structures located within 500 feet of each alternative route centerline and each habitable structure's distance from the centerline through the use of GIS software, interpretation of aerial photography, and verification during reconnaissance surveys.

484 i

I-TTITT-11 ']TTTTT^ I I I I I I

1 1 1 1 1 1 , I T

I 1 .1 ITI T, lol l., o o 11 1 T 1 0

m Sm

'lol FITIolo ...... ] o o o e I , m

] o ll - P l ' T TITolloo m 0 0 T ^ T o I T H TI 1 4 1 6 , . ,

^T ^ T Tfl '^ ] o I ry q o 1 4

o 0 IT o 0 ll o [^ T I 0 0 . . I I I I I- I 1 6 6 ^ e m m ^ . . ^T- , 2^ T 1 ,1 11 T I O 1 ^ T T o 0 1. 1 1 T. 11ITT ^.^...... i.....,., N N a I TT I l ol o^ °g

TI TI 'l l 1 o o . . . . F 1-1 1^ To 1. 1. 1 1 1 o- I I I" "o 01 P T' ll o 11 .1

o m, ^ ,N o o 0 T ol 1. IMI T o e b $ T-l o "T ' I I T I T io-I e m ^ ^ e" N a ^

FT I T ^" l ol ] , ol P T-1,T I m

'" a„ m w a o$ a T' TTI TT 1 - 1 fl , ^ IT- - - - -

'I F^ TTT o o 0 T I TI TIN TT. olll^ tOE

^ o l I ] T 0 1. o l 4 80 . M I lo lTl .0 0 O^ I lo 1. o 1 0 0 11

° gm

l l "TI TTTI ] T' l 5" g -

rE E 5

ffiP ^ ^

- 3 _

s ^ s c ry ^ ^ ^ ^ g

^g P 8 ^ & y 3 ^ A m o _

^^ 5 3 b

a e S e 8

L . m ^ o i m ^ ` ^ ` 3 g € m ^. p 3 s m g ^^. _ € a ^ .y $ 3 c ^ y = 2 E m . a _ v o ^ _ P$ ^ m ^

P' N S '^ m ^ _ ^O - £ _ °m •`^ $ ^ £ 5 £ 4' ° ^ ° o W z P ^ 3 € 8 g ^ $ ^ a ^ a m m e = g s 6 $ ^ ^ ^ s E m®' m R ^ k ^^^ ; a m g i If ^ - - - o ^ o £ g ffi $ ^ a m L' rc e e e , V E ^ ^ 3 3 3 3 3 ^ $ 3 3 3 ^ ^ £ ^ - ^ 3 3 3 3 3 b 3 3^ ^, ' ^ ^ 3 ` o o O 2

£ ® £ £ £m ^ E _ £ S £ £ 5 S 6 £ S a $ $ ^ 01 _ _ _ ^ LL - _ 5 n $ (This page left blank intentionally)

486 0 8

] T I. .1 . T . 1. T I......

8 0 8 0 o ] T .o o o o

o T F .1 ] ] ] ] o 0 1] ] ] ] T l o 0 , ......

a ^

o }: o o $ o 6 6 .6 m^e

° ^^...,...,.,^.,rn

° 8 m

] ] TI , I 8 0 0 8 0

o g e

Qae Sra^ MN^N eNNee ^^m$ a^Sa 0 8 0 -T Z „,^

1. ] Tl . o o ^ 6 n o^a.6

o ^ o ^ g o

^^ -

Ln am^

3 v

n' ^ 8 3 ^ s S

- ^ E € ^ a = 1

a ^ o m a _ E m - c ^, 8

.1 1m ^ = m a. a ^ " t:a $ 3 r ^ $ m = ^ ^ `= o ^ ° w 3 s" a a a ^ . ^ . ^ E 3 c E. rc ^ c " R Q Q 3 3 ^ °^ E E $ . W € €= a^a$ = e ^' m Y6 " s " _ ^ - > ` ^ a S ° s o € °s &

m g ` 3, `g o E }> m ^ s L" m c ^ '- _ S m3 c II 4 s 8 52 m ^ v € m 5 S s ^ g ^ 8 ,`u 01 Vs E a ^ 3 3 3 3 3 m 8 °3 3 3 ° ^ ^ E m ^° g E ^@ . - - . 3 3 a3 3 3 3 m 3 3 E = 9 3 0 'o ^ s LL = s ^s®. s,s^^^^am E 'E _ s__._ (This page left blank intentionally)

488 T ^ ] T ^ T- R , o ^ o

o g o

o . o 0 T T oil ...... o . . . . . o

o $ o o 1 . ] TI O 0 0

o - o o 8 0 ...... o o ...... o ] o [ T

o ^ o

M o M , 1 0 T o . . . . . H o' ] T rl o F T I T [

0 w P .

0 0 . 0 0 ] ] T . . o o . . o o

0 . . . . . 0 0 0 T [ [ [ 0 1 . o o o . . . . 0

o^ T . . . 7 o o 0 0 o 0 I

^ $ n

lg o ^o I o . 0 . . . 0 . 1 F I T . . . 0 0 6 6 6 6

I T H ] o o o o . o I T F o . T F o o . .

3 g gt ^ ^

@ uc

^ ^ s £ ^g F s me 2E

E m^° g- a^o a ^ ^ m ; _ °' o A E E ^ & W . ^ .ve s H 3 $ e - s g 8 3 ^ . cm o °x > _ m ^° `0 3 ^ E ^ 3 c o m o m g13 _ o 0 8 m ^ a $ 3 c ^', s $ 2 E 8 ^ 3 ^ 3 ' m 3 E ^ o ^ 3 . ^ 3 H m $ F g m €€ ^ y ^ ^ ^ am y L Si = _ $ A E $ m 8 8 r& 8 ^ E_ 5 2 g s

`4' y 3 8 tz fl - m < $ m ^ s ^ E $ 8 .S S a ' "' 0 S "' 8 ^ m _ _ - .Y 3 ^ $ x x o i . o z c d ^ ^ A A m °i ^ ^ o 0 0 ^ ^ ffi r ^ ^ ^ 5 g ^ A m _ m $ s` 'S a 5 s` s` s y _ g - o o s` m m m m a m ^ ^ .n E 'n m 3 ^ 3 3 3 3 '^ a 3 3 @ ^ 8 ^ ^ .>_ ° 1 1 -M ! _ £ S 5 S 5 E E $ fri m m M I M I i A G z 2 ^ . ^ ry ^ ^ (This page left blank intentionally)

490 0 1 ] T ^ O^ T l o

T M I'TITI 0 ] ] .11 0 8 ° 1 o o o

0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 o OFF 0 0 1 o $

o ° o o ° ^ ° o N ° ° o o o ° ry ° ° N f ° o o ° ;

o 0.1 0 o ol . o o o T. 11 . o TT 0 o 0

o o o ^o T. o . . . T i o 0 ol o I o I

o o o 0 . . . 0 o o a o 0 0 0 1 0 0 1^ O F 0 0 0 0 0 . . . o. o^ I

o I o 0 1 o o 0 1 ] l o ^g o

" T ' T T'l o l o 0 0 0 l o . . . I o T I O 01 ' r ol o o o o . . .

I T ' T FI T ' T-l o N o . 6 m 6 6 6 0

I T Il ] I ° ° ^ 8 8 ° TI T ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 8

0 0 0 g 0 ^ 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ] o 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 .1 ] o 11 01 T ^o 0 0

0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 jg 0 1 0 0 0 1

0 0 . m o o o . o . . S . o

00 ] 0 ^ o lo .o ., T i I 0 0 ] T ^O I T I 1. . 1 I T 0 . . . . 0 M Wl 11

o l] ] ] T. o l '1 ^ o o 0 e 4 ° 1 1 4 1. o 8. a

T ^] T ^ T - 1 l p. S °

5 ^ ^ a

^8 ffi ffi^ ^- ^ w^

3 - ^"f 8

¢ cm a„-S W E

^ 5 ° r 5 c - 3 x 9 Ga" 2 ^ 9 8 3 U 8

m a ° _ m c cm 3 . -

m ¢ b R ^ ^ ^ .= 8 m P c ^ p S }g E ca m :^ ^ ^ ^ n _5 c e ° m ig 4; t

3 9r 3 g a o ^ $ 3 _ V ^ ^ _ E ^ c ^ s 3 .^ ^F° g a ? Y' E 5 E ° ^ p 2 - ` g o E ^O 2 8

^ffi^x m ^ ^ S Pq 2 E E n -@ E $ 8 . @ °cm m ^ ^ ^ r ffi

^6 '2 '2 £ @ 2 £ ^' m V E 3m 3 3 3 3 3 '^ - 3 3 3 m @ @ ^ ^ Q E E - 3 ^ 3 3 3 3 t 3 3 ^, -m - 3

`m & ^ ffi L & s s s s S ^ ffi - S s s a S n - $ S ^ a s s s° ^ a - '^@ E - _ > m k ? ' ^ ^ w^^ z m^ o 0 `m E z' 6 w w W d z' z' (This page left blank intentionally)

492 o ^o

T 6 6

. . . . . olo lol, IT 4 o

.1. ^.J. Joj. j. o 0

o^ o lNo O -- , w l ol, ol, lol, lo l o l I I I ' l o . . . o o 0 O llic OI TI o

on o,o na o a olo or iolo no . . ,I

-I*go Iolo0 lol,8 o l,l l I 00 00 00 00 e 0 0 00 0^ o oo om

,0 1, 00 0, 00 00 -0 0 .0 . . . 1.10 OF IT I o a F -6 -6 -6 -a 71 7

m go . 1o % "

'lo TM F I Fl Tlo l, o lil lolo lol-Tol, n s o o 0 I TM 0 1.12 1 1. 01 T .,

lo I 8 08 0 10

T l TI T[ 1 "I'l l I T , o g^ 0 ol , 1 01^j oj 0 ^ s . . . . . - - -

^ag

3 - z o $ ^^ a $

_ o X+ m ^ b

^B ^ e B

o m E = 8 8 m ^ m S 3 ^ 3 n- rc x P << ^ ^ 6 e ^ x $ 3 S c & _ P 2 ^ 3 P € ^ d o £, "W 2

^ S n g ^ € $ $ C £ O - ^ m € $ m

E^ N ^ ^ . $ c^ ^ mN .9^ o q,@b . E 2E ^ 3m Ê R^ ^B ^ 8 P ^5^ qffi ^$ k ID tO n^. ^d 5 m ^. 2. '6 m .5 . 8 ^ ^3 3 a`^ m € 2 0 . E $ - _ ° o gE o " g m 2 e E - S' C m ° ° s s` m A ^ m E 8 `^ ^ $ g` `^ 3 ° 3 3 ^, ^ -^ V 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ^ a¢ _ o L£ ^ 3 0 0 3 ¢ c = o $ r ^ L`m 5 6^° A ^ò °^ s o o m S `m 5 S 5 k 5 5^ a 5 S 6 S^ m c°' EEm nE ^ E 'E 'E 'E a^=< wE ° _ v ^ =m ^^ =m â =E (This page left blank intentionally)

494 All of the 21 alternative routes for this Project have habitable structures located within 500 feet of their centerlines. Alternative Route 8 has the fewest with ten habitable structures located within 500 feet of the centerline, followed by Alternative Route 9 with 12, and Alternative Route 7 with 14. By comparison, Alternative Routes 16 and 20 have the most habitable structures located within 500 feet of the centerline with 33, followed by Alternative Route 18 with 30, and Alternative Routes 6, 17, and 19 with 25. The number of habitable structures located within 500 feet of each of the alternative route centerlines, as well as the number of newly affected habitable structures within 500 feet of each ROW centerline is presented in Table 4-1. Newly affected habitable structures are habitable structures within 500 feet of an alternative route that are not already within 500 feet of an existing transmission line.

Land Use Categories An analysis of compatibility with adjacent land use types was completed for each alternative route. Land use categories identified within the study area include cropland, land with traveling irrigation systems, and pastureland/rangeland (including CRP lands).

4.1.1.2 Impacts on Agriculture Impacts to agricultural land uses can generally be ranked by degree of potential impact, with the least potential impact occurring in areas where cultivation is not the primary use (pasture/rangeland), followed by cultivated croplands, which have the highest degree of potential impact. The use of pasture/rangeland can be continued within the ROW following construction. Most cultivated cropland use should be able to be resumed within the ROW following construction and restoration. Restoration would include repair to the irrigation system if damaged.

All of the alternative routes cross some length of pasture/rangeland (including CRP lands); however, because the ROW for this Project will not be fenced or otherwise separated from adjacent lands, there will be no significant long-term displacement of farming or grazing activities. Alternative route lengths crossing pasture/rangeland areas range from approximately 18.84 miles for Alternative Route 20, to approximately 33.70 miles for Alternative Route 15. The lengths of each of the alternative routes crossing pasturelands are presented in Table 4-1.

All of the alternative routes cross some length of cropland with a large portion being irrigated by drip or row type irrigation; 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 short term with a small loss of production area. Alternative route lengths crossing cropland areas range from approximately 18.44 miles for Alternative Route 1, to approximately 36.24 miles for Alternative Route 20. The lengths of each of the alternative routes crossing croplands are presented in Table 4-1.

All of the alternative routes cross some length of agricultural lands with mobile irrigation systems (rolling or pivot). During the route development process, efforts to avoid impacts to mobile irrigation systems included avoidance and paralleling apparent property lines or field edges when possible. All alternative routes crossing pivot irrigation systems were developed to cross the systems near the field edge or apparent property line and would span the traveling arc of the systems. Alternative route lengths crossing mobile irrigation systems range from approximately 1.65 miles for Alternative Route 7, to approximately 3.64 miles for Alternative Route 1. The lengths of each of the alternative routes crossing mobile irrigation systems are presented in Table 4-l. The distances measured for this criterion included only the crops irrigated by above ground mobile, or pivot type irrigation and do not include the "corners" of sections that are not traversed by pivot irrigation systems.

495 41 1.3 Impacts on Lands with Conservation Easements As discussed in Section 2.3.3, other than lands enrolled in the CRP, there are no properties within the study area with known conservation easements. CRP lands are generally not a significant constraint or factor in approval or construction of a transmission line. Generally, only the relatively small area where a structure is located would be converted and taken out of CRP. Any costs the landowner must repay to the USDA for converted lands are addressed during easement acquisition. Lands that may be currently enrolled in CRP would be included in the length of ROW through pasture/rangeland (including CRP lands) criterion.

4.1.1.4 Impacts on Transportation. Aviation and Utility Features Transportation Potential impacts to transportation could include temporary disruption of traffic or conflicts with future proposed roadways. Traffic disruptions would include those associated with the movement of equipment and materials to the ROW, and slightly increased traffic flow and/or periodic congestion during the construction phase of the proposed Project. In rural areas, such as the study area for this Project, these impacts are typically considered minor, temporary, and short-term. As mentioned in Section 2.2.2.5, there are a few roadway projects that were considered during the routing process.

A1121 of the alternative routes have two highway crossings (IH, U.S. Hwy, or SH). The number of FM roads crossed by the alternative routes ranges from six road crossings for Alternative Routes 1, 10, 12, 13, and 15, to 17 road crossings for Alternative Routes 16, 17, 18, and 20. As mentioned above, Sharyland would be required to obtain road-crossing permits from TXDOT for any crossing of state-maintained roadways. The number of highways and FM road crossings for each of the alternative routes are presented in Table 4-1.

Aviation According to FAA regulations, Title 14 C.F.R. Part 77, the construction of a transmission line requires FAA notification if tower structure heights exceed the height of an imaginary surface extending outward and upward at a slope of 100:1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest runway having at least one runway longer than 3,200 feet. The FAA also requires notification if tower structure heights exceed a 50:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 10,000 feet from the nearest runway where no runway is longer than 3,200 feet in length, and if tower structure heights exceed a 25:1 slope for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet for heliports.

One FAA registered airport is located within 20,000 feet of the alternative route links, the Floydada Municipal Airport. As mentioned in Section 2.2.2.5, information provided by local officials during public open house meetings revealed that the Abernathy Municipal Airport was recently closed and is no longer available for public use, and is therefore not considered an "FAA-registered" airport in this assessment. Following PUCT approval of a route for the proposed transmission line, Sharyland will make a final determination of the need for FAA notification, based on specific route location and structure design. 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 and/or light the structures.

The number of alternative routes that have FAA registered airports with one runway more than 3,200 feet in length located within 20,000 feet of their centerline ranges from none (zero) for 14 of the alternative routes to one airport for Alternative Routes 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 21.

There are no FAA registered airports with a runway less than 3,200 feet in length located within 10,000 feet of the alternative routes.

496 Only two of the alternative routes have a private airstrip located within 10,000 feet of their centerlines, Alternative Routes 16 and 20. There are no heliports located within 5,000 feet of the alternative routes. Table 4-1 presents airport, airstrip, and heliport information for each of the alternative routes.

The distance for each public airport from the nearest route was measured using GIS software and aerial photography interpretation (see Table 4-3). All known airport, airstrip, and heliport locations are shown on Figure 5-1 in Appendix C.

TABLE 4-3 AIRPORT RUNWAY LOCATIONS FIGURE 5-1 ESTIMATED RUNWAY EXCEEDS AIRPORT/AIRSTRIP ALTERNATIVE ROUTES MAP ID LENGTH (FEET)' SLOPEV Floydada Municipal 135 1, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 21 Runway 17/35 4,600 No Airport 136 Private Airstrip 1 16 and 20 3,300 NA 1 Sources: FAA 2013a, 2013b, and 2013c; field reconnaissance; aerial photos; and USGS topographic maps. 2 Sources: POWER aerial photo and USGS interpretation considering elevation information obtained from USGS topographic maps and a typical transmission structure height of 120 feet

Utilities Utility features, including existing electrical transmission lines, pipelines, oil and gas wells, and water wells, are crossed by several of the alternative routes. If these utility features are crossed by or are in close vicinity to the centerline of the alternative route approved by the PUCT, Sharyland will coordinate with the appropriate entities to obtain necessary permits or permission as required to ensure safety and the continued use of the existing services provided by these utility features.

Several existing 345 kV electric transmission lines were identified within the study area, and each of the alternative routes cross existing 345 kV transmission lines. The number of transmission line crossings ranges from one crossing for Alternative Route 5 to six crossings for Alternative Routes 8, 13, 15, and 16. As mentioned above, Sharyland will coordinate with the appropriate entity to ensure safe and continued operation of these and other utility features. The number of 345 kV transmission line crossings for each of the alternative routes is presented in Table 4-1.

Several existing electric transmission lines less than 345 kV were identified within the study area, and each of the alternative routes cross several existing transmission lines less than 345 kV. The number of transmission line crossings ranges from six crossings for Alternative Route 15 to 12 crossings for Alternative Routes 6, 7, and 11. The number of crossings of transmission lines less than 345 kV for each of the alternative routes is presented in Table 4-1.

Numerous oil and gas pipelines were identified within the study area. Sharyland and POWER applied a set-back distance of 200 feet from alternative route centerlines to identified well heads using 2010 RRC data layers, aerial photo interpretation, and GIS software generated measurements. In some instances the set-back distance was reduced due to the need to traverse a particular area to connect the Project endpoints while also considering other existing constraints in the area. Only three of the alternative routes are located within 200 feet of an existing oil and gas well, Alternative Routes 16, 17, and 18. Pipelines that are crossed by the alternative route approved by the PUCT will be indicated on engineering drawings and flagged in the field prior to construction. Sharyland will coordinate with pipeline companies during transmission line construction and operation for continued safe operation of potentially-affected oil and gas facilities. The number of known pipelines crossed by the alternative routes ranges from 13 pipeline crossings for Alternative Routes 9, 17, and 21, to 28

497 pipeline crossings for Alternative Route 3. The number of pipeline crossings for each of the alternative routes is presented in Table 4-1.

Water wells are scattered throughout the study area and were mapped and avoided to the extent practicable. All of the alternative routes are located within 200 feet of several existing water wells; however, wells outside of the ROW (i.e. greater than 87.5 feet from the centerline) are not expected to be impacted. The number of existing water wells within 200 feet of the alternative routes ranges from approximately 35 for Alternative Route 8, to approximately 73 for Alternative Routes 6, 7, 14, and 20. The number of existing water wells within 200 feet of each of the alternative routes is presented in Table 4-1.

4.1.1.5 Imaacts on Electronic Communication Facilities The distance of each electronic communication facility from the closest link was measured using GIS software and aerial photograph interpretation (see Table 4-4).

TABLE 4-4 ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION FACILITIES FIGURE 5-1 DISTANCE FROM NEAREST TOWER TYPE NEAREST LINK MAP ID LINK (FEET) 129 AM radio transmitter 58 3,306 131 Other electronic installation 61 483 132 Other electronic installation 18b 214 133 Other electronic installation 36 692 134 Other electronic installation 39 213 Sources: POWER aerial photo and USGS topographic maps; FCC 2012.

The number of commercial AM radio towers located within 10,000 feet of the alternative route centerlines ranges from none (zero) for sixteen of the alternative routes, to one for Alternative Routes 2, 3, 5, 6, and 14. The number of FM radio transmitters, microwave towers, and other electronic installations located within 2,000 feet of the alternative route centerlines ranges from none (zero) on six of the alternative routes, to three on Alternative Route 7. Refer to Table 4-1 for the number of commercial AM radio transmitters located within 10,000 feet of the alternative routes, and the number of FM radio transmitters, microwave towers, and other electronic installations located within 2,000 feet of the alternative routes.

4.1.1.6 Impacts on Socioeconomics Construction and operation of the proposed transmission line 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. Sharyland normally uses contract labor supervised by Sharyland employees during the clearing and construction phase of transmission line projects. Construction workers for the 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 in 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.

Additionally, Sharyland pays sales tax on local purchases and pays local property tax on land and/or improvements as applicable.

498 4.2 IMPACTS ON PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS Potential impacts to parks or recreation areas include the disruption or preemption of recreation activities. As previously mentioned in Section 2.3, numerous parks and recreational areas were identified within the study area.

The distance of each park or recreation area from the nearest route link was measured using GIS software and aerial photography interpretation (see Table 4-5). No significant impacts to the use or enjoyment of the parks and recreation facilities located within the study area are anticipated from any of the alternative routes. No adverse impacts from any of the alternative routes are anticipated for any fishing or hunting areas.

TABLE 4-5 PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS FIGURE 5-1 DISTANCE FROM PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS NEAREST LINK MAP ID NEAREST LINK (FEET) 137 Mesquite Hill Public Hunting Area 46 71 138 Muleshoe NWR 44 139 Sources: Field reconnaissance, TPWD 2013b, aerial photo and USGS topographic maps.

None of the alternative routes directly cross any parks or recreation areas. The number of additional parks or recreation areas located within 1,000 feet of the alternative route centerlines ranges from none (zero) for 16 of the alternative routes, to one for Alternative Routes 4, 7, 9, 12, and 21. Refer to Table 4-1 for the number of parks or recreation areas located within 1,000 feet of the alternative routes.

4.3 IMPACTS ON HISTORICAL (CULTURAL RESOURCES) VALUES 4.3.1 Impacts on Historical (Cultural Resources) 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 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Similar methods are often used when considering cultural resources affected by state-regulated actions. In either case, this process generally involves: (1) identifying significant (i.e., national or state-designated) cultural resources within 1,000 feet of the centerline of each alternative route; (2) determining the potential impacts of the Project on those resources; and (3) implementing, where appropriate, 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 potentially adversely impact 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 Texas State Antiquities Code. These characteristics might include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association for architectural and engineering resources or information potential for archeological resources.

4.3.2 Direct Impacts Direct impacts are those effects that physically alter the integrity of key aspects or qualities that define the historical significance of the resource. Typically, direct impacts are caused by the actual construction of the line or through increased vehicular traffic during the construction phase.

499