RANDALL DEAF PROPOSED HEREFORD (PANHANDLE AB) COLLECTION STATION nnnnnn ^ nn nnnnn ^ nnnn^ 1705 n I^ ___.....__--__-..-_-..___- n I^ n n n n n 121 n t n n n 214 n ( n n n CASTRO n SWISHER n 4 n Nazareth ^ n 1424 n n n n n n n n ^n n n n n n n n n ^ n n n n '. n n n ^ 3141 PROPOSED NAZARETH (PANHANDLE AA) COLLECTION STATION n • • engineering ^ Study Area Environmental Consulting ^ n n BoundarY MIS Surveying N A Figure 2-1 STUDY AREA LOCATION MAP NAZARETH (PANHANDLE AA) TO 0 2 4 6 8 HEREFORD (PANHANDLE AB) Miles CASTRO, DEAF SMITH, RANDALL, AND SWISHER COUNTIES Base Map: TXDOT General Highway Maps Vicinity map File: N:\Clients\S_T1Sharyland\100006973\LS02_Fig_2_1.mxd 250 (This page left blank intentionally) 100006973/090032 2-4 Pw 251 2.3.2 Constraints Mapping In an effort to minimize potential impacts to sensitive environmental and land use features, a constraints mapping process was used in developing/refining possible alternative routes. The geographic locations of environmentally sensitive and other restrictive areas within the study area were located and considered during alternative route development. These constraints were mapped on a topographic base map (see Figure 2-4, which is located in a map pocket at the back of this document) created using USGS 1:100,000 topographic maps. The overall impact of the alternative routes presented in this report has been greatly reduced by avoiding, to the greatest extent possible, such constraints as individual residences, congested urban areas, community facilities, subdivisions, airports, mobile irrigation systems, cemeteries, historic sites, archeological sites, wetlands and playa lakes, parks, churches, schools, and known occupied federally listed threatened or endangered species habitat, and by utilizing or paralleling existing compatible ROW, where practicable. 2.3.3 Preliminary Alternative Routes Utilizing the information described above, PBS&J identified numerous preliminary routes, which were presented to Sharyland for review and comment. These initial preliminary routes, assembled from numerous individually identified route links, were examined in the field in summer 2009 separately by Sharyland and PBS&J staff. The project team made modifications to the preliminary routes, based on the results of the field evaluation and review of NAIP (2008) aerial photography. These preliminary alternative routes, which are shown on Figure 2-2, were presented to the public at open-house meetings held on October 5, 2009, at the Hereford School Administration Banquet Room in Hereford, and on October 8, 2009, at the Nazareth Community Center in Nazareth. Following the public open-house meetings, PBS&J staff and Sharyland performed additional reviews to look at areas of concern discussed at the initial public open-house meetings, met with individual landowners, evaluated the public comments, and considered revisions to the preliminary routes. As a result of additional review, Link E was slightly modified to avoid an electronic communication tower. 2.3.4 Evaluation of Alternative Routes Ultimately, nine primary alternative routes were selected that were then specifically studied and evaluated by the PBS&J staff. The results of PBS&J's effort are presented in this EA in sections 4.0 and 6.0. The primary alternative routes are shown on Figure 2-3. The primary alternative routes are also shown on the constraints map Figure 2-4 (map pocket). The primary routes constitute, for the purposes of this analysis, the only alternative routes addressed in this report. Table 2-1 presents the composition of these routes by link, as well as their approximate length in miles. Each of the alternative routes was examined in detail in the field during the summer and fall of 2009. In evaluating the alternative routes, 36 environmental criteria were considered. These criteria are presented in Table 2-2. The goal of this evaluation was to select an environmentally preferred and several alternate 100006973/090032 2-5 PM 252 (This page left blank intentionally) 100006973/090032 2-6 ► ^ 253 OVERSIZED MAP IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS CENTRAL RECORDS 1701 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 254 (This page left blank intentionally) 100006973/090032 2-8 Fa T1, 255 OVERSIZED MAP IS AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS AT THE FOLLOWING ADDRESS: PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS CENTRAL RECORDS 1701 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 256 (This page left blank intentionally.) 100006973/090032 2-10 . 1^ 257 transmission line routes between the proposed Nazareth and Hereford substations. PBS&J's recommendations of an environmentally preferred and several alternate routes are discussed in Section 6.1. The analysis of each route involved inventorying and tabulating the number or quantity of each environmental criterion located along the centerline of each route (e.g., number of habitable structures, the length across brushland, etc.). The number or amount of each factor was determined by reviewing various maps and recent color aerial photography, and by field verification, where possible. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each alternative were then evaluated. Potential environmental impacts of the primary alternative routes are addressed in Section 4.0 of this document. After PBS&J made their environmentally preferred and alternate route recommendations, Sharyland undertook a further evaluation in which PBS&J's environmental evaluations were considered in conjunction with Sharyland's criteria associated with constructability, maintenance, and operation. Sharyland's evaluation, and their selection of preferred and alternate routes, is located in Section 6.2 of this document. TABLE 2-1 PRIMARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTE COMPOSITION AND LENGTH NAZARETH TO HEREFORD PROJECT Route Length Number Links (miles) HN 1 A-B-H-L-S-Z-DD-FF 22.58 HN 2 D-I-K-Y-EE 23.95 HN 3 D-I-K-T-W-X-BB-FF 26.88 HN 4 D-I-J-M-Q-R-U-AA-CC-EE 29.40 HN 5 D-I-J-M-Q-R-V-BB-FF 27.90 HN 6 A-C-G-O-R-V-BB-FF 27.58 HN 7 A-C-G-O-R-U-AA-CC-EE 29.08 HN 8 A-C-G-N-P-S-Z-DD-FF 28.13 HN 9 A-C-E-F-I-K-Y-EE 25.45 Note: For primary route locations, see Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 (map pocket) 100006973/090032 2-11 258 TABLE 2-2 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES Land Use 1. Length of alternative route 2. Number of habitable structures' within 500 ft of ROW centerline 3. Length of ROW parallel to existing transmission line ROW 4. Number of newly affected habitable structures within 500 ft of ROW centerline 5. Length of ROW parallel to other existing ROW (highways, pipelines, railways, etc.) 6. Length of ROW paralleling apparent property lines (not following existing ROW) 7. Length of ROW crossing parks/recreational areas2 8. Number of additional parks/recreational areas2 within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 9. Length of ROW crossing cropland 10. Length of ROW crossing pastureland/rangeland 11. Length of ROW crossing cropland or pastureland with mobile irrigation systems 12. Number of pipeline crossings 13. Number of transmission line crossings 14. Number of U.S. and state highway crossings 15. Number of farm-to-market (FM) road crossings 16. Number of FAA-registered airfields within 20,000 ft of ROW centerline 17. Number of private airstrips within 10,000 ft of ROW centerline 18. Number of heliports within 5,000 ft of ROW centerline 19. Number of commercial AM radio transmitters within 10,000 ft of ROW centerline 20. Number of FM radio transmitters, microwave towers, and other electronic installations within 2,000 ft of ROW centerline Aesthetics 21. Estimated length of ROW within foreground visual zone3 of U.S. and state highways 22. Estimated length of ROW within foreground visual zone3 of parks/recreational areas Ecology 23. Length of ROW crossing upland woodland/brushland 24. Length of ROW crossing bottomland/riparian woodland/brushland 25. Length of ROW crossing potential wetlands (excluding playa lakes) 26. Length of ROW crossing known occupied habitat of federally listed endangered or threatened species 27. Number of stream/river crossings 28. Length of ROW paralleling (within 100 ft) streams 29. Length of ROW crossing open water (playa lakes, ponds, etc.) 30. Number of playa lake crossings 31. Length of ROW crossing 100-year floodplains Cultural Resources 32. Number of recorded cultural resources sites crossed by ROW 33. Number of additional recorded cultural resources sites within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 34. Number of NRHP-listed or -eligible sites crossed by ROW 35. Number of additional NRHP-listed or -eligible sites within 1,000 ft of ROW centerline 36. Length of ROW crossing areas of high archaeological/historical site potential 'Residences, businesses, schools, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. 2Defined as parks and recreational areas owned by a governmental body or an organized group, club, or church. 3One-half mile, unobstructed. 100006973/090032 2-12 PW 259 3.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 3.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY The study area is located within the Southern High Plains subdivision of the High Plains Province (Bureau of Economic Geology [BEG], 1996) (Figure 3-1). The Southern High Plains occur westward from the boundary between the Texas Panhandle and the State of New Mexico, northward to the Canadian Breaks, eastward to the North-Central Plains and southward to the Edwards Plateau, Stockton Plateau, and Basin and Range provinces. There are no reported geologic faults located in the study area or in the immediate surrounding area. The Southern High Plains of Texas form a nearly flat plateau ranging from 2,200 to 3,800 ft in elevation, which is underlain by extensive stream deposits of sand and gravel, forming the Ogallala aquifer (BEG, 1996).