IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SOWEWESTJiXN ELF,CTRIC ... · in the matter of the application...

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) OF SOWEWESTJiXN ELF,CTRIC POWER 1 COMPANYIFYIIRACERTIFICATE OF ) ENVlRONMF,NTAL COMPATIBILWAND ) PtTBLIC NEED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, ) OWNERSHIP, OPERATION AND ) DOCKET NO: OS-#&.U MAINTENANCE OF A 345 kV TRANSMISSION } LINE ORIGINATING AT THE N W T E W A ) STATION LOCATED NEAR LFARY, B O W 1 COUNTY, TEXAS AND TERMINATING AT A )

CONSTRUCTED AT THE JOHN W. TURK, JR. ) PROPOSED STATION TO BE 1

GENERATION FACILITY LOCATED 1 INHEMPSTEADCOuNTy,ARKANSM 1

DIRFLTTESTIMONY OF

ROB R REID

FOR

SOUTHWESTERW ELECTRIC PO- COMPANY

July 1,2008

DIRECT TESTIMONY DOCKET NO. 08-098-11

ROB R REIT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUBJECT -, PAGE

I.

11.

111.

IV.

V.

VI.

~ ~ O D U C T I O M ...........................................................................~

$ PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY .........................................,.,,.............-..-

ALTERNATIVE ROUTE ANALYSIS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ..........................................................................~.....~

INFORMATION ADDRESSING THE CECPN APPLICATION AND C O M P A R A m ENVIRONMENTAL DATA ....................................... 17

ADDITIONAL ROUTING CONSTDERATIONS ..................................... 25

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...................................................... 26

EXHIBIT RRR -1 Rob R. Reid RGsume

EXHIBIT RRR- 2 Programmatic Agreement Among the United States Army Corps Of Engineers - Vicksburg District, The Arkansas State Historic Preservation Officer, the Caddo Nation, and Southwestern Electric Power Company Regarding the Proposed John W. Turk, Jr. Power Project (Hempstead County, Arkansas)

DIRECT TESTIMONY PAGE 2 of 27

DOCKET NO. 08-098-U ROB R. REIP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

72

13

14

15

16

I7

18

19

20

21

22

23

Q-

G

0.

G

Q-

A.

L INTRoDumoN

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND BUSINESS ADDRESS.

My name is Rob R Reid. My business address is 6504 Bridge Point Parkway,

Suite 200, Austin, Texas, 78730.

BY WHOM ARE YOUEMPLOYED AND IN WHAT CAPACITY?

I am employed by PBSW as Vice President and Principal Project Director.

PLEASE DESCIUBE THE BUSINESS OF PBS&J.

PBSM is a well-established consulting firm that provides engineering, planning,

environmental, and program management services with a staff of approximately

4,100 in 70 domestic and international offices. PBSBCJ employs a staff of more

than 750 in Texas, with ofices in Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and

Tyler. Founded in 1960, PBS&J has its corporate headquarters in Tampa, Florida.

The f m provides extensive services throughout the United States and its staf'f

includes specialists in a wide variety of scientific and engineering disciplines.

These disciplines indude civil engineering, chemical engineering, environmentaJ

engineering, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, air quality, meteorology, climatology,

geoIogy, surface and ground water quality, hydrology, socioeconomics, land use,

archaeology, and others. PBS&J offers extensive staff experience in the

assessment of environmental impacts associated with new electric transmission

facilities and major energy development projects. PBS&J has conducted

environmental assessments and environmental impact statements for local, state,

and federal regulatory agencies, as well as for the electric utility and other energy

development industries.

DIRECT TESTIMONY DOCKET NO. 08-098-U

ROB R. REID PAGE 3 of 27

1 Q*

2

3 k

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 Q.

21

22 G

P W E DESCRIBE YOUR EDUCATIONAUPROF'ESSIONAL

QUALIF'ICATIOM AND BUSINFSS EXPERIENCE.

I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences h r n

Texas A&M University in 1975, and a Master of Science degree in Wildlife and

Fisheries Sciences fiom Texas A&M University in 1977. I have worked as a full-

t h e professional ecoIogkt since 1978 and have authored or co-authored over 150

technical environmental papers and reports.

Since joining the fm (Espey, Huston & Associates, hc.) in 1978 (that

ultimately merged into PBS&J), I Rave managed or participated in numerous

multi-disciplinaxy environmental assessments for development projects, including

lmnsmission lines, and have served as Project Manager for over 100 routing

studies and environmental impact assessments associated with transmission

facilities. My rhu-n6 is attached to this testimony as Exhibit RRR-1.

In my present position, I am responsible for organizing, conducting, and

managing various types of environmental assessment projects, and assuring that

PBS&J's environmental impact assessments under my direction address the

provisions and requirements of applicable regulations, guidelines, and standards

of local, state, and federal agencies, I also have administrative and business

development responsibilities.

HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY PERF'OmD WORK RELATED TO

TRANSMISSION L m ADMINISTRATm PROCFXDINGS?

Yes, I have.

DIRECT TESTIMONY DOCKET NO. OX-098-IT

ROB R. R.EICl PAGE 4 of 27

1 Q. ElAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY PREPARED AL’JXRNATIVE ROUTE

2 ANALYSES, ENVIRONMFATAL ASSESSMFNE (EA), AND

3 EWIRONMJCNTAL IMPACT STATF,MF,NTS @E) FOR ELECTRIC

4 TRANSMISSION L m PROJFKTS?

5 A. Yes, I have directed and managed numerous such investigations in Arkansas,

6 Texas, and other states. These documents have been utilized by State

7 Commissions and I have served as an expert wibess on numerous occasiom

8 before these Commissions.

9

10 IL PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY

11 Q. WHAT IS TEIE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?

12 k The purpose of my testimony is to introduce and support the document entitled

13 “Alternative Route Analysis and Environmental Impact Statement, NW

74 Texarkana 345-kV Transmission tine, Bowie Comty, Texas and Hempstead,

15 Miller, and Little River Counties, Arkansas (EIS).’’ The Northwest (NW)

16

17

18

Texarkana Station to Turk Station 345kV Transmission Line Project (Project) is a

project of Southwestem Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), and this EIS was

prepared by PBS&J on behalf of SWEPCO. The EIS is sponsored by me and is

19

20

attached as Exhibit 4 to the Application for a Certificate of Environmental

Compatibility and Public Need (CECPN) that was filed by SWEPCO in this

21 docket.

22 Q.

23 SPONSOR?

WHAT EXEUBITS IN THE APPLICATION IN THIS DOCXET DO YOU

DOCKET NO. 08-098-U DIRECT TESTIMONY ROB R. REID

PAGE 5 of 27

1 Q. PUASE DESCRLBE TEIE PURPOSE OF TED3 EN.

2 A.

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Q.

13

14 A

15

16

17 Q.

18

19 G

20

21

22

23

The objective of the EIS was to select and evaluate several alternate transmission

line routes and ultimately to arrive at a proposed route for the Project that was

feasible from engineering, environmental, land use, and economic standpoints,

and would minimize adverse environmental impacts. The environmental planning

process completed by PBSBLJ consist4 of a series of tasks to address the

requirements of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC), the APSC’s

seven routing criteria for the development of an EIS to address essential elements

for a CECPN application, and the requirements of the Public Utility Commission

of Texas (PUCT) for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN)

application.

WHY DOES THE EJS CONSIDER FACTORS FROM BOTH APSC AND

PUCT?

The routing analysis for the project was conducted for end-toad routes, which is

the proper way to conduct an alternative route d y s i s . All of the alternative

routes traverse lands in both Texas and Arkansas.

WEAT ARE THlE SEVEN FACTORS THE APSC RECOMMENDS

SWEPCO CONSIDER IN TEIEIR ANALYSIS PROCESS?

The seven factors considered by SWEPCO as per APSC recommendations are: 1)

cost of facilities; 2) health and safety; 3) engineering and technical concerns;

4) ecological/environmental disruption; 5 ) disruptiodinterference with man-

made property uses; 6) dimptiodintmference with planned property uses; and 7)

aesthetic displeasure.

DIRECT TESTIMONY DOCKET NO. 08-098-U


I

1 Q* 2

3 A

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

DOES PUCT HAVE SJMILAa RFQulREMENTS TO BE

CONSLDIERED IN ANALYSIS PROCESS?

Yes it does. The PUCT provides direction to the utility to address the

environmental factors for route analysis found in Section 37.056(a) and

37.056(~)(4) of the Texas Utilities Code, through its Substantive Rules, and

through specific questions that the utility must address in the PUCT's CCN

application form. Specikally, Section 37.056(~)(4) requires the utility to

consider factors such as 1) community values; 2) recreation and park areas; 3:)

historic and aesthetic values; and 4) environmental integrity. In Section 37.0561a:)

and in PUCT Substantive Rule 25.101(b)(3)@) and 25.10l(d), the PUCT also

11

12

13 Q.

14

15 A.

requires the utility to consider costs, engineering constraints, methods to moderate

the proposed h e ' s impact on the affected community and landowners, and safety.

HAS THF, EVALUATION OF THE ROUTES IN THE EIS CONSIDEREa

BOTH APSC AND PUCT REQUIREMENTS?

Yes it has from a strictzy environmexltal perspective, . As I state above the A P S C

16

17

and PUCT requirements are very similar, however, not all address environmental

routing issues. PBS&J's routing analysis considered 37 different criteria that

18

19 Q. WILL YOUR TESTIMONY FILED IN THlS PROCEEDING BEFORE

20 THE APSC ALSO BE FTLFD WITH SWEPCO'S CCN APPLICATION

21 BEFORE THE PUCT?

22 k No. Although the routing evaluation considers and addresses the requirements

23 from both the APSC and the PUCT, this testimony is presented to address the

inchde the environmental requirements of both agencies.


DOCKET NO. 08-098-L" ROB R. REID

I

5 Q-

6

7 A

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 Q.

20

21 A

filing before the ASPC. I may dso file testimony in SWEPCO's CCN application

before the PUCT which will necessitate format changes to my testimony.

Notwithstanding, those modifications will not change the route evaluation process

presented in this testimony nor the proposed route selection outcome.

WHAT DOES THE JUS ADDRFSS AND WEUCE OF TEFE SEVEN APSC

CRI'IXRU DID P B W CONSIDER IN THE EIS?

The EIS provides a description of the procedures and methodology followed and

the factors considered in evduating the proposed and alternate routes. The EIS

was preparsd to address land use, visual resources, socioeconomic elements,

biologicdecological resources, geology and soils, hydrology, and cultural

resources within the regional study area and along the alternate routes. P B S U

addressed the foIlowing four of the seven APSC factors:

eco1ogicaUenvironmental disruptions; disruptions to existing manmade property

uses; disruptions to planned wanmade property uses; and aesthetic displeasure.

These four criteria are included in the 37 criteria evaluated by PBS&J as furthe.r

discussed in Section IV of my testimony. AEPSC provided the analysis of the

remaining t h e criteria The analysis conducted by PBS&J was a comparison o l

the alternatives from a strictly environmental standpoint.

IN YOUR OPINION, IS TEE PROPOSED ROUTE ACCEPTABLE WITfX

RFGGRXI TO THESE FACTORS?

Yes, it is.

DIRECT TESTIMONY DOCKET NO. 08-098-L'


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

I6

17

18

19

20

21.

22

23

Q.

G

Q*

k

WHO PARTKTPA'IED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS EIS?

A team of professionals under my direction, representing various environmentaI

disciplines, was assembled from the PBS&J staff- and was involved in dah

acquisition, and environmental impacts assessment of the Project.

PLEASE DESCRIBE "EIE STEPS TAKF,N IN PREPARING THE Em.

The steps included project scophg, study area delineation, data collection,

constraint mapping, delineation of alternative mutes, field review, consideration

of agency input, comparative route assessment, and impact assessment.

Scopina and Study Area Delineation

Project scoping and study area delineation required the selection of a study ma.

This area needed to encompass both project termination points (the existing

SWEPCO Northwest Texarkana Station and the proposal Turk Station) and

include a large enough area within which numerous alternative routes could be

delineated.

Data Collection

Data used by PBS&J in the evduation of alternative routes were drawn from a

variety of sources, including published literature (documents, reports, maps, aerial

photography, etc.) and information from local, state, and federal agencies. Recent

aerial photography, various scale US. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic,

maps, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD) and

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) county maps, and ground

reconnaissance surveys were used throughout the selection and evaluation of

alternative routes. Ground and aerial reconnaissance of the study area and

DOCKET NO. 08-098-U

I

DlRECT TESTIMONY PAGE 10 of 27

ROB R. REID

1 computer-based evaluation of digital aerial imagery were utilized for lmth

2

3

refinement and evaluation of alternative routes. The data colIection effort,

although concentrated in the early stages of the Project, was an ongoing process

4

5 Constraint Mapping

6

7

and continued up to the point of finaI route selection.

Since a number of potential routes could be dram to connect the termination

points, a constraints mapping process was used in selecting and refining possibIe

8 alternative routes. The geographic locations of environmentally sensitive and

9 other restrictive areas within the study area were- located and considered during

10 transmission line route delineation. The overall impact of alternative routes ha%

1 1

12

been greatly reduced by avoiding, to the extent reasonably possible, such

constraints as individual residences, ruraI subdivisions, airstrips, mobile irrigation

13

14

15

systems, cemeteries, known historic and archaeological sites, wetlands, parks,

churches, schools, and known endangered of threatened species habitat, and by

utilizing or paralleling existing compatible rights-of-way (ROW) and property

16 lines where possible.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Preliminw Alternative Route DelineatiodAdi ustments

Based on a review of aeriaI photographs, County Appraisal District propeq

boundary maps, environmental and land use constraints, existing transportation

and utility ROW, and the location of existing facilities, PBS&J (with review and

assistance from AEPSC) delineated a network of links for the Project. These:

links combined to form numerous preIiminary routes, which were examined in the

field by driving along public roadways and stopping at seIected locations to make

I


DOCKET NO. 08-098-U ROB R. REID

1

2

observations. Following additional envirommtaI and engineering review by

PBS&J and AEPSC, adjustments were made in the location and alignment of

3

4 Primary Alternative Route Evaluation

5

some links to M e r reduce potential environmental impacts.

As detailed in the EIS, 14 alternative mutes were selected for detaiIed analysis.

6 These routes are shown on figures 2-2 (map pocket), 2-3, 2-4 (map pocket), and

7 2-5 through 2-1 8 of the EIS. Each of the alternative mutes was examined in detail

8 from publicly accessible locations in the field, by helicopter, and from 2007 aerial

9 photography. They were evaluated considering a variety of environmentaVland

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

use criteria. The evaluation of each route involved inventorying and tabulating

the number or quantity of each criterion along each route.

After PBS&J completed a draft environmental analysis of 14 primary

alternative routes, a summary of the environmental evaluation (the process of

which is described below) and ranked alternate routes were presented to AEPSC.

The analysis conducted by PBS&J was a comparison of alternatives fiorn a

strictly environmental standpoint, based upon the measurement of 37 separate

17 environmental and land use criteria and the consensus opinion of PBS&J's

18 evaluators. PBS&J professionals with expertise in different environmental

19 disciplines (e.g. wildlife biology, plant ecology, land usdplanning, and

20 archaeology) evaluated the alternative routes based upon environmental

21 conditions present along each route (augmented by aerial photo interpretation and

22 field surveys, where possible) and the general routing methodology used by

23 PBS&J and AEPSC. Each PBS&J staffperson independently analyzed the routes


DOCKET NO. OS-098-U ROB R. REID

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Q- 10

1 1 k

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 Q.

19

20 A.

21

22

23

and the environmental data. The evaluators then met as a group and discussed

their independent results. The relationship and relative sensitivity among the

major environmental factors were determined by the group as a whole. The group

then ranked alternate routes based strictly upon the environmental data.

Subsequently, AEPSC conducted an independent evaluation of environmental,

land use, engineering, construction, maintenance, operation, and cost factors.

PBS&J and AEPSC conferred on the combined evaluations and AEPSC arrived at

the resulting proposed route.

WHAT DID P B S U TAKE INTO ACCOUNT TO DE-,

PIRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE ROUTESFORTHISPROjECT?

PBS&J initially prepared a description of the existing environment and an

environmental and land use constrahts map of the study mea. This information

was then used in conjunction with 2007 aerial photography and property

boundary maps to delineate numerous preliminary alternative routes. These

routes were selected by taking inio account existing and known proposed land

uses, areas of environmental concern, and APSC criteria and PUCT factors for

consideration in the routing of electrical. -mission Iines.

WERE "EIF, ENDPOINTS FOR THE PRF,LIMlNARY ALTERNATIS%

ROUTES FIXED FNDPOINTS?

The western endpoint was fixed at the existing SWEPCO Northwest Texarkana

Station, located near the city of L e v , Bowie County, Texas. The eastern

endpoint was fixed at the proposed Turk Station (to be constructed at the John W.

Turk Jr. Generation Facility (Turk Generation Facility) site).

DOCKET NO. OX-098-L' DIRECT TESTIMONY

PAGE I3 of 27 ROB R. REID

1 Q*

2

3 A

4

5

6 Q*

7 A

8 -

9

10

11

12

13

14 Q.

15

16

17 A.

18

19

20 Q.

21

22

WAS AEPSC, ON BEHALF' OF SWEPCO, INVOLVED IN W V E W OF

THE PRELMINARY ALTF,RNATWE ROUTES?

Yes, AEFSC reviewed the preliminary dternative routes with regard to cost,

construction, engineering, and ROW maintenance issues and constraints, and also

conducted field reviews.

DID PBS&J CONSIDER INPUT FROM GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES?

Yes. As discussed in Section 5.2 of the EIS (attached as Exhibit No. 3 to the

Application), PBS&J solicit4 infomation and comments from a variety of

Arkansas and Texas state agencies and federal agencies with responsibilities in

the areas of natural and cultural resources. PBS&J further abided by the

conditions imposed by the APSC on the placement of transmission lines when it

granted the Turk Generation Facility CECPN (Docket No. 06-154-U, Order Nos.

11 and 13).

PLEASE DESCRIBE HOW AND WHEN IN THE PROCESS PBS&J

UTILIZED THE COMMENTS AND/OR INFORMATION FROM

GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.

PBS&J utilized comments and information from governmental agencies in the

preparation of the EIS, the constraints map, and in the evaluation of alternative

routes.

IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL RANKING THE ONLY CONSlDERATION

IN THE SELECTION OF A PROPOSED ROUTE FOR A TRANSMISSION

LINE?


DOCKET NO. 08-098-L' ROB R. REID

1 A

2

3

4

5

6 Q.

7

S A .

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

No it is not. Environmental impediments can serve to eliminate a route h m

further consideration but when no inmountable environmental impediments we

present other considerations such as cost of facilities, disruption or interference

with existing and planned property uses, aesthetic displeasure, and other factors

can indicate a preference of one route over mother.

WHAT DID AlEpSC DECIDE IN ITS SELECTION OF ITS PROPOSED

ROUTE?

AEPSC’s project team performed a similar matrix evaluation of the routes

presented in PBS&l’s EIS. In evaluating the routes, AEPSC compared the route

alternatives to the seven primary routing criteria typically evaluated in Arkansas

CECPN filings and the 37 criteria in Table 6-1, which also address the routing

factors required to be considered by the PUCT. AEPSC adopted PBS&J’s

ranking of the route alternatives based upon environmental and ecological

considerations. Then a review was preformed by AEPSC considering the cost o.f

facilities, health and safety concerns, environmental impacts, impacts to current

and future land uses in the area, aesthetics, and engineering and technical

concerns. Based on this review and evaluation, AEPSC determined that all 14

routes were viable for transmission line construction. However, given the relative

merits of each mute alternative based on APSC identified routing criteria and

PUCT routing factors, AEPSC identified Route 2 as the best overall route and

selected it as its proposed route to be filed with the APSC and PUCT for this

project. Please refer to the direct testimony of Mr. George Carpenter for further

discussion on AEPSC’S route evaluation and proposed route selection.

DOCKET NO. 08-098-C DIRECT TESTIMONY

PAGE 15 of 27 ROB R. RElD

1 Qm

2

3 G

4

5 Q- 6

7

8

9

10

11

12 A

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

IS AEPSC'S PROPOSED ROIJTE ACCEPTABLE FROM AN

ENVIRONMENTAL PF,RSPEC'HVE?

Yes, it is. Route 2 was raalced third overall by PBS&J's consensus evaIuatio11

based on the environmental data

YOU GAVE TESTIMONY IM APSC D-T NO. 06-154-U THAT

IIIENTZFZED SEVERAL TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS AVAILABLE

TO PROVIDE TRANSMTSSION TO AND FROM THE TURK

GENIERATION FACILITY. ARE TBE AL"F,RNAm ROUTES

PRESENTED IN TEUS F,lS AND ROUTING STUDY LOCATIED WITHIN

THOSE S A M E CORIUDORS PREVIOUSLY IDEMlFIED FOR TEIE

COMMISSION?

Each of the alternate routes entering the Turk Station site are located within one

of the corridors that were identified in the study performed and utilized in Docket

No. 06-154-U. However, adjustments to the specific primary route alignments

have been made in the vicinity of and west of the LittIe River and south of the

Red River because of information received concerning Wetland Reserve Program

properties, and the discovery of certain constraints such as private airstrips during

field investigations. Additionally, pursuant to APSC Order Nos. 11 and 13, the

potential transmission line corridor along the Kiamichi Railroad was eliminated,

such that no alternative routes were considered along the mihod.

DOCKET NO. 08-098-U ROB R. REID DIRECT TESTIMONY

PAGE 16 of 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

IV. INFORMATION ADDRESSING THE CEICPN APPLICATION AND

COMPARATIVF, ENvzRoNMENTAL DATA

HOW WAS 'ME I[NFORMATION COMPILED BY PBSdkJ USED FOR

PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION?

Q.

G PBSW provided environmental and land use information for the proposed and

alternative routes, which was used to complete several specific questions in the

Application.

Q- WHERE WILL PROPOSED PROJECT BE LOCATED?

A The proposed Project will be located in southwest Arkansas and northeast Texas,

and will extend from the existing Northwest Texarkana Station located in Bowie

County, Texas, to the proposed Turk Station to be constructed in Hempstead

County, Arkansas. The proposed route will traverse portions of Hempstead and

Little River counties in Arkansas, and Bowie County in Texas. Some of the

alternate routes also traverse Miller County in Arkansas. The proposed Turk.

Station will be located on the northwest portion of the Turk Generation Facilio

property.

Q. PLEASE PROVIDE A GENERAL DEScRIlpTION OF THE AREA

TRAVERSED BY TEiE APPLICANTS' PROPOSED ROUTE,

SWEPCO's proposed mute traverses approximateIy 29.1 miles (22.8 miles in A.

Arkansas) and is located within the Red River Basin. The route traverses the Red

River BottomIands, Pleistocene Fluvid Terraces, and Tertiary Uplands regions,

which generally correspond to the bottomland hardwood pine and hardwood, and

upland hardwood natural vegetation. The Red River Bottomlands are widely

DOCKET NO. OS-098-U DIRECT TESTIMONY ROB R. REID

PAGE 17 of 27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

I 3

14

15 Q.

16

17

18

19 k

20

21

cleared and drained for agriculture and contains floodplains, low terraces, oxbow

lakes, meander scars, backswamps, natural levees, and the meandering Red River.

The Pleistocene Fluvial Terraces region are nearly level, poorly drained,

periodicdly wet, underlain by Pleistocene unconsolidated terrace deposits, and

covered by pine flatwoods. Loblolly pine and oaks stre common. The Tertiary

Uplands are dominated by commercial pine plantations that have replaced the

native oakhickory-pine forest. The dominant direction of d a c e drainage for

the South Central Plains region is to the southeast as part of the Red River and

Little Rver watersheds. Approximately 83,605 ft or 15.8 miles (66,875 ft112.7

miles in Arkansas) of the proposed route crosses cropland and grazingland.

Elevation at the Northwest Texarkana Station is approximately 340 ft above memi

sea level (msI), and from there the route extends generally northeast to the

proposed Turk Station site, which sits at an elevation of approximateIy 321 ft

above msl.

AFJXR IDENTIFYING THE ALTERNATIW ROUTF,S FOR TEW

TRANSMISSION UNES, DID PBS&J CONSIDER TEZE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON EACH OF THE ALTFJ3NATIVE

ROUTES?

Yes. PBS&J looked at 37 different criteria found in Table 2-2 of the EIS. The

results of the evaluation are listed in Table 6-1 and discussed in detail in Section

4.0 of the EIS.

DIRECT TESTIMONY DOCKET NO. 08-0984


2

3

4 A

5

6 Q-

7

8 G

9

10 Q.

11

12

13

14 A.

15

16

17

18 Q.

19

20

21 G

22

DOES THE EIS FULLY DEVELOP THE ENylRoNMENTAL IMPACT

OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF TEE 345 KV

TRANSMISSION LINE?

Yes. Section 4.0 of the EIS provides a detailed discussion of the environmental

impacts of the proposed transmission line.

DOES THE FJS FULLY DESCRIBE ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL

EFFECTS W€UCH CANNOT BE AVOIDED?

Yes. Sections 4.1 through 4.6 of the EIS fully describe the adverse environmental

effects that cannot be avoided.

DOES THE EIS CONTAIN A DESCRIPTION OF THE COMPARATIW

MERITS AND DETRIMENTS OF EACH ALTERNATE LOCATION AND

A STA"F,MENT OF THE REASONS WHY THE PROPOSED LOCATION

WAS SELECTEDFOR THlEFACIILITIES?

Yes. Section 2.3.1 of the EIS describes how the study area was delineated anti

Section 6.0 of the EIS describes the merits and detriments of the alternative

transmission line routes. The infomation used to evaluate the merits and

detriments is summarized in Table 6-1 of the EIS.

DOES THE EXS DISCUSS ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRIWTRIEVABLE

COMMWMEWH OF RESOURt3ZS WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN

THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMEN'IXD?

Yes. Section 1.4.2 of the EIS discusses the irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of resources for the transmission line.

DOCKET NO. 08-098-U ROB R. REID DIRECT TESTIMONY

PAGE 19 of 27

2

3

4 A

5

6 Qm

7

8

9

10 A.

11

12

13 Q.

14

15

16

17

18 A

19

20

21 Q.

22

23

WHAT ARE PBS&SS FINDINGS REGARDING PROXIMITY TO

HABITABLF, STRUCTURES IN THE VI- OF THE PROPOSED

Ram?

There are 17 (all in Arkansas) habitable structures currently identified within 500

ft ofthe centerline of Route 2.

WHAT ARE PISSM'S JXNDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AM RADIO

STATIONS WITEUN 10,000 FT OF THE CENTERLINE AND OTHER

TYPES OF ELECTRONIC INSTALLATIONS WJTHlN 2,000 FT OF

PROPOSED ROUTE?

No commercial AM radio transmitters are located within 10,000 ft of the

centerline. One (1) (in Arkansas) "other" electronic communication tower is

located within 2,000 ft of the centerline of Route 2.

WHAT ARE PBS&J+S FINDINGS WITH RESPECI: TO KNOWN

PRIVATE AIRSTRIPS 10,000 FT, FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION (FAA) REGISTERED AIRSTRIPS WITEUN 20,000

FT, AND aELlpoRTS WI'IXIN 5,000 ET OF TEUE CENTERLINE OF

TEIE PROPOSED ROUTE?

There are no FAA-registered airports within 20,000 ft of the centerline, no known

private airstrips located within 10,000 A of the proposed route centerline, and no

known heliports within 5,000 R of the proposed route centerhe.

WHAT ARE PBSWS FINDINGS WlTE RESPECT TO AREAS

IRRIGATED BY TRAVELING IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN THE

VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED ROUTE?

DIRECT TESTIMONY PAGE 20 af 27

DOCKET NO. 08-098-L ROB R. REID

I

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

G

Q.

k

The proposed route (Route 2) crosses no pasture or cropland known to be

irrigated by traveling irrigation systems (either rolling or pivot).

PLEASE DESCRIBE TBE PERMITS OR APPROVALS REQUIRED TO

CONSTRUCT TEE PROPOSED ROtTTE IN ARKANSAS.

Pennitslapprovals required include:

A construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a part of the

construction storm water permit, will be submitted to the Arkansas Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ). A Notice of Intent VOX) will be submitted to

ADEQ by SWEPCO, or its contractor, prior to the beginning of construction of

the approved transmission line.

The proposed route will likely encounter areas where construction activities will

be regulated by the Individual Permit to be issued by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE) for the Turk Generation Facility and its associated

transmission lines, related to possible impacts to jurisdictional waters pursuant to

the Clean Water Act and the Rivers and Harbors Act. SWEPCO will coordinate

with the USACE prior to clearing and construction, to ensure compliance with the

appropriate regulations associated with construction-related impacts to water

bodies and wetland features.

As part of processing of its permit application to the USACE, SWEPCO,

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP), an agency of the Department of

Arkansas Heritage, (also called the State Historic Preservation Oficer (SHPO)),

the Caddo Nation, and the USACE have developed a Programmatic Agreement


DOCKET NO. 08-098-1;' ROB R. REID

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

a

Q*

A,

Q-

(PA), dated April 23,2008, which will govern cultural resources issues associated

with the Turk Generation Facility and the proposed transmission line routes.

ADEQ will review the impacts to water quality (for activities regulated by the

USACE permit) as part of its Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality

Certification, which is a prerequisite to issuance of the USACE pennit.

Permits will be obtained fiom the Arkansas Department of Transportation

(ADOT) for my crossing of a state-maintained roadway.

County andlor municipal floodplain administrations will be consulted regarding

any structure placement within 100-year floodplains.

SWEPCO will continue coordinating with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with

regard to requirements concerning threatened and endangered species.

These permitdapprovals will be obtained following Commission approval of a

transmission line route and prior to initiating construction.

WHAT ARE PBS&J'S FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE NUMBER

OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS WITHIN 1,000 FT OF THE

CENTERLINE OF TEE PROPOSED ROUTE?

Based on a review of U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, AHTD and

TxDOT county highway maps, and field reconnaissance, PBS&J identified no

parks or recreation areas crossed by proposed Route 2. There is one (1:)

recreational area within 1,000 ft of the centerline of proposed Route 2, which is

the Nacatoch Ravines State Natural Area in Arkansas.

WHAT ARE PBSWS FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO POTENTIAL

IMPACTS ON HlSTORICAL AND AESTHETIC VALUES FROM THE

, DOCKET NO. 08-098-l-1 DIRECT TESTIMONY ROB R. REID

PAGE 22 of 27

1

2

3

4 k

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

PROPOSED ROUTE, INCLUDING KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCES

SlTES WITHIN 1,000 FT FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE

PROPOSED ROUTE?

Based on a literature review and records search at the Arkansas Historic

Preservation Program and Texas Historical Commission the proposed route

(Route 2) crosses one (1) recorded cultural resource site (Link 00 in Arkansas).

The proposed route has 18 (12 in Arkansas) historical or archaeological sites and

no listed or eligible as NRHP sites located within 1,000 fi of the centerline. The

PA will govern cultural resources issues associated with the Turk Generation

Facility and the proposed transmission line routes. If SWEPCO or their

respective contractors encounter any archaeological artifacts or other cultural

12 resources dwing construction, then construction at that location would cease, the

13 Department of Arkansas Heritage (DAH)/AHPP would be contactsd, and

14 appropriate action would be taken by SWEPCO or their respective contractors, as

15 directed by the DAWAHPP andlor the USACE in accordance with the PA.

16 Consbxction of the proposed transmission line could have both temporary

17

18

19

and permanent aesthetic effects. Temporary effects would include views of the

actual construction (assembly and erection of the structures) and any cIearing of

the ROW. where limited clearing is required in wooded areas, the brush and

20

21

wood debris could have a temporary negative impact on the local visua1

environment. Permanent impacts from the Project would be the Views of the

22 structures and conductors themselves as well as views of cleared ROW.


DOCKET NO. 08-098-Ll ROB R. REID

I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

S

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

14

17

18

19

20

21

Q. DO ANY OF THE 14 ROUTE ALTFXNATIVES CROSS RECORDED

ARCEIEOLOGICAL SITES?

Yes. AII of the proposed alternative routes cross at least one recorded

archeological site. Investigation of these sites as well as mitigation of impacts, if

necessary, will be governed by and in compliance with the Programmatic

Agreement (PA) between SWEPCO, Department of Arkansas Heritage - State

Historic Preservation Officer (SX-XPO), Caddo Nation, and US Army Corps of

Engineers. A copy of the PA is attached as Exhibit RRR-2

WHAT ARE PBSdZSS FINDINGS WJTEC RESPECT TO IMPACTS ON

ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY FROM THE PROPOSED ROUTE?

The construction of the proposed transmission line will cause only minimal short-

term impacts to soil and water resources. Some ecological resources (e.g.

forested habitats) wiII be permanently impacted due to required ROW clearing

activities. Because the proposed route is located primarily in ruraI areas, the

potential for long-term changes in land use on a landscape d e from the

proposed mute is minimal. The Project is not expected to adversely impact my

threatened or endangered plant or animal species. No long term or permanent

impacts to these species are likely to result fiom the proposed Project. In

addition, SWEPCO's mitigation measures will serve to reduce and mitigate

potential adverse effects of construction and operation of the proposed

transmission line.

A

Q.

A

DOCKET NO. 08-098-1; ROB R. REID

I


1 Qm

2

3

4 A

5

6

7

8 0- 9

10

11

12

13 A.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 Q.

23

ElM PBSBEJ CONSIDERED AND TABULATED SPECIFIC

INFORMXITON REGARDING ALL OF THE ABOVE ISSUES FOR

FACHALTF,RNATIVEROUTEP

Yes. Table 6-1 in the EIS contains the tabulations for all of the issues discussed

above for each of the alternative routes.

V. ADDITIONAL ROUTING CONSIDEUTIONS

HOW HAS THE PBSM ANALYSIS CONSIDERED SUCH FACTORS AS

1) USE AND PAaALLELING OF EXISTING COMPATIBLE RIGEITS OF

WAY, 2) USE OF VACANT POSJTIONS ON EXLSTING LE

CIRCUIT TRANSMISSION LIEYES, AND 3) PROPERTY BOUNDARIES

OR OTHER NAT'CIRAL OR CLILTUWL FEATURES?

PBS&J's route evaluation process considered utilizing and paralleling existing

compatible ROW and property boundaries where practical and reasonable. The

proposed route parallels approximately 8,170 ft or 1.5 miles (5,240 A/1 .O mile in

Arkansas) of existing transmission line corridors, and 7,535 ft or 1.4 miles (6,495

Wl.2 miles in Arkansas) of other existing compatible ROW. There are no vacant

positions on existing multiple circuit transmission lines present, thus this was not

an option for this Project. Areas of high topographic reIief, existing residential

development, wetlands, floodplains, recorded cultural resource sites, and riparian

areas were avoided where reasonable and possible.

E€AVF, AN ADEQUATE NUMBFS OF ALTFXNATWE ROUTES BEEN

FORMULATF,D TO CONDUCT A PROPER EVALUATION?

DOCKET NO. 08-098-Lr DIRECT TESTIMONY

PAGE 25 of 27 ROB R. REID

1 A

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 Q*

10

11

12 A

13

14 Q.

15

I6 A

17

18

19

20

21 Q.

22 A

23

Yes. Given the distance between the Project endpoints and the nature of the

Project area, I believe that the 14 alternative mutes evdwted in the EIS provide

an adequate number of alternative routes for evaluation. Data for the

environmental/land use criteria were collected for each link and all of the links

were used to develop the alternative routes filed in this Application. I believe the

14 primary routes filed in the Application represent an adequate number of

reasonable, viable, geographically-varied alternative routes for an approximately

28 to 3 1 -mile long transmission line.

HAS PBS&T REVIEWD AND CONSIDERED aRTAIN MITIGATION

W U R E S FOR TEUS PROJECT TO DECREASE POTENTIAL

IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED TRANSMSSION WNIE?

Yes, it has. Mitigation measures are set forth in Sections 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 4.0 of

the EIS.

WHAT GRE PBS&J'S CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THESE

MITIGATION MEASuRlES?

The proposed mitigation measures should serve to reduce and mitigate the

potential adverse effects of construction and operation of the proposed

transmission line to an appropriate extent.

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUS€ON

PLEASE SUMMARIZE YOUR TESTIMONY.

In my opinion, the proposed transmission line is environmentalIy acceptable, has

been routed and located in a prudent manner, and complies with the APSC and

DOCKET NO. 08-098-LJ DIRECT TESTIMONY

PAGE 26 of 27 ROB R. REID

1

2

3

4 Q. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR DIRECT TESTIMONY?

5 A. Yes,itdoes.

PUCT policies and procedures for transmission h e siting. Also in my opinion,

the EIS fully complies with the requirements of Arkamas law as set out in

Arkansas Code Annotated Section 23-1 8-5 1 1.

DIRECT TESTIMONY DOCmT NO. 08-098-Ll


OBOS&U-Exhibit RRR-1

Rob R. Reid YTce President, Senior Project Director

E ~ u c ~ n o s MS., Wddlife & Fsberies Scicncu, Texas A&M Universiry, I977 B.S., VViIdIifc & Fdtries S d m c ~ s , Texas AgLM Universiry, 1975

TxDOT Prcccrrificd, TxDOT E N # 1059

PROFESSIOXAL DEVEMPMEWT Fourth AnnusI Short Course on Vegetation, Wildlife Measurcmenrs for Pre- & Posr-Mining, CoIorado Stare Unkrsiy, April 1981

PROESSlO%ht AFFlL1AYIONS Phi Sigma Honorary Society, Beta Rho ChaptcI Travis G u n % T a m Environrnenral Task Force

CERTrflrnTI obi5

Member, 1988-1 990

Since joining the st& of PBSSrJ, Mr. h i d has managed or participated in baseline studies and environmental assessmenfs on surface and underground mincs, flood conml projects, Jgrrical and microwave transmission facilitics, airports, high- ways, pipelines, land dwetopmencs, wacer resourn managernen t projem, and orher industrial dwelopmerrt projects. These studies have been conducted in several states including Texas, Arizona, Colorado. Arkansas, Louisiana, Ntw Mexico, Afabarna, North Caroiina. Virginia, and Wisconsin. Mr. Reid's emphasis continues 10 be on the assessment ofenvjronmend impacts associated with indusrrial and urban development. Mr. Reid is very familiar wich the permitting and licensing processes for utility Facilities and surface and underground mines, and he regularly provides mpert wjrnes testimony for such projects.

Mr. Reid's teaching and research mperience is principally in the field of wildlife biology. He has taughr courses in ornithology, animal ecology, and wildlife management. Mr. Reid's research dealt primarily with the development of procedures for andyzing and evaluating game bird breeding habim. These studies were carried out in conjunction with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departmenr and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In Ais current position with PBS&J, Mr. Reid serves as a Vice Pmident and Senior Project Dimtor.

PL%LlGIn0?*'5 "Environrnenral Impact Statement for rhe Proposed Chambers Spring to Tontitown 345-kV Transmission Line Projecr, Benton and Washington Counriy, Arkansas;" prepared for Southwestern Electric Power Company, Sh reveport, Louisiana. Documcnt No. 060250, September 2006.

"Environmental Assessmenr and Alrernative Roue Analysis for the Proposed Medina Lake-CPS 138-kV Transmission Line Proj- ect, Bandcra, Medina, and Bexar Counties, Texas," prepared for LCRA Transmission Sewices Corporation, Ausrin, Texas. Docu- ment No. 060125, JuIy 2006.

*Environmental Assessmenr and Alternative Route -4nalysis for the Proposed RCEC 138-kV herconnect Project, Henderson and Van Zandr Counties, Tax,* prepared for Rayburn G u n g Electric Cooperative, Inc., Rodnvall, Teas. Document No. 060040, July 2006.

*Environmental hessmenr and Alternative Route ,Pnalysis for &e Propused HidaIgolRjo &co IO Stewart Road Transmis- sion Line Prujm, Hiddgo, County, TmasP prepared for AEP Teas Central Company, Corpus Chrisri, Texas. Doxmcnt No. 060038, June 2006.

"Environmental Assessment and Alurnarive Route ~halysis for the San MigueI to hb 345-kVTransmision Line Project in Atascosa, McMullen, LaSalle and Webb Counties, Texas," prepared for AEP Texas Central Company, Corpus Chrisd, Tmas. Document No. 040374, June 2006.

'Routing Analysis Siloam Springs ro Chambers Spring 161 -kV Transmission Line, Bemm County, Arkansas," prepared for Southwestern Ejecrric Powcr Company, Shreveprr, Louisiana. Document No. 060039, May 2006.

"Envjronmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for the Proposed Sand Springs 138-kV Transmission Lj1x Project, Wood County, Taas," prepared for Wood County Elccrrjc Co- operative, Inc,, Quiunan. Texas. Docurnenr No. 050274, April 2006.

"Envjromental Asscssmcnr and AIrernarive Route rhnalysis for the Proposed Capon to Lyde 138-kV Transmission Lint Project, Bexar, Medina and Atascosa Countits, Public Service of Ban Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. Document No. 050041, January 2006.

'Environmenral Asscssmcnt and Atemarive b u t t Anaiysis for rhc Proposed Amire South Phase 2 230-kV Transrnkion Lint Project, Ascension, Sr. James, and St. John the Baptist Parishes, Louisiana,= preparcd For Enrcrgy Smiccs, Inc., as agent for Entergy Louisiana, Inc., New Orleans, Loujsiana. Dxurnetic No. 050093, December 2005.

prepared for Ciry

"Environmenral Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for the 345-kV HiHje Projca, Forr Bend, %anon, Matagorda and Brazoria Counties, Texas,'' prepared For Cen terhint Energy Houston Electric, LLC, Houston, Tmas. Documenr No. 040366, September 2005.

"Environmenral Assessment and Afrcrnative Rome Pmnalysis for the Proposed Merlin to L-17 138-kV Transmission Line Project, Orange Cotrncy, Texas," prepared for Enterg). Gulf Stares, Inc., Beaumont, Texas. Document No. 0501 13, August 2005.

"Envjronrnenral Assessment and A h n a t i v e Routt Pmdysis for the Proposcd Port Acres to Keirh Lake 230-kV Transrnisrion Line Project, Jefferson Count): Texas," prepared for Enrergv Gulf States, lnc., Beaumonr, Texis. Docurnenr No. 0501 05, July 2005.

08-OSBU-Exhibit RRR-1

2

*Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Andysis for the Winnsboro 10 North MineoIa 138-kV Transmission Line Projem in Wood, FmnWin and Hopkins Counties, prepared for Southwestern Electric Power CO., Shrweport, Louisi- ana. Document No. 0401 65, September 2004.

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for rhe Proposed Sandy Creek to Sunrise Beach 138-kVTransmission Line Projccr, Llano County, Texas,” prepxed for LCRATransrnis- sion Services Corporation, Ausun. Tams, Document No. 0301 09, June 2004.

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis hr rhe Proposed Cagnon Road to LCRA Tie 345-kVTmsmission Line Projea, Bexar and Medina Counties, Tmas,” prepared hr City Public Service of San Antonio, San Antonio, k a s , Docu- ment No. 0301 51, June 2004.

“Environmental Assessment and Alremative Route Analysis for TXU Hemic Delivery Company’s Proposed Jacksborc-Wesr Den- ton 345-kV Transmission Line Project in jack, Wk, and Denton Counties, Texas,” prepared for TXU Electric Delivery Company, Fort Worth, Texas, Document No. 030302, lune 2004.

“Environmental Asscssment and Alrernauvc Route Analysis for rhe Proposed Hill Country 138-kV Transmission Line Projecr, Kendall County, Texas,” prepared for LCRA Transmission Ses- vices Corporation, Austin, Texas, Document No. 030327, May 2004.

“Environmental Asscssmenr and Alrcrnauvc Route Andysis for the F’ropDsed Stalq. to Point Blank 138-kVTr;msrnjssion Line Project, San Jacinto Counry, Texas,” p r e p a d for Sam Houston EIecrric Cooperative, Inc., Livingston, Tcxas, Document No. 030128, April 2004.

‘rEnvironmend Assesvnenr and Alternark Route Analysis For the Proposed Johnstown to Porter 230-kVTmsmision Line Project, Montgomery County, Texas,” prepared for Entergy Gulf Srates, Inc., Beaumont, Texas, Document No. 040061, March 2004.

“Environmental Assessment for Enrergy Gulf States, Inc.’s Pxo- posed Line 457 to CarroU Sweet Park Switching Station 138-kV Transmission Line Brojea, Jefferson County, Texas,” prepared for Entergy Gulf Srates, Znc., Beaumont, Texas, Document No. 030264, lanuary 2004.

“Environmental Assessment and Ahernative Route Analysis for the Proposed Cagnon-Kenddl345-kV Transmission Line Projecr, Kendalt Counry, Texas,= prepared for Lower Colorado River Au- thoriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 020396, January 2004.

“Environmental Assessmenr and Alternative Route Analysis for the Proposed Dayton to Gordon 138-kV Transrnjssjon Line Project, Liberty Counry, Texas,* prepared for Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Bmumont, Texas, Docurnenr No. 030322, December 2003.

”Environmend Assessment and Alternative Route llnalysk for Earmas Hecuic Cooperative, Inc.2 (dba FEC Electiic) Proposed Forney -NW Tare11 138-kV Transmission Line Frojm, Kadman County, TemsP prepared for Fanners Electric Coopmrbe, Jnc., Greenville, Texas, Document No. 03026 1, December 2003.

”Environmcnd &essment and AIternauve Route AnaIysjs for the Proposed Glasscock to Andice 138-kVTransmission Line Project, Williamson Counry, Teras,” prepared for LC’MTrans- mission Scrvices Corporxion, Austin, Texas, Docun~cnr NO. 000226, November 2003.

“Environmental Asscssmenr and AIternative RDwt haIysis for the Proposed Shaxylmd Utilities Mexico Tic 138-kY Tm~mission Line Projm, Hidalgo Counq Texas,= prepared for Surher- land, Asbill & Brennan, LLE Austin, Texas, Docum’mt No. 030127, Ocrobtr 2003.

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for the Froposed Piitsburg to Winnsboro 1 38-kV Trans.mission Line Project in Camp, Franklin, and Wood Counties, Ta.as,* prepared for Southwestern Electric Pawer Co., Shrwepon, Lciuisiana, Document No. 020203, August 2003.

*EnvironmentalAsswment and Alrernarive b u t e Analysis for rht Proposed Sourhwest Research Insritute 138-kV Transmission Line Froject, Bewar County, T-,” prepared for Cicy Public Ser- r r je of San Anconio, Sm Anronjo, Texas, Dmmeni: No. 020354, July 2003.

“Environmental Assessment of &e Proposed North McCam~y to Rio Pecos 138-kV Transmission Line, Uptan, Crane, And Crock- ett Counties, Texas,= prepared for LCRA Trammission Services Corporation, Ausrin, Texas, Dacurntnr No. 030003. May 2003.

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route h a l y s i s for the Propostd Hamilton Wolfe 138-kVTransmission Line Project. Bexar Counry, Texas,” prepared for Ciry Public Service ofSan Amonio, San Antonio,Texas, Document No. 030101, May 2003.

‘Environmental Assessment and Alterriarive Route h a l y s k for rht Proposed NGPL (Kinder Morgan) to Devers 138-kV Transmission Line Projm. Libcrty Counry, Texas,” p m p d for h t e r g y Gulf Srarcs, Inc-, Beaumont, Texas, Documenr NO. 030034, April 2003.

“Environmental Assessment for the Proposed China co Porter 230-kV Tmnsmission Lint Frojccr Jaffcrson, Hardin, Uberty, Harris, and Monrgomery Counrits, Ttxa.~,~ preparec for Enters GulfSrates, Inc., Beaumom, Texas, Docurnenr No. 0201 13, December 2002.

“Emironmend Assessment and Alternative Rome Analysis for rhe ProposedTwin Buttes ro Big LakelSAPS Cur-In 138-kV Transmission Line Project Torn Green County, Texas,’’ prepared

;LE 4 for LCRA Transmission Services Corporation, Ausri.n, Texas, Documcnr No. 01 01 41, December 2002.

08-09&U-Exh ibit RRR-1

3

“Envjronmend Assessment and Alternative Route Andpis fbr &e Proposed Fort Lanmster to Friend Ranch I3%kVTmsmL sion Line Cmckett, Pecos, and TerreIl Counrits, Texas,” prepared for LCRATransmission Services Corporation, Austin, Ttxas, Document No. 020029, November 2002.

‘Environmend Assessment and Alternative Route AnaIysis for rhe North McCamey to Southwar Mesa Tap 138-kV Transmis- sion Line Project Upron County, Teas,” prepared for LCRA Transrnjssion Suvices Corporation, Austin, Texas, Document No. 02OI29, October 2002.

“Environmental hessment for the Proposed Crane to McElruy/ N. McCamey Cur-In 138-kV Transmission Line Gape and Up- con Counties, Texas: prepared for LCRATransmissiun Services Corporation, Austin, Texas, Docurncllc No. 020130, Scprunber 2002.

“Environmenral Assessmenr and Alrernarive h u r t Analysis for the Propased Norrheast Warer Plant 138-kV Transmission Line Project Harris County, Texas,” prepared for Reliant Energy HL&P, Houston, T-, Document No. 010403, July 2002.

“‘Environmental Asscssmcnr: and AlrcrnatirTe Route Study for rhe Proposed Hickory Forcsr ro New Berlin 138-kV Transmission Line Project Guadalupe County, Texas,” prepared for Guadaiupe Vdlcy Uectric Cooperative, Go~zalerj, Tax., Documcnr No. 010314,Junc 2002.

“Fwironmenrd Assessment for the Nueces 3ay co Portland 138-kV Transmission Line Projccr Nucces Coung Texas,” prepared for American Electric Power, DallasTexas, Document No. 020048, March 2002.

“Environmcnral Assessment for rhc Nueccs Bay to hponr Switch 138-kV Transmission Line Project Nueces County, Texas,* prepared for American Elccrric Power, Dallas Texas, Document No. 020047, March 2002.

“Environmental Assessment for rhe Nueces Bay to Lon Hill and Nueces Bay LO Up River Road 138-kV Transmission Line Broject Nueces Counry, Texas,” prepared for American Electric Power, Dallas Texas, Document No. 01 0426, March 2002.

“Environmental Assessment and Alternaxivc Route Analysir, for the Lower Colorado River Authoriry’s Proposed Macedonia to Hockley 138-kV Transmission Line ProjecE Harris, Montgomery, and Wdler Coundts, Texas,” prepared for Lnwer Colorado River Aurhoriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 981789, Juty 2001.

%wironmentd Assessment and Alremarivt Route h a I y s i s for the Proposed Graham-Jacksboro 345-kV Transmission Line Project Young and Jack Counties, Texas,” prepared for ? X U Electric Company, Forr Worrh, Texas, Document No. 9305 13, May 2001.

“State Highway 130 from 1-35 North of Georgetown to 1-1 0 Near Seguin - Environmencd impact Statement,” Draft Decem- ber, 1999/Find March 2001. (PES&J Projecr Manager)

“Environmental Assessment and Alternarivc Route ~lnalysis for the Proposed Conroc to Forest 138-kV Transmission Line Project Montgomery County, Texas,” prepared for IEntergv Gutf States, Inc, B ~ u m o n ~ , T ~ ~ , Documenr No. 000338, Dnxmber 2000.

“Environmenral Assessment and AIternative Roure ilnalysis for the Proposed Capote to Hickoty Forest 138-kV Trarimission fine Projca GuadaIupe Counry, TexasP prepared for Guada- Iupe Valley Elecuic Cooperarive, Gonaalcs, Texas. Document No.931436, November 2000.

“EnvjronmentaIAent and Alternadve Route hatysis for the Proposed Van Raub 138-kV Transmission Line Project, Bexar, Kendall, Bandera, and Corn4 Counties, Texas,= prepared for City Public Service of San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, DDcument No. 991488, September 2000.

“Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Kunjt:. to Wink 138-kVTransmissjon Line, Culberson, Reeves, Loving, and Wider Counxics, Texas,” prepared for the Lower C:olorado River Authoriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 000006, May 2000.

‘hnvironmenral Assessment for the Proposed Lockhan to Dump Hi1 138169-kV Transmission Line, Catdwcll County, ?&as,” prepared the Lower Colorado Ever AuAority, Austin, T-, Document No. 931 383, March 2000.

“Envjronmemd Assessmenr and AJrernarivc Route Andysis for the Proposed Morgan Creek-Twin BUKCS-RCCI Creek-Comanche 345-kV Transmission Line Projcci, Mitchell, Coke, Sterling. Tom Green, Runnels, Contho, Coleman, McCulloch, Brawn. Mills, and Comanche Counties, Texas,= prepared f o r m EIecrrjc, Fort Worrh, Texas, and West Texas Utilities Company, Abilene, Texas. Document No. 930514, February 2000.

*Environmental Assemien t and Ahnat ive Route Analysis far the Proposed Eotergy Gulf States, Inc. Spring Creek 138-kV Transmission Line Project, Montgomcry and Harris Counties, Texas,’’ prepared For EntergylGulf Srares Wtjlirics Cmmpany, Beaumont, Texas, Document No. 931 143, December 1939-

“Environmental Assessmenr for the Proposed Fayette Power Project -Lpon Springs 345-kV Transmission Line, Caldwdl, Bastrop, and Fayarc Counties, Tclrasf prepared for cbe Lower Colorado River Aurhorjry, Austin, Texas, Docunienl: No. 93081 8, July 1393.

“Environmental Assessment for the Proposcd Hays Energy 345- kV Transmjssion Line, Hays and Guadalupc Counriw, Texas,” prepared for the Lower Colorado River Authoriry, Austin, Texas, Docmenr No. 990086, April 1333.

“Environmenral Assessment - Frontera Generarion 1,imiced Parr- nership - Riio Bravo Wectrical lnwconnection Project, Hidalgo Counry, Texas,” prepared for Fronrera Generation Limircd Pm- nership, ~ a ~ a s , Tex-&~.s. Department of Energ, Washington, D.C., DOEW-1297, April 1933. Q

08-098-U-Exhibit RR R- 1

4

“Environmental Assessment fbr the Proposed Buda-Rohr r38-kV Transmission Line, Hays G u q , Texas,” prepared for the Lnwer Colorado River Authority, Austin, Texas, Document No. 390085, March 1399.

”Envjronmend Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis fos the Jasper-Newton Elecrric Cooperative’s McGee 138-kV Transmission Line and Subsradon Frojea, Jasper County, Tmas,” p r e p d for Jasper-Nmon EIectric Cooperarive, Inc., Kirbyville, Texas, Document No. 980285, December 1338.

I % l l v i r o ~ ~ ~ ~ t a l Assessment and Alternative Roure Analysis for the Proposed Mustang Mand Transmission Line Project, Nucces Counry, TaasP prepared for Ccnual Power and Light Company, Corpus C h r i s r i , Texas, Document No. 380884, November 1998.

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Roure Analysis for the h e r Colorado River Aurhoriry’s Proposed Segovia Transmis- sian Line Project, Kimble Counry, Taras,” prepared for the Lower Colorado River Authoriry. Auain, Texas, Document No. 971 620, October 1998.

“Environmental Assessment for &e Proposcd Coldspring IO Wolf Creek io Dorrell 138-kV Transmission Line Project, San Jacinro. Walker, and Montgomery Counties, Tcxas,” prepared for Sam Houston Elccrrjc Cooperative, Inc., Livingston, Texas, h r n e n r No. 3701 28, August I 398.

“Environmental Assessmcnr and Alternative Route Analysis for the Proposed Big Lake-Qmna-Sonora 138-kV Transmission tine Project, Reagan, Cro&.cn, Schlejcher, and Sucton Coun- ties, Texas,- prepared for West T- Urilirjes Company, Abilenc, Texas, Document No. 771225, April 1938.

“Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Hi11 G u n n y IO Stonegate 138-kV Transmission Line Project at Camp B d h , Taasf prepared for City Public Service Company of San Anro- nio, San Antonio, Tatas, Document No. 96021 0, February 1338.

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Roure Analysis for the Proposed Friendship to Cirde C to Mylchaca 138-kVTrans- mission Line Project, Travis and Hays Counties, Texas,“ prepared for Pcdcrndes Electric Cooperative, Inc., Johnson City, Document No. 970276, Sepcembcr 1397.

"Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Upgrading of cht Mum Creek to Smichville 69-kV Transmission Line, Bastrop Counry, Texas,” prepared for thc Lower CoIorado River Authoriry, Austin, Texas. Document No. 370860, Augusr 1997.

“Environmental Assessment and Aremarive Roure Analysis for rhe Proposed Wirtz to Granite Mountain 138-kVTrmsmission Line Project, Burnet Counry, Texas,“ prepared for the Lower Colorado River Aurhoriry, Austin, Texas, Documenr No. 9701 33, June 1997.

“Environmental Assessment and Alrernative Route Srudy for the Proposed Taylor ’Bayou G9-kV Transmission Line Projmr,”

prepared for EntergyIGdf Stares, New Orleans, Louisiana, Docu- menr No. 961534, January 1997.

“Borrower’s Environmenrd Rcport for the Proposecl SN TX to Plainview 67-kV Transmission f ine Project,= prepared for Midwar Hecrrjc Cooperarive, Inc., Roby, Tcxas, Document No. 96 1379, November 1556.

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route 3udy for the Proposed Longworth 63-kV Tmnsmission Line Projea,” prepared for Wesr Texas Utilities Company, Abilene, Texas, Ilotnrmenr NO. 961 378, November 1936.

‘Environmend Assessment and Alternative Route :hdy for &e Proposed Snyder to Roby 69-kV Transmission Line Project,” prepared for West Texas Utilities Cornpanp Abdene, Texas, Docu- ment No. 960748, November 1936.

“]Draft Environmencd Impact Statement, US- 71 B Tacarkana, Arkansas, to DeQueen, Arkansas B L i d e River, Miller, and Scvier Counues, Arkansas and Bowic County, Texas,” prepared for the Arkansas Srate Highway and Transpomtion Dtpanrncnt and the Federal Highway Adminismuon, State Project No. 30108, Docu- ment No. 930500, November 1936.

“Environmcnral Assessment and Alrcmarivc Route kudy for rh t Proposed Buttercup to Jollyville 138-kV Transmission Lint Proj- ect,” preparcd for t h e Lower Colorado River A u h r i y , Ausrin, Texas, Document No. 960328, September 1336.

*Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Universiry Substa- don Projetf,” prepared for Ccnrral and South West &rvices, Tnc., Dallas, Texas, Documcnr No. 960749. July 1996.

“Borrowers Environmental Report for the South Palmine 138-kV Transmission Line Rroject, Anderson County, Texas.” prepared for New Era Elccrric Cooperative, Inc., Athens, Texis, Document No. 960079, June 1996.

“Environmcnral Assessment and Alternative Route hudy Ear the Proposed Gateway 138-kV Transmission LinelSubstatjon Proj- ect,” prepared for Central and South Wat Services. Inc., Dallas, Texas, Docurncnc No. 960447, May 1996.

“Environmental Assessment For the Proposed D.O. .AIdridge-HilU Wilson GB-kVTransmission Line Project, Franklin md Hopkjns Counties, Texas,” prepared for Wood Counry Ekcrric Coopera- tive, Inc., Quitman, Texas, Document No. 330602, May 1996.

“Environmental Assessmenr for rhe Proposed Centcd Heights- Martinsville 69IFuture 138-kV Transmission Ljne Projecr, Nacog- doches Counry,Texas,” prepared for Deep East Texas Elecrric Cooperative, Inc., San Augustine. Texas, Document NO. 950760, November 1995.

“Znvironmental Assessment and Alternative Routing Analysis for rhe PIoposed Scherrz ro Parkway I38-kV Ttansmis- sion Line Project, Volurnrs I and 11,” prepared for the Lower Colorado River Aurhoriry, Austin, Texas, Docu- ment Nos. 950694 and 95 1020, November 1335.

08-098-U-Exhibit RRR-1

5

’Environmental Assessment and Alternative Routing Analysis for the Proposed Conroe to Oak Ridge 138-kVTransmission Line Projea” prepared for EnrergylGulf State5 Uriliries, ’8eaurnont, Texas, Document No. 950757, October 1335.

’Comprehensive Routing, Environmmnral, and Engineering Stud- ies for the Onion Creek to Bergsworn 138-kV Transmission Line Project (subconsu1mr to R.W. Beck for hvironmenral Assess- menr)f prepared for the City ofAustin Hectrjc Uriljry Depm- mmx, Austin, Texas, Document No. 950265. September 1995.

“Borrowers Environmend Report for the P r o p o d Reno 138-kV Transmission Line l’mjax, Lamar Counry, Texas,” prepared for Lamar County Electric Cooperative Association, Paris, T-, Document No. 940512, June 1935.

‘Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for the Proposed Bo 138-kV Transmission Line Projm,” prepared for Gulf Coast Power Connect, Inc-, Austin, Texas, Docurnenr No. 941206, February 1335.

‘Environmend Asscssmenr for the Temco-Evergreen 138-kV Transmission Line Project Walker County, Texas: prepared h r Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc., Livingsron, Tcxas, Documenr No. 940669, November, 1994.

“Environmental Assessrnmr and Msemative Routing Analysis for the Proposed Mexico Tie 230-kVTransmissioo fine Project (Pre- liminary Draft),” prepared for Ccnrral and South W m Services, Inc., Ddas. Texas, Document No. 930240, November 1934.

“Volume I1 Environmend Assessment oFAlrcmarive Routes for LCMs Proposed Schumansvjlle Project, Cornal and Guadalupe Counties, Twas,” prepared for The Lower Colorado River Author- ky, Austin, Texas, Document No. 330774, October 1994.

"Environmental Asscssmcnt and Altcrnacivc Route Analysis for LCWs Proposed Texas Wind Power Project 138-kV Transmis- sion L i n e Culberson County, Texas,” prepmed for The Lower Calorado River Authority, Austin,Texas, Document No. 340135, lune 1994.

*Borrowers hironmcnral Report Sam Houston Elcccric Coop- erative, Inc. Proposcd Two-Year Work Plan 1994-1 335,’’ prepared for Sarn Housron flccrdc Cooperauvc, Inc., Livingscon, Texas 77351, Document No. 940034, March 1934.

“Environmenral Assessment and Alternative Route Anatysis for Cenrral Power and Light Company’s Proposed Roma 138-kV Tmmissjon Line Project,“ prepared for Central Power and Lighr Company. Corpus Chrjsci, Texas, Document No. 930514, November 1993.

*Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Berm-Jackson- ville 138-kVTransmission Line Projem, Anderson, Cherokee and Houston Counties, TmxP prepared for East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., Nacogdoches, Texas, Documenr No. 930066, Ocrober 1993.

“Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Swinnqrtown Tap Swinneyrown 138-kV Transmission Line Project, Snzi th Comry, Texas,- prepared for East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., Nacog- doches, Texas, Document No. 930069, Ocrobcr 1993.

“EnvironmcntaI Assessment for the Proposed Troup TapNew Summefield 138-kV Tran&ion Line Project, Smith and Cherokee Counties, Texas,” prepared for East Texas Electric Cooperarive, hc., Nacogdochts, Ta, Document No. 930068. Octohcr 1393.

‘Environmental Assessment for &e Proposed JacksonvilIc-Tea- seIville I38-kVTransmtssion LRC Projacr, Smirh a d Cherokee Cowries, Texas,- prepared for East Texas Wecvic Ctmperadvc, Inc., Nacogdoches, Texas, D m e n t No. 330067, October 1333.

“Ennvironmtntal h m c n t for the Proposed CIyde Brady-E. B u r p 138-kVTransmjssjon Line Project, Van Zantlt and Smith Counrics, TemJ prepared for East Texas Elccuic Cooperative, Inc., Nacogdochts, Texas, Document No. 930070, Oaober 1333.

‘Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for Chc Proposed Frcdcriclcsburg No& Project-Volume 11,” prepared for the Lower Colorado River Authority, Ausun, Texas, Docu- menr No. 830251, June 1983 (Revised Augw 1333).

“Volume J Existing Environment of the Region of lrircrcsr for t h e LCRA’s Proposed Schumansville Projm,’’ prepared for The Lower Colorado River A u & o r i ~ , Austin, Texas, Documcnr No. 93001 6 , May 1933.

“Existing Environmcnr of rhc Region oflnteresr for the Proposed Frrderidcsburg North Project-Volume I,” prepared fix rhc Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, Texas, Document No. 880069, April 1983 (Rwised January 1393).

“Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Eden I’rojecr, Conch County, Texas,m prepared for West Tcxas Urjiirits Corn- pany, Abilcne, Texas, Document No. 91 0575, November 1932.

“Comprehensive Routing and Environmental Studies for the Stahoh to Salem Walk 138-kV Transmission Line T’rojecc (CKT 976),” prepared for TIC City of Austin Electric UriIiry Depart- ment, Ausun, Tmas, Document No. 9001 94, September 1992.

‘Environmental Assessrnenr and Alrcrnativc Route Pmdysis for the Proposed Kcrr Counry Project-Volume TIP prepared for the Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, Texas, Document No. 8301 78, May 1383 (Revised September 1992).

“Borrowers b i m n m e n t d Report for the Proposed Jackson- Canron 138-kVTransrnission Line Project, Van Z n d t County, T~exas,’’ prepared for Rayburn Counrry Electric Cooperative, Inc., R o c h d I , Texas, Document No. 91 0604, July 1992.

“Envjronmend Assessment and Alternative Routing, Analysis for the Proposed Cross Valley Tie 345/138-kV Project,= prepared for Central Power and Lipht Company, Corpus Chrisri, Texas, Documenr No. 900784, July 1992.

08-098U-Exhibit RRR-1

6

prepared for the Lower Colorado River Author+, Austin, Texas, Documenr No. 91 01 73, May 1991.

‘ B O ~ W ~ X S Eslvironrnenral RepordEnvironrnental Asressment for the Proposed Cancon Tap - Mincola 138-kVTransrriisrjon Line Project, V3n Zandt, Smjrh and Wood Counties, Texas,” prepared for Sourhmern Uearic Power Company, Shrevepun, Lodsi- ana and Raybum Country Elecrric Cooperative, Inc., R o b a l l , Texas, Document No. 900607, March 1931.

*Environmental Evaluarion of the Froposed 138-kV Transmission Line Bemeen the Glenn Pine Subsrarion and the Pmpposcd Ex- plorer SwiIching Stat;on in Van Zandt Counq, Texas: prepared for K a u h a n County Hectric Cooperarive, Jnc, Katifmm, Ttxas and Rayburn Counuy Electric Cooperative, Inc., IbdnVd, Texas, Document NO. 310041, March 1991.

“Environrnenral Assessment and Alwrnative Route h d y s k for &e Proposed Explorer-Overton 138-kV Transmission Line Project-Ka&an. Van Zandt, Henderson, Smith, Aldcrmn, Cherokee and Rusk Counries, Texas: prepared for Payburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc., Rockwall, T w , Document No. 300556, February T 33 I.

“A Review ofAvaj1able Information on Black-capped Vireo OC- mrrence in Reladon to the Lower Colorado Rivtr Aurhoriry’s Elecrric Transmission Facilities,” prcparcd for rht Lower Colorado River Authority,Amsdn, Texas, Documcm No. 900700, January 1391 (with staff).

“Comprchcnsjve Routing md Environmental Studits for the Sprinkle to Howard lane 138-kV Project (CKT !37&/975),” prepared for the City ofAustin, Ausdn, Texas, Docurncnr No. 900021, January 1931.

“Borrowers Environmental Rcport-Sam Houston Utctrjc Cooperative, Inc. - Pmposcd Two-Year Work Plan-1 991 -I 932,” prepared for Sam Houston Electric Cooperative, Inc., Livingston, Texas, Document NO. 9 100 15, January 1 991 . mAlternative Routing AnaIysis and Envjronmentd Rr:port for &e Proposed Dripping Springs to Wirnberley 138-kv Transmission t i n e and Substation,” prepared for Pederndes Hcctric Coopera- tive, Inc., johnson Cicy,Texas, Document No. 900614, Nwcm- ber 1330.

“Environmental Analysis of South Padre lslnnd - POI [ IsabeI 138-kV Underground Transmission Cable,= prepared for Cenrral Power and Light Co., Corpus Chrisd, Texas, Document NO. 890633, October 1330.

uSupplernend BioIogjcal Assessment of the Endangacd Atwa- tcr’s Prairie Chicken and Bdd Eagle Along CPCs Frciposed Lon C . HiU-Coho Creek 345-kV Transmission Line,- p:epared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas, Document

“Draft Envirommtal Impact Starmenr-Proposed Construction of WinstonSalem Outer Beltway on New Location,’’ prepared for Norch Camljna Dept. of Transporrarjon, FHWA-NC-EIS-92-06- D, Documenr No. 9 I 01 24, June 1992.

“Environmental Assessment and AIternative Route Analysis for the Proposed Military Highway-CFE Tie 138163-kV T m m i s - sion Line Projccc, BruwnsviUe, Cameron Counry, Texas,- prepared for Centra1 Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas/ U.S. Dept. of Energy, Document No. 910377, DOUEB-0702. April 1932.

“Environmental Assessmcnr for Central Power and Light Compa- ny’s Proposed Koch Refining Cornparry 69/I 38-kV Transmission Line Jieocanon Projccr,” prepared for C m d Power and Lighf Company, Corpus Chrisd, Taas, Document No. 31 0439, Janu- a q 1392.

“hvironmenral Assessment and Alternative Routing Analysis fos the Proposed Namogordo to hidoso 1 15-ltV Transmission Line Proje , - prepared for Texas-New Mexico Power Company, Fort Worch, Texas, Document No. 300551, January 1932.

*Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Rebuilding and Relocation of a Portion of the Hiuoss-Buda Split 138-kV Tms- mission Line, Travis and Hays Counties, Tax,” prepared for the hwcr Colorado River Authoriry, Austin, Tcxas, Document No. 900302, Sepctmber 1991.

“Comprehensive Siring Rouring & Environmentd Smdies for &e Oak HilI 138-kV Subsration and hlared Transmission Line Relocation Projecr,* prepared for rhe Ciry of Austin, Auscin, Texas, Document No. 9 10044, Septcm ber 193 1.

“Phase I Preacquisition Sire ~ e n r - ~ ~ - A c r t Tract Southwesr of the Intersection of FM 1533 and Searcy Ranch b a d , Har- lingcn, Texas,’’ prepared for Central Power and Lighr Company, Corpus Christi, Texas, Document No. 9 1041 I , August 1991.

“Draft Environmcnral Impact Starcmtnt - Proposed Consrrucrion o f U.S. 220 EO a Four-Lane Divided FaciIiry on New Location char Eccnds Approximardy 15.3 Miles fmm Emery ro sou& of Elletkin Montgomery and Rjchniond Counties, Norch Caro- ha,- prepared for rhe North Carolina Department ofTransprta- tion, Raleigh, North Carolina, FHWA-NC-EIS-9 1 -02-D, July 1391.

‘Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for the Proposed Nonh Pore-Oilvile-Shorr Pump 230-kV Trans- mission Line Project,- prepared for Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia, Document No- 890327, Jdy 1991.

“Existing hvironmenr of 31c Region of Interest for the Proposed Kerr County Project-Volume I,” prepared For the Lower Colorado River Authority. Austin, ‘ T m , Document No. 8901 96, AprjI 1989 (Rwised June 1391).

”Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Hilbig 13.8-kV In-Field Line Addition Near Rockne, Bastrop Counry, Texx,,”

No. 3006 19, October 1990.

“Borrowers Environmental Report - Six Mile - Leach 138-kV Txansmission Line Project, Sabbine & Newton

OBOSBU-Exhibit RRR- 1

7

Coundes, Texas,= prepared for Tnr-La Electric &operative, Jnc., Nacogdoches, Texas, Documenr No. 890651, September 1930.

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis f ~ r the Lytron Springs-Slaughter Lant Project,= prepared for the Ciry ofAustin, Austin, T m , Document No. 830501, September 1990.

“Envjronmental Assessment and Alternative h u t e Analysis for Central Power and Light Cornpanfs Proposed Sanro Nino 138- kV Transmission Line and Subsration,” Webb Couoty, Texas, prepared for Central Power and Light Company, Corpus Chrisri, Texas, Document No. 300034, August 1930.

“Environmental Assessment 8r Alrernarive Route Analysis - Pine- land - Rayburn S w i t c h y d 138-kV Transmission Line Project, Sabint and Jasper Counties, Texas,” prepared for Tex-La H m i c Coopemrive, Inc., Nacogdoches, Texas. Document No. 830650, August 1330.

“Environmental Assessment of h e Proposed Pisek Project,” prepared for t h e Lower Colorado River Authoriv, Austin, Taras, Document No. 890377, March 1990.

“Borrowers Enlrironmcnrd Repon - Center-Holly 138-kV Trans- mission Line Project, Shelby & San Auguusrine Counties, Texas,” prepared for Tex-La Electric Cooperative ofTexas, Inc., Namgdo- des , Tacas, Document No. 890649, February 1990.

“Environmental Assessment for rhe Winchester to Salem 138-kV Transmission Lint Projeci prepared for rhe Lnwcr Colorado River Aurhoriry, Austin, Texas, Docurnem No. 890984, Decem- ber 1989.

“Alrernarive Ruure Andysis and Environrnenrd Assessmenr for the Lon C. Hill-Colcto Creek 345-kV Transmission Line (Vat- urn= I and ll),m prepared for Central Power and Light Company, Corpus Chrisci, Texas, Documcnr No. 890149, December 1989.

“Envjronmmd Informauon Docurnem for the Proposed Aris- rech CumenelPhenol Complex, Mounr Airy, Louisiana,* prepared for Aristech Chcmical Corg., Pinsburgh, Pennsylvania, Docu- men1 No. 8301 15, October 1989.

“Borrowen ‘Environmcnrd h p o r r for the Proposed Tenaha- Tirnpson I38-kVTransrnission Linel30-Megawatr Load Shift

Nacogdoches, Texas, Document No. 880728, September 1989.

“Environmental Assessment and Alrernarive Route Analysis for Central Power and Light Company’s Proposed Javelina 138-kV Transmission Line and SubsrarionP prepared for Cenrral Power and Light Company, Corpus Chrisri, Tas, Documenr No. 830135, September 1389.

“Alternarive Route Analysis and Environmenral Assessment for h e Proposed GilI 133-kV Transmission Lne Project, Harrison County,Texas,” prepared for Panola-Harrison Electric Coopera- rive, Inc., Marshall, Texas, Document No. 830070, June 1389.

prepared for Tex-La EIectric Cooperarive oFTexas, Inc.,

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route .4nalysis-Ches- r d d d to Chickahomjny 230-kV ProjecrP p q a r d for Virginia Puwer, Richmond, Virginia, Documcnr No. 880720, June 1933.

“Environmental Assessment for a Proposed 138-kV Tmnsmissjon Line ReIocaTjon Near Kyle, Hays County, Texas,- prepad for the Lower Colorado River Auhoriy, Austin, Texas, Document No. 830241,]une 1989.

*A Review of Available Informarion OR Black-mpped Vireo Oc- currence in Marion to the Lower Colorado River Anthority’s Elecujc Transmission FacilidcsP prepared for rht Lcwer Coloxado River Authoriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 830020. February 1389 (with staff).

*Environmental Assessment - Lampasas-Goldthwait e 63-kV Transmission Line Project: prepared for the Lower CoIorado River Authority, Austin. Texas, Document No. 880505, February 1983.

“Environmenral lnformation Document,- prepared €or thc El Paso Counry h e r Valley Waxer District Authoricy, Socorro, T~xas, Documcnr No. 880673, December 1988 (wirh Jones and Neuse, Inc. and Conde Engineering, Inc.).

“Environmental Report for &e Proposed Childress KO Wducah 138-kV Transmission Line Project,- prepared for War Tutas Utilities Company, AbiIene, Taras, Document No. #80628, November 1388.

‘Borrowers Environrnend Reporc for cht Proposed West Mun- son-Quinlan-Weland 138-kV Transmission Lint ar.d Substa- tions,’’ prepared for Farmers Electric Cooperative, hc., Green- vde, Texas, Document No. 880563, November 1988.

“Environmental Asswrnent and Alrernauvt Route Analysis for the Proposed Mill Creek Project -Volume 11,” prepared for the Lower Colorado Rivcr Authoriry, Aurin, Texas, Docurnenr No. 880292, September 1388.

“Environmental Assessrnenr and Ahnative b u t c linalysis for Central Power and Light Company’s Proposed Homeport 138-kV Transmission Line and Substacionf prepared for Cenud Bower and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas, Document No. 880363, September 1388.

“Environmental Information Documenr for a Proposed Wood Products Manufacturing Faciliry in Beauregard Pari& Louisiana,” prepared for Temple-Eastex, Int., Diboll, Texas, Document No- 880422, August 1988.

“Jhvironmentd Assessment and Aremafive Route rlndysis for the Proposed Colorado Counry Projecr - Volume 11,” prepared for the tower Colorado River Authoriry, Austin, Texas, Docurntnr NO. 880406, August 1988.

“Borrowers Environmental Repon for the Proposed Moss HjlI 230-kV Transmission Line and Substation,” prepared for Sam Housron Elecrric Cooperative, In<:., Livingston, Tslas, Document No. 880202, June 1388.

L* 6

08-098-U-ExRibit RRR-1

a

“Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Loudoun TO Clark 230-kV Project,” prepared for Virginia Power, Glen Ailen, Vir- ginia, Document No. 380065, June 1988.

“Existing Environment of rAc Region ofhteresr for h e Proposed Colorado Cuunty Project - Volume I,” prepared for the Lower Colorado River Auehhority, Ausun, Texas, Document No. 880068, April 1988.

“Exisring hvironrnenr of the Region of Inrerest for the Proposed Mill Creek Project -Volume 1,” prepared for the Lower Colorado River Autboriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 870888, F&ruary 1988.

“Environmental Assessment of the Proposed N o d Anna to Miuhd 230-kV Project,” prepared for Mrginia Power, Glen Al- len. Virginia, Document No. 370598, January 1388.

“Environmental Assessment and Alremadve Route Analysis for the Proposed Kerrville South Projecr - Volume 11,” prepared for the Lower Colorado River AurAorjty, Austin, Texas, Documenr No. 870784, December 1387.

“Environrncnral Assessrntnr for rhc Ferpson-Buchanan 138-kV Transmission Line Project, Burner and Llano Counties, Texas,“ prepared for the Lower CoIorado Authority, Austin, Texas, Docu- menr No. 870518, JuIy 1987.

“Environmental Asscssmenr for the Buchanm-Mormon Mili 138-kVTransmission Line Projecr, Burnet and LIano Counties, Texas,” prepared for the Lower Colorado River Authority, Ausun, Texas, Document No. 8705 17, Jdy 1987.

“Environmental Assessment of the Ciry ofAusrjn’s Proposed CKT 968 138-kV Transmission Line Project;” prepared For the City of Austin EIectric Utility Department, Austin, Tatas, Docurnenr No. 870600, June 1987.

“Environmcnnl Assessment ofthc City ofAusrin’s Proposed CKT 966 138-kVTransmission Line ProjeEty prepared for the City of Austin Electric Utility Depmrnent, Austin, Texas, Document No. 870126, June 1987.

“Part A: Environmental Assessment of Mid-Term and Long-Term Dwelopmcnr: Options ar Robert MudIcr Municipal Airport,” prepared for the Ciry of Austin Department ofAviation; prepared by the Greiner Austin Team - Joinr Venrure, Dommenr No. 860722, April 1987.

“Envjronmenral Assessment of Alremativc Routes for LCMs Proposed Deanvilte Project - Volume 11,” prepared for the Laver Colorado River Autboriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 861322, March 1387.

“AI cernative Route AnaIysis and Environmental Assessrnenr for the Lon C. Hi11 - Coleto Creek 345-kV Transmission LineP prepared for Cenrral Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas, Document No. 860548, February 1987.

“Environmcnral Assessment of the City of Austin’s Proposed CKT 961 138-kVTransmission Line Project,” prepared for the City of Austin U e d c Udky Dtpanmenr, Aurin, T;sras, Ilocurnenr No. 861 3 1 6, December 1986.

“Envimmental Assement of the City of Austin’s Proposed CKT 31 25 345-kV Transmission Line Projm,’’ prepared for h e City of Austin Electric Urility Depmmmt, A W K ~ , Texas. Document No. 860579, September 1386.

mAlternative Route Analysis and Environmental A s s t m e n t of the City ofAustin’s Proposed CKT 912 Transmission Lne Project wirhin the Cicy of West Lake Hills, Trrras,” prepared. for the City of Austin Electric Utility Deparcmenr, Austin, Texas, Document No. 851 130, August 1386.

‘Osuna Road Improvements (From Second Street TI] the N o d Diversion Channel) Projea No. M-4052(2) hviromnentd As- sessment,” prepared for the Counry of BcmaiilIo, New Mexico, Documenr No. 86078, August 1386.

"Borrower's Environmenral Report: Port hm-Vanderbilr 138-kV Transmission Line and Subsration-Jackson, Vicroria, and Cdhoun Cwnrics, Texas,” prepared for South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., Nursery, Teas, Document No. 860208, March 1986.

“Borrower’s Environmental Report: O m s Grove - DriscoII 138-kVTransmission Line and Subsration-Jim Wells and Nueces Counties, Terrasp prepared for South Texas Elecuic Cooperarive, Inc., Nursery, Tmas, Document No. 860199, Marc.3 1986.

“Waxer Availabiiry Study for &e Guaddupe and San Antonio River Basins,n prepared for t h e San Antonio River Audtority, Guadalupe-Blanc0 River Authority, and Ciry of S m Antonio. Documcnr No. 85580 (wiIdlife section), February 1986.

“Environmental Assessment of the Cicy of Austin’s Proposed CKT 972 138-kV Transmission Line Project," prepared fr>r the City of Austin EIccrric Utility Department, Austin, Texas, Ilocurnent No. 85836, October 1385.

“Environmental Asscamem of the Giddings to Lexington 138- kVTransmjssion Line Projm, Lee Couniy, Tax,’’ prepared for the Lower Cdorado Ever Aurhoriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 85733, August 1985.

“Environmend Assessment of the Mormon Milk I 38-kV Transmission Line Project, Travis and Burnet Counties, Texas,* prepared for the Lower Colorado River Authoriry, Ausrin, Texas. Document No. 8561 1 , Jury 1985.

‘Environmental Assessment of the City ofAurin’s Proposed CKT 31 26 345-kV Transmission Lint Projecr,” prepared for the Civ of Ausrin Electric Uriliry Department, Auain, Texas, Document NO. 85652, lulv 1985. - *

”Environmental Assessment ofAl ternarive Routes for LCRA’s Proposed Round Top Project - Volume 11,”

O&OS&U-Exhibit RRR-1

9

prepared for the Lower CoIorado River Authoriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 85558, June 1985.

“Exishg Envjronrnenr of the Region of Interest for LCRA’s Proposed DmviUe Projecr - Volume 1,- prepared for the h e r Colorado River Authority, Austin, Texas, Document No. 841024, March 1985 (Revised November 1386). .

“Exisring Enviromenral of &e Region of Interesr for LCWs Proposed Round Top Project - Volume I,” prepared for the h e r Colorado River Authority, Austin, T-, Document No. 861023, February 1985.

“Calvm Projccr-Ecology Baseline Report - 1985 Update,” prepared for Phillips Coal Company, Richardson, Texas, Document No. 85614, Jdy 1985.

“Final Report on Pre-Construction Monitoring of Brown Pelican and Migratory Warerfowl Movemen= Near CP&L‘s Proposed La- guna Madre- Transmission Line,” prepared for Central Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas, Document No. 85431, lune 1985.

uEnviromental Review of Pederndes Electric Cooperative’s Proposed Service Center - FM 1431, WiIliamson Counry, Texas,” prepared for Pedernales Electric Cooperative, Inc., Johnson City, Texas, Job No. 75 19, Lerrer Report, December 1985.

“Alrernarive Route Analysis and Environmenral Rsstssrnenr for the Proposed Cddspring 13 8-kV Transmission Line,” prepared for Sam Houston Uecrrjc Cooperative, Inc., Livingston, Texas, Document No. 84889, December 1384.

“Environmental Evduatjon Relaring to Petitions to Designart 178 Square Miles in Basrrop and Lee Counties as Unsujcable for Surface Coal Minin5“ prepared for Aluminum Company of America, City Public Service of San Antonio, Shell Mining Com- pany, and Taas Mining and Reclamation Association, Document No. 84387, JuIy 1984.

“Exisring Environment of rhc Region of Interest for LCRA’s Pro- posed Kcrrvillc South Project,” prepared for chc Lower Colorado River Aurhority, Auxin, Texas, Document No. 8431 4, June 1384. (Revised Novem bcr I 987)

“Environmental Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for rhc Proposed China to Porrer 500-kV Trmsmission Line,” prepared for Gulf States Urilirjes Company, ~mumonr, Texas, Documenr No. 83566, January 1984.

“Environmenral Impact Srarement - Flint Geek ro Oklahoma 345-kV Transmission Line,- prepxed for Sourhwesrern Uectric Power Company, Shreveport, Louisiana, Document No. 83479, October 1983.

“An Environmental Assasrnenc of Alternative Lignite Conveyor Routes Beween &e Cumrnjns Geek Mine and Fayetre Power Projecr,” prepared for the Lower Colorado River Authority, Aus- tin, Texas, Document No. 83437, August 1’383.

“An Environmental Assessment of Alternative Lignice Transporn- rion Methods Between &e Cummins Creek Mine and the Fayette Power Project,” prepared for &e Lower CoIorado River Aurhoriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 83385, July 1983.

“Environmental Assessmenr of the Propmsed Turde Geek to Hunt 138-kV Tmnsm;sSjon Line, Kerr County, Texis,” prepared fbr Lower Colorado River Aurhoriv, Austin. Texas, Document No. 83072. March 1983.

*Environmental Assessment for h e Hunter to Sardtr 138-kV Transmission Line, Hays and G m d Counties, Texas,” pRpared for Ptdcrnalcs f l ec t r ic Cooperative, Inc., Johnson City, Texas, Document No. 83138, March 1383.

“Draft Environmenral Impact Statement, Mdakoff Wemjc Generaring Station md Triniry Mine, Henderson and Anderson Counties, Texas” (Wildlife Sections), Third-Parry EIS prepared for U.S. EPA, DalIas, Tks, EPA 90619-83-002, Februxy 1383.

“AIrtmative Route Analysis and Environmental Asst:ssment for rhe FayettwiIlc-Salem 345-kV Transmission Line,” pepartd for L w c r Cotorado River AurAoriry, Austin, Texas, Document No. 82522, December 1982.

“Review and Comparison of Three Lignite Mine Reserve htal Flaw Repom,* prepared for Brazos Elccrric Power C:oopcrative, Inc., Wzco, Texas, Docummt No. 82430, September 1382.

“Final Environmend Impact Statement, Henry W. Pirkey Power Plant Unit I/Sourh Hallsville Surfacc Ljgnire Mine Project, Harrison Counry, ?cXaS,’’ lhird-Farty EIS prepared for U.S. EPA, D a h , Texas, EPA 906/9-&2-O 1 1, Document No. 8224 I , September 1982.

‘FataI FIaw Analysis of the Proposed Morgan Hi11 Lignite Project, Limtsrone and Freestone Counrics, T e x ~ , ~ Client Confidential, Document No. 82333, Scpcember 1382.

‘Prepared Testimony o f Rob R Reid lor the Proposed Ternco to Evergreen 138-kV Transmission Line, Walker County, Texas,” prepared for Sam Houston Electric Cooperarive, Livingscan, Texas, June 1982; rcstimony gjvcn before Public Udiry Cornrnis- sion of Texas in Public Hearing on Augusr 12, 1982.

“Drafr Environmental Impacr Srarerncnt, Henry W. Pirkcg. Power Plant Unit [/South HallsviIic Surfacc Lignite Mint Projccr, Hx- rison County, TcxasP Third-party EIS prepared for US. EPA, Dallas, Texas, EPA !306/3-82-004, Document No. 81451, March 1982.

“Envjron,entaI/Regulatory FataI Flaw Analysis for the Malvern Lignite Prospect in Hot Spring County, Arkansas,” Client Confi- dential, Document No. 81515, January 1982.

“EnvironmendReguIatory Fatal Flaw Analysis for the Benton Lignite Prospect in Grant and Saline Counties, Arkan- sas,* Client Confidential, Document No. 81 51 4, January 1382.

08-098U-EXhibit RRR-I

10

‘Upper Guadalupc River Basin Water SuppIy Project - Final Re- port,” prepared for Upper Guaddupc River Auhoriry, Kerrville, Texas, and Guaddupe-Blanco River Authority, Seguin, Texas, Document No. 81 137-R1, Ocrober 1981. (Wildlife Sections)

“Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Blue Rhbon Mine Sire, Delia Comry, Colorado,” prepared for Western Associated Coal Corp., Denver, Colorado, Document No. 81405, August 1981. (with 1. Kobhu)

‘Aransas Pass Hunring Sr Fishing Club - Proposed Project Plan, McCampbd Slough, $an Parrido Counry, Texas,n prepared for Aransas Pas Hunring & Fishing Club. Corpus Chrjsti, Texas, Docurnenr No. 8 1 232, August 138 1.

“Basdine hvironmentd Studies of the Proposed D o h Hills Power Plant Transporrive Systems Corridors,” prepared for South- wcsrern Electric Power Company, Shrewport Louisiana, Docu- ment No. 81415, August 1381.

“Baseline Survey of the Terrestrial Ecology of the Sire X Project Arm,” Henderson Counry, Tucas, Docurncnc No. 81253, Client Confidential, July 1381. (with C.H. Puino)

“Borrower‘s h v i m n m e d Report - San Migucl Etecvic Coop- erative, Inc.5, Lignite Fired Power PIanr, Unir No. 1, Atascosa Counry, Texas,- prepared for San Migucl Electric Cooperative, Inc., ]ourdanron, k a s , Document No. 81 1 14, Mar& 1981.

“Fard Flaw Analysis of the Added Area to the Sparta Mine, Cd- houn Counry, Arkansas,” Document No. 80392, Client Cod- dential, March 1981.

*Environmental Analysis - Elm M o m r n e y 345-kV Transmis- sion Line and Subsrarion,” p r e p a d for Brazos Elecuic Power Cooperative, Jnc., Waco, Texas, Documenr NO. 80104, M m h 1981.

"Borrower's Environmental Report: Magic VaHey Elecuic Coop- erative, Inc.’s Two Year Work Plan,” prepared for Magic Valley EImric Cooperarive, Inc., Mercedes, Tecas, Document No. 8106J, February 198I.

“Basdine E010gicd Srudies of rhe Richland-Chambcrs Racrvoir Site,= prepred for Tarranr Comry Warcr Conrrol and Imprave- metit District Number One, Document No. 80340, January 1981.

“Vegetarion and WildIife Resources of the Black Mesa and Kay- enta Mine Sire,’’ prepared for Peabody CoaI Company, Flagstaff, Arizona, Docurnenr No. 8071, December 1980.

“Baseline EcoIogical Survey - Jewctr Mine Project,” prepared for Northwestern Resources Company, Hunwille, Texas, Documenr No. 79260, July 1980.

“Transrnjsjjon Facility Alternatives Evduarion and Siring Reporr - Elm MotdWhirney 345-kV,” prepared for Bnaos Elccrric Power Cooperative, Inc., Waco, Teas, Document No. 80175, July 1380.

“Permir AppIimion for M A Area Mines and Assodated hcili- rim - KO BIanco County. Colorado,” Eight Volume:;, prepared for N o d e r n Coal Company, Denver, Colorado, Document No. 8070, lune 1980.

“Biological Assesvnenr of the Impact of a ProposOa 138-kV Transmjssion Line on Threatened and Endangered Specks in Bell County, Texas,” prepated for Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, lnc., Waco, Taras, h m c n r No. 8013, January 1980.

‘Borrower’s Environmental Report: Youngsporr Tap Line, Bell COURY, Tcxas,” prepared for Brazos Electric Power &operative, Inc., Waco, Texas, Document No. 8014, January 1980.

“Environmental lmpacr Statement - Flint Creek-Neosho lG1- kV Transmission Line and Decatur-South Substarion,” Wildlife Secrions, prepared for Empire District Electric Company, Joplin, Missouri, Document No. 73155, November 1979.

“SuppIemcnr to Appendix S - Monitoring Program. Proposed Mulrjpiupose Deepwater Port and Crude Oil Distribution System, G alveston, Texas,” Document No. 78 160-5 1 , September 1973.

“Srudies of rhe Mects ofAlterations of Freshwater Inflows into Matagorda Bay Area, Tcxas, Phase I, Find Report,- Appendix E, Fish &Wildlife Resourms, September 1979. (wirh TD. Hayes)

“Biological Assessment of the impact of a Proposed Multipurpose Deepwater Port at Gahreston, Texas OR Threatened :md Endan- gered Spccits,”Documenr No. 73108, July 1973.

*BioIogid Assessment ofrhc lrnpacr of a Proposed 345-kV Transmission Line on Thrcarencd and Endangcrcd +azies in Wilson and Guadalupe Counties, Texas,= prepared for Brazas Elecrric Power Cooperative, Inc., Waco, Taas, Documenr No. 79 1 14, July 1979.

*Preliminary Ecological Evaluation of &e Barton Creek Water- shed - Appendix A,” In: “A Study of Some Effects of Urbanization on rhe Barton Creek Watershed,” Docurnenr No. 7395, June 1373. (with 1.R MacRae and D.B. Adam)

*Environmental Andy&: Youngsport T3p Line” (draft), prepared for Brarros Elecrric Power Cooperative, Inc., Waco, ‘Texas, Docu- ment No. 7365, April 1979. (wkh J-R Schenck and PJ. Gmbb)

~Ecologicd Considerations Associated wirh T ~ C Disposal of Pro- duced Water into Mound lake, Terry and Lynn Counties, Texas,- Document No. 7922, February 1973. (with J.M. Wiersema)

“Environmental O v e r v i e w of a Proposed Surface Lipite Coal Mine in War-Cenaal AlabamaP Wildlife Section, 13ocurnent No. 78143. November 1978.

“Baseline Survey of the Terrestrial Ecology of rhc Malakoff-Ca- yuga Mining Prospect,” prepared for North Americm Cod Corporxion, Dallas, Texas, Document No. 781 65, November 1378. (wirh D.B. Adams)


“Environmend Impact kessmenr and Evaluation of Alrcma- tivcs for Lake Tmkm Land Use and Ecology Section, prcparcd for U.S. Army Corps of E n e m , Fon Worth Distria, Documenr No. 7830, November 1978. (with D.B. Adams)

“Environmental Assessment Report - Proposed MuIripurpost Deep-Water Pon and Crude Oil Distribution System,” Gdves ton, Texas, VoI. 1x1, Appendix 1 -Wildlife, Dmument No. 7834, November 1978.

*Environmental Assessment %port - Proposed Multipurpose Deepwater Port and Crude Oil Distribution System,” Galveston, Texas, Wddife Section, Document No. 7825, November 1978.

“Baseline Ecdogy Srudies, Calvm Lignite Prospect,” Wildlife Seaion, Document No. 78157, October 1978.

“Appendix to Volme II - PIan Summary Report, Lower Colo- rado Basin, W~e.r Qualiry Management Plan,” Bidogy Section, prepxed for &e Lower Colorado River Authority by and Turner, Collie, and Braden, Inc., Document No. 7880, June 1978.

“Environmental Analysis - CEPCO Microwave Relay System,” Cajun Elccuic Power Cooperative, Inc., Documenr No. 7853, June 1978. (wirh D.B. Adams)

uWildlifc Baseline Rtporr - Curer OiI Company hOSpKK,=

prepared for Dames & Moore, Houston, Texas, Document No. 7874, May 1378. (with J.R. Schenck and G.G. Raun)

I1

“A WjndshieId and Multivaxiate Approach to rhc Chifirnuon, Inventory, and Evaluauon ofwildlife Habitat: An Exploramry Srudym Prcsmrod at: A Worhhop - The Use ofMult-ivarjatc Statistics in Studies ofWjidlife Habitat, 23-24 April 1980, Bur- lington, Vermont. Sponsored by: School of Natural Resources, Unjversiry ofVeimont; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service Gcn. Tech. wort RM-87, August 1981. (with CE. Gruc and N.J. Sjhy)

“Cornperition B e r w ~ n Bobwhire and Scaled QuS for Breeding Habitat in Texas,” hoc. Ann. Conf. S.E. Fish and Wildlife Agen- cies. 33: (146-153), 1973. (with N.J. S i h y and C& Gruel

‘Correlation of Habitat Parameters with Whistle-Count Densides of Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) and S d e d Qud (CaUipepIa squamata) in Texas,” M .S. thesis, 1977.

‘Breeding Habitat of rht Bobwhite in Taras,” Proc. .hn. Conf. S.E. Fish and WildlifeAgcndes, 31: (62-71). 1377. (wjtb C.E. Grue and N.3. Silvy)

“A Technique for Evaluating cht Breeding Habitat of Mourning DOVE Using Callcount Tmsecrs,” Proc. Ann. Con€. S.E. Game and Fish Comrn. 3 0 (667-673), 1976. (with C.E. [;rue and N.J- S h y )

0 8-09 8-U- EXh ibit R R R-2

PROGRAMMATIC AG-MENT (uAGREEMENT") AMONG THE UNITED

ARKANSAS STATE HIH'OIZIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, THE CADDO NATION, AND SOUTHWXSTERH ELEX3RIC POWER COMPANY REGARDING THE PROPOSED JOHN W. TURK, JR. POWER PROJECT [HEMPSTEAD

STATES ARMY CO-S OF ENGINEERS - VICKSBURG DISTRICT, THE

COmTY, ARKANSAS)

WHEREAS, the project proponent, Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), proposes to construct and operate the John W. Turk Power Plant, a 600 MW coal-fired power plant, and its ancillary facilities near Fult:on, Hempstead County, Arkansas (Project);

WHEREAS, SWEPCO has submitted an application to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Vicksburg District (the District) for a Department of t h e Army permit (Permit) to authorize impacts to jurisdictional waters {the Undertaking, ID No. MVK-2006-1903);

WHEREAS, t h e effects on Historic Properties of the Undertaking cannot be fully determined prior to approval of the Undertaking;

WHEREAS, the USACE has consulted with t h e Arkansas State Histork Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Caddo Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe (Caddo Nation), and other federally recognized consulting tribes, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) and its implementing regulations, Proteection of Historic t z n d

CuEturaE Properties (36 C.F.R. Part 8001, and USACE regulations at 33 C.F.R. Part 325, Appendix C ;

WHEREAS, the USACE has coordinated its compliance with Section 106, the Clean Water Act Section 404, and the Nationd Environmental P o k y Act (NEPA), pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 800.8;

WHEREAS, the USACE, the SHPO, t h e Caddo Nation, and SWEPCO concur that archeological site 3HE404, located on the Project property, is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRWP) and that there are no other known Historic Properties (as that term is defmed in 36 C.F.R. S00.16(1)) h t h e defmed Phase I Project area (defined below);

WHEREAS, the USACE has complied with Section 106 for t h e Phase I Project area by establishing the Stipulations set forth in Section HI of this Agreement, and as related to t h e Section 106 process, construction may commence in that area;

WHEREAS, SWEPCO anticipates future, major construction projects in areas outside the Phase I Project area that may have the potential to impact unknown, Historic Properties. This Agreement defines these as Phase 11

Turk Plant Programmatic Agreement Page 1 of 17


I

Projects (defined below) and stipulates procedures that will be followed prior to the start of construction on these Phase I1 Projects;

WHEREAS, the USACE has consulted with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) regarding t h e Undertaking and this Agreement; and

NOW THEREFORE, the USACE, the SHPO, the Caddo Nation, and SWEPCO have consulted and agree that implementation of this Agreement shall take into account effects on Historic Properties and shall be administered in accordance with the followhg Sections to avoid, rninirnize, or mitigate adverse effects to Historic Properties and to satisfy the USACE’s Section 106 responsibilities for the Undertaking. The USACE will condition any Section 404 permit that it may issue regarding the Undertaking to ensure that the stipulations included in this Agreement are met.

I, DEFINITIONS

AU captioned terms have the meaning defmed in 36 C.F.R. 8 800, unless specifically defmed herein. In the event of a conflict between 36 C.F.R. § 800 and this Agreement, the terms in 36 CFR Part 800 shall govern.

A. shown on Exhibit A to this Agreement.

#Phase I Proiect” means all major construction projects within the area

B. =Phase I1 Proiects” means each of those distinct, major construction projects outside t h e Phase I Project that have the potential to impact u n h o w n Historic Properties. These are expected to include, among others, a water intake, electricity transmission lines, and a rail spur. To the extent they are known as of the date of this Agreement, the general areas where these projects are anticipated to be located are shown on Exhibit €3 to this Agreement.

c. “Construction” is used broadly in the normal sense of the word. “Major construction project” is defined as an ancillary construction project which is essential to the completeness of the overall Project and is reasonably expected to have significant ground-disturbing activities.

D. “Unanticipated Discoveries” means discoveries of additional culturd resources or human remains made after the review process according to this Agreement is completed.

E. Consulting Tribe for a specific Phase I1 Project.

Tonsulting Parties” means t h e signatories to this Agreement and my



II. FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED CONSULTlNG TRIBES

The USACE has made a reasonable and good f a i th effort to dent@ federally recognized Indian tribes that might attach religious and cultural significance to Historic Properties in the area of the Project, Excluding the Caddo Nation which is made a signatory of th is Agreement, the USACE initiated consultation with the following federally recognized Indian tribes by letter (Tribal Consultation Letter) regarding the Project: the Chickasaw Nation, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, t h e Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, and the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana, Inc. A consultation letter also was sent to the United South and Eastern Tribes, Incorporated. No formal responses were received from the Tribes. Other than t h e Caddo Nation, no other tribe has requested signatory status on this Agreement. None of the tribal representatives contacted, other than the Caddo Nation as to site 3HE404, h e w of specifx sites that might be of cultural or religious sign5cance to their tribe within the Project area.

Pursuant to section IV.D below, any one or more of the Tribes that requests in writing to be a consuIting party may be a consulting party solely for that distinct Phase TI Project (Consulting Tribe) or, if appropriate, a signatory on any future agreements that deal specifically with the treatment of sites relevant to that tribe. Any one or more of the Tribes that responds in writing to the USACE’s Tribal Consultation Letter within forty-five (45) calendar days of mailing thereof with a request to be a consulting party, shall. be a Consulting Tribe for purposes of Section IV.D.3.

III. STIPULATIONS FOR THE PHASE I PROJECT

A. The USACE, the SHPO, the Caddo Nation, and SWEPCO concur that archeological site 3HE404, located on the Project property, is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and that there are no other known Historic Properties in the defined Phase I Project area.

B. Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. 5 800.5(b), the USACE has determined that taking into consideration these Stipulations for the Phase I Project and the modifications to the Undertaking, which SWEPCO made previously to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional waters and Historic Properties, that the Phase I Project will have no adverse effect on Historic Properties, specifically including site 3HE404.

C. SWEPCO agrees to implement the following measures:

1 . No further excavation or ground disturbance shall occur within t h e boundaries of archeological site 3HE404. However, non-invasive cleanup and restoration will be conducted over t h e site area with


OB098-U-Exhibit RRR-2

hand tooh to minimize the visibility of the locations of shovel test pits and test units from previous archeological investigations. 7 % ~ will consist of limited scraping and raking of existing surface spoil dirt and raking and distribution of leaf litter, branches, etc., to mask the excavation locations. No power tools or excavation equipment will be used, and no digging will be allowed. In additmn, plastic flagging remnants wiIl be removed from the site area.

2. A buffer will be established so that no construction, plant operations or ground disturbing activities will be allowed within 150 feet of site 3HE404, except (i) a fence as referenced below and (E) those activities approved in accordance with the terms of the Preservation Covenant, described below.

3. Appropriate fencing and signage will be constructed and maintained to restrict access to site 3HE404 both during construction and operation of the Project. In this regard, prior to the construction of the power plant facilities, temporary fencing will be erected along the edge of the buffer zone to provide a visual reminder to project personnel that this is a restricted area. Only limited brush clearing wi l l be allowed in conjunction with the placing of the temporary fencing.

4. Following completion of construction, the temporary fencing will be removed. The perimeter of the overall power plant property will be fenced, but to avoid drawing attention to the area of site 3HE404, permanent fencing will not be placed around the perimeter of the archeological site.

5. Project personnel will be appropriately trained on requirements of this Agreement, including use of resources provided by and / or training materials developed in cooperation with the Caddo Nation and SHPO.

6. A periodic monitoring plan will be developed that provides for regular confirmation by Project personnel that site 3HE404 continues to be undisturbed and preserved.

7. SWEPCO will execute and record a Preservation Covenant (Attachment A) for site 3HE404 and the buffer zone, to preserve the site and buffer in the current physical condition, while establishing procedures to follow in the event SWEPCO seeks to conduct activities on the site. This covenant shall be binding on all subsequent owners and will be stated in the red property deed as a restriction, covenant, or condition of ownership so as to protect site 3HE404 in perpetuity. Such covenant shall be executed


0809E-U-Exhibit RRR-2

between SWEPCO and the Department of Arkansas Heritage, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program.

8. In the event site 3HE404 cannot be preserved and protected, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and an archeological data recovery plan (DRP) among the consulting parties shall be developed to mitigate the adverse effect on this historic property. The DRP must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards imd Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 F.R. 447 16-42) and the standards for fieldwork and report writing in A state Plan for the Coraservation of Archeological Resources in Arkansas (Davis ed. 1994). Additionally, a burial excavation permit as per the guidelines developed for the Arkansas burial law {Act 753 of 1991, as amended) must be secured from the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program.

9. Unanticipated discoveries will be handled according to Section VU of this Agreement.

E. The USACE has complied with Section 106 for the Phase I Project by establishing the Stipulations set forth in this Section 111 of tkis Agreement, :md as related to the Section 106 process, construction may commence in that area.

IV. STIPDTATIOMS FOR THE PHASE II PROdECTS

A. The USACE shall ensure that the following Procedures are carried out for each Phase I1 Project. Nothing in #is Agreement shall be construed as to require that all of the following obligations be met for each and every Phase I1 Project before construction can commence on any one of the distinct Phase I1 Projects. It is the intent of this Agreement to establish phased procedures so that construction and ground-disturbing activities can commence on each distinct Phase I1 Project once these procedures have been followed for that Phase I1 Project.

B. The USACE may consolidate these procedures to include more than one Phase I1 Project, as appropriate. For example, cultrural resource identification efforts may overlap and cover the areas of more than one of t h e distinct Phase I1 Projects. This Agreement shall not be construed as to require that those efforts be made more than once for those overlapping areas. This Agreement is intended to streamline the process and minimize redundant or duplicative efforts in recognition of the practical realities of this complex Undertaking.

C. A s to the Phase 11 Projects outlined in Exhibit B, hereto, the procedures IV.D.I thorough D.4 have already been completed to the satisfaction of t h e parties.



D. resource investigations, the following procedures s h d be completed:

For a Phase I1 Project that has not been included in previous cultural

1. For each Phase I1 Project, SWEPCO shall submit to the USACE and the SHPO: (1) a map of the proposed location and design of a Phase 11 Project and (2) a proposed plan for identification efforts for that Phase II Project. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the proposed identification plan, the SHPO shall provide the USACE comments, if any, on the proposed identification plan.

2. Within fdteen (15) calendar days of receipt of the information in lV.D.1, t h e USACE shall define the Permit Area (as that tern1 is defined in 33 C.F.R. Part 325, Appendk C) and, to t h e extent it may be different from the Permit Area, the Area of Potential Efftxts (APE) (as that term is defined in 36 C.F.R. 800.16(d)) for that distinct Phase I1 Project. The required procedures in this section IV shall extend only to that defined Permit Area or Area of Potential Effects, whichever is larger.

3. The USACE shall promptly provide the Consulting Txibes with the information submitted by SWEPCO describing the location :md design of that distinct Phase I1 Project, the proposed identification plan, and a map showing the defined Permit Area / Area. of Potential Effects. Any one or more of t h e Consulting Tribes that within thirty (30) days of mailing of the information requests in writing to be a consulting party shall continue to be a Consulting Tribe solely for that distinct Phase II Project. Those that do not respond, or indicate no interest in consulting, shall not be considered Consulting Tribes for that distinct Phase II Project- Also within said thirty (30) day period, interested Consultkg Tribes, including the Caddo, shall provide comments, if any, on the proposed identification plan.

4. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the comments of the SHPO and any interested Consulting Tribe, including the Caddo, on the proposed identification plan, the USACE will take into account ;my comments from SHPO and the Caddo Nation received in a timely fashion and shall determine the adequacy of SWEPCO’s proposed identification. The USACE will insure that the approved identification plan is camied out.

5. Thereafter, SWEPCO will implement the approved identification plan and submit a report thereon to the USACE, the SHPO, Caddo Nation and any other Consulting Tribes.

6. The USACE shall evaluate any resources identified through the identification efforts and named in SWEPCO’s report (submitted pursuant to IV.D.5 above) in accordance with 36 C.F.R. Part 800.4 through 800.6.

Turk Plant Programmatic Agreement Pape 6 nf 17

0 8-0 9 !% U- E xh i bit R R R-2

7. The USACE shall prepare a report of its eligibility investigation and effects determination, considering any mitigation measures proposed by SWEPCO, and provide the report to tke SHPO, SWEPCO, and any Consulting Tribes within thirty (30) days of receipt of SWEPCO’s identification report. The SHPO’s or the Consulting Tribe’s failure to comment on the eligibility and effects report witkin thirty (30) calendar days of receipt shall be taken as acceptance of the USACE’s determinations therein.

8. If the USACE in consultation with the SHPO and Caddo Nation as per 36 CFR Part 800.5 finds that no adverse effect on Historic Properties will occur as a result of a Phase I1 Project, including any mitigation measures proposed by SWEPCO, then as related to the Section 106 process, construction may commence on that Phase I1 Project.

9. If t h e USACE in consultation with the SHPO and Caddo Nation as per 36 CFR Part 800.5 finds that the Phase I1 Project, as proposed including consideration of SWEPCO’s proposed mitigation measures, will have an adverse effect on an identified Histcirk Property, then the USACE shall ensure that a treatment plan is developed for any adversely affected Historic Properties. This treatment plan wiIl consider measures to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on Historic Rooperties such as design adjustments, buffer zone establishment, protective fencing, construction monitoring and education of construction personnel, and will take into account engineering feasibility, cost, and other factors considered appropriate by the USACE.

10. If the USACE in consultation with the SHPO and Caddo Nation as per 36 CFR Part 800.6 determines that adverse effects to Historic Properties cannot be avoided, a treatment plan for historic properties to mitigate the effects of the Phase II Project shall be developed and implemented. The treatment plan shall meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Histork PP-eseruatim (48 F.R. 447 16-42) and the standards for fieldwork and report writing in A State P h n for the Conservation of Archeological Resources in Arkansas (Davis ed. 1994).

1 1 . The USACE shall then promptly provide the proposed treatment plan to all signatories for review. Comments, if a consulting party chooses to provide them, shall be provided within thlrty (30) calendar days of receipt. Failure to comment within thirty (30) cdendar days of receipt shall be taken as concurrence with the submitted plan-

12. Upon consideration of comments, if any, received from the consurting parties on the plan, the USACE shall evaluate the

I

Turk Plant Programmatic Agreement l3**- -7 -4- 1 -


13.

14.

adequacy of the treatment plan within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the proposed plan.

Upon approval of the treatment plan and implementation of its terms, construction may commence on that Phase I1 Project pursuant to t h e terms of the treatment plan.

AlI materid and data recovered as a result of the Phase I1 Project from public land and from private land (with permission of the landowner) shall be curated in a permanent facility approved by the SHPO in accordance with 36 C.F.R. part 79.

V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

Subject to the other provisions herein, should the SHPU or any consulting party object within thirty (30) days to any findings, proposed actions or determinations made pursuant to this Agreement, the USAGE shall consult with the objecting party to resolve t h e objection. If the USACE determines that t h e objection cannot be resolved within thirty (30) days of receipt of the objection, the USACE shall promptly request comments from the ACHP pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 800.7. Any ACHP comment will be taken into account by the USAGE, in accordance with the procedures outlined in 36 C.F.R. 800.7, and with reference onIy to the subject of the dispute. The USACE’s responsibility to carry out all other actions under this Agreement that are not the subjects of the dispute will remain unchanged.

VI, TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAIXS

The treahent of human remains and grave associated objects shall. follow the guidelines promulgated under the Arkansas State Burial Law (Act 753 of 1991, as amended), the ACHP’s policy statement regarding the Treatment of Burial Sites, Human Remains, and Fhnerary Objects, and all other applicable state and federal laws and regulations governing the discovery and disposition of human remains.

V I L . UHANTICXPATED, POST-REVZEW DISCOVERIES

A. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources or unanticipated effects are discovered after commencement of construction activities associated with t h e subject Undertaking (including any Phase I and Phase 11 Projects) and implementation of the procedures in the Stipulations for the Phase I and Phase 11 Projects (Sections 111 and W, herein), the procedures in this Section VILA shall be followed:

1. Construction activity in the immediate vicinity of tke discovery shall immediately cease. If artifacts are identified by -the


08098-U-Exhibit RRR-2

contractor’s construction personnel, the contractor’s construction foreman will be notified immediately. The foreman, in turn, will notify SWEPCO’s project manager. Notification will include specific details regarding t h e discovery, such as the precise location and time of discovery. If SWEPCO personnel identify such a site, they will direct ~e contractor to stop work on activities that could affect the integrity of the resource and will inform SWEPCO’s prqject manager.

2. SWEPCO shall notify the USACE, the SHPO, the Caddo Nation, and any consulting tribes to that Phase I or I1 Project immediately following the discovery.

3. The USACE, t h e SHPO, or an archeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualZcations standards (48 F.R. 44739) for archeology will inspect t h e work site without unreasonable delay and determine the parameters of the affected archeological site or sites and the likely eligibility of the resources for t h e NRHP. Construction work may then continue in the project area outside of those parameters.

4. If the resources are NFtHP eligible, the USACE shall complete the procedures of 36 CFR 5 800.13(b) (3). Upon determination of the appropriate actions per 36 C.F.R. 5 800.13(b) (31, construction in the area of the discovery may resume.

B. In the event that human remains are discovered after commencement of construction activities associated with the subject Undertaking (including any Phase I and Phase I1 Projects) and implementation of the procedures in the Stipulations for the Phase I and Phase I1 Projects (Sections 111 and IV, herein), the procedures in this Section VI1.B shall also be followed:

1 . If human remains are identified by any personnel on the construction site, all construction work in the vicinity of the find that could affect the integrity of the remains will cease immediately. The person or persons encountering the human remains shall make a reasonable effort to refrain from disturbing or removing the human remains and shall protect the exposed portions of the human remains from inclement weather and vandalism.

2. The individual discovering the human remains shall immediately now SWEPCO’s project manager of the exact location of t h e remains, as well as of the time of discovery. SWEPCO shall immediately notify the USACE, t h e SHPO, and any consulting

I

I



an identified Historic Property is an architectural resource, the USACE and SWEPCO shall make a good faith attempt to avoid such a resource by making adjustments to the design of the Phase II Project. The USACE shall consult with SWEPCO, the SHPO, and any consulting tribes to determine whether effects from t h e Phase 11 Project in question can be prudently and feasibly avoided by such design adjustments. If architecturd historic properties cannot be avoided and protected, documentation with AHPP architectural resmrce forms is a possible mitigation option.

IX. DOCUMENTATION, IDENTIETCATION, AND WALUATION STAaDARDS

All archeological fieldwork, documentation standards and identikation, evduation, and reporting efforts shall comply with 36 C.F.R. 5 800.11, the Secretary of tke Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and HistooriC Preseruation (48 FR 44716-39) and A State Plan for the Conservation of Archeological Resources in Arkansas (Davis ed. 1994).

X. QUALIFICATIOHS

The USACE shal1 ensure that all investigations pursuant to this Agreement are carried out by, or under the direct supervision of, a person or persons meeting the appropriate qualifications set forth in the Secretmy of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 F.R. 44739) for archeology.

XI. APPLICABLELAW

A. this Agreement, except where specifically defrned otherwise.

The definitions set forth in 36 C.F.R. Part 800 are applicable throughout

B. The version of 36 C.F.R. Part 800 t?aat is in effect at the time of this Agreement’s ratification by all signatories shall govern this Agreement so long as this Agreement is in effect, unless amended according to the terms of this Agreement.

A. The USACE, SWEPCO, the Caddo Nation, or the SHPO may request that this Agreement be revised, whereby the parties will consult in good faith to consider whether such revision is necessary.

B. If it is determined that revisions to this Agreement are necessary, then the USACE shall provide copies of the proposed revisions in writing to the signatories to this Agreement within ten (10) calendar days of the USACE’s receipt of said revisions.


08-OSBU-Exhibit RRR-2

C , The signatories s h d submit any comments on, or signify tliek acceptance of the proposed changes to the Agreement in Writkg within thirty {30) calendar days of their receipt of the proposed changes, A signatory’s failure to comment within thirty (30) calendar days of its receipt of the proposed revisions from t h e USACE shall be taken as concurrence with the submitted revision. Any disputes that ar ise from such review shall be resolved in accordance with Section V of this Agreement.

XIII. TERMINATING THE PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT

Any signatory may terminate participation by providing thirty (30) calendar days notice to the other parties, provided that the parties will consult in good fa i th during the period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid such termination. I f a signatmy other than the USACE or SWEPCO terminates its participation, this Agreement shall continue in effect. If the USACE or SWEPCO terminates its participation in this Agreement, then the Agreement shall terminate. In the event that this Agreement terminates, the USACE shall comply with 36 C.F.R. Part 800.4 through 800.6 with regard to the Project covered by this Agreement.

Otherwise, this Agreement will terminate the sooner of either (a) Withkt five (5) years of its execution, or (b) when SWEPCO’s project manager through written notice to the USACE deems the initial construction of the Phase I Project and of the Phase II Projects to be complete. This Agreement shall not apply to later expansions, renovations, demolitions, or other changes to the Phase I Project or Phase I1 Projects, and shall not be deemed to apply to any operational functions. The preservation covenant will remain in effect.

XLV, FULFILLMENT OF SECTION 106 RESPONSIBILITIES

Execution and implementation of this Agreement evidences that ,the USACE has afforded the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment pursuant to 36 C.F.R. Part 800 on the proposed construction of the Turk Plant in Hempstead County, Arkansas, and its effects on Historic Properties, and the USACE has &ken into account the effect of the Undertaking on Historic Properties.

Xv. FAILURE TO CARRY OUT AGREEMENT

In the event the USACE does not carry uut the terms of this Agreement, the USACE shall comply with 36 C.F.R. 800 .4 through 800.6 with regard to the Undertaking covered by this Agreement.


0&09&U-ExRibit RRR-2

SIGNATORIES:

U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, VICKSBURG DISTRICT

Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer

REWNDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK



SIGNATORIES:

ARKANSAS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

Cathie Matthews State Historic Preservation OfEcer

R E W N D E R OF THIS PAGE INT'ENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK


OBOS&.U-Exhibit RRR-2

SIGNATORIES:

REMAINDER OF TIUS PAGE INTENTt0NALL-Y LEFT B W K


., ., . .;; - , .! 7. i: , - 'i ~ -- 'i -- - . - '- , , , - ; . -.> ::-;-.: - . .. . . - .


SIGNATORIES:

V6nit.k McCeUon-AUen President

Date

.. ~

Figure 2. Project Iocation map based on USO$ topogrqhiic quadrangles McNab, ARK rind Fulton, ARK (7S-minute series).

.. ,.- .-

08-098-U- Exhibit R RR-2

Exhibit B

f TURK UNIT I PLANT BOUNDARY APPROX, 1106 ACRES

I'l'

1Y

LC ITY OF FUlTON HMPSTEAD CWNTY ARKANSAS

JOHN 1, TURK JR. POWER PLANT UNIT 1

SITE pc* v

THIS DAAWIWG I 5 NOT AN ACTUAL SURYEY AND IS FOR THE CEMRAl INFDRMITIUN PURPOSES UNLY

OB098-U-Exhibit RRR-2 *

PRESERVATION COVENANT'

PFU?SERVAnON COVENANT, executed this L'day of 2008, between Southwestem Electric Power Company, ed SWEPCO, and the Department of Arkansas Heritage,

Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, herehafter called AKPP:

W-I-T-M-E--E-T-H

WHEREAS, the Site was determjned eligible for inclusion irz the N a t i m d Register of H&bric Places in 2007;

WHEREAS, SWEPCO and the AHPP recognk the historical and Cultuxdt value and s@&cance of the Site, and have the co113mox1 purpose of conserving the aforesaid value and signif~cance of the Site;

MOW, THEREFORE, in considmtion of the mutual covenants, tams, con&t im~~ , and reMctio& herefnafkr set forth, SWEPCO hereby co~rmnts unto AHPP and its successors and assgns forever and in perpetuity, and AXXFP hereby covenants unto SWEFCO and its succ3esso~s and assigns forever and in perpetuiq, as foIlows:

2- A portion of #e area associated with the Site shall be available for reburial of any human reznains which are unexpectedly mcmntered

site 3HE404 Freserva~on covmant Page 1 of4

0&09&U-Exhiba RRR-2

d-g c3onstmction of the Juhn W. Turk power plant in H m p s k a d County, A r b s , and which are found to be d e diliated mth the Caddu Nation of O'Iridboma. Any such r e b d should not disturb the intact postion of the W e ,

4. To ob- w13tkn permissioa. SWEPCO s h d no- &e AHPP in Mtmg prior to Uxldertakhg any ofthe a&ms described in paragraph 3. Such xlotice SW descnie -in reonable detail the proposed u n d e r k h g and its q e c t e d efkct on the jnteg-riw of the Site.

5. Within 1301 calmdm days of the M P s receipt of notification provided by SWEPCO pursuant to paragraph 2 of tbjL; covenant, the D P WifI respond to SWEPCO in writhg as follows:

a. That SWEPCO may proceed with the proposed und- * g without further eonsdta~on; or

b. That sw3EpcU must bitiate and complete c o n m l h t i m with the Arkansas state ?3sto& Preservation OBces (SrrPO) in accordance with paragraph 4 of this covenant before it can proceed w3th the proposed undmtakjng.

6. If the response provided to SWEPCO by t he AHPP pursuant to paragraph 3 of this covenant reqytrm consultation with the AHPP, th.m bo# parties will so consult in. good faith in an attempt to reach rnutudy-agreeabk and approplate measures that SWEPCU WiIl employ to mitigate any adverse effects to the Site associated with the proposed undertaking.

7. In the event site 3JE-404 cannot be preserved and protected or ground disturbing acmties are proposed at the site, a Memorandum of Agreement MOA) and an archeolo@caI data recovery plan DIP] sball be developed to mitigate the adverse effect on this historic property. Tbe DRP must meet the Semetary of the Interiofs Standards and GuideEna €or Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 F.R 447164) and the standards for fieldwork and report M t k g in A State .Ptan_fOr the C o m a t i o n of h&olOgicaL Resuurces in Arkansas Davis cd- 1994)- Additionally, a burial acavatim permit as per the rndelk~s developed for the Arkansas burial law f i t 753 of 1991, as amended) must be secured kom the Arkansas Historic Preservation Pxogmm.

Slte 3 m 0 4 Preservation Covenant Page 2 of4

O&OS&U-bhibit RRR-2

8- SWEPCO shall make every reasonable effort to prohibit any person hxn vandalWng or otherwise distuibing the Site. Any such vanddism or &stmbamce shall be reported to the AfPP promptly-

9. The A € P P shall be p a t t e d at 611 reasonable t.imes to inspect the Site jn order lo ascertain the Site's condition and to ful6Il its responsibilities kaetmdm.

10. In the event that the Site ks [i) substantially d-yed, ox' CB) is not btaJly destroyed, but continued protectim thereof is hpractlcal in the reasonable judgment of SWEPCO, then SWEPCU shall n o w the AHPP in mi-, requestjng c o n m e to that judgment- Upon ~ X ~ C U Z T ~ X I C ~ by the AHPP, this covenant shall tezmtnate. Upon such terminaeon, SWEPCO shall deliver a duly exec&& and admowkdged notice of su.& krmjnation to the Arkansas State Historic Presematiun Officer, and record a duplicate o w a l of s&d notice jn Hempstead County- Such notice shall be mndusive evidence in favor of way person dealing w3th the S i k as to the facts set forth the&

II, In the event of a vidation of this covenant, and in addition to any remedy naw or here& provided by law, either party may, followjng reasonable notice to the other party, institute suit t0 enjoin Violation or to quire the restoration of any archeological site affected by such viOhl5Oion.

12. SWEPCO agrees that the AEiPP may, at its discretion and without prior notice to SWEFCO, convey and assign all or part of its -mts and responsibilities m t a h e d in this covenant to another Arkansas skate agmq designated by statute as tbe successor to the MPP. If the AHPP

Arkansas, and nu successor is designated, then this Preservation Covenant shall. termhate.

is dissolved, or 0 ~ - m e s to ezrist as a n agency of tbe state of

13. Restrlc-tions. StipulaEoaS, and covmants contafned herein sbau be inserted by SWEPCO verbatjm or by express reference ixl my deed or other legal instrument by which it divsts itself of &her the fee smple fide or any other lesser estate in the Site or any part thereof.

14- The faflwe of ejther party to exercise any right or remedy @anted under tbb insfnnnent shalx not have the effect of waiving or Ihiting the exerciSe of any other rtght or remedy or the use of such right or remedy at any other time.

15- Tbe covenant shdtl be a binding servitude upon the real p r o m that includes site 3-4 and shall be deemed to m with t h e land. Execution of this covenant shall constitute conclusive evidence that

Site 3m404 Preserva-tion Covermxt Page 3 of 4


SWEPCO and AIXPP agree to be bound by the faegaing con&~ons and r=b5ctions and to perfom the obligations set forth her&.

IN wTfNE3S WHEREOF, the parties have executed this *esematmn Cmslant effective the date and year mentioned above.

3By: Cathie Maithews State Historic preServa&n Weer

Site 3EE-404 Preservation Covenant Page 4 of 4

08-098-U-ExRibit RRR-2

Section 33: SW !A SW % lying south of railroad right ofway

Township 13 south. Rawe 26 West-

section5 NE%

NE%NWS/4LSSAND~CEITalmctoflandfnsaid NE % NW 34, more particuzarky descn'bed as follows: Begbning ata set 1 incJl dlam&er&on pjnwi-th a 2 j n c h diameter stamped dumktm cap at the pojnt for the Northwest comer of said FJlE % NW 34, run South 880 10' 55' East dung the North h e of said WE 1/4 NWy4 300.00 feet to a set I inch diameter iron pin with a 2 inch diameter aluminum cap stamped "Comer No. I";

Thence South OX" 14' 23" West 290.41 feet to a set 1 inch diameter iron pin Mi% a 2 inch diameter

Thence North 88" 1 0 55" West 300.00 feet to a set 1 inch diameter iron pin. with a 2 inch diameter aluminum cap stamped "Comer No. 3", said iron pin b e g on the West line of said NE % N W %;

Thence North 01" 14' 23" East along s a d West line 290.41 feet to the Point of Beginrxtng, s e d excepted tract containing 2-00 acres, more or less.

dtminum cap s b j ? e d "Com-er No. 2";

The -me S m t h 100 acres of t h e SW 5/4 SE '/4

1.51 12.00 25.00 3851

56.00

81.73 164.89 160,OO 406,62

174.65

44.26 1oo.uo 160.00 478.91

I

Site 3- Preservation Covenant ExbibitA Page 1 of 6

0&098-U-€xhibit RRR-2

Seclion 6:

seclion 7:

section 8:

AU that part of the S W SE 1/4 -East of sfate Highway No. 355

E% The East 50 acres of the WW !4 The a h m e North 13.73 acres of the West

The extreme North 36-60 acres in the N W X NW 9i The East 25.00 ac~es of the NE 4/4 SW %

15.00 acres of the NE % Mw %

An that part of the M Isi sw y4, more parhmhly dmW as follows: Beghmlng at a point on #e East h e of the public

mad 13.07 chains East of the Southwest comer o f d N W S W 3 / 4 , m a s t 1 4 . 7 3 ~ ; Thence N o m 10.5 chains; Tbene West 19.50 chains to a point jn -the East

"beme South 25" East 11.72 chaias, more or line of said road;

Jess. back to the Point of Be-. S ? b S W %

26.52

75.00 40.00

115.00

1S.73 36.60 25-00

17.73 80.00

M. 06

40.00

W % NW% LESSAND EXCEPTthe 59.61 aaes of Iand, more or less, conveyed by Champion International Corpraeioa. to the City of Hope, Arkansas, by deed dakdJune 15, 1981. and now of read in said Recorder's OB= in Record Book 478 at F'age f333, covering a e following described lands to-wik

A tract of land located h the W % N W % of Section 17. TOm6kp 13 South. Range 26 West, more parl5cdarly desaibed as follows: C0menci.q at the Northwst corner of said Section 17; run Swth 00" 30' 00" East ~5th the West h e of said Section 17,1000.00 feet to the Paint of 'Be=-

Site 3HE4U4 Presemtion Covenant ExhhitA Page 2 of 6


Townshiw 13 south, Rang e 26 West: Section 17: {continued)

Book 200, Page 565.

AU of the SW %* and all accretions thereto, EXCEPI' that part thereof k m k d North and East of State Highway No- 355, said excepted pard thereof North and East of said h@hway being more pdcdarly described as foIlows: Be- at the Nm-thmsk coram of said SW ?=4, run South 937 feet to the center of said

Thence North 4 P West dong and Wth the center of said M @ m y to the North Brie of said SW %;

Thence East 980 feet back to the Point ofBegimjng, said excepted parcel containing 10.5 acres, more or less. and

LESS AND EXCEPT 1.2 acres tu the Satrtheast comer uf said SW y4 of said Section 17; more pacdarly desmi ia Section 20 below and

LESS ANP, EXCEPT the 11.5 acres in said SE % SW !4 of said Section 17 and in the NE !A o€Sec&n 19, 611 in Township 13 South, 'Range 26 West, conveyed by US- P @ W Q O ~ - C ~ ~ Y ~ ~ I C L ~ I Papers, Inc to the City Of Mbn, Armas, by deed dated January 28, 1972, n m of record in s i d Recorder's OBce in &cord Book 368, Page 199, covering &e following descsibed lands, +wit Begin at the Northeast comer of said SE 35 SW %, r u n South 4 O East 780 feet to the P o b t of Be-,

793- South 86O West 880 feet; Thence Saut?a 4 0 East 660 feet; Thence North 8EF J3as.t 480 feet to an OM fence line; Theme in a Northeastmly direction along and with

said fence line 830 feet back to t h e Point of 'Beg3min.g.

Sedion 18: All of Frl. Section, and aU accretiuns

Section 19: FrL NE 1/ , and all accretions LESS AND DCEPTthat Part of the NE '/9 more particularly set out above in the deed to the City of Mtm.

Section 20: FYl- Nmr %, and all accretioxls LESSAPJD EXCEPT one a m in the Northeast mma thereof, said

19.34

130.88 150.27

297.07

140.69

site 3 m u 4 Presemation covmant W b i t A Page 4 of 6

08-U98-U-Exhibit RRR-2

one ame in the Non31-t comer of said SetSon

Southeast comer of the SW % of Section 17 being togeth~more par&ularlydescn'bed accordhgto a survey made by the County Surveyor of said County as follows: Cmnmence at -the Nurthwest comer of safd FrL N W y4 of said Section 20, m m East 2350 feet to the Point of Beginnfng;

20 and &e 1.2 ame3 hemimbom excepted in the

Thence North 409 East 470 feet to the East line of said SW y4 of said Section 17:

mmce south 507 feet to Red Riwr Thence Soufhwesterly with said fiver 396 feet; Thence North 40' East 280 feet back to the

Point of Begmlmg * , said excepted parcds containing 2.2 acres, more or less. 44.41

Tuwnsht~ 13 Suuth, Range 27 West Sedion13: EXME% 80.00

centerlTne of the Nton aad puexl's Fexry &ad 4.30

58.30

All that part of thew I ! NE ?h 1yiU.g south of the

All that part of the E M SW % Iymg South of the Fhdton

A tract of land Txl the W M SW %, more particularly and Allen's Ferry Road, and accretions-

described as f u l l m r C o m m e n c e at the Northeast comer of said W 54t SW % of said Section 13, run South 330 feet to the center of the County R o d and the Point of BegimiIg

Thence South 1600 feet to LfttIe RWm bank; Thence West with said river bank 140 feet to

'

face ; Thence North 4" west 700 feet with fence; Thence North 19 %O west 200 feet with fence; Thence Nor& 10 so Fast 725 feet with fence to

Thence East 130 feet back to the Point of the center of said County Road;

Beglming. and aU accretions. NE%SE% W M SI3 % and all acmei5cm.s. Frl- SI3 X SE ?h and all amretiom

@U the lands hereia conveyed in said sectioa 13, Tawnship 13 South, w e 27 West, iring South of the N b n and Men's Fmy Road, and the W xh

6.00 40.00 60.75

Site 3E-XJW-W Preservation Covenant Exhibit A . Page 5 of 6


SE % andthe E M SW 1/4 of said Section 13 b&ng degnated as fradkmal on the plat prepared by J.G. Prescotk Hempstead ComQr Surveyor, onApril 29,1966, as M e R€vernow mosses the south part of said txacts, and also crosses a slllau parcel of land in the Southwest comer of the SE W SE 34 of said Section 13.) - 36-18

285.55

Total narm’ber of ~tcres 2,792,99, more or less.

Site 3HE404 Reservation Covenant Exhfbit A Page 6 of 6

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SOWEWESTJiXN ELF,CTRIC ... · in the matter of the application...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SOWEWESTJiXN ELF,CTRIC ... · in the matter of the application...