1

2

3

4

5

6

7

a

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

14

15

16

1 7

l a 19

2 0

2 1

2 2

2 3

2 4

25

- l e - ARKANSAS-P~FSIE -.u SERVICE COMMISSION

IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY A N D DOCKET NO. 0 6 - 1 5 4 - U PUBLIC NEED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, O R D E R NO. 6 OWNERSHIP, OPERATION AND VOLUME XI1 MAINTENANCE OF A COAL-FIRED BASELOAD GENERATING FACILITY IN HEMPSTEAD COUNTY, ARKANSAS

EXHIBITS

[ * - Number in p a r e n t h e s e s indicates page number

in Exhibit f o l d e r . ]

Identified Offered Admitted

Exhibit R I I R - 1 (1556) 1774 1775 1776

Exhibit RRR-2 (1568) 1774 1775 1776

Exhibit R R R - 3 (1569) 1774 1775 1776

Exhibit RRR-2 Revised (1570) 1775 1775 1776

Exhibit RRR-3 Revised (1571) 1775 1775 1776

Intervenors Exhibit 8 ( 1 5 7 2 ) 1 7 8 4 1784 1785

Intervenors Exhibit 9 (1573) 1801 1801 1802

THE ABOVE-STYLED MATTER came on f o r hearing b e f o r e Garold W. Pritsch, C e r t i f i e d Court Reporter, LS Certificate No. 329, a Notary P u b l i c in and for Garland County, A r k a n s a s , in Hearing Room Number 1 at the A r k a n s a s Public Serv ice Commission, 1000 Center Street, L i t t l e R o c k , A r k a n s a s on August 30th, 2 0 0 7 .

GAROLD W. PRITSCH 3USHMAN COURT R E P O R T I N G

(501) 372-5115

Exhibit RRR-I

1556 I Rob R. Reid Vice President, Senior Project Director

EDU~ATION MS.. Wldlift a h h t r i c s Scjcnm, T m A&M University, 1977 B.S.. Wildlifc 8c Fshtria Scicnccs, Ttns AsrM Universiry 1975

CmmncxnoNs TXOOT Preccmficd, TxDOT ESN $1059

PROFESSIONAL Dmomm-r Four& Annual Sbort Counc on Vcgcncion. Wildlik Musurcmcnts for Pre- & Post-Mining Colondo Sute Univcrsity, April 1981

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Phi Sigma Honorary Society, Ben Rho Chapter Tmvis County. Tccas Environmental Task Force

Member, 1988-1 930

Since joining the sdofPBS&J, Mr. Rcid has managed or pmicipatcd in bascIinc studits and cnvironmcnnl s,sessments on surhce and undcrground mines, flood control projects, eIemim1 and microwave mnsmission bciIitics, airports, high- ways, pipdinw, land developrncnts, water rcsource managemcnt projem, and other industrial dcvelopmtnr projects. lhcse studics haw bccn conducted in smmd mm including Taras, Arizona. Colondo, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Alabama, Norrh Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Mr. Reid's emphasis cantinues to be on h e assessment of environrncnnl impacts assodatcd with industrid and urban dcvclopmcnt. Mr. Rcid is very familiar w i t h the pmllitring and Iicensing proccsscs for utility hciliries and surhce and underground mints, and he rcguhrly provides cxpert witncss testimony for such projms.

Mr. Reid's teaching and raw& experience is principdly in t h c field of wildIife biology. Hc h x taught course5 in ornithology, ani- mal cdogy, and wildlife managemenc. Mr. Reid's rescarch d d t primarily with rhc dcrtlapmtnr: of procedures for analyzing and evaluating game bird breeding hnbirst. These studies werc arricd out in conjunction with rhcTexx Parks and Wildlife Department and thc U.S. Fish .and Wildlife Scmice.

In his currcnt position with PBSSrj, Mr. Reid serves as a Vicc Prcsidcnt and Senior Projccl Dimor.

PuntIc\TIoNs "Environmend Impact Statement for thc Proposed Chambcrs Spring to Tontitown 345-kV Transmission Line Project, Benron and Wadlington Countis, A r h m , " prepared for Southwestern Elccuic Powcr Company, Shrcvcpom, Louisiana. Document No. 060250, Scptcmbcr 2006.

uEnvironmend k i w m c n t and Altcrnarive Route Analysis for the Proposed Mcdina Lakc-CPS 138-kVTmnsmission Line Proj- ect, Bandcn, Medina. and Bexar Counties, Texas," prcparcd for LCRA Tmsmission Semi- Corporation, Austin, Tcxas. Docu- ment No. 060125,Jufy 2006.

"Environmcnd Asscssmcnt and Alternativc Route Analysis for the Proposcd RCEC 138-kV Inrerconntcr Project, Hcnderson and Van Zandc Countics, TcmP prepared for Rayburn County Electric Coopemtivc, Inc,, Rodndl, Tcts. Documcnt No. 060040, July 2006.

"Environmental Assessmenr and AIternarive Route Analysis for the Proposcd Hiddgo/Rio Rico to Srcwarr Road Tmsmis- sion Linc Pmjccr, Hidalgo, Counry, Tax," prcparcd for AEP T m C e n d Company, Corpus Christi, Tans. Documeni No. 060038. June 2006.

"Environmcnd Asscssmcnt and Alternative Rourc Analysis for the San Migucl to Lobo 345-kVTmmissioa Linc Projcct in Amtom, McMuIIen, L3Salle and Wcbb Countics, Tcm," prepad for AEP Texas C e n d Company, Corpus Christi. Tcxas. Document No. 040374, junc 2006.

"Routing Andysis Siloam Springs to Chambcrs Spring I GI-kV Transmission Linc, Benton Counry, ArIcum~~,~ prcpared for Sourhwestern H e a r k Potver Company, Shrewport, Louisiana. Document No. 060039, May 2006.

"Environmental Asscssrnent and Alrunativc: Route Analysis for chc Proposcd Sand Springs 138-kV Transmission Linc Projccr, Wood County, TacasSF prcpiucd for Woad County Ekctric Co- opentivc. Inc, Quiunan, Texas. Documcnr No. 050274, ApriI 2006.

"Environmental Asscssmcnt and AIternitive Rourr Analysis for &e Proposcd Ggnon to LytIe I3S-kVTransmission t i n t Projcct. Bear, Medina and Amcosz Counties, Texas," prcpmcd for City PubIic Scrvicc of San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas. Documcnt No. 05004 1, January 2006.

"Environmenml Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for thc Proposcd Amite South Phasc 2 230-kVTmmission Line Projccr, Ascension, Sr.Jmes, and St. John the Baptist krishcs, Louisiana,* prcpared for Enterw Services, Inc., as agent for Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Nmv Orlcans, Louisians Docurncnt No. 050093, Dcccmbcr 2005.

"EnvironmcnnI Assessmcnr and AIternitive Route Analysis for thc 315-kV Hillje Projcct. Fort Bend. \Whirton, Mmgordz and Brazorii Countics, Tcxass," prcpmd for Gntcrl'oint h c r g y Houston Electric, LLC, Houston, Tea. Document No. 040366, Scptcmber 2005.

"Environmental Asscssrncnt and Alternative Rourc Analysis for the Proposed M c d n to L17 138-kVTmnsmission Linc Projca, Onnge County, Texas," prcpared for Entcrp Gulf Smm, hc., Bmumont, Tms. Documcnt No. 0501 19, August 2005.

"Environmend Assessmcnr and Altcrnativc Route Analysis for the Proposed Pon Acra to Keith W r c 230-kV Transmission Line Projccr, Jefferson County, Texas," prepared for Enrergy GuIf Smtes, Inc.. Bmumont, Tax. Docuumcnt No. 050105, July 2005.

Exhibit RRR-I

1557 2

uEnvironmcnd Asscssrncnt and Atcrnativc Routc Analysis for the Winnsboro ro North MineoIa 138-kV Transmission Lime Pmjm in Wood, Fmnklin and Hopkins Counties, To;u," pre- pared for southwcstcrn flectric Poivcr Co., Shrcvepon, Louisi- ana Documcnt No. 040165, Scptember 2004.

"Environmend Asscssment and Altcrnative Route Analysis for &e Proposed Sandy Creek to Sunrise Bwch 138-kVTransmission Line Projm, Llano County, Tcxas," prcpard for LCRA Transmis- sion Services Corporation, Austin, Tcxas, Document No. 030103, Junc 2004.

"Environrncnd hcssrnent and Alternative Route Andysis for

Line Projm, Bexar and Medina Countics, Tcxx," prcparcd for Ciry Public Service of San Antonio, San Antonio. Tms, Docu- mcnt No. 030151, June 2004.

"Environrnenml Assessment and Alternative Route Analysis for Txtr Elcmic Delivery CornpmyS Proposcd Jzcksboro-War Dcn- ton 345-kV Tmsmission Line Project in Jack, Wsc, and Deacon Countits. Tm," preparcd for FOK Worth, Tw, Documcnt No. 030302, June 2004.

'Environrncnnl Assessmcnr and Alternative Roure Andpis for thc Proposed Hill Country 138-kV Transmission Line Projca. KcndaU Counry, Tw," preparcd for LCRA Tmnsmission Ser- vices Corporation, Austin, Texas, Documcnt No. 030327, May 2004.

the P ~ P O S C ~ G p o n Road to LCRA T e 345-kV TENIS~~SS~OII

Ekctric Delivery Company,

"Environmental Asscssmcnt and Nternirive Rourc Analysis for the Proposed S d e y to Point Blank I38-kVTmsrnission Lime Projcct, Snn lacinto County, Tcxu," prepared for Sam Houston Electric Caopcmivc, Inc., Livingston, Texas, Document No. 030128, April 2004.

"Environmcnd Asscssrncnt and AItcrnitive Routr Analysis fbr the Proposed Johnstown 10 Poncr 230-kV Transmission Linc Project. Montgomery Counry, Texas," prcparcd for Entergy Gulf Starm, I n t , Bnumonr, Texas, Documenr No. 040061, March 2004.

"Environrnend Assessment for Enrergy Gulf States, Inc's Pro- posed Line 457 to Carroll Sucet Park Switching Sution 138-kV Transmission Line Project. JeR'crson County, Tm," prcpired for Entcrgy Gulf States, Inc., Bmumonr, Tw, Document No. 030264, January 2004.

"Environmcnnl Assessment and AItcrnativc Route Analysis for rhc Proposed Capon-KendalI 345-kV Transmission Line Project, KendalI County, Toras," p'cparcd for Lower Colorado River Au- thority, Austin, Texas, Docurnenr No. 020396, January 2004.

"Environrnend Assessment and AItcrnativc Routc Andysis for the Proposed Dayton to Gordon 136-kV Transmission Line Project, Libcrry County, Tcxx," prcparcd for Entcrgy Gulf Smtes, Inc., Bmumonr, Taxi, Document No. 030322, Dcccmber 2003.

"Environmental Assessmcnr and Altcrnative Routc Andysis for Farmers Elcctric Cooperative, Inc's (dba FEC Electric) Proposcd Forney -NWTcrrclI 138-kVTransmission Line Project, fiufinan County, Texas,n prepared for h m c r s Elcctric Cooperative, Inc., GrecnviIIe. Texar, Documcnt No. 030261, December 2003.

"Environmenral Asscssmenr and Alternative Route Analysis for the Proposed Glasscock to Andicc 138-kVTmsrnission Lint Projm, WiIlimson County, TW,~ prcparcd for LCRATmns- mission Services Corporadon, Austin, Texas, Docurncnt No. 000226, Novcmber 2003.

'Environmcnd Asscssmcnr and Alternative Routc Analysis for rhe Proposed Sharyland UtiIitics Mcxico Tie 138-kVTmnsmis- sion Line Project, Hidalgo COIUIV, Texas: prcparcd for Suther- lmd, Asbill 8t Brtnnan, LU, Austin, Tw, Documcnt No. 030 127, Ocrober 2003.

"Environmental Assamcnt and Alternative Route Analysis for the Proposed Pimburg to Wnnsboro 138-kV Tnnsmission Line Project in Camp, Franklin, and Wood Countits, Texas: prcparcd for Southwestern Elcctric Powcr Co., Shrevcport, Louisiana. Documcnt No. 020203, Augur 2003.

"Environmental Assessment and Aternacive Routc Andysis for the Froposcd Southwest k c a r c h lnstitutc 138-kV Transmission Line Projm, Baw Councy, Texas: prcparcd for City Public Ser- vice of Sm Antonio, San Antonio, Tcxas, Document No. 020354, J d y 2003.

"Environmcnd Assessment of the Proposed North M c G m g to Rio PKOS 138-kV Transmission Line. Upton, Cme, And Crack- t t c CounfieS, Tcms," prepared for LCM Transmission Serviccs Corpomion, Ausch, Tcxas, Documcnt No. 030009, May 2003.

"Environmcnd Asscssmenr and Alternative Routc Analysis for the Proposcd Hamilton WoIfe 138-kV Transmission Line Projca, Bexar Count): Texas," preparcd for City Public Service of Sm Antonio, San Antonio,Tcxx, Docurncnt No. 030101, May 2003.

"Environmental Asscssmenr and Alrernativc Route Analysis for the Proposed NGPL (Kindcr Morgan) to Dcvcn 138-kV Transmission Line Project, Liberty County, Texas," preparcd for Enrew GulfSutfs. Inc.. Buumont, Tans, Documcnt No. 030034, April 2003.

"Environmend Assessrncnt for thc Proposed China to Porter 230-kV Transinision Linc Project Jcfftrson, Hardin. Libcq, Harris. and Montgomcry Counties, Texas," prcparcd for Enters Gulf Sntes, Inc. Bmumont, Tems, Documcnt No. 0201 13, Dcccmbcr 2002.

'Environmcnd kcssmcnt and Ahnat ive Routc Andysis for the Proposcd Twin BUKU to Big InkelSAPS Cut-In 138-kv Transmission Line Project Tom Grccn County, Texas," prepared - - for LCRA Transmission Sewica Corporation; Austin, Texas, Documcnt No. 010141, Decembcr 2002.

Exhibit RRR-I

1558 3

uEnvironmcnd Assessment and AItcman’ve Routc Analysis for rhc Proposed Fort knustcr to Fricnd hnch I38-kVTransrnis- sion Line Crockert, Pecos, and Terrcll Countis, Taw,” prepared for LCRATmsmission Serviccs Corporation, Austin, Tw, Documcnt No. 020029, November 2002.

“Environmcnd Asscssrncnt and Alrcrnacive Rourc AnaIysis for the North McGmey to Souchwcst MmTap 138-kVTransmis- sion Line Project Upton County, Tms,+’ prepared for LCRA Tnnsmission Swim Corporation, Austin, Tens, Documenr No. 020123, Octobcr 2002.

“Environmcnd Rsscssrncnr for the Proposcd Crane to McElroyl N. McGmey Cut-In 138-kVTnnsmission Linc Crane and Up- ron Counucs, Texasis:’ prepmcd for LCRATmnsmission Services Corporation, Austin, Texas. Documcnt No. 020130, Seprernbcr 2002.

‘Environmcnd hcssmcn t and Alternative Roure Analysis for the Proposed Northcut Water Plant 138-kV Transmission Line Project Harris County, Texas,” prcpared for Reliant Energy EILW, Houston, Tt, Docurncnt No. 010403, Jdy 2002.

“Environmental Assessmcnt and Alternative Route Study for thc Proposed Hickory Forat to Ncw Bcrlin 138-kV Transmission Line Project Guadalupe County, T-,” prtpared for Guadalupe Valley Elecuic Coopcntivc, Gonzales, T-, Documcnt No. 010314, June 2002.

“Environmental Assessment for thc Nueces Bay to Portland 138-kV Tmmission Line Projcct Nuects County, Tcxas,” pce- parcd for Amerimn Electric Power, DaIIas Tm, Document No. 020048. March 2002.

“Environmcntnl Asscssmcnt for thc Nuecu Bay ro Dupont Switch 138-kV Tnnsmission Linc Project Nueccs County, Texas,” prcparcd for Amcrimn Electric Powcr, Ddlas Texas, Docurncnt No. 020017, March 2002.

“Environmcnd Assessment for the Nueces Bay to Lon Hill and Nueccs Bay to Up River Road 138-kVTmnsmission Line Projcct Nueccs Counry. DalIasTcx~, Documenc No. 010426, March 2002.

prcpared for Amcrimn Etcctric Powcr,

“Environmcnd Asscssmcnt and Alternidvc Routc Analysis for the Lowcr Colorado Kvcr Authoriry’s Proposed Maccdonia to Hockley 138-kV Tnnsmission Line Project Harris, Montgomery, and WalIcr Countics, Texas: prepared for h w e r Colorado River Authority, Auscin, Texas, Documcnt No. 981789, July 2001.

“Environmend Assmmcnt and Altemarivc Route Analysis for the Proposed Graham-Jacksborn 345-kV Transmission Line Projcct Yoiing and Jack Countics, Texas,” prepared for TXU Electric Company, Fort Worth, Texs, Document NO. 330513, May2001.

“State Highway 130 from 1-35 North of Georgetown to 1-1 0 N w Seguin - Environmental Impact Sntcmcnd Draft Decem- bcr, 1939/Find Mardl 2001. (PBS&J Project Manager)

“Environmental Assessmcnt and Alternativc Route Analysis for the Proposed Conroe to Fomt 138-kV Tnnsmission Line Projcct Montgomery County, TmP prcparcd for Entergy Gulf Srares, Inc., Bmumonr, Tm, Documcnr No. 000338, Dcccmber 2000.

“ E n v h n m e n d Assessment and Altcrnacivc Roure Andysis for the Propod Gpotc co Hickory Fora 138-kV Transmission Linc Project Guaddupc Counry, Texas,’’ prcpared for Guada- lupe Vdey Elcctrie Cooperative, Gondcs, Turas, Document No.991436, Novcrnbcr 2000.

“Environmental Asressmenr and Alternative Route Analysis for die Proposcd Van h u b 138-kVTr;msmission Line Projm, B w r , Kcndall, h n d e n , and ComaI Countics, Texas: p r c p d for Ciry Public Scrvicc of San Antonio, San Antonio. Toras, Document No. 991488, Scptcmber 2000.

“Environmental hcssment fbr the Proposed Kunitz IO Wink 138-kVTransmission Line, Culbuson, Reeves, Loving, and TIYrinkltr COuntirS, TcxasSp prcparcd for thc h w e r Colorado River Authority, Austin, Tcxas, Documcnt No. 000006, May 2000.

“Environmend Assessment for the Proposed hnckhm to Dump Hilt 1381Gg-kV Transmission Line, CaldwclI County, Tau,” prepared the Lowcr Colondo River Authority, Austin, Texas, Document No. 99 1383, March 2000.

“Environmental Assessmcnt and AItcrnative Route Andysis for thc Proposed Morgan Creck-Twin Butts-Red Creek-Comanche 345-kV Transmission Line Project, Mitchcll, Coke, Sterling, Tom Green, Runnels, Concho, Coleman, McCdloch, Brown, Mills. and Comanche Counties, Tcms,” preparcd for TXU E l h c . FOK Worth, Taras, and West Tax UciIitics Compmy, Abtene, Tms, Document No. 3105 14. February 2000.

“Environmend Assasmenr and Alternativc Route Analysis for the Proposed Entcrgy Gulf States, Inc. Spring Crcck 138-kV Tnnsmission Line Project, Montgomery and Harris Counrics, Texas,” prepared for EntcrgylGuIf Stat= Utilities Company, Bmumonr, Tcmi. Documcnt No. 99 1 143, Dcccmber 1399.

”Environmcnd Assessmcnt for thc Pmposcd hycttc Power Pmjm -Lytron Springs 345-kV Transmiaion Line, Cddwell, Basuop, and Fayette CountiEs, Texas?’’ p r c p d for the Lower Colorado Rivcr Aurhoriry, Austin, Tax, Document No. 99081 8, July 1933.

“Environmcnd Assessmcnt for thc Proposed Hays Enera 345- kVTransmission Line, Hays and GuadsIupe Countics, Tcxlls,” prcparcd for &e Lmver Colorado River Authority, Austin, Texas, Document No. 990086, AprjI 1333.

“Environmend Asstssmcnt - Frontcn Genenrion Limited Parr- ncahip - Rio Bnvo EIectrid Intcrconnection Projcct, Hidalgo County, Tcxas,” prepared for Fmntm Generation Liiitcd Parr- ncahip, Ddas, T&1U.S. Dcpartmenr of Energy, Washington, D.C., DOEIEA-1297, April 1939.

Exhibit RRR-I

1559 4

"Environmcnd Assessment for chc Proposed Buda-Rohr 138-kV Tnnsmission Linc, Hays Counry, TexasS: prcparcd for the hwcr Colondo River Authority, Austin, Tem, Documcnt No. 330085, March 1993.

'Environmcnd Assmrncnc and Altcrnan'vc Route Analysis for thc Jasper-Newton Electric Coopenrive's McGee 138-kV Transmission Line and Substation PrOjen, Jasper County, Texas," prcpmd for Jasper-Ncwton Ehccric Coopenrive, Inc, Kirbyville. TCXS, Documenr No. 980285, Dcccrnbcr 1398.

'Envimnmcntal Assssment and Alternative Route Andysis for thc Pmposcd Musung Island Transmission Line Project, Nueccs County, Texas," prepared for C c n d Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas, Document No. 950884, November 1938.

"Environmeml Asscssrncnt and Alrcrnative Roure Analysis for the Lower Colorado River Authorityj Proposcd ScgoviaTransmis- si00 Linc Projecr, KimbIc Count): Texas." prcpa~td for the hwcr Gtomdo River Authority, Austin, Texas, Documenr No. 971620, Ocrobcr 1998.

"Environmcnd Arscssrncnt for &e Proposcd Coldspring to Wolf Crcck to DorrclI 138-kVTnnsmission Line Projecr, San Jacinro, Walker, and Montgomery Counties, Texas," prepared for Sam Houston Elmric Coopcmive, Inc., Livingston, Texas, Document No. 970128, August 1998.

"Environmental Assessmcnt and Alrernauvc Roure Andysis for the Proposed Big Lkc-Chna-Soncm 138-kv Twmissian Lint Project. Rugan, Crocken, Schleichcr, and Sutton Coun- des, Tcxm," prepircd for West T m Utilities Company, Abilene, Tm, Documcnt No. 971225, April 1398.

'Envimnmcntal Assessmenr for the Proposed Hill Country to Stoncptc 138-kV Transmission Line Projm at Camp BuUi, Tans," prcpared for City Public Service Company of San Anto- nio, San Antonio, Tcxas, Document No. 960210, February 1398.

'Envimnmcntd Assessment and Aftcrnitive Rouw Analysis for the Proposcd Friendship to Circle C to Mmchaa 138-kVTrans- mission Line Projcct, Travis and Hays Counties. Tucas: preparcd for Pcdcrnalcs H e m i c Cooperadve, hc., Johnson City, Texas, Documenr No. 370276, Scptcmber 1937.

"Environmcnnl hsessmtnr for the Proposed Upgrading ofrhc Num Crcek to SmithviIIr 63-kVTransrnission Line, Buuop County, Tau," prcpared for &e Lower Colorado River Auchoriry, Austin. Tons, Document No. 370860, August 1397.

"Environmental Asscssmcnt and AItcrnitive Route Analysis for the Proposcd Wira ro Gnnitc Mounmin 138-kVTransrnission Linc Projcct, Burnet Counry, Texas," p r c p d for thc Lower CoIondo River Authority, Austin, Tcxas, Documenr No. 970133, Junc 1937.

"Environmcnml Asscssmcnr and AItcrnativc Route Srudy for thc Proposcd Tq4or Bayou 63-kV Transmission Line Projea,"

prcpared for Ente&Gulf Smes, New O r l w , Lbuisima, Docu- ment No. 961534, January 1397.

"Bormwrx's Environmcnd R C ~ O K far the Proposcd SN TX to Plainview 69-kV Transmission Lint Project," prepared for Midwest Electric Coopmtive, Inc, Roby, Tpras. Document No. 961379, November 1996.

"Environmend Assessment and AItcrnative Route Srudy for die Proposed Longworth 69-kVTransmission Linc Projectl" prcparcd for Wac Tcxas Utilirics Company, Abilcnc, Tm, Document No. 961378, Novtmbcr 1936.

"Environmcnd Assessment and Alternative Route Study for the Proposed Snydcr to Roby 63-kV Transmission Lint Project," prepared for West Texas UEiIicies Company, Abilcnc, Taras, Dom- mcnr No. 360748, November 1396.

"D& Environmcnd Impact Scatcrnent. U.S. 71 B Tcxarkzna, Arkansas, to DcQueen, A r k 0 Lidc River, Miller, and Scvicr Countics, Arkansas and Bowic County, Tatas," preparcd for tbc Arkanm Sutc Highway and Tmnspormuon Dcparrment and thc Federal Highmy Adminisuatian, Snte Project No. 30108, Docu- ment No. 930500, Novunbcr 1936.

"Environmental Assessment and Alternative Routc Srudy for rhe Proposcd Buttercup to JoIlyviIlc 138-kV Transmission Linc Proj- ect? prcpacd for the Lower CoIondo River Authority? Austin, Texas, Document No. 160328, September 1396.

"Environmend Assessment for thc Proposed University Subsm- cion Projcct," p r e p d for C c n d and Sou& War Scrviccs, Inc , Dallas, Texas, Document No. 960749, Jdy 1396.

"Borrowers Environmcnd Report for the South Palatine 138-kV Transmission Line Projcct, Andcrson Count): Texas," preparcd for Ncw En Elecuic Coopcmtivc, Inc, Athcns, Texas. Document No. 960079, Junc 199G.

"Enviromcnd Assessment and AItcrnativc Route Study for thc Proposed Gatmay 138-kV Trammission LindSubstadon Proj- ccr," prepared for Ccntnl and South West Servica, Inc., Ddas, Teas, Document No. 360447, May 1336.

"Environmcnd Assessmrnr for thc Proposcd D.O. AIdridgc-HilY Wilson 69-kV Tmsmission Linc Projecr. Fmnklin and Hopkins CoundeS, TIXLS,~ prepared for Wood County Electric Coopem- rive, Inc., Quitman, Texns, Document No. 930602, May 1396.

"Environmenml Assessment for thc Proposed Cenual Hcights- Marrinsville 691Futurc 138-kVTransmission Linc Projccr, Nacog- doches Counry, Texas: prepared for Dcep Exit Tax Wecuic Coopentivc, Inc, San A u p u n c , Texas, Document No. 950760, Novembcr 1335.

"Environmcnd Assessmcnr and Altcrnative Routing Analysis for the Proposed Schcm to Parkway 138-kV Tmasmis- sion Line Project, Volumes I and It," prcparcd for the Lmver Cofondo River Authority, Austin, Tax, Dom- ment Nos. 3506911 and 951020, Nowmbcr I395

Exhibit RRR-'l

"Environmcnnl Asscssmenr and AIternativc Routing Analysis for the Proposed Conroc ro Oak Ridge 138-kVTmnsrnission Line Projcct," prcpared for EntergylGulF Stat= Utilitics. Bmumont, Tcws, Docurncnt No. 350757, Ocrobcr 1995.

"Comprchcnsive Routing, Environmcnd, and Engineering Stud- i s for h e Onion Crcek to Bergsmm 138-kV Tmnsmission Line Projm (subconsulrant to RW. Beck for Environmcnral Assess- menr)P prepard for &e City of Austin Elmric UriIiry Depart- ment, Austin, Texas, Document No. 950265. Scptcmber 1995.

"Borrowers Environmend Report for thc Proposcd Reno 138-kV Tnnsmission Line Projcct, Lamar County, Twas;" prepared for h m a r Counry Elcaric Cooperativc Association, Paris, Texas, Document No. 9405 12, June 1995.

"Environmcnd Asscssmcnt and Ntcrnativc Route Analysis for the Proposed Bo I3S-kVTnnsmission Line Project," prepared for Gulf Cox; Power Connecc, Inc., Austin, Tms, Document No. 941206, February 1935.

"Environmcnd Asslrssment for &e Tcmco-Evcrgrccn 138-kV Tnnsmission Line Projcn. Wdkcr Counry, Tcxas," prcparcd for Sam Houston Electric Coopenrive, Inc., Livingston. Tans, Docurncnt No. 940669, November, 1334.

"Environmcnnl Asscssmenc ,and AIternativc Routing Analysis for dic Proposcd Maim lie 230-kV Tmsmission Line Projm (Pre- liminary Draft)," prepared for G n d and South Wax Scrv ic s , Inc , Dallas, Texas, Document No. 930240. Novembcr 1994.

"Volume II Environmend Assessrncnt ofAlternative Routes for LCRA's Proposed Schumansvillc Project, Comal and Guaddupe COuntitS, TCXEL" prepared for Tfic Lowcr Colorado River Author- ity, Austin, Taw, Documenr No. 930774, October 1334.

"Environmennl Assessment and AIrernativc Rourc Analysis for LCRA's Proposed Texas Wind Power Pmjoc t 138-kV Transmis- sion Line Culbcrson County, TCLI," prepared for %e h w c r Colondo Rivcr Authoriry, Austin, Texas, Documcnr No. 340135, June 1994.

"Borrowers Environmental &port S m Houston Electric Coop- emuve, Inc. Proposcd Two-Ymr Work Plan 1934-1935P prepared for Sam Houston Elcctric Coopencive, InL, Livingston, Tcms 77351. Documcnt No. 940034, March 1334.

"Environmend hscssmcnt and AItcrnauve Route Andysis for Central Power and Light Company's Proposed Roma 138-kV Transmission Line Projcct," prcparcd for Central Powvcr and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Tax, Document No. 330514, Novembcr 1993.

"Environmcnnl Asscssment for the Proposed Berm-ladison- villc 138-kV Transmission Lint Projccr, Anderson, Chcrokcc .md Houston Countics, Tm," prcpired for Easi Texas E l m i c Coopentive, Inc.. Nacogdoches, TCXRS, Documcnt No. 930066, October 1333.

'Environmcnd Assessment for the Proposcd Swi~eytown Tap- Swinncytown 138-kV Transmission Line Projcct, Smith County, Texas," prcpmd for East Texas Elccuic Cooperativc, Inc, Nacog- doches, Texas, Docurncnt No. 330063, October 1333.

"Environmend Asscssrnent for die Proposed Troup Tap-Ncw Summerfield 138-kVTransmission Linc Pmjccr, Smith and Cherokee Counties, Texas," prepared for East Tcl~s Efccrric C o o p m t i ~ , Inc, Nacogdoches, Tcxas, Doctirncnt No. 930068, October 1993.

'Environrncnml Assessment for thc Proposed ]acksonvilIe-Ta- sclville I38-kVTmnsmission Line Projcct, Smith and Chcrokec Counties, TcxasP preparcd fbr k t Teas Elccrric Coopcndvc, hc., Nacogdochcs, Tcxas, Document No. 9300G7, Octobcr 1993.

"Environmental Assessment for thc Proposed Clyde Brady-E. Burges 13S-kV Transmission Linc Pmjctf, Van Zandr and Smith Counrie, Texas? prepared for East Teas EIccu-ic Coopmtive, Inc., Nawgdocha, Tias, Document No. 330070, October 1993.

"Environmental Assessment and Alrcrnative Route Analysis for rhe Proposed Frcdcrichburg North Projca-Vofurnc 11," prcpared for the Lowcr Colorado River Authority, Austin, Tms, Docu- m a t No. 890251, June I389 (Revised August 1333).

"Volume I Exiting Environment of the Region of Inrerest for the LCRA's Proposed SchumwiI lc Project," preparcd for Thc Lowcr Colondo River Authority, Austin, Tax, Document No. 3300IG, May 1393.

"Exisring Environment of the Region of Inrerut for tbc Proposcd Frcdcricksbuq North Projec-Volume I," prepared for thc Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, Tax, Document No. 880063, April 1989 (Revised January 1393).

"Environmennl hsessrncnt for thc Proposed Eden Projcct. Conch Counry, Tex3sP preparcd for WM Tax- Utilities Corn- pmy, Abifcne, Texas, Documcnt No. 910575, Novembcr 1992.

"Comprehensive Routing and Environmennl Studics for the Seaholm to Salem W k 138-kVTinsmkion t ine Projcct (CKT 976)." prepad for The City of Austin Electric Utility Depart- mcnt. Austin, Tcus, Documcnr No. 900134, Scprcmber 1192.

"Environmend Asscssment .and AltcrnaEive Route Andysis for rhe Proposcd Kerr County Projecr-VoIumc 11," prcpucd for the Lowcr CoIondo River Authoriry, Austin, Teas, Document No. $90178, M y 1383 (Revised Septcmber 1332).

“Borrowers Environmental Report for thc Proposed Jackson- Canton 138-kV Transmission Linc Projca. Van Zandr County, Texas," prepared for hyburn Country Uecctric Coopmtive, Inc., Rod;wall.Trms, Documenr No. 910604,~uly 1332.

"Environmcnd Assessmrnr and Altcmativc Routing Analysis for the Proposcd Cross VaIIcy Tic 3451138-kV Project," prcpmd for CcnrmI h w c r and Light Grnpmy, Corpus Chrisci, Tcm, Document No. 900784, July 1992.

Exhibit RRR-I

1561 "Draft Environmend Impact Stritcmcnr-Proposcd Consmction of Winston-Salcm Outcr BcInny on Nnv Loation," preparcd for North Carolina D c ~ I . of Transporntion, F~A-NCEIS-92-OG D, Documcnt No. 310124, ]unc 1932,

"Environmcnd Asscssmcnr and AIrernative Route Analysis for the Proposcd Milimy Highway-CFE Tie I3S/GL)-kVTmmis- sion Line Projm, Brownsville, Gmeron County, Texas: prepared for CcntmI Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Tcxasl U.S. Depr. of Energy, Document No. 91 0377, DOWEA-0702. April 1992.

"Environmend hcssmcnr for Central Poivcr and Light Compa- ny's Proposed Koch Refining Company 631138-kVTmnsrnission Line Rclomdon Projm," prepared for Central Powcr and Light Compzny, Corpus Christi, Taw, Documcnt No. 910439. Jmu- ary 1912.

"Environmcnd Assessment and AIternxivc Routing AnaIysis for thc Proposcd AIamogordo to Ruidoso 1 I5-kVTmnsmission Line Projcctl" prcparcd for T w N c w Mexico Power Comprtny, FOK Worth, Tcxx, Document No. 900551, January 1992.

"Environmcnnl Asscssmcnt for the Proposcd Rcbuilding and Reloation of a Portion of the Hicross-Buda SpIit 138-kVTrans- mission Line, Tmvk and Hays Counties, Tax," preparcd for rhc Lowcr CoIondo River Authority, Austin, Texas, Docuwrnr No. 300302. Scprcmbcr 199 1.

"Comprchcnsive Siting, Routing & Environmental Studia far the Oak Hill 138-kV Substation and Rdatcd Transmission Line Rclodon Projm," prcparcd for thc Ciry of Austin, Austin, Texas, Documcnt No. 310044, Scptcmbcr 1991.

uPIiac I Prmquisition Site Asscssmcnt-55-Am Tract Sourhwesr of thc Intcrsedon of FM I599 and Smrcy Ranch Road. Har- lingcn, Tmx," prcparcd for C c n d Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Taas, Docurncnt No. 31041 1. August 1931.

"D& Environmennl Impact Smtcmenr - Proposed Construction of U.S. 220 to a Four-Lint Dividcd Facility on NCW Location rhat Extcnds Approximately 15.3 Milcs from Erncry to south of Ellcrbc in Montgomcry ,and Richmond Counties, North Gro- lina," prcparcd for thc North Carolina Dcparuncnt of Transporn- tion, Mcigh, North Grolina. FHWA-NGEIS-91-02-D. Jury 1991.

"Environmend Asscssrncnt and Alternative Routc AnaIysis for &e Proposed North PolE-Oilville-Short Pump 730-kV Tmns- mission Line Project," prepared far Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia. Documcnt No. 890327, July 1991.

"Existing Environment ofthe Region of Interest for the Proposed Ken County Projm-Volumc 1," prepared for the Lower Colondo River Authoricy, Austin, Ta, Documenr No. 890136, April 1383 (Rcviscd June 199 I).

"EnvironmcnnI Assessment for the Proposed Hilbig 13.8-kV In-Ficld Line Addition N n r Rocknc, Bztrop County, Tcms,"

prcparcd for tbc h w c r Colorado River Authoricy, Austin, Tm, Document No. 310173, May 1391.

yBom~vcrs Environmend RcpordEnvironmcnnl Assessment for thc Proposcd Canton Tap - Mmcoh 138-kVTransmission Lint Projca, Van Zndt, Smith and Wood CounrieS, Tcxxs:' prepared for Southwcstern Electric Powcr Company, Shrwcporr, Louisi- ana and Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc, RnckwaIl, Texas, Documcnt No. 900607, March 1991.

'Environmend Evaluation of the Proposcd 138-kV Transmission Line Benveen the GIenn Pine Subsmtion and thc Proposed Ex- plorer Swirching Smion in Van L n d t Counry, Texas," prepared for b u h a n County Elccmc Coopcntivc, I n t , Kaufman, Tcxas and Rayburn Counuy EIccuic Coopcnrivc. Inc., Rodnvall, Tcxas, Document No. 910041, March 1331.

"Environmental: Asscssmcnt and Ahcrnativc Route Andysis for the Proposcd Explorer-Ovcrron 138-kV Transmission Line Project-K-iufman, Van Zandr, Henderson, Smith, Anderson, Cherokee and Rusk CDuntia, Texas,+' prepared for Rayburn Counuy Elrccric Cooperative, Inc., RochdI , Texas, Documcnr No. 300556, February 1991.

"A Rcvicw of AwilabIe Information on Black-upped Vireo Oc- m m c e in Rclarion to the h v t r CoIotlldo River Authority's Elcctric Tnnsmission LciIitiesP prepared for the h v e r Colorado River Authority, Austin, Twas, Document No. 900700, January 1991 (with snit).

"Comprehensive Rowing and Environmend Studies for rhe Sprinklc to Howard Lane 138-kV Projm (CKT 374/175)P prepared for the Ciry of Austin, Ausrin, Texas, Documcnt No. 900021. January 1991.

UBorrowers Environmend Report-Sam Houston U e d c Coopcr;itivc, Lnc. - Proposcd Two-Year Work Plan-1931-1932," prcpared fbr Sam bfouston EIccuic Coopcntive, hc, Livingston. Tw, Document No. 910015, ]mu;lry 1331.

uAItcrnative Routing Analysis and Environmcnd Rcpon: for the Proposed Dripping Springs to WimberIey 138-kVTmsmission Line and Substation,m prepared for Pederndcs Elecrric Coopen- tive, Inc, Johnson City Texas, Documcnt No. 900614, Novem- bcr 1790.

"Environmental Andysis of South R d r c Island - Port Isnbcl 138-kV Undcrground Transmission Gblc," prcpircd for Ccntd Power and Light Co., Corpus Christi, Tcxas, Document No. 890633, October 1330.

"Supplcmcnd BioIogiul Assasmcnt of thc Endmgcrcd AIM- tds Pniric Chicken and Bald Eagle Along CPLh Proposed Lon C. Hill-Colcto Creek 345-kV Transmission Lint,'' prepared for the U.S. Army Corps ofhginccrs, Galvaton, Tcxas, Documcnt No. 900619, Octobcr 1990.

'BOKOWCE Environmental RCPOK - Six Mile - h c h 138-kVTmmission Linc Projca, Sabine & Ncwton

Exhibit RRR-7

1562 7

COuntieS, Texas: prepared for Tex-Lt Electric Coopemtive, Inc., Nacogdochcs, Texas, Documrnr No. 89065 1, September 1990.

"Environmcnnl Assessmenr and AIttmxiw Route Analysis for thc Lytton Springs-Slaugliter L n c Projm," p'cpucd For the City ofAustin. Austin. Taw, Document No. 870501, September 1390.

'Environmcnd Assessment and Alternative Route Andysis for C c n d Powcr and Light Company's Proposed Santo Nino 138- kV Transmission Line and Subsucion," Webb County, Tcxas, prcparcd for Ccntnl Power and Light Company, Corplis Christi, Texas, Docurncnt No. 900034, August 1390.

"Environmcnd Asssssmcnt & Afternative Roure Analysis - Pine- land - Rayburn Switchyard 138-kVTransmission Line Project, &bine and Jasper CountiEs, Totas," prcparcd for Ta-h Electric Cooperative, Inc, Nacogdoches, Texas, Document No. 890650, August 1330.

"Environmental Assessmenr of the Proposed Pi& ProjccrP prcpmd for the Lmvcr Colomdo Rivcr Authoricy, Austin, Tcxas, Documcnt No. 890377, March 1990.

"Botrowccs Environmcnd Report - Center-Holly 138-kV Tnns- mission Linc Project, Shelby & San Augustine Counties, Tans: prepared for Tat-h W m i c Coopcmivc ofTem, Inc, Nacogdo- ches, Tax, Document No. 890649, February 1990.

uEnvironmend Assssmcnt for &e Winchtster to SaIem 138-kV Transmission Line Projea," prepared for rhc Lower CoIomdo Rivcr Authority, Austin, Texas, Docuummt No. 890384, Dccem- ber 1789.

"Altcmative Rouie Analysis and Environmental Assessment for the Lon C. Hilt-Colero Cmk 345-kV Tmnsmission Linc (Vol- urn= I and H),- prepared for Centnl Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas, Document No. 890149, December 1389.

"Environmcnnl Information Documcnr for the Proposed Ark- rech CumendPhenoI Complex, Mount Airy. touisiana," prepared for Arirech Chemical Cop. Pirtsburgh. PennsyIvania, Docu- mcnr No. 8901 IS. Octobcr 1989.

"Borrowers Environmcnnl Rcport for the Proposed Tcnaha- Timpson 138-kV Transmission Lind3O-Mepwrt Load Shifr Project," prcparcd for Tm-h Electric Coopcrativc ofTcxas, he.. Nacogdoches, Taxi, Documcnt No. 580728, September 1987.

"EnvironmcnnI Asswment and Altcrnative Routc Analysis for CCI - IK~ Power and Lighr Company's Proposed javelina 138-kV Transmission Line and Subsnuon," prcpared for Ccntd Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Tm, Documcnt No. 890135, September 1383.

"Alrernativc Route Andysis .and Environmental Asscssrnent for the Proposcd GilI 138-kVTmnsmission Line Project, Harrison County, Tcxs," prcparcd for Rnola-Harrison Elcctric Coopera- tivc, Inc, Marshall, Texas, Documenr No. 890070, June 1983.

"hvironmend Asscssmcnt and Altcrnativc Routc Andysis-Chcs- rcrfield 10 Chidiahominy 230-kV Project," p r c p d for Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia, Document No. 880720, June 1383.

'Environmcnd Asscssmcnt for a Proposed 138-kV Transmission Line Rclourion Nmr KyIc, Hays County, Te'x.lsF p r c p d for thc Lowr Colondo River Authority, Austin, Tm, Docurncnt No. 810241, Junc 1981.

"A Rcview of Available Information on Black-crppcd Virco Oc- currence in Relation to the Lowcr Colorado Rivcr Authoricy's Elecuic Transmission kcilitics," prcpmd for thc Lowcr Colondo River Authoriv, Austin, Tcl;~, Document No. 830020, February 1989 (with staff).

'Environmennl Asscssmcnt - L;impms-Goldthwaite 69-kV Trammission L i c Project," prepared for [he Lower Colomdo Rvcr Authority, Austin. Tcuxs, Document No. 880505, February 1983.

"Environmental Information Documcnt,D preparcd for thc E[ P s o County Lower Valley Water District Authority, Socorro, Teuas, Document No. 880679. Dcccmber I988 (with Jon= and Neusc, Inc and Conde Engineering, Inc).

"Environmental Report for the Proposed Childress to k d u u h 138-IiVTmmission Line Project," prcparcd for Wcst Tcxas Udlities Company, Abilcnc, Texas, Document No. 850628, Novcmbcr 1988.

"BOKOWK Environmenul Rcporr For thc Proposed Wet Mun- son-Quinlan-Wicland 138-kV Transmission Line and Subsn- rions," prepared for hrmcrs Elmric Coopcntive, Inc, Grecn- villc, Tax, Documcnt No. 880563, November 1388.

"Environmend Assessment md Alternativc Routc Andysis for the Prnposed Mil Crcek Project - Vohmc IIP prepared for thc Lower Colorado Rivcr Authoriry, Awtin, Tcus, Documcnt No. 8S0292, September 1988.

"Environmental Assessment and Alrernativc Route Analysis for C m d Power and Light Company's Proposed Homeport 138-kV Transmission Line and Substation." prepared for C c n t d Power and Lighr Company, Corpus Christi, Tws, Document No. 880363, September 1388.

'Environmcnul Information Documcnt for a Proposed Wood Products Manufacturing Faciliry in Baurcgzrd Parish. Louisiana," prcpircd for Tcmplehrrx, Inc., Diboll, Tax, Document No. 880422, August 1988.

"Environmcnd Assessment and Alrcrnauve Route Andysis for the Proposed Colondo County Project - Volume IIln prcparcd for the Lowcr Colorndo River Authoricy, Austin, Texas, Document No. 880406, August 1988.

"Borrowers hv i ronmend Rcport for thc Proposcd Moss Hill 230-kV Transmission Linc and Substation," prepared for Sam Houston Etcctric Coopcntivc, Inc., Livingston. Tau, Docurncnt No. 880202, June 1388.

Exhibit RRR-I

1563 3 "Environmcnd Asscssrncnt of the Proposed Loudoun to CIark 230-kV Projca," prcparcd for Virginia Power, Glcn Allen, Vir- ginia, Docurncnt No. 880065, June 1388.

"Existing Environrncnt of the Region of Intcrcst for the Proposed Colondo County Projcct - Volumc I," prepared for the Lower CoIomdo River Authority, Austin. TCXS, Document No. 880068. April 1988.

'kkting Environrnenr of the Region of Intcrcst for thc Proposed Mill Creck Projcct - VoIume I," prepared for the Lower Colondo Rivcr Authority. Austin, Tm. Document No. 870888, February 1388.

uEnvironmend Assessmcnr of the Proposcd North Anna to MitchclI 230-kV Projtcr," prtparcd for Virginia Power, Glen AI- lcn, Virginia, Docurncnt No. 870538, Januay 1988.

'Environmental Assessment and Altcrnativc Route Andysis For thc Proposcd K c d l e sou& Projecr - Volume 11," prcpxcd for thc Lower CoIorada Rivcr Auchorir)., Austin, Texas, Documcnt No. 870784, Deccmbcr 1387.

"Environmcnd kcssment for thc Ferguson-Buchanan US-kV Transmission Linc Projca, Burnct md Uano Counrics, Tcx33P prepred for thc Lower Colorado Authoriry, Austin, Texas, DOCU- mcnt No. 8705 18, JuIy 1387.

"Environrncnd hssessrncnt for tbc Buchanan-Mormon Mill I3S-kVTms1nk~ion Lint Project, Burner and Llano Councie~, Tcl~asSp prcparcd for the Lowcr CoIorada River Authariry, Austin, Texas, Documcnt No. 870517, July 1387.

"Environmend Assessmenr of h e City of Austin's Proposed CKT 968 138-kV Transmission Line Project," prepared for thc City of Autin Elcctrie Utility Departrncnr, Auscin, Texas, Documcnc NO. 870600, June 1987.

"Environmend Assessment of the City ofAustin5 Proposed CKT 966 138-kVTmrnission Line Project: prepircd for the City of Austin Uecuic Utilicy Dcparrmcnt, Ausrin, Texas, Document No. 870 126, June 1387.

" P ~ K A: Environmental Assmrncnt of Mid-Tcrm and Long-Term DevcIopment Options at Robcn MucIler Municipal AirportP prepared for thc Ciry of Austin Dcparuncnt ofAvkttion; prepared by the Grcincr Ausrin T m -Joint Vcnfurc, Documcnt No. 860722, April 1987.

uEnvimnmcnd Asscssmenr of Alternative Routcs for LCR4's Proposcd Danvilfe Project - Volumc 11," prcpared for thc h w c r Colondo Rivcr Authority, Austin, Tcxas. Document No. 861332, March 1987.

"Altcmativc Route Analysis and Environmental Asscssrnenr for the Lon C. Hill - CoIcro Creek 345-kV Transmission Line," prcpxcd for Ccnual Power and Light Company, Corpus Christi, Texas, Document No. 860548, Fcbruary 1787.

'Environmental Assessment of he City of Austin's Proposed CECT 9151 13S-kVTmnsmission Line Project: prcparcd for thc City of Austin EImric Utility Dcpmcnt , Amfin, Tcx?s, Documcnt No. 861316, December 1386.

"Environmcnctl Asscssmcnt of the Ciry of AusEin's Proposed C m 3125 345-kV Transmission Linc Project," prcpxcd for the Ciry of Austin Electric Utiliry D c p m c n t , Austin, T-, Documcnt No. 860579, Septcrnbu 1386.

%ternative Route Andysis and Environmend Asscssmenr of &e City of Ausdn's Proposed CKT 312 Tnnsmission Linc Project within the City of \VEX Lakc Mills, Tcxas," prcparcd for the Ciry o f A ~ i n EfecPic UtiliFy Deparment, Austin, Tcw, Document No. 851 130,Augusr 1386.

uOsuna Road Improvements (From Second Street IO the North Diversion Channcl) Projccr No. M-4052(2) Environmend As- sessment,n preparcd for the Counry of BemdiUo, New Mcxico, Document No, 86078, August 1986.

"Borrower's Environmend Rcport: Port Lqvau-Vmderbilt 13S-kVTmnsmission Linc and Submtion-Jackson, Victoria, and GIhoun Counrics, TCX~S: prcparcd for South Tcxas Elcctric Coopmtivc, Inc., Nuncry, Tbm, Docurncnt NO. 860208. March 1986.

"Borrower's Environmcntd Report: Orange Grove - DriscolI 138-kV Transmission Line and Subsndon-Jim Wells and Nu- Guncia, Texas: prcparcd for South Tcxas Hcctric C o o p c ~ ~ ~ v e , l n t , Nursery, Tacas, Document No. 860199, March 19%.

uVarcr Adabil i ty Study for the Guadalupe and San Anionio Rivcr Basins,'' prcpared for the San Antonio River Authority, Guaddupe-BImco Rivcr Authority, and Ciry of San Antonio. Documcnt No. 85580 (dd1ifc scction), February 1986.

"Environmental Assessment of the City of Austin's Proposcd CKT 372 138-kVTransmission Line Projcct," p r c p d for the City of Austin Hmric Utility Dcpartment, Austin, TCX~S, Docurncnt No. 85896, Octobcr 1985.

"Environmcnd Asswmcnt of the Giddings to Lexington 138- kVTransmission Linc Project, IRc County. Texas," prcparcd for thc h w c r Colondo River Authority, Austin, Tam. Document No. 85733, August 1385.

"Envimnmentd Asscssrncnt of the Mormon MiIIs 138-kV Transmission Line Project, Travis and Burnct Counties, Texas," ~'CPXCCI for chc Lowcr Colomdo Rivcr Authoriy, Austin, TCXX, Document No. 8561 1, July 1985.

"hvironmcnd Assessrncnt of thc City of Austin's Proposcd CKT 3126 345-kVTnnsrnission Line Project," prcparcd for rhc City of Austin Electric Utility Dcpmenr, Austin, Twa, Document NO. 85652. July 1985.

"Environmcntd Asscssmcnc of Nrcrnative Routcs for LCRA's Proposed Round Top Project - Volumc

Exhibit RRR-1

1564 9

prcparcd for the Lower Colorado Rivcr Authoriv, Austin. Texas, Docurncnt No. 85558, Junc 1385.

"Existing Environment of the Region of Interest for LCMs Proposcd DcanvilIe k o j m VoIumc I," prcpmd for the h w r Colondo Rivcr Authority, Austin, Tsras, Document No. 841024, M , d I985 (Rcvised Novcmbcr 198c).

'Existing Environrncnd of the Region of Interesc for LCRA's Proposcd Round Top Project - VoIumc I," prcpared for the Lowcr Colorado River Authority, Ausrin, Texas, Documenr No. 861023, Fcbru.uy 1985.

u C a ~ e ~ Project-Ecofog Bascline Report - I985 Updatc," prc- pared for Phillips Cod Company, Richardson, Tcxas, Document No. 85G14. July 1385.

"Final Rcport on Pre-Construction Monitoring of Brown Pcliun and Migratory Warcrfowl Movements Nur CP8tFJs Proposed la- guna Madre Tinsmission Line: preparcd for G n d Power and Light Compnny, Corpus Chris& Texas, Documcnt No. 85431, June 1985.

"Environmcnd Rcview of Pcdcrnalcs EIecrric Cooperative's Proposcd Scrvicc Ccnrtr - FM 143 I, Williamson Counry, Texlrs," prcpared for Pedcrndes Wcmic Coopemrive, Inc, Johnson City, Texas, Job No. 7513, Letter Rcporr, December 1385.

"Ahcrnativc Route Andysis and Environmcnnl Asscssmcnt for the Proposed Coldspring I3S-kV Transmission Line," prcpsrcd for Sam Houston Electric Coopcradve, Inc., Livingston, Texas, Documenr No. 84889, Deccrnbcr 1984.

"Environmcnnl Evaluation Relating to Petitions to Designate 178 Square Miles in Bastrop and Ltc Counties as Unsuiublc for Surhcc G a l Mining," prcparcd for Aluminum Company of Amcria, City PubIic Service of Sm Antonio, Shdl Mining Com- pany, and T'cxas Mining and Rcclamarion Association, Document No. 84387, July 1384.

'histing Environmenr of h e Region of Interest for LCRA5 Pro- posed Kcrrvillc South Project," prcpxcd for the Lowcr Colorado Rivcr Authority, Austin. Texas, Document No. 84314, June 1984. (Rcriscd Novcmbcr 1987)

"Environmcnd Assessment and AItcrnative Routc AnaIysis for the Proposcd China to Porter 500-kV Tmnsmission Line," prcpircd for Gulf Snrcs Utilitits Company, Beaumonr, TauS, Documcnr No. 83566, January 1984.

"EnvironmenmI Impact Sntemcnt - Flint Creek to Oklahoma 345-kVTmnsmission Line," prep.ucd for Sourhwestcrn Elcaric Powvcr Company, Shrevepon, Louisiana, Document No. 83473, October 1383.

"An Environmenml hssessment of AItcmativc Lignite Convcyor Routs Bcnvcen chc Curnmins Crcek Mine and Fayetre Powcr Project," p c c p d for the Lowcr Cotondo River Aurhoriry, AUS- tin, Texas, Document No. 83437, Augur 1383.

"An Environrnend Assessmenr of Alternative Lignitc Tmnsporn- tion Mcrhods 3ctwcen the Cumrnins Crcek Minc md thc Fayem Power Project," prepared for thc Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, Tocas, Document No. 83385, July 1983.

"Environrncnral Assamcnt of the Proposcd Tude Crcck to Hunt 138-kV Transmission Line, Kcrr Councy, Tw," preparcd for h w e r Colondo Rivcr Authority. Ausrin, Tcxas, Document No. 83072, M a d 1983.

"Environmend hessrncnr for the Huntct to Sardcr 138-kV Transmission Linc, Hays and Comd Counties, Tats," prcpared for PcdernaIrr Elcctric Coopemrivc, Inc.. Johnson City, Tcxs, Document No. 83138, March 1983.

"Dd Environmcnd Impact Starcmcnt. Mdakoff Wccuic Gcneracing Station and Trinity Mine, Henderson and Anderson Countis, Tacas" (Wildlife Scctions), Third-party €IS p r c p d for U.S. EPA, D d h , Tax, EPA 30619-83-002, February 1383.

"Alrernacivc Routc Analysis and Environmtnnl Assasmcnt for the FayctreviIlc-Sdem 315-kV Transmission Linc," prcparcd for h v c r Colorado Rivcr Authority, Austin, Tcxx, Document No. 82522, December 1982.

'Rcvicw and Comparison of Thrce Lignite Mine Rcserve Fad Flaw Reports: prcpared for Bmms Electric Power Coopcntive, Inc , Waw, Tax, Document No. 82430, September 1982.

"Final Environmental Impacr Sntcment, Henry W. Pirkcy Power Plant Unit IlSouth Hallsvillc Surface Lignite Minc Projm, Harrison County, Tcms," T h i r d - P q US prepared for U.S. EPA, DalIas, Tau. EPA 90611-82-01 t , Document No. 8224 1, Septcmber 1982.

'!3d Flaw Analysis of the Proposcd Morgdn Hill Lignitc Projm, Limcstone and Frecstone Connrics, Texas," Client Confidential, Documcnr No. 82393, Seprembcr 1982.

"Prepared Tcsrirnony of Rob R Reid for thc Proposed Tcmco to Evergreen 13s-kVTransmission Linc, WaIker County, Texas," prcparcd for Sam Houston Electric Coopentivc, Livingston. Tans, June 1982; rcstimony given before PubIic Utiliry Commis- sion ofTexas in Public Huring on Augur 12, 1782.

uDraft Environrncnd Impact Smtcrncnt. Henry W. Pirkcy Power Plant Unit IlSouth H&sviIle Surhce Lignite Mine Project, Har- rison County, Toms," Third-party EIS prcparcd for US. EPA, D d h , Texas, EPA 90619-82-004, Document No. 81451, March 1982.

"EnvironmenraYRegulato~ Rd Flaw Analysis for the Mdvern Lignite Prospect in Hot Spring County, dcntid. Document No. 8 15 15. January 1982.

"EnvironmennYReguhtory F a d Flaw Analysis for tIic Bcnton Lignitc Prospect in Grant and S&nt Counties, Arkan- m," Clicnt Coddcntial, Document No. 81511, January 1952.

Client Cod-

Exhibit RRR-1

1565 10

"Uppcr Gnadalupe River Basin Water Supply Project - End Fk- port," preparcd for Uppcr GuadaIupe River Authority, Kcmille, Texas, and Guaddupc-BIanco River Authority, Scguin, Texas, Document No. 8 1 137-R1, Octobcr I98 1, (WiIdIife Sections)

"Fish and WildIife RcsourcEs of the Bfuc Ribbon Mine Site, Ddn County, CoIondo," prcparcd for Wcstern k o e i i t e d Cod cop, Dcnver, Colorado, Docurncnt No. 81405, August 1381. (with J. KobIim)

" h n m lkz Hunting & Fishing CIub - Proposed Project Plan, M G m p b d l Slough, Sin huicio Counry, TmsP prcparcd for Annsas Pass Hunting & Fishing Club, Corpus Chisti. Texas. Document No. 8 1292, August I98 1.

"Bsclinc Environmcnd Studies of die Pmposcd Dolet Hills Power Plant Tramporrive Systems Corridors: prepared for Sou& wesrern Electric Power Company, Shrcveporr Louisiana, Docu- men[ No. 8Z415,Aupr 1381.

'[Buclinc Survey of theTcrresrrial Ecology of thc Sitc X Projcct Arm," Henderson County, Ttxas, Docurncnt No. 8 1253, Clicnt Confidential, July I951. (with C.H. Pcrino)

* L B ~ r r o ~ ~ i ~ Environmental Report - San Migud Electric Coop- erativc, hri. Lignite Fired Power Planr, Unit No. 1, Amcoza County, Tcxas," prcpared for San Migucl Efecuic Coopentive, Inc. Jourdanton.Taq Document No. 81 114, March 1381.

"Ad Flaw Analysis of the Added A m to the Spina Mine, GI- houn County, A r h m , " Documenr No. 80332, Client Confi- dcnrial, March I98 1.

"Environmentill AnaIysis - Elm MottNhitney 345-kV Tnnsrnis- sion Line and Substation," prepared for Bnzos EIcccric Powcr Coopemtive, I n c , \Vaco,Taras, Document No. 80104, March 1381.

"Borrorvcri Environmental Report: Mzgic Vdey Electric Coop- cntivc. InLb Two Year Work Phn," prcpared for Magic Valley Etccrric Coopcmtive. Inc., Mcrccdts, T w , Document No. 81061, Fcbmary 1381.

"BascIinc Ecologid Srudics of the Richland-Chambers Reservoir Site," prcparcd for Tumr County Warer ConrroI and Improve- mcnt District Numbcr One. Documcnt No. 80340, January 1381.

'Vegctation and WildIife Rmourcs of the BIick M a and Kay- cnfa Mine Sire," prcparcd for Pmbody Cod Company, Flagst&, Arizona. Documcrit No. 8071. Dccembcr 1380.

"Bascfinc Ecologid Survcy - Jclvctt Mine Project,* prepared for NortIiwcstcrn R c s o u ~ e s Company, Hunwillc, Teas. Document No. 79260, July 1980.

"Transmission Facility Alternacivcs Evaluidon and Siting Repoa - Elm MotdWhitney 345-kV," p r c p d for Bnzos a e d c Power Coopcntivc, Inc.. Wxo. Tau, Documcnt No. 80175, July 1380.

"Permir A p p I i d o n for Meeker Arm MinEs and hociatcd h i l i - tics - Rio Blmco County, Colorado," Eight Voluma, preparcd for Northcrn Cod Company, Dcnver, Colorado, Document No. 8070, June 1980.

'BioIogid Asscssment of thc Impact of a Proposed 138-kV Transmission Linc on Ihmiened and Endangcrcd Specie in Bell County, Texas," prepared for Bnzos EImric Power Coopc~uvc, Inc, Warn, Tms, Documtnr No. 8013, January 1980.

'Bomutr's Environmental Repom Y O U ~ ~ S ~ O K Tap Linc, Bcll County, Taus," p~pared for B m s Electric Power Cooperative, I n t , Waw,Texas, Document No. 8014, January 1380.

'Environmcnnl Impact Sntemcnt - Flint CmzC-Ncosho 161- kVTransmkion Line and Demur-South Substation," Wildlife Sections, prepared for Empire Disuicr Elecuic Company, JopIin, Missouri, Document No. 79155, Novcmbcr 1979.

"Supplcmcnr to Appendix S - Monitoring Program, Proposed Multipurpose Dccpwatcr Port and Crudc Oil Distribucion System, Galvaton, 1979.

Documcnt No. 78160-51, Scpternbcr

"Studies of the Effects ofAItemions of Freshwater Inflows into Matagorda Bay Area, Texas, Phase 1, End Report," Appendix E, Fuh & WiIdlic Resources, Scptcmbcr 1973. (with T.D. Hay=)

"Biologid Asscssrncnt of thc Impact ofa Proposed Multipurpose Dccpwatcr Port at Gdvaton, Turas on lhratcncd and Endan- gcrcd SpcciesP Documcnr No. 79108, July 1973.

"BioIogicaI Asscrsmenr of rhc Impact ofa Proposed 345-kV Tmsmission Line on Thmrened and Endangered Species in Wilson and Guaddupc Counties, TcxasF prcpmd for Bmos EIcctric Power Cooperative, Inc, Waco, Tcxs, Docurncnt No. 731 14, July 1973.

"Preliminary h l o g i d Emhatian of the Barton Creek Water- shed - Appcndix A," In: on the B m n Creek Warershcd,n Documcnt No. 7995, June 1979. (with J.R MacRae and D.B. Adam)

uEnvironmend Analysis: YoungsporcTap t i n e " (d&L prcpared for Brazos Elecuic Poower Cooperative. Inc , Waco, Tcxas, Docu- ment No. 7965, A p d 1979. {with 1.R Schcnck and I?]. Grubb)

'EcoIogiaI Considentiom Associated with die Disposal of P r e duccd Water into Mound take, Terry and Lynn Counties. Texas," Document No. 7922, Fcbmary 1373. (with J.M. Wicrscrna)

'Environmental Overvicrv of a Proposcd Surkcc Lignitc Coal Mine in West-Ccntl: Alabama," Wildlife Scction, Document No. 78 143. November 1378.

Study of Some Effecrs of Urbanimtion

" B d i n c Survey of theTcrrcstria1 E c o l o ~ of the Malakoff-G- yuga Mining Prospect;" prepared for North Amer im Cad Copomion, Dallas, Texas, Document No. 78165, Novcmber 1378. (with D.B. Adam)

Ex hi bi t RRR-I

'Environmend Impact Assmmcnt m d Evaluation of Atcma- uves for Lake Travis," Land Use and Ecology Section, prepared for US. Army Corps of Engincers, Fort Worth Dict, Documcnt No. 7890, November 1978. (with D.B. A d m )

"Environmental Assessment Rcporr - Proposed Multipurpose Deep-Water Poorr and Crude Oil Distribution SysremP Gdves- con, T m , VoI. 111, Appendix I - Wildlife, Document No. 7834. Novcmbcr 1378.

"hvironmend Asscssmcnt Rcport - Proposed Mulripurposc Dccp-Water Port .and Crudc OiI Distribution System," GaJvcrton, Texas. Wildlifc Scction, Documenr No. 7825, Novcmbcr 1378.

"Baseline Ecology Studies, G lvcr t Lignite Prospm," Wildrife Scction, Document No. 78 157, October 1 978.

'Xppendi to Volumc II - Plan Summary Report, Lower C& rado Basin, Water Qudiv Management Plan," Biology Section, prepared for the Lower Colondo River AuJlority by and Turncr, CoIlic, and Bndcn. Inc. Document No. 7880, June 1978.

"Environmend Analysis - CEPCO Microwvc May System," C-tjun Elccuic Powcr Cooperative, Inc, Documenr No. 7859, June 1978. (with D.B. Adam)

"WiIdIifc Basdine Rcport - h e r Oil Company Prospcacf prepared for Dmcs & Moore, Houston, Tm, Document No. 7874. May 1378. (wirh J.R Schendc md G.G. Ram)

uA Windshicld and Multivariate Approach to rht Classification, Inventory, and Evaluation of Wildlife Habitat: An EX~IOIXKQI~

Sntistics in Studies of Wildlife Habitat, 23-24 ApriI 1380, Bur- lingon, Vcrmont. Sponsored bF Schooi of Natural Rmourca. Universiry of Vermont; US. h h and Wildlife Service; USDA Forest Service. USDA Form Service Gen. Tech. Report RM-87, August 1981. (with C.E. Grue and N.J. Silvy)

"Compctition Bcnveen 3obwhite and Scaled Quai1 for Brecding Habitat in Tatas," Proc. Ann. C o d S.E. Fish and Wildlife Agcn- cia. 33: {146-153), 1379. (with N.J. Silvy and C.E. Gruel

"Corrdation of Habirar Paramerers with Wide-Count Densities of Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) and S d c d Quail (CaIlipepla squamata) in Texas: M.S. thesis, 1377.

"Brecding Habitx of the Bobwhite in Tcxas," Pmc. Ann. ConE S.E. Fish and WiIdIifk Agenda, 31: (62-71), 1977. (with C.E. Gruc and N.J. SiIvy)

"ATcchnique for Evaluating the Brccding Habjnt of Mourning Dovcs Using Callcount Transects," Proc. Ann. G n f . S.E. Game and Ffih Cornm. 30: (667-673). 1976. (with C.E. Grue and N.J. Shy)

Prrscnted at: A Workshop - The Use of Multivariate

1572

BEFORE THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMIS N %&r-9 A 8: 1 1

IN THE MAlTER OF THE APPLICATION OF 1 F![- ED SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY) FOR A CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 1 COMPATIBIUN AND PUBLIC NEED TO W I L D 1 A NEW 345 KV TRANSMlSSlON LINE BETWEEN 1 DOCKET NO. 05 - 021 - U SWEPCO’S TONTITOWN AND CHAMBERS 1 SPRING STATIONS LOCATED IN BENTON } AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES IN ARKANSAS }

AMENDED APPLICATION

COMES NOW Southwestern Electric Power Company (hereinafter “SWEPCO” or the “Company”), and for its Amended Application to its previously

filed Application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need following Order No. 8 of this docket, states:

1. DESCRIPTION OF COMPANY

SWEPCO is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the

State of Delaware, and it is duly authorized to do business in the States of

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. In the States of Arkansas, Texas,

and Louisiana, SWEPCO engages in a general electn’c utility business of

generating, transmitting, distributing and selling, at wholesale and retail, eIecfric

power and energy to customers in i ts sewice areas. SWEPCO owns certain

transmission facilities wifhin the State of Oklahoma but otherwise does not do

business within that state. SWEPCO is a public utility within the meaning of

Arkansas Code Annotated $5 23-1-101 ef seq., and is, therefore, subject to the

Page 1 of 15

1574

jurisdiction of the Arkansas Public Sewice Commission ('APSC" or

"Commission'). SWEPCO's principal place of business is at 428 Travis Street,

Shreveport, Louisiana.

2. JURISDICTION AND APPLICABLE LAW

SWEPCO is a public utility within the meaning of Section 23-1-101 of the

Arkansas Code of 1987 Annotated, and is, therefore, subject to the jurisdiction of

this Cornmission. This Amended Application is filed pursuant to Act I64 of 1973,

as amended, codified as Ark. Code Ann. §23-18-501 etseq., known as the Utility

Facility Environmental and Economic Protection Act, in compliance with Rule

7.08 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Commission, and in

compliance with Order No. 7 of this docket. The proposed facilities to be

constructed under this Amended Application constitute a major utilrty facility as

defined in Ark. Code. Ann. §23-18-50365) (B), The various documents and other

information that are required by this Commission's Rules of Practice and

Procedure in connedion with applications of this nature are presently available in

the files of this Commission or are being submitted as Exhibits to this Amended

Application.

3. NEED FOR THE FAClLITIES

The need for the iransmission line and associated facilities has previously

been determined in earlier filings pursuant to Order No. 7 in this docket, in the

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Item 8, pages 8-9. Furthermore,

SWEPCO was granted a certificate of environmental compatibility and public

Pagc 2 of I5

1575

need (“CECPN”) to construct, operate and maintain a new 345 kV electric

transmission line, together with associated transmission facifities and equipment,

extending behween SWEPCO’s existing Chambers Spring and Tontitown

Stations in Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas in Order No. 7. The

need for these facilities has increased since the date of Order No. 7 due to the

unprecedented load growlh in the Northwest Arkansas area.

4. PROPOSED FACILITIES

SWEPCO proposes to build the following proposed facilities: Construct a

new 345 kV transmission line between its Tontitown and Chamber Springs

stations. Th[s new line is part of an overall project scope that includes:

1 . The completed addition of a 3451161 kV 675 MVA auto

transformer at Tontitown station; and

The addition of 345 kV and 161 kV terminals at Chamber 2.

Springs station; and

3. The addition of a 161 kV transmission line between

Chamber Springs and Siloam Springs stations (presently the

subject of Docket No. 06-077-U); and

The addition of a 163 kV terminal at Siloam Springs station;

and

The completed relocafion of series reactors from the Dyess

Station to fhe Chambers Spring Station; and

4.

5.

6. The completed rebuild of the existing 1.5 mile 161 kV

transmission line between Tontitown and the Arkansas

Page 3 of 15

1576

Electric Cooperative Corporation, Inc, (AECC) Elm Springs

stations with larger conductor.

The overall length af the Tonfitown to Chamber Springs 345 kV transmission line

to be built under this CECPN will be approximately 11.25 miles, if built on the

proposed route. The proposed transmission line will be constructed on new 150-

foot-wide easements to be procured or that have been procured by SWEPCO.

Please refer to Exhibit "1" forthe Proposed Route and Aternate Routes Map.

This project is located in Benton and Washington Counties in Arkansas.

The proposedlEastem route is located in Section 33, Township 18 North, Range

31 West; Sections 4, 9, 16, 17, I 8 of Township 17 North, Range 31 West; and

Sections 22, 23, and 27 of Township 17 North, Range 32 West in Washington

County, and in Sections 13,14 28,29,31 and 32 of Township 17 North, Range

32 West in Benfan County. The atternativelSouthern route is located in Section

33 of Township 18 North, Range 31 West; Sections 4,9,16,17,20,29, 31, and

32 of Township 17 North, Range 31 West; and Sections 1 I 6, 7, 8, d 1, 12, 14,

15,16, and 17 of Township 16 North, Range 32 West in Washington County and

in Sections 31 and 32 of Township f7 North, Range 32 West in Benton Counfy.

The aIternaiivelNorthern route is located in Sections 33, 32 and 31 of Township

18 North, Range 31 West in Washington County and Sections 36, 35, 34, 33,

and 32 of Township 18 North, Range 32 West; Sections 3, 4, 6, 6 , 19, 30, and

31 of Township 17 North, Range 32 West; Sections 1.1 I, 12,14,23,24, and 25

of Township 17 North, Range 33 West in Benton County.

Page 4 af 15

1577

The proposed transmission line will be (typically) constructed with davit

arm construction on single steel poles (see Exhibit '2' for Typicsll Structure

Drawings). Two-795 Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR) conductors

per phase and a single 7#8 Alumowefd shield wire will be installed.

SWEPCO projects a life expectancy of 45 years for the poles and

conductor for the proposed facilities based on periodic depreciation studies that

estimate the remaining life of transmission lines and other facilities, depending

on the maintenance and improvements performed on them. If the transmission

line is abandoned and canduetors and structures are removed from the right-of-

way (ROW), salvage material will be sold as scrap and the ROW will revert fo the

owners. The estimated cost in current dollars to remove the transmission h e

and transmission facilities is approxirnateIy $300,000 with salvage values

estimated at less than $700,000. Reuse of transmission type material is very

unlikely due to possible damage to material during removal.

5. ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONSIDERED

Pursuant to Order No. 7 of this docket, SWEPCO was directed to fully

develop the eastern route running directly through the Ozark National Forest

(ONF) and to file additional information on said route in addition to the

information developed for SWEPCO's original proposed or soufhem route.

SWEPCO has fallowed this directive and in addition developed and analyzed the

northern alternative route.

In general, three routing alternatives were considered and are identified

as folfows.

Page 5 of 15

1578

I Route northeast out of the Chambers Spring Station, through the

&ark National Forest, into the Tontitown Station (the "Eastern"

route

Route southeast out of the Chambers Spring Station, turning

easteriy south of the Ozark National Forest, then northeast into the

Tontitown Station (fhe 'Soufhern" route)

Route north out of the Chambers Spring Station and then east into

the Tontitown Sfation (the "Northern" route)

0

In addition to the review and analysis of these mutes by SWEPCO

employees, proposals were solicited ftom qualified and experienced consultants

to perform an environmental assessment (EA) for the eastern route through the

&ark National Forest (ONF) to be used in conjunction with SWEPCO's

application for a permit from the USFS. SWEPCO contracted with PBSM for

this environmental assessment. In addition to the environmental assassment,

SWEPCO contracted with P8S&J to assist in a routing analysis comparison of

the three alternate routes. SWEPCO used information gathered from its own

employees, together with the routing analysis provided by PBS&J to substantiate

PBS&J's routing recommendations, applying APSC routing criteria and

specifically considering the direction of the Commission in Order No. 7.

In addition ta the language of Order No. 7 regarding the proposed route,

transmission line routing for this new 345 kV transmission line was performed

following best utility practices as described in previous Arkansas Public Service

Page 6 of 15

Commission proceedings. Specifically, the following criteria were considered

when evaluating routing alternatives.

?.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Costs of facilities

Health and safety concerns

Engineering and technical concerns

Ecological and environmental disruption

Disruption to or interference with existing property uses

Disruption to or interference with planned property uses

Aesthetic displeasure

The Company's general practice is to minimize the impact on existing

homes and to follow natural ternins where possible and to minimize to the extent

pracfical the number of landowners' properties to traverse. Line routing was

chosen to avoid to the fullest extent possible private dwellings andlor commercial

buildings and with the goal of minimizing the impact to cunent and potential

future usage uf the land. Existing easement corridars were examined and

utilized where practical and consistent with reliable operating criteria. Line

routing and design was executed to provide adequate consideration to effective

project cost management.

To facilitate execution of these goals, the line was flown and aerial

photographs were taken and evaluated to establish route alternatives and

identify an initial routing. Next, survey of the initial proposed route (southern)

was initiated and contacts wete made with individuat property owners to

determine whether minor route adjustments could be made within specific tracts

Page 7 of 15

1580

to bevet accommodate current or planned Iand uses. Following Order No. 7,

survey of the eastern route has been initiated and numerous contacts with the

United States Forest Service have been held to facilitate issuance of a special

use permit to build within the USF boundary,

Based upon the directive of the Commission in Order No. 7 and -its own

analysis and the routing analysis work of PBS&,J, the Company's proposed route

is the "Eastern" route through the Ozark National Forest. In the event the

Commission does not concur with the Company's proposed "Eastern" route, the

second alternative to be considered should be the "Southern' route. The teast

preferred mute cunsidered is the "Northern" route.

The proposed route does not exady parallel the existing j61 kV line

through the Ozark National Forest as was suggested by the Administrative Law

Judge in Order No. 6, Just east of the eastern farest boundary the proposed

route deviates from the existing 161 kV line to avoid current and planned

development and at !ea& two buildings within the centerline. The proposed

route then resumes a parallel track for the rest of the route through the federally

owned portion of the Ozark National Forest. Where the proposed route exits the

federally owned portion of the forest on the west, the route similarly deviates

from a parallel track in order to avoid existing structures and developments

including one residence.

6. COST AND FINANCING

The cost of these facilities will be paid with internally generated cash or

thruugh American Elecbic Power Company, SWEPCO's parent company, with

Page 8 of 25

L581

the proposed project to be included in SWEPCO's overall financing plans.

SWEPCO is not aware of any qualified tax exempt financing that would be

available for this project. No other alternative financing methods are considered

appropriate at this time.

The total estimated cost to build the proposed 345 kV transmission line,

as applied far under this CECPN Amended Application using the Eastern Route,

is $ 13,302,000, including ROW acquisition. The estimatsd cost of the project

utilizing the Southern route is $17,453,000. The estimated cast of the project

utilizing the Northern route is $ 18,599,000, The total cost of all facilities to be

constructed as part of this projectl including facilities covered under this CECPN,

facilities covered under future regulatory filings, and facilities with no regulatory

filings required is estimated to be between $26 million and $31 million.

?. PUBLIC OFFICIAL AND LANDOWNER NOTIFlCATtON

Notification of filing of this Amended Application along with a copy of the

Amended Application for a certificate of environmental compatibility and public

need together with a copy of the Route Map has been served by certified mail,

return receipt requested on each of the persons identified in Arkansas Code

Annotated 23-48-513. In addition, an advance notice of the filing has been

provided by certified mail to each owner of record of all known tracts of lands on

the three route alternatives that the proposed facilities will or may traverse and

certain additional landowners in close proximity to the proposed routes.

Additionally, a copy of the Amended Application has been made available for

public inspection at the public libraries in 8enbnVill8, Rogers, Siloam Springs,

Page 9 of 15

Springdale, Farmington, Prairie Grove, LincoIn, West Fork, Winslow, Elkins and

Fayetteville, Arkansas.

The advance notificafion served upon the required notice recipients and

the potentially traversed landowners indicated that the Amended Application was

to be filed an or about October 9, 2006, and further notified them !hat

intervention or limited appearances must be filed with the commission within

thirty (30) days after October 9,2006 unless good cause is shown pursuant to

Arkansas Code Annotated §23-58-517.

Addifionally, a public notice has been published in the Arkansas Democrat

Gazette, a newspaper having substantial circulation in the municipalities or

counties which public notice contains a summary of the Amended Application; a

statement of the date on or about which it is to be fifed; and a statement that

intervention or limited appearances must be filed with the Commission within

thirty (30) days aRer the date set forth in the notice unless good muse is shown

pursuant to Arkansas Cod0 Annotated 523-48-547. Furthermore, the public

notice informs the public that the environmental impact statements prepared in

this docket are available for pub!ic inspec€ian at the office of the Commission

located ai 1000 Center Street in Little Rack, Arkansas and at SWEfCO's office

located af I01 West Township Road, Fayetteville, Arkansas, where the

environmental impact statements wilt be available for public inspection between

the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. local time each day prior to and including

the day of the hearing associated wifh this Amended Application.

Page 10 of 15

1583

SWEPCQ further notified each owner of recdrd of land for the three route

alternatives that may be potentially traversed of the name, address and phone

number of the Secretary of the Commission in order that they may ascertain the

date of any hearings scheduled herein.

8. EFFECTS ON ENERGY COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

This new 345 kV transmission line and associatad transmission upgrades

have been reviewed by the Southwest Power Pool (SPP). The upgrades

outlined in this Amended Application will increase the ability of SPP to sell

transmission service throughout the reglon by reducing loading on other nearby

transmission facilities and thereby poientially increasing competition for the sale

of electric energy and possible lower energy casts in the state or region. The

new line will share a portion of the load presendy served by other transmission

facilities, thus reducing the load on same of the existing facilities. Additional

power and greater reliability provided by the proposed facilities will not only meet

current needs, but will help facilitate continued residential, commercial, and

industrial development, especially in high growth areas.

The energy costs to the mnsumer should remain unchanged at a

minimum and possibly be lower as discussed above as a result of tbe operation

and construction of the proposed facilities. The proposed facilities will bring

cuntinued reliable service to the northwestern region of Arkansas, as discussed

above in other Sections of this Application which would reduce lost economic

opporhnities and lost sales for the local community due to major outages as

happened in the recent blackout in the eastern United States. The demand loss

Page 11 of IS

1584

savings due to this project (including the 161 kV transmission upgrades sought in

Docket No. 06-0774) are approximately 7.1 MW at summer peak. The

estimated net present value of the avoided capacity costs due to the reduction in

losses for the 7.1 MW over the 2007-2013 timeframe is $2.8 million. The

estimated net present value of the energy savings due to the reduction in losses

over the 2007-201 3 time frame is $3.3 million.

Construcfion of the proposed facilities will have little economic impact

upon the local community through impacts upon agriculture or through increased

employment. Local landowners whose land is traversed by the proposed route

will experience a me-time economic effect from funds received for the ROW

easements, removal of any marketable timber within the ROW, and unexpected

crop damage or loss within the ROW. Construction of a transmission line

requires a specialized crew, and it is not expected that such skilled and

8XperienCed workers will be available from the local economy and therefore will

probably not increase employment opportunifies for workers in the area. These

construcfion workers will probably reside in the project area on a short-term basis

and not significantly add to the local population or income but could provide

additional sales fax revenues as a result of the purchase of meals, housing, and

other purchased products in the region.

As discussed above, the construction of the facilities will enable t he

Applicant to continue to meet its service obligations in the northwest Arkansas

area and will therefore have a long-term positive economic impact on SWEPCO.

Pase 12 of 15

1585

9. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

The Environmental Impact Statement, attached as Exhibit "c;" to the

original Application herein, provides a discussion of the environments! impact on

the "Southern" route required for this Amended Application by Arkansas Code

Annotated 523-1 8-51 I (8)(A and E],

The Environmental Impact Statement attached as Exhibit "3" to this

Amended AppIication provides a discussion on the environmental impacts on the

"Eastern" route and the 'Norhem" route required for this Amended AppIicatian

by Arkansas Code Annotated 323-1 8-51 ? (8)(A and B).

10. RELIEF SOUGHT

SWEPCO respectfully requests approval of the "Eastern" alternative for

mnsfruction of the needed facilities. SW EPCO's proposed route is the "Eastern"

alternative. The need for timely constnrction of the proposed facilities is critical.

Delays for unknown lengths of time seriously jeopardize the reliability of the

entire electric transmission system in Northwest Arkansas. If the Cammission

determines for any reason that the "Eastern" route is not reasonable then

SWEPCO seeks approval of one of the alternative routes.

I I, OFFICIAL SERVICE LIST

Pursuant to Rule 2.03 of the Commission's Rules of Pradice and

Procedure, SWEPCO requests the following individuals be shown on the Official

Service List:

Page 13 of 15

David R. Matthews MATTHEWS, CAMPBELL, RHOADS McCLURE, THOMPSON 8t FRYAUF, P.A. 1.19 South Second Street Rogers, Arkansas 72756 Telephone: (501 1 636 - 0875

Elizabeth Stephens Regulatory Consultant Southwestern Electric Power Company 428 Travis Shreveport, Louisiana 71 I01 Telephone: (31 8) 673 - 3640

WHEREFORE, SWEPCO respectfully requests:

4 . That this Comrnissian issue an order granting the approval of a

complete route for the proposed 345 kV transmission facilities herein described

for the previousIy granted Cerlificate of Environmental Compafibility and Public

Need to construct, maintain, and operate such facilities; and

2. That SWEPCO have such other and further relief as may be

necessary or appropriate for the purposes shown in the foregoing Amended

Application.

RespectFulIy su brnItted,

MAITHEWS, CAMPBELL, RHOADS McCLURE, THOMPSON & FRYAUF, P. A. 1'49 South Second Street Rogers, Arkansas 72756 Attorneys foflouthwestern Electric Power

Page 14 of IS

1587

CERTIFICATE OF SERWCE

I , David R. Matthews, flomey for Southwestern Electric Power Company, state fhat 1 have on this *clay of October, 2006, mailed a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing instrument to Valerie Boyce, General Staff, Arkansas Public Senrice Commission, j 0 , L i e Rock, AR 72203 and Jeff Mitchell, P.O. Box 8370, Fa 3, in the United States mail, postage prepaid.

Page I5 of 15

1588

I 1 I I i

n ‘I I I

1589

-

I I

I I I I I I I

' i

7 f

cmtur i Of Structwa -

POLE 1 fYPtCALW W

SINGE WIETANQMSFRUCTURE

CHWBERS SPRING TO TONITOWN 345 W N M T S S I O N UNE

SOUTHWESEW ELECTFUC POWER COMPANY B E " AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS

I

L591

Dowment No. 060250 PBS&J Job No. 441621

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CHAMBERS SPRING TO TONTITOWN

345-KV TRANSMIS$ION LINE PROJECT BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS

Prepared for.

Southwestern EIecfric Power Company Shreveport, Louisiana

Prepared by:

PBS&J 6504 Bridge Point Parkway

Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78730

September 2006

Pn'nted an recycled paper

6504 Bridge Point Parkway- Suite 200 *4ustio, Texas 78730 *Telephone 512.327.6860 +fax 512,3279453 www.pbsj.com

.

Page

1592

Contents

List of figures ................................................................................................................................................ .V

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. Vi .. Acronyms a d Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... trlr

INTRODUCTfON -."".urHIwr*.. .-...rrr.er..m.u..wu.-.rr.c.mr. .m.~n.m.~."..~.u..........-ru~-r.-- .m.rr.. 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................-............................................... ................................................ 1-1

PROJECT DESCRlPTlON .....YIY.Y...Y-Ct.....-...... ".-.-..-.-.-.-.."."..-."..-".--.- -- 2-1 2.1 TRANSMISSION LINE .......................... ..U.................... ...".. ........... ...............................................-. 2-1: 22 PROPOSED ROUTE ..+...... .... I ...+.......Y...... ................. ...........3........~ ..........-...............................a. . 2-1

ALTERNATWES CONSIDERED -...3.YYYUY.3..Y....~. ".-"..."." .. "....--..-.-----.- ". 3.1 3.1 ALTERWTWE 1 - NO-ACTON ALTE~NAnVE ...............,...........,.......... ..... ......................._..... 3-2 3-2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - NOFITHERN ROUTE . .........+............ . ..............C....L............ ............................. 3-2 3.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - EA!TI€RN ROUTE {PROPOSED ACTION AND PREFERRED

ALTERNATE ROUTE) .................. ...............-........ ............. ....-.......... ...................... .,., .........,....... 3-3 ALTERNATIVE 4 - SOUTHERN ROUTE ........... ......................-.... ........... .."........................*....... 3-3

ENVIRONMHAL CONSEQUENCES ..-.- m.m.....w.u.u.urcrr.mm-v.tu.r.ruu.u~-~~- ..rt.." 41 4.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY. GEOLOGY. AND SOILS, ............ ............n... .- ................... .- ..................- .... -4-1

Affeclsd h k f m n m t .. ....3.. ............... -. ......" ................... ....-. ....... _ . ...... ..................... 4-1 4.7 . 1 *I Physiography .............. ............._. ...._...... ...........................-..... ................ 4-1 4.1.1.2 Gmkqy, .................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 . 1 . 3 sob .......... I ....... I ... " .......... - ... ..w. .................................................... " ....... 4-2

4.1.2 lmpa cfS., .....,............................,....................... " ........................................................... 4-4 W A m RESOURCES ....-..-. ....................................................................... ...... ............................. 4-6 4 2 1 Affect& Environment ........... .......................................................................... ................ 4-6 42.2 bnpads--.w.-3--. .... .... ............ ............................. ........................................................ 4-7 VEGl3ATIDNAL RESOURCES ................................... ..- ........ .+ ...... ..- .............................. .. ........... 4 8

Affected hqrOnmSM .... .....-...... ...................................................................................... 4-9 45.1.1 my oak W-d .I ............. " .................................................................. 4-9 4.3.1 2 Dty-Mesic Oak Forest Community ...........-.*........... .... .......................... 4-9 4.3.1.3 Mesic H W Fobrest Community ..................................................... 4-10 4.3.1.4 Riparian .............. ..- ......-........... ....... ... ................-................................. 4-10

4.32 Im pa. ........,...............................-......................*....................-.................................... 4 - ~ 0 AQUATIC W-DLIFE RESOURCES ......-.. .........-......-..... ............................................................ 410 4.4.1 Affected Ei-rvl.nmsnt .....,..,....... ......... ........................... .._ .......-.... ............................ 4-10 4.42 Im pa^.......,............,.. .... .........- ............................. ..........-......... ............. .- ................... 4-11 TEfWESTNAl WILDUFE RESOURCES .............. ...................... .Y ........................................... 4-11 4.5.1 Affecled Environment ..- ..-.......-.. .......... ......Y.....t........ ................................... .. ............ 4 1 1 455.2 Im pscts .............,...........-...........-.......*..............-....................................................... q-12 THRmma. ENDWGERW AND SENSmvE SPEC1 Es ...... "., ..................................,.... 4-14 4-6-1 F d e d y T l m t e n d a d Endangered Species .- .................................... ......-......... I 4-15

1.0

2 0

3.0

3.4

4.0

4 . f . 1

4 2

4.3 4.3.1

4.4

4.5

... 4.6

WI 4418211060250 ii

1593

Conteri!s

Page

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.40

4.6.1 . 1 Missouri Bladderpod [ k q u a M t7#unnis) . hdangered Sped= ......................".......................................... ..... ...".......... .......-...... 4-15 Endangered Sp . .....I.I......IU..............................3.1..............1........ ~ 1 6 Am- BuMng Be& (Nhphoms amahnus) -

4.6.1 2 Caw Cmyf~h- (-S a~dabnrm; C . BWBfS) - 4.6,1.3

4M.4 4.6.15

Endangered Species ..., .......... .. ...... ...................................................... 4-16 Omk Cavefish (AmbrvOpsls me)-Tlwatened Specks ................. 4-16

P m p e d for DeTdng ........ t...........l..... .................................................. 4-16 8 a M Eagle (HE&, eehs k m p b k r s ) -ThEatened Specled

4.6.1.6 Gray Bat (Wtk G i k m ) - m n g d S ~ - . ............,....,...... 4..t 7

0- BtgEaEd Bat ( C W J ~ ~ Q ~ ~ U S OWI IS^ h m ) - 4.6.1.7 lndana Ea! {Myok S&) -Endangeml Specks .............. ..........-.. 4-17 4.6.1.8

Endangered Species ..........................-..........................*.................... .... 4-17

Ropl Catch@ ( S h e regia) - Sensitlve Species ................................. 4-18

Species. ... ..............-.. .. ...... .......... y......y............c.....................3.L. ...... 4-18 BUSWS ~oppyma~ow ( c a m b ~ h n ) - s e n ~ - m species ... ..........,.. 4.18

ozark Spidenvort (TradesCaniia umkm) - Sensitive SpeCies .......... 4-19

Neosho Mu&et (Lampsars mfinesgueana) - Sensitive Species .......... 4-20

4.62 Reghnai Farester's Sensithre Species ......... .................... P17 OpenGmund Dtaba (D& apn;w) - SensWe SpecteS ..................... 4-17 Omk Chinquapin (Casfanea pumila omkensk) - Sem*3ve

4.6.2.1 4.622 4.623

4.624 4.6,25 GMe tarkspur(~lphini i rm~~~er)-SenS~Species .........,...... 4-19 4.5.26 Ozak Camsalad (VWaneUa -a) - Sensitive Species,. .....,.. 4-19 . 46.27 4.628 O m k teast Trlttum (Tn7hhrrm pusi'hm var . azarkanum) -

Sensitwe Species .......................... .................. .... ......................... ".I ...... 4-20 4.62.9

4.6.3 Im pa&. ..., ......"......-.....-.........-.. ..-.. ..-..,...... .............. " .............. .................- ..... 4-20 LAN0 USE .....-. .................. .. . ....-........ ......_........._.. ..ll..l..l.....l.. .- .................................... 4-21 4J.I Affected Gavironment ................. ..-..-.........."......-...... ... ........ ...................-"... . - ...... 4-21 4-7.2 Impacts.,, - ..,.,...... - ........... ....3..I.. .. ..............-.. .. ......................................... .....-. ......- 4-23 SOClOECONOMlCS ....... C ... ...... U ... .......................... .I....- Y n .I '................. 4-B 4.8.1 Affected Environment .....-.._.....n.. .. I ...... _. -.. .................. .- ....._ 4-24 4.3.2 lrnpaets. ............. .........-.. .. ............. I .......... ...... .............. .................-....... ............. 4-29 m€n~ .................................... I ......... C .................................. ....... a..... .. " ............................. 4-30 4.9.1 M&ed Environment.. ..,. ........ .. ........... ......-....... "I. .. ......-. Y ........ ...... ...................... " ... 4-30 4.92 Impacts ................................ I . .....".........-..-......-...... I .......................................... .... 4-31 CULTURAL RESOURCES (PREHISTORIC AND HISTORfC) . ................... ............................... 4-32 410.1 M&ed Environment ... ................ .. ....-.......... - ,.-, ......... .. .............................................. 432

4.10.1.1 WddIan Pari&l .., ....... I ....... .. ..............-. ...............-.. .......-.... 442 4.10.12 Archaic P h d ...... .......... -... I ............. .....-.... ......................................... 4-42 4.1 0.1.3 Woodland Period .... ...........................I..Y..H.................H....l.................I 4-33 4.1 0.1 -4 Mississip plan Pe rid ..........I .. ...... .....*... ...................... .................... I.- 4-34 4.10-1,5 Hklooric Backgrowid ..... ". ....-..... ..3..C.. ...... .... - ................................... .... 4-34 Im pacts.......,..,......, ..... ...- ..... .........-.-...... ..-.......... .. ........... ................................ 4-35

..

...... ...... .............. .......... .................................

. .. .......

4.10.2

r594

Appemlkes: A B

0

D

Arkansas Publh Senrice cOm*Ssbn, Docket No. a5-0214 Oder No. 7 Bkloglcal Sutvay Summary for AEPISWEPCO 3&kV Tmnsmlsslon h e Pmject through Wedington Unit, EWtm Mountain Ranger D M , 0&4t Fmncis National Forest Geologic Karst Survey within Ozark Natfonal Forest Segment, Benton and Washington Counfies, Artcansas Letter from the Deparhmt of Arkansas Heritage-Arkansas H&tk Presenmtlon Program

1595

Contents

Figures

Page

I -1

2-1 2-2 2-3 4-f 4-2 4-3

Proposed T~ansmisslwr Une Rwte and Env'mnmental and Land Use Features within the

TypW 345kV Single Pole T M ~ Struchrre,., .............-.. ..........-.......................*........... ............ 2-2 Typical LightlMedium 345kV S i l e Pole Tangent shvctore ................ .. .............. ..-......... ....... ...,. 2-3 Typical Heavy AngWDead End 345kV angle Pole Tmgeml Stnrdum ......................................... 24 Fopuldon Trends and ProJeetiPrrs by County and State ...............-..I ....................... ..-.. ............. 4-25

CbiGan tabw Force and Unempbyment W e. ........... ......Y....l.... -. ............................................... 4-27

study area .......... I . " ......................... ".......................................-................................. .................... C. . 1-2

MajWEmpbymWrt Sectors 2nd Quarter2005 . ....................-..... ."................................................. 4-26

1596

Tables

Page

3-1 4-1

W i Data Used in-mative Route Evah&lhn ...... . .......... .....l..l.....lH.,...........~.............,..,~ Threatened and Endangered species of PofentialOccurrenceh kntm andWashington Counties, A&ams;and~ensitive specias of p o t e n t i a l o o ~ u ~ w i t h i n W-n Unit ofthe c)zark W o n a l Fc?& ......,,,". ..... ..........+,..............-.......,,.,...................... .. ....,............. ...........4-15 Typa of -re and Approximate Distance to ROW ..... ....... .... ,.,.-.........-.... ..... ...... .... ..............-.. 4-22 Qzarkst. Fmces A m EmpbymerrtandLabor Income. ... ...-...... ....... ....... .......-.... ...... , .... ...........4-28

4-2 4-4

1597

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ADM A€cc

AGC ALJ ml

ANHC APE

APLtC APSC

BE BLS BMP

eef CECPN

CLF CPC DWS €IS

€PA E?Rl ESA

FEMA ft

M I S pr'

GLO H&m

IEA kV Mw

NRHP WARPC

NWP ROW

SH S W C O

TEs

BOC

n p

w 4416211060250 vii

1599

I .o I NTRUDU CTION

Southwestem Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) is propasing to construct appro-kly 11 25 milm Of 345-kilOVOIt &V) transmrsS ' ion line from the misting Chamber Springs Substation in 3enton Corn@, Arkansas, to the m g Tantitown Substation in Washington County, Arkansas. There are three proposed row (northem, eastan, and southem) (Figmc 1-1). The northem route cfosses private property as it proceeds in a generally northem aad eastern direction k m the Chamber Springs Substation to the Tonlitown Subsfatioa The eastern route g e n d y extends n ~ e a s t from the Chamber Springs Substation through portions ofthe Ozark 'National Forcst and privately owned Iands, where it gemxalIy p d e l s an existing 161-kV tmnsmission line to the Tontitown Substation. The southem mute Izavcrs~~ private property as it proceeds m a genedy southern and eastern course h m the C h a r n k Sprhgs Substation to the Tontitown Substation.

q.1 PURPOSE AND NEED

The load center of the S W C O system in norbwestem Arkansas is the Fayettde, Springdale, Rogers, and Bentonville m in Bcnton and Washington counties. mere is a single e l h d generating facility in this gmgmphic xcgion, the Flint Creek 528 MW d - W genemtjng facility that is owncd qually by SWEPCO and the kbms EloCtric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) to sewe portions of each of their respective Ioads. All of the existing generation and 345-kV transmission bulk power support in northwestern Arkansas is located appmhateIy 15 to 20 miles west of the load center of SWEPCO's system. Four 161-kV transmission lines span approximately 15 to 20 miles to connect the s o m s in the west to thc load in the east in this region. The trnnsmrs * sion lines in this mea are becoming heavily loaded and n d additional capacity to reliably move power h m the nint Creek generating facility and Chambas Spring Substation sowces Iocatcd in. the western portion of the northwm Arkansas area to the lDadcenters l~~inthe~teraport ions afthesamearea

This area has experienced rmbstautial growth over the past several years resulting in increased demand on the electrid system requiring a d d i t i d significant qystem improvements, T ~ E projected 2008 Summer peak load Ievel for the SWEPCO system Iocated in this northwetem Arkansas geographic region k approximately 1,200 megawaits 0.

Additional ttansmrss ' ion capacity is needed in order to meet the growing mergy and power demands of S'wEpCO's and AECC's electric consumers b m t d in the northwestern area of Arkansas. The flunmer

peak demand, population, employmen6 and personal income for this area arc projected to increase at an wmgc mud rate greater fhan their respective US, averages. The need and justification for the pmpscd transmksion upgrade has becn established by the A r b a s Public Sewice Commission (AF'SC) in 3 July 25,2005 order No. 7, issued by Administrative Law Judge [ALJ (Bud C. Rotcnbq, ATSJ) as per APSC Docket No. 05-021-21. This Order is Eatached as Appendix A, and APSC Docket No. 05-021-U k incaXporakd by refcreme pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.21. The Docket is availabre for public inspection by intemtcd pmons at the APSC.

.. .,A .: - . .' . . . .- . . .....

1600

1601

2 .o PRUJECT DESCRIPTION

Tbe pqjcct study ma wits deked generidy as an area that covers cach of the alternate mutes and is located h far northwest Arkansas b e m a Sibam Springs and Tontitown and encompasses nearly the c n h Wedbgton Unit of the 0- National Forest on the Boston Mountain Ranger District, h Benton and W a s h g b n comtics, Adamas. The puFpose ofthe proposed action is to authorize thc construction Of ~~proXimateIy 1IJS-mile~ of 345-kV traarmts ’ siun line along the proposed mute UtiIiZing a new 150-foot [fi) wide cardor through a portion of the Ozark Nntional Forest (see Figure 1-1). Clearing would be @red on appximtely 3.5 miles of Natiwal Forest and approximately 0.50 mile currmtly owned by CiQ of Fort Smith (to be acquired by U.S. Forest Service (USFS) with the remainder to occur on private property.

Thc Oark-St, FmaNational Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan guides all ~ t ~ d motme management activities on the ozark National Forest toomeet the objectives of federal law, regulntions, and policy. The ozark-St Frances Nations1 Forests' Land and R e s m Managmcnt Plan was utilized in prcpdon ofthis Envbmental Impact Statement @IS).

2.1 TRANSMISSION LINE

The new transmission line Wash-uct.lrre will be composed of singlest4 polcs on anchor bolt foundations with 795 ACSR double-bundled conductors (SFVEPCO, 2004). Spans between pies wilI typically be appmximakly 1,OW R Typical pole structures are presented on Figures 2-1-2.3.

2.2 FRQPOSEDROUTE

The proposed route begins at &e existing Chambers Spring Substation in 3enton County, Arkansas, and conthucs northeast kough the Ozark National Farm and moss the Illinois River, and terminates at the exkthg Tonlitown Substation in Washington County.

T d s i o n line routing was performed following best utility pra~ticcs as dmxiied in previous APSC procdhgs. Line muting was chosen ta avoid to the fullest extcnt possible private dwdling andlor commercial buiIdings and with the goal of minimizing effects to rmrrent a d potential future land uses by parallcliag an existing of way (ROW far he majority of the proposed route. To achievc thcse goals, a d d photogmphs, topogmphic maps, and various other sou~ces of infunnation r v m utilized m the evaluation of thc proposed mtc. Seved dtematives to tbc alignment of segments dong thc p p s d route w r x ~ considered within the general route corridor. An iterative process of photogtapby analysis, field ~cconnaksanq engineering and cwironmcntal evaluation, and appropriate adjustments wcrc made by appropriate project team members to arrive at the proposed mute.

m 4416211060250 2-1

NOT TO SCALE

1603

I I I I I 1 1

I

I 1

I

i

i

i i

i t

- . 1-1

NOT TO SCALE

... . -

POLE 2

1604

I

I

1 I I

i

i

i i r 1 I I I I I I t I I

NOT TO %&E

1605

3.0 ALTERNATWES CONSIDERED

This section Summarizes and compnres the alternatives that were considered in meeting the pwose and need objectives. Afternatives provide a fmnework for analyzing different ways of meeting the purpose and need and €or addressing the isrues 51 Section 1.0. It includes a discusion of how altmnalives werc dcvcloped, a description of each dternativc h detail, and B cornparism of these aItemaihcs focusing on the siguificant issucs. This =tion describes !he dkmativc mutes comidcred and analyzed in this H S and also describes the "no-mtion" alternative that would result in EO bmmkiw line being crm~ttuded. This section is rtrso hiended to present the alternatives in comparative fom, sbarply defining #he issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-makers. A discussion is pxovidcd that idenacs how the alternatives confonn to national andregiond direction, and describes how the Proposed Action was &iahd among the other dtematives.

'

The h p o s c d Action (Preferred Altcmate Route) presented in this EIS provide a response to the significant issues identified through the scuphg prows?, while still meeting the stated purpose and ned of &e project. This alternative rcpesents a site-specific proposal that was subject to interrliscipbq team evaluation. idcntZcation of mvimnmentd constraints such as proteckd specis occurrences, habitable stmctUEes, and airports were made using available literature and mapped infomation as well as vehicular m c y s ofthc study mea and pddwtrian sarveys of the prcfmed aIternatc route.

SWEPCO follows rewmmdatims specified by the APSC whes sclecfing a preferred aItmative. Specifically, SWEPCO considers the foIIowing: - Cost ofFaciIity

HealthandSafety

Engineering and T m h i d Concern

EcoIogicaV Environmental Disuptian Disuptionllnterference witb Man-Made Property Uses

DisnrptionlZnterfermce withplaaned Man-made Property Uses

9 Aesthetiedispleasurc

Route SdeCtion && important to SWEPCO's planning and development process include:

Number of structures in proxhdty to a proposed route- Skuctures include but are not limited to residences, businesses, schools, churches, hospitals, aud n w h g homes. Line hnpth - Longer line generally have a potential for higher cost and grcatcr envIromnentaI impact Length of line padding existing transportation or utility ROW - rx>cating new facilities directly adjacent to .xisting fadit iE c8n reducc mvirommfal and Iand use impacts. Following other l m m fcaturcs, such as identZtd property lines, can also be desirabIe.

1606

0

e

0

3.1

Separation of transmission lint circuits - Increasing mnsmission line rdiabiirity is of primary importance to SWEPCO. It is often important to maintain adquate sepaniion of the proposed new circuit from existing transmission lines to minimize the risk of a single event disrupting both circuits.

Length of line c r o h g environmenblly sensitive aras -Examples of this &on include wildlife refuges, f e d d y owned or protected lands, special or unique habitat, wetlands, and archeological or historic Sites.

ROW acres requhd - It is desirable to minimizc: new ROW when feasible. Number of streams crossed - S t r c m cnviromnts gcoedy represent t c o l o g i d y diverse habitats.

Number of public parks or public recreation areas - It is generally desirable to maintain an open, unencumbered armosphcre in public parks and other recreation areas.

ALTERNATIVE I - NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The emphasis of this alternative wcdd be to not consmet the new kansmission l i e , which would resuIt in no interference with existing environmentnl conditions, and no proactive solution to the purpose and need di2emma. As stated in swtion 1 of this EXS, existing transmission lines are heavily loaded and can exceed their cmergmcy capacities under various normal or contingency opesabg conditions. I€ the proposed new 345-kV tmnsrnission h e between the Chambers Spring Substation and Toutitown Substation were not cmstructed under che “NeAction” dtcmative, thm is likelihood that the loss of any cxisthg major suppIy line will cftatc the possibility of cascading outages and eventual blackouts.

3.2 ALTERNATWE 2 - NORTHERN ROUTE

A northern rate was i W y Selected as an alternate mute as it avoids the Ozark National Forest and encounters the fewest number of habitable strucmre.~ (18) within 300 ft of the proposed ROW. Ibis dmativc also crosses four existing transmission lines as well as U.S. Highway (US) 412 and two state highways (State Highways [Sa 16 and 68). This route is approximately 8,000 ft east of Williams Field Airport, a private airport west of lhe community of Nomood, dong Old Norwoad Church Road.

Pursuant to the Northwest Arkansas Regional PIanning Commission (NWARPC) draft Transportation Improvement &gram (TIP] for fiscal years 2005 to 2007, the Northem Route falls outside area of propostd roadway improvements. It is also not within an urban area as dehned for Benton and Washington counties by the Federal Highway A d m i n i o n (NWARPC, 2003b).

This route alternative was initially considered but eliminated j5om detctiIed study in this ElS becanse it is the longat mute of all alternatives that were considered, it paraIIeled the least stmount of exishg ROW and would have qujred the gteatest amount of land clearing (see Table 3-1). Also, this mute has the high= t number of stream/river crossings of all the routes considered.

1607

TABLE 3-1 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA USED IN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE EVALUATION

CHAMBERS SPRING TO TONTITOWN 345-KV PROJECT

Memathre Routes North East South

cost 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 j0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 20 27

28 29 30 31

32

Length of alternative route 87,000 59,435 Total number of angles in the Ene 24 16 land Use

18 23 Length &ROW parallel to existing transrnlsslon rule ROW 0 25,250

0 250 Length of ROW through paWmreaUonal areas2 9,600 29,000

I 0

Number of habitable stnrdures' Mhln 300 It of ROW cenMlna

Length of ROW parallel to other existing ROW (hIghwap, pipefinas, m'hvays, etc.)

Number of addihlonal p a r l d m t i o n a l amas' WifhIn 1,000 Tt of ROW centerlhe Length of ROW through mptand o 3,000

Length of ROW a m gravel pits, mlnes, or quarrbs Number of transmlsdon tine crossings 4 4 Number of US. and State highway crossings 2 2 Numbor of privata al&rips wllhln lO,(lOO fi of ROW cenIerliie Number of hellports W i n 5,WO ft of ROW wnterlhe Number of FW-listed alrfidds withln 20,000 fl of ROW centerline Numbr of wmmercIa1 AM redlo transmitters within 10,000 ft of ROW eenterllne Number of FM radlotransmifters, rrdwowave towers, and other electronic Installations

Length of ROW through gdngland 37,250 3,250 0 0

1 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

wilhin 2,000 ft OF ROW centedne A8sthetics Mimated kwth of ROW within foreground visual zone3 of US. and Stah highways ktirnaM length of ROW withln foreground visual zone of parkslremalionat areas M m k d length of ROW within foregrwnd visual zone3 of churches, schwts, and Eemeteris EcoIog y Length of ROW through upland w d b n d s 37,750 36,000 Length of ROW thrw& bobmlandhiparian wodbnds (non-wetland) 72,000 6,625

5,925 5,815 6Q,500 43,125 13,640 0

Length of ROW mss potential non-foresfed wffands 0 0 Length of ROW 8mss hewn habHat of endangered or threatened species Number of streadher crossbgs 27 14

0 0

length of ROW parallel (withln 100 it) io streams 2,750 1,000 Length Of Row 8CmSS 1oO.w floodgldnr 10,000 4,000 Cultural Resources Number of-recorded hIstorie or prehktcric si& crossed 0 6 Number of mmrded historic or prehkhrk sltes within 1,000 it of ROW ixntedlne t3 16

0 0 1 0

68,600 38,400

Number of National Register llsted or detemlned ellggible sites a m e d Number of National Regis& IlM or determined eligibh d e s wlthIn 1 ,OM) ft of ROW cenforline Length of ROW thrwgh a r e s of high a r & a e d q i ~ h I s l o M slte pctenual

Note: AU Icngth measures h fmtrmUes. f Resldences. buslnessw, sdwols, churches, hospitals. nv&g homes, et& 'Fa& and recreational m a s am denned 8s Lands owned by a gwmmenlel M y , organized gmup, dub, or&&.

Lengh Indudw tbe priuately m e d land W n tha USFS admioistrathre boundary. One-halfmUe, unabstructa.

a6,oa 31

20 30,125

250 7,000

0

3,250 3930

0 2 3 2 0 0 0 0

41 s a 50,300 16,390

31,425 12.1 25

0 0 25

5.625 10,80O

l D 27 0 2

45#500 -

SWEPCQ’s application for a CECPN was denied except for an approximate two mile segment of the route extending from the Tontitown Substation southwesterly to a point outside the eastern boundary of the Ozark National Forest. As per Order No. 7, Docket No. OS-021-U of the APSC, the Au stated that the Southern Route seemed unreasonable based on evidence in tbe case. It was stated that “...&e preferred, or southmn m t e around the national forest, being much longer, more cosIIy, and more disruptive to cxistkg residential property uses, than the shorter, more direct, Iess costly, and less disruptive, e a ~ t e m route though the national forest, is wutasouab1e.H

An envkonmcntal report was prepared for SWEPCO in 2004 by Horizon Environmental Scmiees, Inc. (Horizon) that documented existing conditions of the Southern Route alternative ( H o r h q 2004). Relevant information witbin that report bas been utilized in the prepuation of this HS-

44 t62i106025O 3-5

1609

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 PwsromAPw, GEOLOGY, AND s m s 4.1 .I Affected Environment

4.1 .I .I Physiography

The project study area is located in the Ozark PIateaus Physiographic h u c e in northwestern Arkansas. The O d Plateaus is 81l upland region occming Born southern Missouri to northern Arkansas, which also extends into southe&em Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma. The Ozark Plateaus is divided into h e subprovhces: the Spriug5eld and Salem plateaus, and the Boston Mountains (Arkansas Geological Commission (AGC], 1998).

Toposraphy within the project arm is composed of gcntly rolling hills with broad uplands and gedc sidedopcs of varying sfope that an broken by levd bottomland dong cfccks. Many small drainages and streams dissect the are&

Tbc project aren is located h the Sprhaeld Plateau, an upland area extending from northwestern Arkansas to northeasfear Oklahoma and swthwestern Missouri. This Plateau is mostly p t l y rolling plnins and hills near main dtainageways, like the Wok River, which m s s e s the project area. Widin the

karst solution fWures such 05 caves, sinkholes, and valleys arc rather cammcn. The v d q s are chmcteriZed by their h e a r shaps d o m width and semicirnrlar heads. EImatioas within the Sprb~e?d Plateau range from about 1,700 fi above meafl sea level {amsZ) at its eastemmost point to about 1,000 ft amsl at tbc Kansas boder. Study area togography ranges h m appmximateIy 1,018 R amsl within the Illinois River bash to nearly 1,400 ft -1 afop the highest peds. Surface water in the study area iS p-y directed into thc llliaois River through deepIy dissecfed stream valleys that occur on either side of the river. Surface water near the northwest and southeast project terminus areas drains away from the river valley.

4.1 -1 S GebIogy

Regionally, the Ozarlc Plateaus consists of Paleozoic-age strata divided into three pla- surfaccs (AGC, 1998). The Salem Plateau (lowest and northem-most) is nnderlain by dolostonts, sandstones, and limafoncs of Ordovician age. The SpringfieId Plateau consists of Iower Mississippian-agc limestones and cherts. The 30stoa Mountains (highest and so~m-most) consists of Peansylvanian-age shala, siltstones, and sandstones. AU of t h e e plateaus are d q l y dissected by rmme~~ls sbwns throughout the area The depositional en-ent ofthe skata located in thc region is one of shallow marine continental shelf h t gmaafly slopes tDward the south. This shallow-water plagonn emerged m y times during the Palcomic age producing numerous wcdoxnities bu&out the sequence (AGC, 1998). The sttzlctural geology m tbc region consists of a few normal, northeast-southwest trending inactive faults dispIaying a

441621mw250 4-1

nearly vertical displacement down on the southern side. In addition, strike-slip faults and very low amplitude folded beds can bc present in the region.

Examhation of the “Geologic Map of Arkansas” iJJ.S. Geological Survey WSGS], 1976) indicates the project area is situated primarily on an outcrop of the Early to Middle Mississippian Boone Formation, (Mb). The Boone Formation consists of gray, fme to coarse-grained fossilfmus firnestone interbedded with chek The cherts are dark in color in the lower part of the sequence and light in thc upper part. The s~quence includes an o o ! h member (Short Creek Member) near the top of the Boone Formation in western expomes and the gmmalIy chert-he St. Jot: Membm at its base. The Boom Formation is welJ known for dissolutional Wiures such as sinkholes, caves, and enlarged fissures. The thickness of this formation ranges b m 300 to 390 €I (AGC, 1998). Fossils {Crinoids, clams, c o d , mollusks, shark material and trilobites) an abundant in the Boone Formation.

Ocoologic mapping by the USGS indicate tbc Existence of a continuous, noma1 fault about two to four miles northwest of the pmjcct shdy area B h e k joint hctures or heaments can occur parallel or perpmdicuh to fauIted areas, producing higher dtnsitics of geoIogic h t fatures such as sinkholes, cavq or enlarged fissures.

Additional geabgic hazards such ai seismic or earthquake activity were reviewed for the study ara According to the USGS Earthquakes Emds Program, the proposed projest is lowed in an area that has minimal seismic a c t i w . The nearest recorded seismic event is approximately 100 d e s east. The majority of recorded seismic events occur in northwestcm Arkansas dong gsoIogically active, New Madrid fault zone.

The primary mineral resomc in Benton and Washington counties is limestone. Materials extracted from this r e s o w include crushed stone, diml3nsion stone, and construction sand and gravel W.S. Department of Agriculhm DSDA], 1969,1977). F i g m 1-1 depicts seved gravel pits in the study area. No oil and gas w d s were located in or adj& to the project study area based on field recumaissarlee and =view of Vatious map resources and aerial photography.

4.1 .I .3 S d s

Spcc%c concerns dating to soil prwluetivity inc?ude erosion and cumulative e f f~ i s . These, concern, as wcll as o h m general soil productim concerns, are discussed in this sectioa

W National Forest soils arc: grouped into Boston Mouafain-Arkansas Valley Sections and Ozark Highlands Section soils. The project study area is hcatcd within the former. The Boston Mountain- k h s a s Valley Sections soils were formed in sandstone and shale parent materid. Thcse are deep to shallow clayey and loamy soils With low bherent f e a t y and low-tomoderate moisture supplymg capaciy. Soil problems includc seedling mortality, surface compaction, slight landslide potential, and erosion (USDA, 2005).

Withia the analysis areq there are seven soil associations. ln Baton County, these include the ClaksvibNixa-Nod association, which is characterized by somewhat excessively draiaed to moderately well drained, gently sloping to steep, deep and modemfely deep, chwty soils on hills and ridges; Tonti-NiXa-Captina association, which is characterized by moderately well drained, nearly level to modmtcly level to modcratcly sloping, d e q andmodetakly deep, loamy and cherty soils on ridgcs and broad uplands, Smcesh-Bntwater-Captina association, which is characterized by well drained and modaately wcll draine levd to moderately sloping, dccp, loamy s o b OR flood pI+s and lemces; and mtina-Pmidge association, which is characterized by moderately weU drained and well drained, nearly Ievd to gently sloping deep, loamy soils on broad upland divides (USDPC, 1977). h Washmgton COmQ, soil associations include the CIarkdIe-Nwa-Baxtxter association, whicb is characterized by cherty, deep and moderately shallow, modmte.1~ well dmined to excessively drained, gently sloping to steep soils OR hillsides and amow ridges; Cqtim-Nixa-Pichick association, which is chmcteriztd by dty and cherty, deep and moderately shallow* moderately well drained to well bained, nearly level to sloping soils; and Ramrt-Captina-Pembrokc assoeiatian, which is characterized by loamy and silty, deep, moderately well drained to well drained, nearly level fo gentfy sloping soh on tcrraccs and flood pIains (USDA, 1969).

There ate 14 di€ierent soil types asscciated dong the preferred alternate route. These scrics include: Captina silt loam, 1-3% slope; Cap& dt loam 34% slope; Captina silt loam, 34% dope, eroded; Clarhvilte cherty silt loam, 1240% slope; Clarksville cheriy s i t Ioam, i2-60% slqq Elsdh soils; Nixa cherty dl loam, 28% slopc; Nixa cherty silt foam, 842% slopc; Noark cherty sat loam, 12- 20% slope; Pickwick silt loam, 38% slopes, eroded; Razort gravelly silt loam, occasionally flooded; Razort loam; Tmti chdy silt Io- 3 4 % slope; and Waben ch&y silt loam., 3-8% slope (USDA, 1969,1977).

Thc pasiureIands consist mainly of moderately well drained, nearIy level soils on broad upImds and ridges, and on Serearn terraces represented by &e Csptina soil s e r k ; well-drained, moderately pameable so& on s h m m terraces and broad uplands represented by the Pickwick soil series; well-drained, moderately pmeable soils in alluvium flood plains and low tenaces rcprcsented by the h r l soil S d S ; and moderateIy well drainea, gentry sloping soils on ridges, broad uplands, and stream twccs rqmsented by tbc Tonti soil series. me majmity of fhac soils formed in loamy material overlying chaty limestone or sihtone, while fie Pickwick soils developed in deeply weathercd raid- h r n siltstone and chaty hestone md in material washed from uplands underlain by saadstone, sihtone, shale, a d lim-ne. The nativc vegetation was hardwood fra, Pmeability is slow, and available water capacity is medium far most soils and mcdium to high for Razort soils. The h g i p a n in the subsoil reshicts root pcncMon and slows the movemcnt of water Ihrou& the sail €or most soils; however, moisture penetrates eaSdy tbrou& h o d soils (USDA, 1969,1977).

The creeks and streams consist mainly of somewhat exmsively thiied, Iwel to nearly level soils on narrow flood plains represented by the Elash soil series; moderafely well drained, gently sloping to moderately sloping soils on long, narrow ridgetops represented by the Nixa Soil series; and well drain4 rndmkly sloping to steep so& 011 hillsides and narrow ridgetops represented by the Noark soil Series.

m 4416211080250 4-3

These soih formed m sediment washed from predominantly cherty upland soils and hestones. The native vcgctation was hardwood trees in the Hash soils and hardwood frees or mixed hardwood and pine bees in the Mixa and Noark soils. Permeability is moderately rapid in the Elash soils, very slow h the Nixa soils, and modcrate in the, Noark soils. Because of the high content of c m e hgments, available ' water capacity is Iow for the Elash and Nxa soils but considered medium in the Noark soils CLJSDA, 1977).

I I e flaodplain consists of d y well drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in duViUm on flood plains and low terraces TQTFS~W by the kmr t soil series. The available watm capacity is mademte to high. Roots md rnaistrrrC: penetrate easi€y (USDA, 1969).

The grazingland consists d y of moderately we11 drained, gently doping to moderately sloping mils on long, narrow ridgetops representwl by the Nix8 soil series. Thc soils formed h matwial wwthered from cherty limestone. Tbe nativc vegetation was hardwaod trees or mixed hardwood and pine trees. Permeability k very dow, and available watcr capacity is Iow. Thc hean layer restricts root penetration and slaws thc mavement of water through the soils WSIDA, 1977).

The forestland cansists mainly of excessively drained, moderately steep to steep soils on hihides rPpresented by fhe C W i e and Nixa soil &w. me soils fbmed in residuum derived ifom vuy cherty limestone. The native vegetation was bardwoods or mixed bardwood and pine trees. Pmcability is moderately mid in the ClmkwiUe so& and very slow in the Nixa soils. Because of the high content of dhmt, avdlable wacr cap- is low and the soils are droughty ICJSDA, 1977)-

The streams in fms?ed regions consist m d y of excessively dmined, moderately steep to steep soiIs on hillsides q m e n t e d by the CIarkmille; moderatcry well drained, gentry sIophg to moderately sloping soils on lung, m o w ridgetops rwesented by the Nkxs soil series; and weUdraiued, gent€y slopbg to modaately doping sods on fans, fool lop, and n m w terraces represented by the When soil s t r i ~ . The soils formed in residuum derivcd h m v e q cherty limestone and alluvium and colhvium h the Waben soils. The naiive vegetation was hardwoods or mixed hardwood and pine tress. Pumeabfity is moderately rapid in the CIafksdle and W b soils and very s?ow in the Nixa soils. B e m e of thc high content of chert, available water capacity is low to mcdium and the soils arc droughty (USDA, Ism.

4.1.2 Impacts

Construction of the proposed transmission Iine is not anticipated to have a siflwnt impact on ihc topography or geological resources of the study area. The crection of transmission linc structures wilt require the remmal a d o r dishlrbance of mal1 amounis of near-surface materials, but will have no measurable impacts on geologiwl featum or mined resources along any of the d-te mutes. Impact p o t d a l h m geologic Wting or athquakes hughout the project study a m is considered to be mhimnl, M i n e d m o m the study area p M I y consist of an extensive lhcstone famation that is not W e I y gUarried, lithologic Unit, the Boone Fomtion, is heated throughout the project study area: Tbis mrbonate formation is pmne to dissolution and readily f o m subsurface cavities (ie.,

mJ 4 t 6211060250 4-4

1613

karst features). These karstic characteristics may provide a slruchml concem for structure hstallation. Karst surveys were conducted along the preferred dternate route in May 2006 (Appendix C). Results of these surveys resulted in no hnding of significant karst features along the preferred alternate route. However, in the event that gmlogic karst features, w h as sinkholes, cnves, &ged fissures, or interstitial voids are encountered, thcse fcaiure would bc spanned md no structures would be installed io these gcoIogic arm. ADy unanticipated gedogic karst fmme encountered during constmclion should be managed according to applicable federal, state, and l o d regulaiions andlor guidelines. However, avoidance is the key.

Any activity &at disturbs the land surface, decreases vegeaon cover, or alters vegetation communities can affect soils. These activities may include recrcation, road construction, vegetation management, and miuaal managemeat, to fist 3 few. Roads expose and compact so& as well as alter surface water flow. Whim lefk expos&, mads emtribute to higher erasion rates than dosed mads that have proper water conids and d a c e cover. Vegetrrtion management activith, wbich incIude site preparation, can increase the loss of the protective sail coyer (litter), i n m e soil erosion, and decteasc soil productivity.

Prior to &e commmeement of consmction, a pre-wuk mtetiag will be held with the cumtruction contractor. During dGs meeting, construction activities will be reviewed and approved by the dimkt ranger, Whmcver possible, construction equipment should be Iimited to designated routes on ridge tops and gentIe si& slopes to protect sensitive soils and SD& with a high erosion and compaction hazard, Due to the fr;tgiIe mtue and msiw hazard of most soils in the forest, excessive rutting and aompaCtion wou?d occur if comhctim were done when the soils were wet. Fur tbis reason, cmstmction activities may be restricted during the wcUest months (March, Apd, May, and November). Farther restn'ctionS may be needed i f d l l is cxwsive during the remainder of ihc year.

Dkct impacts Smrn thc Proposed Action are associated with surfnce impacts from construction activities and include sui1 erosion and compaction. Tbis alternative may cause tempwary dismption of the litter and organic layer and some exposed soil: due to construciion acfivitics, which may lead tD a temporary hcrease in runoff and soil movement. Most msion would be associated with bare soil nreas that would be subject tu w&ce water m o v e k t (USDA, 2005).

Although ROW clearing could possibIy have some adverse impacts, mutine mitigation measur= and hplemmtation of storm water Best Managment Practices (BMPs} wadd aid in m h h k h g adverse impacts and control thtse impacts to an accepiable level under nomd circumstances. Tbese meaSures and practices have b m dkgned to ensure ground disturbance is moderate. Possiblc measures and BMPs may include construction of water bars, dischg and revegetating the area., the use of filter skips adjacent to sh-eams, and ihe applicatian of spot gravelling along temporary roads and at s l m m crossings. h addition, filter strips along the sfram banks would collect suspended soi1 particles in the surface watcr runoff and reduce the e€€cct of sedimcnt accurndation in streams. Mitigation measures should minimize soil and watm impacts in the area and meet the state water quality sfmdards for nonpoint source pollution (IJSDA, 2002).

4-5

1614

The peatest Iong-term pokntial to impact soils is associated with road gmding and construction, as WCU as ROW daring and removal of soil-stabilizing vegetation. However, with implementation of prescribed management masum (c.g., ~vqggetation and protection of bare soil arum}, the long-tenn cumulative effects to soil productivity may be dni&ed. For instance, revegetation with a seed mixture would accomplish erosion control, revegetate fhe site, and benefit wildlife by serving as a femporary source of high quality forage. Specific seed mixtures should be applied based on the soils present and the time of yearfhereseeaineoccurs.

4.2 WATER RESOURCES

This section pres.mts a brief summary of water quality CharactWiStics witbin the study arcs Idomtion was obtained through various pubIications, the Omik-St Francis EIS for lhe h d and Raource Management Plan, and internet research

4.2.1 Affected Envlrunmant

Th0 study mea is located within the noahcast portion of the UIinois Riwr B&, which encompasses arcas of both northstem OkIahoma and northwestem Arkaasas. The Illinois River is the major perennial muface water in the area as noted on USGS 7.5-minute q w l m g l e topographic maps. Each of ?he alternate routes mssa the Illinois River and associated tniWes. According to lists maintained by the

Little Rock District of the U.S. Amy Corps of Enginem PSACE), the lllinois Rivm is not W d as "a

naV.igab2c" wak, and therefore, not regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Howcvcr, the Illinois River is a water of the U.S. as defined by 33 cx;R Part 328, and therefore impacts to

&e %ais River, associated tributaries and adjamst wdaads would be subject to Section 404 of Ihe Clean Water Act,

Ecologkal field surveys were conducted in May 2006 in accordance with the Wetlands Reearch Program Technical &port Y-87-1 Coqw of Engineers W e i h ~ 3 Delmeution Mmud -January 1987. No lands adjacent to pmemin1, htermitkni, and ephemeral streams meeting the criteria of wethuds as jointry deked by the USACE and the US. Environmental Protection Agency WA) were identified along the proposed project mute. Nu lands outside of established creek channels dong the proposed project mute meet wetland miteria due to Iack of hydric soils, widence of sustained hydrology, and prevalence of hydrophytic vegetatioa

Amrding to Federal Emergency Management Agency PEMA) Flood insurance Rate Maps (FEhU, 1991), the %ok River lia within aa area desiguafed as Zone A. Zone A is an area of 100-year flooding where no base elevations are determined. This am, refend to BS the '?llinois River l 0 0 - y ~ floodplain," is characterized as relatively flat lands immediately adjacent to the n h i s River channel that extend outward at varying distance and typically end at a dramatic increase in topographic elevation. Many areas at the cOnfIuence of larger tributaries and the Illinois River are also within this designation.

441 621~060250 4-6

1615 The Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has divided the state into ecoregions €or use in asscsssing water quality issues in accordancc with Section 305@) of the Clean Water Act. The waters of the state have distinguishing physical, chtmica?, and biological characteristics as d e h d by their ccoregion WSDA, ZOOS). The portion of the study area along the proposed route is contained in the Boston Mountains ocoregh. According to the ADEQ, the Boston M~~ncain Ecoregion fies north of the Arkansas River Valley and extmds fiom a m 1 Arkansas io the Oklahoma state line.

Precipitation averages 46.9 inch= pn ycar, and the area is characterized by steep-sided slops and 1,000 ft of local relief. Thest characteristics mn d t in rapid =off and possible flash flooding during heavy rain evcnts. Runoff is defined as water that dmins h r n the Iand into sfreams or fiver channe?s after precipitation. Runoff volume is a function ofprecipitation, topograpby, geology, soil moisture, Iand use, and other factors, Mean annual moE, computed by dividing the mean annual: volume of water leaving a bash (as m d by gauging stafions) by the area of the basin, from the areas mcompasshg the Ozark- St. Francis National Forest varies fiom 14 to 20 inches per yew WSDA, ZOOS). For mast of the arcas within the Boston Mountain Ecoregion, especially tho areas within the Ozark National Forest, the m a i n c d base flow from ?he streams and rivers can be very Iaw, even noneistent at times (USDA, ZOOS). This is 8 resuIt of B number af landscape characteristics present in this emregion, the two most important being the topographic relief and the geologic sethg. Steep terrain and high stream gradients within small mountainous watemheds do not support large rates of infiftration, which wodd be tbe precursor for sustained base flaws drlring dry seasonal cycles. The geology of this area does not support the nectssary characterktics for long-tm storage ofgroundwater and subsquent supply to focal streams. Tbese and other physiographic characteristics produce streams with m immediate, or flashy, response to individud precipitation events and highlr seasonal flow yields in respomc to normal climatic Variations (USDA, 2005). Streams in this region are of the p o l and riffle type and have a combhion of bottom types, which may consist of sand, gavel, rubble, boulders, or bedrock. Rubble tends to be rounded and collects in the riffles that cam the stram to scma to disappear at low flow (USDA, 2005)).

The Boston Mombin Emregion is a sparsely populated area with exceptionally high p E @ water. Major concerns about potential water quaJity degradation indude expansion of conhcd animal opWatians, widespread land conversion to non-€omt uses, activities that remlt in nongoint source pollution without propw BMPs implementation, aad localized natural gas pmduction. CI&g timberland for conversion to pastureiand adjacent to major streams is the main cause of periodic elevated IeveIs of turbidity in some waters of this ecoregion. This works to accclcrate stream channel and bank erasion. In addition, second and third-level road conslxuction and maintenance as well: as in-stream gravel rcmovaf aggravate turbidity pmblems (USDA, 2005).

4.2.2 Impacts

Ground disturbance, in the form of clearing new ROW, constntction of tempomy and permanat roads, and thc installation of towers, has the potential to produce soil erosion. Increased soil erosion has the potential to speed sediment delivery to sbems, which may result in dweased water quality. Use of

1616

BMPs for ROW elwing and roww instsflalion is a necessity to prevent negative impacts to the area's water quality. Roads are considered the most common some of accelerated erosion on national forest lands WSDA, 2005). Road-generated sediment would be produced h m erosion of cut and fill slopes, ditches, road surfaces, and road maintenance operations. Raw ditch lines and roadbeds are likely a continual souce af sedimeng and unpaved roads paralleling and crossing streams pose speCific xisks to water quality. Aquatic habitats are directly threatened by the fkgrnentat i~~ and modification associated with dams and roads.

The Proposed Action alternative wiIl not increase sedimentsfion of local slreams or degradc water quality if induslxy 3MPs are utilized. Considemlions should be u n d e d e n to firnit excessive erosion by working only in arcas where soils display minimaI suc@div to erosion, large exmvated rock fragments can be used to prevent runoff, and rapid vegetation reestabIishment i s initiated

The cumulative C C O I I O ~ C impact of the Proposed Action alternative to the water-related resources of the O m k National Forest, Boston Mountain Emregion should be minimal. ROW clearhg and road mnstmction have the potmtid to h m s e runoff and sedimentation h the area; however, the impact of this land altmtiou should not be significant.

Certain construction activities involving placement ofiill material within waterways or impoundmmls are authorkd by the USACE unda Nationwide Permits (NWPs). .Nwp 12 authorizes e a r discharges of dredged or a1 mahiah associated with excavation, bacalI, or bedding for utility lines, jndudhg electxic transmission E m , provided there is no change in precoasttuction conburs or permanent wetlaad loss of more than 2 5 ma. Preconstruction notification is required by the USACE if the project will involve mechanized cleating in a forested wetland; a Section 10 Permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 is required; or ifthe utility fine is located in a jluisdidunal area and rum p d k l to a sireambed that is within t h e juxisdictionaf area. However, sin, no wetlands occur along the proposed project route, and aII waterways would be spanned by the proposed transmission h, no impacts to w a h of the US. including wetlands are anticipated, and therefore no preconstructioo notification to the USACE would be required under the authority provided by N W F 12.

4.3 VEGETATIONAL RESOURCES

Specific c o n m dat ing to vegetation include the e f i ~ ~ of vegetation changes on threatened, endangered, or s d t i v e (ITS) species; age class diversity; forcst hcaTth; understory diversity; maintenance of natural forest types and trees; and cumulative effects of limber harvest. Tbese concuns, as well as other general vegetation concam, arc discussed. Fauna in the forested and aquatic habitats are

dependent on the vegetation component of the forest for food and covm. Many of the issues concerning TES plant and animal species d a t e directly to vegetation management issues and these issues are discussed (as necessary) further in S&oa 4.6.

4.3.1 Afce cted Environment

Vegetation in the O m k National Forest hs seen much change since the time of the Amm-can Indians and early settlers. The forests of the Ozark National Forest are dominated by an oak-hickory-pine mmmunity in what is now called the Central Hardwood Region, estimated to have fomcd at lcast 5,000 years ago (Spctich, 2004). The species composition of thcse fords havc bern mtenshely changed by two major occurten=: (1) over 10,000 years of American Indian apforestry that maximized yields of mast crops, domticated oily seed native plants, and introduced tropiCar cultigens; and (2) over 150years of intwsivc historical settlemen4 agricdhres and fmgmntation incIudhg dcforcstation by logging. Despite this, a high lwet of diverse habitats, hcludhg mosaics of savanna, open and closed wodmds, and riparian forests remain. The bigh diversity found on the M k N~tioaal Forest today is testimony to the resilience of e~osystems. Much of the Dzark National Forest: was completely h&gd by the early twentieth century (USFS, ZOOS). The only systematic landscapscale data avdabfe for the character and composition of pre-settlement historical vegetation (reference conditions) itre e v e d from the Arkansas General Laad Office (GLO) surveys. The percent ages by species are a~ hdicatiOn of the dominant species found an the landsctlpe during the mid-1 800s.

The m$or forest cownunitics of the k k National Forest associated with the project study are^ consists of. (1) dry oak woodland community; (2) dry-mesic oak forest community; (3) mesic hardwood forest commUnity; and (4) ripariaa community. Descriptions of fbresr community tVpes were obtained k m W O I m a i i O f l in the F m t Plan (USFS, 2005).

4.3.1. f Pry Oak Woodland

Tbis mmunity coasistE of oak woadland and dry oak forest. It o c c ~ in the O&c and Ouadhita Highlands and far wmm p~rtiws of the i n t ~ o r Low PIateau regions dong gentle to *p s l o p and over bluff escarpments with southerly to westerly aspects. This system wns historidy woodland in structure, muposition, and process but now includes mas of more closed canopy. Oak species such as post oak (Quem stella&), blackjack oak @. mm~landica), and scarlet oak (Q. wccinea) domimite tkis system with au undecstoty of grassland species such as W e bluestem (Andi.opogon scopm*m) and b b species such as spdebeuy (Vacuhium mboraun).

4.3.1 2 Dry-1Wesic Oak Forest Community

This system is found thrtlughout the Ozark and Ouachita Highlands mge ta the western edge of thc hntdor Low Plateau. It is a common community within the red oa€dwhite. oaWhickary forest arid occurs on dq-mesic to mcsic, gentle to moderawly steep slopes. These stands are typically made up of northern red oak CQ. nrbr), white aak (Q. alba), hickory (Cmya sp.), and associated species. Associated species include pine (Pinus sp.), elm (Uhtrr sp.), blackym (wsm Jyhrofica], persimmon ( D i o q p s sp.), ash ( F r m m sp.), chcny (Pnntrts sp.), red maple ( A m m b m ] , and dogwood (Conw sp.). Sugar maple (A. sacchhmum) may occur o ~ l the more mesic areas of this system Species requiring all s u m i o n a l stages of habitat may be found in this community type.

PSST 44162lM60250 4-9

1618

4.3.1.3 Mesk Hardwood Forest Community

Mesic hardwood fomts are very productive and typically OCCUT on north and east s l a p and benches, toe slopes, and valley bottoms within he region. h the Bostaa Mountains, mesic forests may also be common on protected slopes and terraces next to streams. Within this system, oaks are less dominant and other species such as becch (Fagus sp.), cherry, ash, and other assodates d e up the r e d n g composition. Associated sp~cies include pine, elm, ash, black- rcd maple, persimmon, c h q , and dogwood. Sugar maple may also occur in the more mesic areas of this community. Profuse sprouting and thickets with high stem densities are cornon during the early seral stages of this community.

4.3.1.4 Riparian

Riparian areas are functionally defied as areas with layers of interaction that include both te rmkid and aqUatic er;osystems. The structure of ripariaa habitats may extend down into thc groundwnter, up abovc the mnopy, ouhvard across the floodplain, laterally into the tetrestrid ecosystem, and along the watercourse at a variable width These areas provide s c v d mitical functions for associated spccies and may serve as coxridon for wildlife movement allowing €or daiy and seasod migation. Riparian habitat id&y consists of a mosaic of native plant cammmitiw and mccessional stages With prcdominnteIy late- successional habitats. These lat~successionaI habitats contain multiple canopy Iayers that provide a variety of benefits including multiple emobgical niches and t h d and protective cover.

The. riparian forest corn* for the orark Nationai Forest is ideatifid by a shift h species mmposition away &om red oaklwhite oak(hick0ry forests toward sugar maple, swcttgum (Liquidambar swac$uu), American sycamore (Plarunru occ$en&lis), and willow [Sa?& sp.). Understory composition shifts toward willow and hazel dder (Alms smZaiu).

4.3.2 Impacts

The p r h a y issues associated with potential impacts to vegetative co&ties and sensitive plat species would be the conversion of m g habitat types to d y seral habitats along the Preferred Alternate Route. This habitat eonversion would ke maintaind through periadic ROW mnintmmce activities. As with any management or habitat conversion, the potential effects on individual species would be expectcd to vary. Some spccies may benefit f im specXc habitat chaTlges while others may suffer adverse affects. ROW dntcnance practices may be structured to hco~porate techniques that would minimize potential advmc impacts. Such impacts cwld vary widely based on specific RUW rnahtmance activities, such as whether herbicides were or were not a component of ROW maintenance.

4.4 AQUATIC WILDLIFE RESOURCES

4.4.1 Affected Environment + The rivers, backwaters, lakes, ponds, and subterranean streams in the R ~ ~ O A support a diversily of

*&water fish, muscfs, isopods, and othcr aquatic reso~lces. The Illinois River and its tFibutaries

1619

support warm water fisheries (LonCaricb, 2004). Common fish qe&s include channel cattish (Icfdwm punciatar), flathead catfish (Pylodicm olivarir), fargmourh bass (Mmpterus satmoides), smallmouth bass (Mcroptterur dotomimi), and crappie (Pornoxis spp.).

4.4.2 Impacts

No simcant adverse effects to aquatic resources arc anticipated. All open waters and s&ms, including thc flIhois Rha, wil l be spanned by the transmission line. BMPs and erosion controls WiIl be implmncnted to reduce the potential for off-site sediment fransport by d a c e water flows to 1 0 4 water bodies. Any s e d i i t r a q m t h m the arms d i s h r b d by construction activities will be localized, short- twm in duration, and no greatcrthan currently experienced by local rainfalI evmls.

D h t disruption of aquatic habitats is not likely to occur as a result of the proposed project because dl watcr bodies should be spanned and erosion control mcasms will be mploycd to reduce potedd impacts €ram ROW clearing and coastruetion. The severity of impacts at water crossings would be reduced when the preferred AZternate Route is Iocakd adjacent to BLI d i g ROW, especially where that ROW is d r d y c l d

4.5 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE RESOURCES

4-53 Affected Environment

Wildlife resources io the projccct vicinity include species nomaUy anticipakd in a TLE& agtidtural Setting. Habitat avai?ability is limited for the most part io natural areas associated With watercaurses or woodlm* dong the R e f e d Manate Route. The forested areas provide cover and some foraghg opportUnitia. Open areas, inchding cleared pasturelaad and mahtdnd cleared ROWS, allow wildlife to forage and move more eosi& through the project area

Mammals typically observed in thc project area include white-tailed deer, striped skunk (Mqhitis mephitis), raaoon, and fox squirrel (Sciunu nigw). Other species such as the bobcat, eastan cottontail (, coyote (-13 htransj, and opossum (Dideelphis vhginirma) arc likely pxesent and contniute to the diversity of focal wildlife.

Birds typically obmed in the project area indude the American crow ( C o w brmhydyzm), marsh hawk (Cirnrs cyanerrr), red-tailed hawk (Bdeo jam~cumk) , European starling (hmus wlgds), American robin ( T w h migraturh), turkey vulture (&thaz@ aura], mallard (Annph~hynnchm), md p t bhe heron (Ardea herodim]. 0 t h ~ ~ avian spccies such as snow gowc (Chen eamlescem) and

Canada goose {Brania canadensis) are seasonally present in thc region. The forstcd areas provide nesting and foraging areas for some of lheses species, and the neighboring pasturelands and open areas provide additional foraging areas.

4.5.2 impacts

Typical impacts fiom transmission fin= an wildlife can be classiEed as cither short-term effects muking h m physic81 disturbance during clearing and consfruetion or long-term & e a resulting from habitat mod3cation or toss. The net effect on local wildlife of these two fyps of impacts is usually miam. Clearing of vegetation and other construction-related activities will directly andlor indirectly aEect most animals that rcside m wander within the transmission lint ROW. Some small, lowmobility forms, inclui3hg several specks of amphibi;ms, reptiles, and mammals, may be m d y affected by heavy mmhction machinery. Additionally, if construction occurs during the bredng season, the young of many species, iacludhg nestling and fledgling birds, may be lost. Fossorial atlimafs (k, those that live underground), such as mice and skews, may also be negatively impacted as a result of soil compaction caused by heavy machinery. Maintenance clearing activities during the breedkg season m g desfroy some nests and broods of some bid, mammal, and reptile specis.

Although l-er mobile species, such as birds and m d u m and large-sized mammals (e.&, raccoons, foxes, and deer), may avoid the initial clearing and conmuttion activities by moving into adjacmt areas outside the ROW, these animals may be indirectly impacted by habitat loss. Habitat changes Within the ROW may reduce the w i n g capacity of some species and increase it for others. For example, in w d a n d s , a linear clearing may sliatly reduce population levels of strictly forestdwelling animals while increasing those populations preferring ecotonal or *kdg$' habitat. Edgc species hat ryPically bencfit from such changts include recreationally important species, such as the whitctaild deer, noahern bobwhite, and eastern cotton~L WiIdlife m the immediate area m y experience a slight loss of browse or forage material during-construction; howeve, the prevalence of similar habitats in adjacent areas and segowth of vegetation in the ROW following construction would minimize the effects ofthis loss.

The increased noise and activity levels during constsuction codd potentially disturb breeding or other activities of spwies inhabiting the areas adjaamt to the ROW. Dust and gaseous emissions would minimalIy af€ect wildlZe. These impacts arc expccted, however, to be tempomy in most ases. Although the n d behavior of many wildlife species m y be disturbed during construction, no significant pfxmrnat impact to their popuIations should result.

SeveraI siudics have indicated &at fom fhgmentation has a detrimental effcct an some avim species tbat show a marked preference for large undisturbed forest fracts (e-g., Robbhs et al., 1989; Terborgh, 1989). Studies have aIso demonstrated &at individual species arc not randomly dishibuted with regard to habitat size. Also, area-sensitive species requiring forest interior habitat are typically more sensitive to bgmantation timi edge-adapted species and are particularly aBxted by predation, brood-parasitiSm, and okcr impacts on nesting success (Terborgh, 1989; Faaborg ct d., 1992). Some brccdhg birds in the study

4-1 2

1621

area may become morc vulnerable to nest predation or parasitism by edge species, such as the blue jay, American m w , and brown-headed cowbird.

Some bird species, particularly raptors, mn benefit fiom transmission Iine structures and wires because they provide nesting and roosting sites arid resting and hunting perches, particularly in open, treeless habitats (Avian Power Line heraction Committee IAPLIq, 1996). The turkey v111ture, American crow, American kcstrei (Fah spmeritLs), mourning dove, loggerbead shrike, and eastern meadowlark are a

few species that may take advantage of these bencfits. One of the more common species that uses such structures for nesthg is the red-tailed hawk The greatest use, however, is for hunting perches (Oknndorf€ et d., 1981). The danger of elatrocution to birds would be insignificant shce ihc distance betwcm conductors or conductor and siructure or ground wire 00.345-kV transmission kes is greater Ban the wingspan of most birds in the area. Typically, the danger ofelectmcution occurring at voltages greater than 69 kV is extremely Iow {APLIC, 1996).

The shxturts and wires associated with traasm'ssion lines could present a bazsud to flying birds, particularly migraats. Collisions tend to increase in *enq during the fall when rnimting flocks are denser and flight altitudes are lower in association with cold air masses, fog, and inclement weather. The greatest danga of mortality exists during periods of low ceiling, poor visliillity, and dride when birds- arc flying law, perhaps commmchg or terminating a fight, when thcy may have difficulty swing obsbudons (Electric Power Rcseareh 'Institute EPW, 1993). Migrant species, including passerines, should be minimally affected during migration; however, sin= normal flying altitudes are greater than the heights of the proposed transmission structura (W.~.~ard, 1978; Gauthreaux, 1978). For resident birds or for migratmy seasonal resident birds during periods other than migration, those most prone to coILision me o a n the largtst and most common in a given am (Rusz et at, 1986; APLTC, 1994). Resident birds, or those in an area for an extended pm'od, learn the location ofpowm lines and become less susceptible to Wire strikes (Avery, 1978). Rapton, typically, are uncomm victims of traasmission line colIisians, because oftheir geat visual acuity vhompsan, 1978). In addition, many raptars onIy become active &tr sufficient thermal currents develop, which is llsually late in ihc morning when poor light is not a factor (Avery, 1978).

Although wahfowl are among the birds most susceptibk to wire strikes (Fames, 1989, it has bem 4 r n h d that wire strikes (including distriiution b e s ) account for less than 0.1% of waterfawI nonbunhg rnortaIity, compared with 88% fiom diseases mdpoisoning, and 7.4% because of the weather (Stout and Cornwell, 1976). In some ams, hunting may affect 20% to 30% of waterfowl populations (Thompson, 1978). The proposed mnssnission line may traverse areas of seasonally high watwfowi use. Nevertheless, impacts to migrant waterfowl should be minimal because their normal flying altitudes are considerably greater than the heights of the proposed ktusmss * iontowas.

s e v d m m s can be employed to rnhhnke fmsmission h e impacts on birds h flight The initial placement of a transmission linc is the most important consideration (Avcry, 1978; APLIC, 1994). The proximity of a transmission line to areas of mcnt b i i use is crucial. Tbis is especially true for dady

4

4416211060250 4-1 3

1622

use areas, such as feeding meas, or other areas where birds may ba taking off or landing regularly (APLIC, 19915). The position of the individual structures can also help reduce dlisions. Faanes (19871, h an indepth study in No& Dakota, fomd that birds in flight tend to avoid ihc traasmission lhc structures,

presumably because mch structures are visible from R distance. Instead, most appear to fly over tht h e 5

in the mid-span regioa Where the kusmission line would pass betwcen roosting and foraghg areas, tho shuctures can be placed in ffie center of the flyway (i.t., where the birds are more likely to By] to increase their visibdity, in addition to hcaviIy marking thc Wires.

Increasing the visibility of the wires by using markers, such as orange aviation bds , black-and-white nibom, or spiral vibration dampas, particularly at mid-span, can d u e the number of collisions. Beadamim (1981) reviewed 17 studies invdving markiog ground wires or conductors and fowd an average reduction in collisims of45% compared with unmarked lines.

4.6 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE SPECiES

According 10 lists maintained by the US. Fish and Wildlife Strvice (FWS, 1997,2004) and the USFS (ZOOS), the Missouri bladderpod, two cave Amcrican 3HTyipg Bade, Ozark cavefish, gray bat, Indiana bat, and Ozark big-earcd bat are listed as of potential occurrence in Benton and Washington countits. Ten sensitive species on the USFS Regional Forestcr’s sensitive species list have p o t d d to occur throughout the Wdugton Unit of Ozark National Forest. There we m d y no state-listed keatmcd and endangered animal species for Benton and Washington muntiw, The Arkansas Natural Heritagc Commission (ANHC) is currently conducting active inventory work on severa? species that may become state listed as either endangered or tbrcatened at a later date. Only those species that FWS list as endangered or threatened have federal protection under the Endangered Species Act WA).

F o n d surveys for TES species were conducted in May 2006 by P B W staff along the P r e f d Alternate Route as dhcckd by the USFS for availability of potential habitat and for documentation of prcscncdabsmce (see Appendices 3 and C). Much of the baseline i d o m t i o n rcgardiog these species was obtained from the USFS, Boston Mountain Ranger District. RmIts of f idd surveys and dctcrminations of effect have been documented in thc BioIogical Evaluation @E) attached in the USIS Environmenial &essmeni of the P r o p o d Ckambers Spring io Tontitown 345-kV Trmmkion Line Project.

No individuals or cclm~h’es of the fohwing species were found occurring along the proposed projcci route during May 1&19,2005 field sweys. Table 4-1 lists these species, and summary information for each species is provided below. Summary infannation for TES species was provided by the USFS d e s otherwise indicated.

44162119M1250 4-14

1623

TABLE41

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE IN E N T O N AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS;

AND SENSITIVE SPECIES OF POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE WITHIN THE WEDINGTON UNIT OF THE OZARK NATIONAL FOREST'

Common Name2 sdentific Name2 status3 . ...

PLANTS

E E

S

4.6.1 FederalIy Threatened and Endangered Specks

4.6.1.1 Missourl Bladderpod (Lesquerelh fiMormiS) - Endangered Species

This plant is h o r n from the hes tone glades of the Springfwld P W u of southwestern MisSolvi and fiom paas of k h s a s . It is most often found on highway Rows and pastures where mowing and grazing have kept the area open. Occasionally it is found in open mky woods. The species is currentIy

w 447 621M60250 4-15

1624

h o r n fiom about 60 sites (h 1987, when the species was listed mdangered, ody 9 sites were known). Further iinvcntories may continue to uncover additional populatiom. ??le population size has fluctuated Fatly, but may have reached half a m i m in the most frtvorabk years. In Arkansas, it is found only in Lard and Washington counties in Arkansas, but not on the foresf. Suitable habitat is found, however, an the Sylamore Ranger Diskkt and on the Wedington unit of the Boston Mowfah Ranger District.

4.6.1.2 Cave Cmyilsh- (Cambarns acrrlabmm; C. Zophanesfes) - Endangered Species

Cave crayfish re entirely restricted to cave s-s and are h o r n ta occur in only a few select caves in northwestem Arkansas. Past surveys thughout fomfs have fded to mal their prcsence including ~ e ~ e f l t sutvcys along the Preferred Alternate Route.

4.6.d 3 American Burylng Beetle (Nicrophorus amet-rcanus) - Endangered Species

The American bwying beetle is a0 ins& species that exhibits broad vegetational tolerances, though natural habitat may be mature fomts. This species has beta recorded from grassland, old-field shrub- land, and hardwwd fimsts. Vegetational community associations range fiom large mowed and grazed fields to dense &rub thickets. Extremely xeric, saturated, or loose sandy soils are unsuitable for the b d e ' s ability to buy &OIL Although there have been only two occurrences recorded with bolh being on the Mt. Magazine Rangcr Djslrict, potential habitat could include any forested acres and fields h t are not rack covered or covered in mta.

4.6.1.4 Ozark Caveflsh (Amfriyopsk rosae) - Threatened Species

The O m k cavefish is another obligate cave dweller that is Iimited to cave stram habitats. There are no h o w n occmencs of this species on the forest at this time. No potential habitat is Irnown !a occur along the Preferred Albmate Route. Any undwvered individual subtenmean ccusnences of this spwies, or gotenthl subtemean habitat within the Vicinity of the Proposed Action would IIC compIetely avoided due to the nature of constructitioa activities.

4.6-1 -5 8ald Eagle (Hallaeetus Leumcephaius) -Threatened Species1 Proposed for Delisting

Accordiog to FWS and USFS, thc only federally threatened or midangered avian species listed within the study area is the bald eagle. The bald mgle bas recovexed sufficiently to be dowdistcd to 'Uwamed" Ihughout its range, h 1999, the FWS proposed to remove the bald eagle h m the list of endangad and threatened wildlife (64 FR 128; 36453-36464; 6 July 1999); however, FWS are yet to make a final decision on the delisting. Ifddisted, the bald eagle wonld continue to receive protection under provisions of the BaId and Golden EagIe Protection Act and the Migmtory Bird Tre~ty Act

Bald eagles ue generally limited to winter occupancy in Arkansas. Tbe bald eagle is a large bird that generally o m in the vicinity of Ma, rivers, and marskits and dong seacoasts. Nesthg m 1 I y occurs

1625

in areas with mature Ires near large bodits of water. Suitable habitat occurs adjacent to the Illhis River within the Wedington Unit of the Boston Mount& Ranger District. There have been reported sighthgs of thk species flying over the area during winter months; however, no bald ea& n a were sighted within the vicinity of the Preferred Altcrnatc Route during field surveys.

4.6.1.6 Gray Bat (Myotls Gn'sescens) - Endangered Specks

Roosting habitat for the gray bat is restricted entirely to caves or cave-like habitats- During the summer months, thc bats are highly s d d v e , and only a 4 proportion of the caves in any area is or can be used regufarly, Usudly these caves are found within 8 kilometer of a river or rcscrvoir, In northern Arkansas, winter hibemula arc scattered The gray bat can o m on any Ozark National Forest district with the possible exception of tbe M t Magazine Ranger Di*ct.

4.6.1.7

Less than 1 % of cava and mines within the mnge of the Zadiana bat offer suitable hiemating conditions. Indiana bats hibernate characteristic dense cfustas in particurar sections of certain caves and usualIy return mually to the same places m thc same caves. Summer habitat may consist of riparian forests, upland forests, and old fields and pastures with scattered wm; & d o r e , all forest acres provide suitable summcr habitat for this species.

Indlana Bat (Myofls Sadalis] - Endangered Species

4.6.1.8 Ozark Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii ingens) - Endangered Species

Thc Otark big-wcd bat is generally associated with caves, CWS, and rock Jedges in well drained, oak- hickory forests. Matcraity caves and hibematla occuc in a nmbm of different surroundhgs e g from large continuous blocks of forest to smaller forest tracts interspmed with opm eras. Presently, c o ? o n k of the Ozark big- bats regularly inhabit six cavw in Arkansas; a hibernation caw and two

nearby maternity caves in north central Arkansas, and a hibernation cave and two m a i h t y caves in the northwestern part of thc state. Nmrmus c a w on tbe forcst in the western part of the state provide limited use sites for this bat. In addition, !ha are several hibernacula and at least one maternity site on the 0zark-S. Francis Nationd Forests, This species ha been reporled on the Boston MoUntain Ranger District and in Washington County.

4.6.2 Regha1 Forester's Sensitlve Species

4.6.21 Open-Ground Draba (Draba aprica) -Sensitive Species

The open-ground dmba is a d l annual with a range that inch& the Ozark Plateau of Arkansas and southern Missouri. There are also some disjunct populations in the piedmont of Georgia and South Carolina. Occurrencts of this species are rare, however it has been documented in Washington County (Smith, 1988). This species was k t collected in Arkansas 1819 by Thomas Nuttall (Fahick et d., 1995). This plant is fwnd in shallow soils on granitic outcrops, especially h e a t h widely scattered,

4411621m60250 4-1 7

ma- stands of eastern r e d d a r (Jun@ms vi@&nu) (Smith, 1988; P a ~ c k et al., 1495). During field m e y s oftbe proposed projm corridor, no O C C U ~ ~ E of this species w m obswed.

4.6.2.2 Royal Catchfly (Silene regla) - Sensitive Species

The royal catchfly is a perennial p d c wildnower found historically in Alabama, h a j Florida, Georda, IHinois, Kansas, Kentudky, Missouri, Ohioj Oklahbma, and Temmee. 'While numbers of remaining individuals are uaknown, it has been shown that this species does fm wclI h xestoration eEom {Center for Plant Conservation [CPC], ZOOS). Pramied b e g programs benefit this specks as the seeds n e 4 little or no litter layer to germinate. This spccia is hown for symbiotic relationship With the ruby-throated hummingbird (Archifochus colubris) whereby it requires visits by the hmdngbird in order to facilitate pollination for the production off i t and to set stxds. This plant is typidy found in open woods, glades, meadows, and dcareous prairies, Found mostly in the sun, this species prefexs rich, well-drained s&. This species also seem to favor prairie remnants, cemeteries, and railroad and powcfhe ROWS, and is kquentIy found in roadside ditch=, dry meky ateas, and in open woods 'or woad margins. The myal catchfly prefers meic type habitats and may bc found in dry savannahs aad dry woods (CPC, 2006). During 5eld surveys of the proposed project cadidor, no accm-mws ofthis species were observed.

4.6.2.3 Orark Chhquaph (Castanea pumila ozarkensls) - Sensitive Species

The Ozark dhiuquapin is h o s t totally restricted to the hntcriw Eliflands of Missouri, Arlmnsas, and Oklahoma with disjunct populations in huisima, Mississippi, and Alabama Until the introduction into this mmhy of the chesfnut blight (EddriaPmaWcu) and its subsequent spread, the ozark chinquapin had been considered a localiy abundant and widespread tree p i e s in the Interior Highland region. As a m d t ofthe spread of this parasite, few mahue t m s of this speck s U exist, although sprouting b m stumps is quite cmamw (Tucker, 1980). Monitoring on the Ozark National Forcst m d i a t a !hat this s p e c k is still widely dishiuted, but few trees may be found that do not show evidmce of the blight. The Ozark chinquapin is f m d on all Ozark National Forest d i s ~ c t s , except the St. Francis. Surveys for the Ozark cfiqwph on the Boston Mountain Ranger District bcgan in 1996. Permanent m o n i t o h sites have becn established on the District and Forest-wide by the WSFS and the Nature Conservancy. These sites are chocked yearly to note the h a m e or decrease in this sensitive Species (USFS, 199&2004). The Ozrrrk chquaph is fairly common on the Boston Mountain lianger District. Most trees on thc District arc smaU trees resulting fiom stump sprouts, with very few surviving to the age of producing seed It has bccn documented from 38 countis in Arkansas (ANPS, 1998). S w e y s for this species were conducted Within the proposed project corridor during the period of May 1619,2006 (Appendix 3). No occunenw of the &ark chinquapin were observed witbin the proposed projcct conidor.

4.624 Bush's Poppymallow (Callirhoe bush19 - Sensitive Species

me Bush's puppymalIow typicaliy is found in mcky open woods, wooded valIcys, ravine bottom, and along the borders of glades. This plant mges from sctremt southwestem Missomi to northwet Arkansas

4-1 8

1627

and northcastmi Oklahoma In Arkaxlsas, this species has been documented in Benton, Boone, catrol, Conway, Logan, Marion, Searey, and Washington counties (Smith, 1988). This q e c i c s has been fiequentfy noted in Benton and Washington counties along roadsides and is casiiy viewed from s e v d county roads. There are s e v d h o r n recorded locations of the Bush’s poppymall~w on thc Wedington Unit of the Boston Mountain Ranger District. M g field surveys, no occurrenm of Bush’s poppymallow were observed along ihe Preferred Altemrlte Route.

4.6.25 Grade Larkspur (Delphlnlum treleaseq - Sensitive S p e c k

According to Smilh (1989) this species is endcmic to southwestern Missouri and northwest Arkamas. It occurs on limestone glades and bald hobs in thc White Ever region and on rocky open Iimestone cxposurcs nnd glad= elsewhere. Population trends are largely tmzolown since onty recently have significant inventories been t a k a However, if the current trend is not changed, continued habitat loss and degmdation wiU likely lead fa continued long-term declines in &e species. This plant is known to accur in Mssoud and in counties in north and northwest Arhsas and is reIativeZy common within its limit& range, having approximately 80 qccumnw. Eighteen occurrences are hown throughout the Ozark National Fmt; Howcver, during field surveys, no occurzwces ofthe glade Iarkspur w m observed.

4.6.2.6 Ozark Cornsalad ( V a k r h e h orarkma) - Sensitive Species

Tbis spbcies has a range 6 c k d to Arkansas, Missouri, and O W o m It’s range is d c t d to the interior highlands where it is dependent QII open woodland and glade habitats [ANHC, 2006). Duriag field m e y s of the proposed project conidor, no occuncences of t h e Ozadc camsalad were obsewd

4.6.27 Ozark Spiderwort (Tradescanga uzarhna) - Sensitive Species

This p h t is endemic to the Ozark Mountains of Missouri, Oklahoma, and Arkansas and the Ouachita Mmtains of westem Arkansas and southeastem Oklahoma. There are 15 extant populations in Missouri, more h that in Arkansas, and a few in Oklahoma Thc species is e o n s i d d rchtiveIy secure dcspitc some documented declines due to construction of dams410mdments. There are no hown immediate rangewide h a t s such as habitat conversioa Nmaous l o d potential threats are reported however, including housing dcvelopmtnts, roadway construction and maintenance, and herbicide use. Trends for this s p e c k are not welIaOurmented, but the Ozark spidenvort may have s u E d a substantial loss due to a series of impoundmcnis on the White River m Missad These memoirs flooded several p o p d a i h ~ ~ , and Steyermark (1963) &mated that &e erection of these d m has “destroyed millions of phts.“ Irl Oklahoma, Watson (1989) reported that T. o i m h has not declined in t h e Ozark Mountains within the last 50 years but has declined by 71% in the Ouachita Momtains, although this percentage is based on a low s a p I e size (two out of seven populations conhncd). A number of historical populations have not been relocated throughout the rangc of T. madma sussesting posslile extirpation by natural or other causes W e tbis supports a downward trend, at those sites where T. OZarkaM is hown to occur, popdation numbers arc often in the hundreds and omsianaliy in the &own& of individuals, suggesting ataxon capable of Sustaining itself when under natural conditions (NaheServe, 2004). This plant is fairly

44 IS21 1Pw250 4-1 9

1628

common on the Boston Mountain Ranger District and is often found along roads. Although habitat is fair for this species in the area, no occurrences were observed during field surveys.

4.6.2.8 Ozark Least TrllIIum (Trillurn pusMum var. orarkanurn) - Sensitive Species

This perennial is found in Kentucky, Tcnntsseq the Ozark Mountains of northwestern Arkansas and southem Missouri, and the Otlachita mountains of southwestem Arkansas and southeastan Oklahoma. The status of this plant is u h o w n , but it has been documented in Benton and Washington counties, Arkansas (Smith, 1988). The prefmd habitat €or thc ozark least billium consists of chcrty soils in oak- hickory and oak-pine woodlands, and acidic soils in the understory of rich mesic f a d . During field surveys of the proposed project comdor, no occtvfcnm of this species w m observed.

4.6.2.9 Neosho Mwcket (LampsXs mfinesqueana) - Sensltlve Species

The Neosho mucket is endemic to &e Iuinok and Neosho rivers’ drainages. It is also found in second order or larger streams, with moderately flowing water over 5ne to medium Wvel substraw. All aquatic habitats wil1 be spanned by thc power line project, and BMPs will ensure tbc prevention of sediments, therefore, no effects to the Neosho mucket or any aquatic species art anticipated.

4.6.3 Impacts

FieId surveys far potential occurrence of TES specis along the propased c o d o r were conducted during May 2006 (see AppenaiX B). Potential foraging habitat exists hughout the &rea for various listed species, especially vaious species of bats {Ozark big-eared, Indiana, and gray); however, no bat caves, hibcmacut% or bald eagle nests were found along the prefwred alternate route during ficfd surveys. Known bat caves and hicmacula have been documented south of the proposed study area and mth of the existhg transmission he ROW. Suitable habitat for some sensitive plant species occurs along the comdor of the prcfemd alternative route; however, 110 individual occwenca of sensitive plant s p i e s were observcd during field assessments.

To summarize the potential curnulathe effects on federally list& species, it is important to remgnize that these species are of sptcjal interest becaw many of these specks an restricted to cave or cavelike habimats. The proposed project is not expected to advmely affect any federalty listed animaI species, unless a cave or cave-like habitat is discovered Any effects to thesr: kinds of habitats could cumulatively affect these spec& howcvcr, h e to the nature of the projecc no effccts to cave or cave-like habitats are antic$ated.

For the msitive species that may have bem ovmboked during field surveys, only one tree species, the Ozark chinquapin, would be subjm t o loss through imprementation of tbc proposed action. ROW maintenance activities wouId not allow for this species to re-establish within the project ROW through the cone01 of naW forest succcssim

44162i1060250 4-20

1629

Several of the remaining species may actually benefit fiom the mation of carly s e d habitats and the additional edge created through clearing of the project corridor. Species such as the glade Iarkspur and royal catchfly prefer opm, prairie-type early seral habitats and have even been documented to respond favorabty to utility ROWS. However, t h ~ c species are also intolaant to herbicide use and encroachment by woody vegetation, Thus, ROW maintenance activitie should be developd to conml woody and nonnative invasiw through nonchemicaf treatments.

A host of species have a documented preference for open woodlands, glade habitats, and open road and ROW bdm. Spccie~ intruding the Bush’s p ~ p p p d l ~ ~ ~ Ozark spidtrwod, opm-gr~md dcab% and &ark comsaiad should not suffer adverse impacts fiom the creation of the new project ROW. As with othw species, tbis assemblage would not tolaate encroachment of woody or other invasive specks, nor would hey respond favorably to herbicide use. Thus, ROW rnahknanw. activitics should be designed fo control forest s u m i o n using nonchemical means.

One species, the Ozark Imt trillium, would not respond fivorabIy fiom the conversion of ma- forest to the creation of an early scral mmmuniv. This species rcquircs mature woodlands as its habitat and the conversion of existing habitats would result in B loss of habitat for the Ozark Ieast kil l in. However, Lhis species was not observcd occurring along the Prefmed AItunate Route during field s w e y s .

A BE has been prepared and documenh the determination of effects for TES Species. Results of these detennination of effacls for Fcdemfly %eatend and Edangered Species are in anticipation of ‘bo ef€ecf” or ‘hot likely to adversely affect.” Conclusions of e f fec~ on sensitive species may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability, or result in a beneficial impact, or no impact The Fws’will be consulted to provide cuncmence on the BE.

There E currently no state a n i d species of local concern; therefore, there arc no possible envirOnmental consequences to skte species of IocaI concern as a result of the proposed project.

4.7 LAND USE

4.7.1 Affected Environment

The study area is characterized by rolling forested hills and limestone bI&, agricultural lands, populated predominantly with poultry production facilities as well as horses and cattle, the O m k National Forest, the Illinois E v a and its floodplain and tributaries, and nuid areas as well as recently cotlstructtsd homes. The areas adjacent to the for& and near the towns of Siloam Springs and Tontitown are XapidIy becoming developed with lowdensity Single-famiIy residences.

The NWARPC smts local units of guvemment in Benton and Washingtan counties. However, there is currently no zoning for tbc proposed study a m because the proposed project is located outside of any city limits; therefore, zoning would not apply for those land uses within this area.

441621x160250 4-21

Thre are 34 cities, towns, and canununities within a 10-mile mdins of the study However, the study m a is predominantly mid and dominated by smaU towns. Within the shldy area i dcn t i f~d an figares 1-1 a d 4-1, there are seven Imincorporated communities within 10,000 A of a proposed route. S p e M d y , the unincaprakd community of Wedington is appmxhatdy 2,250 ft southwest of the Southern Roue, Savoy is approximately 3,000 ft west of the Southern Route, Wedington. Woods is approximateLy 4,750 ft east Of the Southem Ron&, Pedro is approximately 5,500 A santb of the Noahm ]Route, Harmon is appmximatefy 5,5500 ft a t of the Eastem Route, the comanrnitia of L o 5 and GalIatin are approxi~nakly 5300 and 7,750 ft, respectively, north of the Noahem Ron@ and Robinson is approldxnately 8,500 ft south of the Noahem Route and approxhatcly SgOO ft north of the Eastern Route.

New' shgbfamily construction mainly occurs in the outiying areas of the larger surrounding commnnities. For instanee, the community of Rogers. Iocatd outside of the study area and 1O-milc buffer, was tZle topranked community issuing buiIding pennits in Benton Comq during the second quarter of 2005 with 321 pcmics, whiIe FayetteviIle, located within the IO-mile radins in Washington County issned 203 permits, maldng it the topranked ctlmrrmnity issuing bnildiag permits in that county WARE, 2005). The issllancc of residential permits during the second quarter of 2005 was up 12% compared to the secand quarter of 2004 (HWARPC, 2005). Benton and Washington counties experienced an increase h m 20(14 in Single-family wnstmction (up 29%) and duplex constm~on (up 197%), while both comtks experienced a decrwse io mnlti-family construction (down 24%) (NWARPC, ZOOS).

ApproximateIy 23 habitable, structures exist within 300 ft of the proposed ROW (Table 4-2). In adation, stved d charches and cemeteries are Iocated in the general study area. A review of USGS topogaphic maps of the stildy acest indicate fwe churches and seven cemeteries exist within two d e s of the proposed route (m Egure 1-1).

.

TABLE 4-2

rYPE OF STFWCTURE AND APPROXIMATE DISTANCE TU ROW

- I 2 3 4 5 6 7

Land Use

1631

4.7.2 Impacts

Land use impacts from transmission line constmction are determind by the amount of land (of Varying usage) displaced by the actual ROW and by the compatibility of d d c trauSmisSion h e ROW With adjacent land uses. During construction, temporary impacts to land uses within &e ROW could occur due to the movement of workers and materials through the area Construction noise and dwt, as well as temporary disruption of t n E c flow, may also temporarily affect residents and businesses in the =ea immediately adjwent to the ROW. Coordination by SFVEPCO with contractors, landowners, and USFS staff regamIing a m to the ROW and eonstrnction scheduhg should minimize these disruptions. The primary critmia c o ~ d e r d to rrmeasure potential land use impacts for this projeel hduded proximity to habirablc stnrctraes {e-g., residences, business&, schools, churches, hospitztls, nmsing horn, etc.), Iagth pamlIef to e-g ROW, length p d e l to property lines, and overall route Iength (see Table 4-3).

Generally, one of the most importarrt m e s of potential land use impacts is the number of habitable strnctures l m k d in the general viciniey of cach route. P B S M staff &mined the number and dim= of habitable stmetures dong each route by evaluating aerial photography and conducting field surveys, where possible. hplementation of the NeAction alternative wouldnot impact tbe existing land use in the study area. The Preferred Alternate Route enco~nter~ approximately 23 habitable skucture.s within 300 ft of the proposcd ROW as well as five churches and seven ccmctciies 1o-M within 0.5 milc of the proposed ROW (see Figore 1-1). However, the Norwood Church and Cemetay is located within 0 5 rniIe of the Chambers Spring Substation; rhus, this area would bc impacted regatdless of the route chosen. In addition, the Bmh Creek and Hamon church md cemetery is also Iocated within 0.5 mile of the Tontitown Snbstation so this area would be impacted regardless of the rank chosen.

Based on a comparative analysis of all ronte dtmatives (using b f o d o n in Table Sl}, the Southem Route (Alternative 4) ranks the best when considering the minimization of fand use impacts. Tbc Wpossd Ahnative (Eastem Route) bas the mask impacts to land use. The proposed project is hmnshtent with the c m t h d use of national forest and rural, Iow-denSity residential dcvclopments. MSO, the Preferred Alternate Route has 23 habitable strnctures within 300 ft of the proposed ROW (see figure 1-1). Tn addition, the Preferred Alternate Route is facated within 0.5 mile of Wedington Church, Nomood Cbnrch, White Oaks Church, Hamon Church, and Bmsh Creek Church. Norwood Church and Cemctery is located within one haIf mile of the Chambers Spring Substation, and Brush creek Church and Cemetery as well os Hamon Church and Cemetery is Iocated approximately 0.5miIe of the Tontitown Substation; thns, these areas would be impacted regardless of the route chosen. Paralleling the existing 161-kV line b u s h the project does provide an opportunity to lessen the degree to which the proposed transmission line may dtcr the m u n d i n g lmd use.

4.8 SOCIOECONUMlCS

This section pments a brief summary of economic and demographic conditions for Bentoa and Washgton m t i c s and the Stale of Arkansas. Literature sources =+wed include publications by the

1632

Arkansas Department of ~ o d $ o x e Swviocs ~ w s ) , ~urean of Labor Statistics @U), University of Arkansas - Little Rock WALR] InstitUte of Economic Advancement (ZEA), the W.S. Census B m U (B0C);and the USDA.

4.8.1 Affected Environment

As shown on Figuxe 4-2, Benton and JVasbgmn counties have both experienced rapid population growth since 1980 in comparison with that of the state. The population growth rates for Benton and Washingtan counties were mbxbntially p t e r during the 1990s than d d n g thc 198Os, while the state experienmd more moderate increases m population growth rates dmhg the same timr? periods. Dtrring the 198Os, Benton and Washington counties experienced population growth rafes of 25.9%, 12.98, while the state expehced a moderate growth rate of 2.8%. During the 199Os, Benton and Washington counties' population mcreased by 56% and 39.I%, and ranked as the fastest and smd-frtstest gmwhg cauntifs in the state (BOG 2(3OOa, 2000b). By comparison, the stak's population increased 13.7% d e g the s m period (UALR, m3; BOC, 1990,zoOOb).

As shown 00 Figure 4 4 , Benton and Washinan cornties are projected to grow at a rate r n ~ than five times and more than three times, than that of the State of A r b a s during thts next 30 years,. Benton County is expected to increase its popuIatim by 462%, 35.1%, and 224% during the 2OOOs, ZOlOs, and 2020s. Washington Cumy is expected to increase its population by 26.8%,21.6%, and 15.9%. W e the state js expected to hmease its papdation by 8.4%, 17.4% aad 7,7% during the some h e pWioaS w u 2003). Based on infondion provided in USDA (Zoos), employment adjacent and related to the OzarkSt Francis national forests consists d y of (1) service-refated jobs, (2) retail trade, and (3) manufacturing (Table 4-31, In 2001, employment in Benton C o m q was weighted most heavily in (I) business and professicmd services, (2) trade, tmsprtation, and utilities, and (3) manufacturing, similar to the forest area totals mentimed previously, while employment m Washington Cum9 was weighted most heavily in (1) trade, transportation, mdntilities, (2) manufacturiag, and (3) government Figure 4-3). By ZOOS, there were drops in employment for both counties in the natunl sources and mining as wezl as maaufacturing sectors and a rise in all other secbrs, most notably constmction and trade, transportation, and ntilities for Benton C4unty and financial activities and consmction for Washington County. This shift away from m t u d resources md rrtining as well as manufacturing empIoymeat, and toward trade, transportation, and utilities, as wen as professional, business, education, financial, and health senrices, has kept 3entm aud Washiagton counties' employment patterns M a r to that of the state since 2001. The largest disparity between employment in Benton and Washington counties and the state exists in the consmction sector as northwest Arkansas continaeS to grow at a rate much faster than thc state. Employment for the State of Adamas m 2001 and 2005 was highs in the (1) trade, transportation, and atdities, (2) manuhctming, and (3) gavwnment sectors, together making up appmxbatdy M% of c m p l o p n t for both years @ W S W .

1633 FIGURE 4-1

POPULATION TRENDS ANI3 PROJECTIONS BY COUNrY AND STATE

BENTONCOUNlY

39BO 3990 2000 2003 2010 2020 2030

Y8X

300,000

250,000

50,000

0

WASHINGTON COllNrY I

19880 1990 2000 2OD3 2010 2020 2030 Year

STATE OF ARKANSAS I I 4.000

3 3,500 3,000

c a

2,500

1,500 3 l.000 2 5D0

5 2,000 0

U - a

1900 1990 2000 2003 zoia 2020 2wa

Year I

44tMllOW250 4-25

1634 FIGURE 4-2

MAJOR EMPLOYMENT SECTORS 2ND QUARTER 2005

BENTON COUNTY Govwnment Nshaal

I

WASHINGTON COUNIY

44162frnsv250 4-26

1635 FIGURE 4-3

CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE AND UHEMPLOYMENT RATE

BENTON COUNW

1990 2Qm rpar

WASHINGTON C O U W

2000

YWr

I STATE OF ARKANSAS I

4416211060250 4-27

1636

TABLE 4-3

OZARK-ST. FRANCES AREA EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR INCOME

Employment (jobs) Labor Inmrna @I maons) AreaToW -related AreaT- FS-Related Industry

Agriculture 22,130 100 $44029 $1.3 Mining 850 1 32 @?.O $5.8 Corusfnrction 2 8 , a 9 i $835.3 s2.7

Tranw&n, Communlatiun, UliTrHes 21 $21 8 95 $83i -6 $4-1 bVholesale TmdQ 10.468 117 $41 3.3 $5.0

F-, Insuranea, and Real E!?.!ah 16,759 io6 $396.1 $29

Government (Federal, State, and h l ) 44141 389 $1,267.6 $172 Miscellaneous 1,787 9 $143 50.1 TOW 354,670 3,814 $9,773.3 $85.8 Percent of Total trn.D% 1 .I% 100.0% 0.9%

Manufacturing 65,166 32.6 !g#los.& S9.6

Retail Trade Ssrn 1,192 sf ,673.9 $18.7

senrices 79,863 w4.8 sr,sa4.4 $19.5

*Arm tndtcates orarkst F-8 F&tlortal Forest. source: WSDA, 2005.

As shown on Figure 4-3, the civilian labor force (m in the State of ArkEtnsas increased by 1.3% from 993,000 to l,fZ5,MH3 during the 1980s, while similar data for Benton and Washington countk iS unavailable. l h b g the 199Us, the growth in labor force was greater for Benton and Washington cowties than the state. Baton County experienced a 5.7% increase in the Wor force, increasing from 48,825 to 76,650, Washington County expricnced a 3.5% increase in l ab r force, inmasing from 58,850 to 79,600, and the State of m a s had a 1.2% increase in its CLP, increasing from I,I25,000 to 1,256,000, during the 19900s (set: E p e 441. From 2000 to December 2005, Benton and Washiugton conntieS labor force experiend dramatic growth, fram 76,650 to 97,3325, repmmtjng an increase of 25.7% in Washington Cormty. The State of Arkansas, however, demonstrated more moderate growth oE 3.4% pws, ma. From 1990 to December 2005, Benton and Washington counties’ unempIayment rates bave re&d n a y identical as well as considerably lower than figures posted by the state thtougboat the paiod (see Figure 44) (DWS, 206). Beuton Comty had an uncmpIoyment rate of3.6% and 2.8% during the 1990s and 2O00, respectively, and Washington County had ;ill nnempIoyIllent rate of 3.7% and 2.9% during the same Lime period. The state’s unemployment rate was 6.8% and 4.2%, respeCtivcIy, d a g the same t k r ~

~Criods. In k m b w of 2005, Benton and Washington counties posted uneqloymcnt rates of 2.4% and the unempIoymmt rate at state lev4 increased sligbfly to 4.3% @WS, 2006).

I

I 44*821mC1 4-28 I m!3

f637

In ZOOZ, there were approximately 2,376 farms in Benton County, covering approximately 312,646 m, and approximately 2,800 fanns in Washington County, covering appmhately 367,638 acres. The average market value of agicnlmral products per farm was $151,908 in 3entm h n t y , $112,012 3 Washingtan County, and $104,256 per farm statervide. Xn 2002, the total market value of agriculturaf products sold in Benton County was $360,932,000, representing an increase of 4% since 1997, while the toid market vdne of agricurtural products sold in Washington County was $313,634,000, representing a decrease of 146. Benton and Washington counties ranked first and second, respectively, in h a Stab of Arkansas i0 terms of the total value of agcicultural products sold in 2002. In Benton County, livestack sal= =presented 98,754, or $356,203,000, of the mar& value in 2002, while crop sdes repmented 1.3% or $4,734004 of the marker value. In Washington County, livestock sales represented 98.68, or $309,271,004 of the market vduc in 2002, while crop sales represented 1.496, or $4,362,000, of thc maikct value. Poultry and eggs were the livestock conunodity yiclding the greatest &et d u e among dl fivestack sales for bath counties. Also, forage (laud used for all hay and haylag, grass silage, and geenehop) brought the greatestcrop &et valne in 2002 in both cormties (USDA, 2006).

4.8.2 Impacts

From an economic perspective, potential enhnmatzll consequences within the ozark National Fomt include a possible redaction of timbcr avaiMle for harvesting as well as a reduction in habitat used by game s p i e s important for recfiatimal hunting. In 2001, the Ozark-St. Francis National Farests barvested a combined 54,000 ccf (4 equals 100 cubic ft) (VSDA, 2003b). The proposed f5&ft ROW bvcrses &e national forest and City of Fort Smith property for approx*mteIy Z1,OM) fint?ar ft, and the potential clearing d d impact the current harvest rate.

Agidture, partiailar-2~ poultry prodaction, is the primary land use within the study area in regions beyond fhc national forest bonndasy. Potcntial impacts to agrienltnd land zzses inclnde disruption or preemption of a @ d d activities. However, amis used for grazing (either pasture or mge) arc less affected by the location of transmls ' sion h e corridors than other agridhrral practices, such as farming. A swndary, but hcreasingIy Cpmmon, land use in the study mea is Iow density, SingIe-famiy residentid devclopmnt.

The type and location of transmission h e structures used m agricultural areas ue factors nsed in determiniag the nature and d e p of potential impacts to fanning operations and eqnipment movement. Genefly, singlepole srructures impact agricultural land Jless than H-frame or M c e towers becaase they prcsent a smaller obstade md take up Iess actual acreage at the hnndation. Stmctures (and routes) Iocmd along field dges @ropmy lines, mds, drainage ditches, etc.) &neraly present fewer problem for agricUrturaI operations than a route running across an open field.

Since the ROW for this Project would not bc fenced or otherwise separated from adjacent lands, there wonld be no long-term or significant displacement of farming or @g activities. Most existing land uses (with the exception of forestry) may be resumed following constraction. No m p h d or pastudand

m 44 1621: 1060250 4-29 I

1638

irrigated by chle-pivot or other mobile mechanical means was identified by PBSWs field smeys or review of aerial photography.

Implementation of the No-Actian alternative may result m impacts to land me with the stady area that m y Wt fkom not reinforcing the traosmissiw line infrastructure, However, i m p b m d o n of the No- Action alternative wontd m l t in Zimiting the possibility ta expand or improveutility service to northwest Arhmas. In fact, this alternative may constrain economic growth for the region.

The Preferred Alternate Ronte is within 300 ft of approximately 23 habitable stroctures, &ly located in the noaheast potion of the study mt& A p p m m l y 36% of the proposed action altmative traverses the ozaik NatiDnal Forest. Greater than 90% of the pmposed ROW within tbe f o m pmkls exisdng 161-kV t r a n d o n b e ROW, which may lead to rninimiimg disturbance through the national fort%

The cumulative econoec impact of the Proposed Action alternative is reliable utility serrice which may serve as B d y s t for WntinUing and prhaps expanding the recent popnlation and ~ o n o n r i c growth m noahwcstArkansas. -

AES~HETICS I

4.9

4.9.1 Affected Environment

me topographic variation within the snrdy area is approximately 4110 ft; the Illinois River bisects the area; rhe vegetation is a mixturn af oawhickorylpioe and pastoreland: and a small, but hmshg, degree of human development or alteration cnrrently exists in the area. The USDA states that the vegetative cover is u p h d hadwood of o&-hickory with scattered pine and bmhy andermwth, dominated by such species as dogwood, maple, redbud, seruiceberry, and witch-hazel. This makes the Ozark National Forest one of thr: favorite places for visitors m the spring when the dogwood and redbuds are in bloom, and in the fall when the forest tums into a brilliant display of oranges, reds, yeUows, and greens (USD& 2003a). As mnch of northwest Arkamas is becoming rapidly urbanized as the popnlation expands, fhc pmjcct study nreamnainsatranquilara

Access to the Ozark National Forest is gained thrwgh SH 16 as well as munerozls county a d fomt service roads. Permanent vimal openings h the forest are the result of roads, utility ROW? and deveIoped recmtion sites. Temporary visual openings occur from timber harvesting, windstom, wMfms, insects, and disease, Visnal quality objectives for the proposed transmission line are considered from viewsheds of roads and highways. According to the Proposed Forest Mauagement Plan, the Landscape Managemrtt Goals are to provide (1) natnral and culnzral featrrres and landscapes that provide min tah theit "sense of pfxc;" (2) landscapes which possess B vegetation pattern and species mix that is natural. in appeataace; and (3) built elements and landscape alterations which compIemmt hdscape characteristics. In addition to the Landscape Management Goals, the Ozark National Forest's Scenery Management gods includc thc use of the best e n v i m m t d design practices to h a m o n k changes in the Jmdscapa and to advance enhmental ly sus le design solntions, the restoration of landscapes to d u c e visual effects of

1639

nonconforming feantres, aad maintain thc integrity of de expansive, n a t u d landscapes and mditional cultural features that provide the distinctive chmckr of placcs as w d as maintain the character of key plans in order to sustain their valued &hibum (VSDA 2005). In addifion, P3SW considered viewsheds from parks and recreational aws, churches, schools, and cemeteries (see TabJe 3-11,

4.9.2 Impacts

Visual Quality impacts, or impat% upon aesthetics, exkt when the ROW, limes, andlor structures of a transmission Line system create an intrusion into, or substantially dkr the character of, an existing d c view. Tbe significance of the impact is M y related to the gudity of the view, in the case of natural scenic areas, or to the importance of the existing setting in the use andor enjoyment of an area, in the case of valued community mourns and recreational areas.

In order to evaluate impacts to an area's visual quality, field surveys wtrc conducted ta determine the gcneraf aesthetic character of the area and the degree to which the Proposed Adon alternative wodd be visible from seIected area of potcatid community value. These a r m generally include residentid areas, parks and mnat iond areas, particular scenic vistas encountered during the fieId suruey, and U.S. and state Mghways that traverse the stndy arts. Measurements were made to estimate the length of each alternative route that would fafl within recreatiand or major highway foreground visual mnes (one-half d e , unobstructed). The determination of the visibility of the transmission line from various points was ealcalattd from USGS maps and georefercnced a d imagery, and was verifiied in the field, where possible.

Construction of the proposed 345-kV transmission line could have both temporary and permanent aesthctk affects. Temporary effects wodd indude views of the acmd construction (assembly and erection of the struches) and any clearing of the ROW. Where limited cl&g is required in woodd areas, the brush and wood debris could have a temporary negative impact on the Zccd visual environmmt. Pemanent aesthetic impacts from the pmjd may occur from the views of the slructures and lines themselves as well as views ofcle-md ROW, particularly through tbe forested areas. However, !he Visual resources have already been disturbed by the existing 161-kV hc, so any new changes to the existing landscape should cause little additional visnd impact.

Impfemcnntation of the No-Action dtemdve would not require any ROW clearing, constfllcth, or instalkion and presence of structures and lines and would remtlt in 110 temporary or permanent impacts to the vis& quality of the ma. The visual @ty would remain snbject to the natural innuen- already in place, hcfuding openings created by wind damage, fm, or kffes. This would provide limited viewing oppoMties from the roadways into the national forest. As individual mes die, they would create small openings and s&nds with a mixture of both live trees and snags.

lihc R e f e d Alternate Route is within !he visual foreground i m e of US. and stak higbways for approXimately 5,875 h The visual foreground m e is defined as an unobstructed view of the bimmission line ROV for approl;imateIy one h d f mile. The Preferred Alternate Route is wilhin the

I 1640

visual foreground zone o€ he Ozark National Forest for approximakly 41,125 ft or 84% of its totaz length (see Table 3-1). As previously stated, mch of the proposed ROW parallels existing 161-kV ROW thus &sting ROW would need ra be expanded and less new ROW would be reqaired. Jn alddition, the Propod Action alternative is willin the visual foreground zone of no ~choals, churches, or cemeteries.

The CUMulative impacts upon the area's visual quality fiom the Proposed Action dtcmtive would include a decreased nafmal setting and increased industrial presence within the nationd f m t . Road cuts and dead vegetation wonld be temporarily visually displmshg until these mas are screened from View by new vegetation. The long-tmimpacts to visual quality wouId be m i n i through ROW vegetation management acthities thatpromotenative early s e d habitats.

4.1 0 CULTURAL RESOURCES (PREHISTORIC AND HISTURIC)

4.1 0.1 Affected Envkonrnent

The general prehistoric cultnd seqnence in the region has been previously addrmd in numerous synthesis mcIu&g, O'Brien and Wood (1998), and Sabo et d. (1990). The following is a brief srumnary of the Pdeohdh, Archaic, Woodland, and Mississippiau CaltaraI periods as they relate to the study area.

4.1 0.1 .I Paleolndian Perlod

The Palmindian period f10,00&7500 B.C) is represented by only a few sites and small &fact collections. Paleohdian sites oeclv in the nphds or on high ternces, and m i o n a l l y , in basal cn1tu-d deposits of bluff shelters, generally repmenling short-term habitations by small, highly nomadic groups. During the early part of the Paleohdin, assemblages arc clmrachtxd by distinctive bmeohbshapcd flnted points h o r n as CIovis. DuEing the later Pdeoindian, project points are basally &ed famedate forms. Both d y and late assernbhges contain scrapers and burins. The Dalton point type is reperrtative of tbe end of tbe Paleoindian, ca 850[1-7500 B.c., and often assigned to a separate period. Dalton site inventories o h includes adzes, bone artifacts, gromdstona &der6 and sandstone mortars, The paucity of sim m the OzarE; highlands, particulady those dating to the Pal~indian period, may be due to the relativeIy low population density and limited use. It has been snggcstcd that Pdeohdian popnlatiws specialized in hunting large Pleistocene game, however, recent evidence suggests a vatiety of forest and prairie plant and animal ~csources were also expIoited, hcipitated by vegetational shifts associated with the Pleistccene-Holocene transition, sabsistence had certainly sbifkd from big-game hunting to exploitation of a morc diverst: animal and assemblage mphasizing dccr and possibly elk as w d l as nuts by late Palmindian or Dalton times.

4.1 0.1.2 ArchaIc Period

The Archaic period is traditianally distinguished from the previous Palmindim pe&d by an in-4 emphasis OZL diven5carion of subsistence resources and increased used of plants and d mhl, especially rabbit and sqiuirrel, as food sources as well as a prolifemh~ of point types. Based on current

I 1641

information, it appears that Archaic sites are located d y in the valleys and upland mar&inS h d e g the major stream valfeys. Assemblaga of the Early A ~ h a i c (75oa-S000 B.C) include comer-notched point type varieties like Rice Lobed as wcll as fd grooved axes and celts. Middle Archaic period (5000- 3000 B.CJ point forms include Jakie stemmed, 3ig Sandyrwhitc River Side-Notched, and Other early notchwl forms. Early Arch& and Mddie A d ~ a i e complexes have been poorly M m e d for this podon of the Ozarks. The W d evidence fmEar€y and Middle Archaic occupations is likeIy due to a combinati~~ of factors, including a lack of geomorphological resmch for detecting buried sites, the very limited site

inventory at hand, inadcqwe definition of Early Archaic and MiddIe k h a i c diagnostic artifacts, and the conthuahn of low population densities. The Latc Archaic Mod (3000-1000 B.C) has tradithnally been distingUished from the later Woodland period by the absence of ceramics, the bow and BLXDW, elaborate bnrial practices, and food production. However, w r i t information has accunmlated to indicate that the beginnings of ceramic production, elaborate burial pradm, and food produdon were manifested in some parts of the Miawest by at Ieast the middle Late Archaic period, or earlier. Late Arcbaic assemblages include asmkty of stemmed and notched p r o j d e points sach as Gary, Pandale and Uvalde types and extensive usc of ground stone implements including adzes, axes, plummets and bannerstones. hte. h h a i c sites appear to be very common ia the Ozarks, a Iikely r d d w of substantial regional popction gmm. Late Archaic sites arc somtimes characterized by rCrrge quantities of lithic debris and chipped stone tools, mostly prodneed fiom I d l y availatile mataials. The Late Archaic period riqrcrmts the cu?mhation of intensive exploitation of various forest reso- with increasing localization of fesource procurement and settlement swegies. As a resalt, the d d assemblages contain more varied tool forms than for the earlier periods. Aaifaca found at Archaic sites, for example, may include bad-notched and straight-stemmed proj&iIe pointsflmives, Ianceolate pohtdhives, a varkw of W s , piano-convex gouges, rectanguloid digging tools, chopping tools, htunmerstones, nunos., celts, h e q u a r t e r grooved axes, and worked hematite.

''

4.1 0.1.3 Woodland Period

ne Woodland (lo00 B.C.-m. 9000) was a time of substantial technoIogiCat change including, among others, the widespread pmduction of ceramics and later, the introduction of the bow and arrow. It is a stage marked by changes in ideology, by elaborating sethment and sociopolitical systems, and by an overall shift h m mixed fomging and hodcultural economies to those emphasizing agriculhual produceion. Lifeways d h g the early Woodland was largely a continuatiw of seasonal migration with limhcd horticulture of the preceding Archaic period, by the Middle Wuodhd (500 B.C.4.D. 400) and W Woodland (0. WOO), aboriginal groups were largely sedentary. The Middle Woodland period represents a tim of aetive W e and burial mound commdion, although the Hopewell influence was probably limited in the central Ozarks and the region may have remained peripheral to these major riverine developments. The Late Wodand is mkd by substantial reductions in trade, but also a time of cmthud popularion gmwth and economic eEticnq. 'Ihe bow and arrow was inldtwd into the southern Ozarks during themiddle orIatterpart.oftheLate Woodlaad t ims.

c

1

4.15.l.4 Mlsslssippian Pedod

1642

The Mississippian period (AD. 900-1700) is not well represented in most of the Ozarks, incIuding the mdy area Outside of the Ozarks, the Misshippian period is snarkcd by the development of chiefdomlevel political p u p s consisting of a ccntml town snrmunded by smaller villages, hamla, and farmsteads. CentraI towns and larger vilJages had platform mounds that temples and clite residences occupied. Shell-tempered pottery, typical of Mississippian sites is occasionally found in the O&, but it usually does not snrvive in open sites, Archaeolopjcal evidenw of the protohistoric and early historic Indian presence northwestem Arkansas has proven to be illusive. Chapman et aL (1960) report that ki most inslances it was! not possibk to separate late Mississippian, protohisto~c, and eady historic components in the rean. . McDowell Cave in Barry County is one documented site in the Ozarks that yielded historic hade goods mixed with Mississippian artifacts ( A h , 1941).

4.j 0,lS Historic Background

The first recorded Enmpean hcursion into Arkansas was made by che D e Soto expedition in 1541, bnt Ewo-Amcrican impacts were probably extremely minimal until tbe earTy eighteenth century when lands west of and drained by the Mississippi River were c o n t d e d by the French and non-aborjginal artifacts begin to occur in aboriginal assemblages. This Louisiana Territory was d e d to the Spanish in 1762, but was returned to Fiim in 1800. At the time of their first contacts with Europeans, the Osage Indians claimcd all of the land est of the Mississippi EYCT to the Rocky Momtah and sou& of thc M i S s o ~

occupied the tmitory. In 1803 the ozarks region became part of the United States whcn it was bought from France In ibe Louisiana Purchase. Some of ae earliest settlers in the h & s were hunters and herders but by the 183oS, the economy had shifted to subs'mence agricultrne and basbandry. Arkansas was organized into a tedory in 1819. In 1828, Osage and Cherokee kdiaas tbat occupied northeastern portion of Arkansas we= forced to move west into the Oklahoma Territory, o p i n g the land for Euro- American settlement. In 1828, soon after the Indian removal, Washington County was cm&d from part of Cmwford County and m e d after Pmident George Washington. Wbm Arhsas b e a r m a state in 1836, Baton County was created from part of Washington County. Both Benton Comity and the county seat of Bentonvine were a d in hanor of U.S. Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Miss~Uri, who championed westward expanSion and was instnunentaI in helping the k h a s Tedory achieve statehod (Goodspeed, 1889). The &est permanent E t m - W c a n settlers of present Washington and Benton couties arrived during fh late 1820s and early 1830s, settling first ia the centrpl part of Washington County around FayetteviUe and Cane, and in the northan part of 3enton Gmty in the m around present &y Maydle, Bentondc and G*ld However settlement did not occtmed in &C study areaantil the latt 1830s and early 1840s. EJm Springs was established in 1848 and Tontitown was established by Italian immigrants in 1898. By the early BIOS, the flrst apple orebards in the county were p h n d in Benton County, laying the foundations for an important m o m for the region. Washington and Benton counties saw significant activities dudng the Civil War, including, in 1862, the BaUIe of Pea

River to the Arhms.River. i It is not known jpst w b m the tribe originated or how long they had

Ridge (EIkbom Tavern in northeastem 3enton County, the largest baule fought wwt of the Missisippi

1643

44162l/060250

River. Much of Bentonvine was burned in 1862 during Civil War actions and FayctteviUe saw action when Confederate forces attached Union occupiers of the city in 1363, The University of Arkansas Was

established in FayetteviUe in 1871. Outside of Fayctteville, the area's economy conhued to center mmd agriculmre until the mid-twentieth century. Silvadmre is an important resource in the study afea since the establishment of the Omk Natianal Farest in 1908. Today, ntuch of the area is g d toward the commercialization, much of it associated with the aperation and ekploitalion of ma fakcs and he locatiun of Wal-Matt's corporate o€fices in the Benton County.

w 4-35

4,102 lmpacts

Fifteen cultural m o m sites occur within the mmnrly proposed a r a of potential cffmts (APES) of the proposed dtcrnate route and are descnlbed below.

Sites 33E317 stnd 3BE321: Sitcs 3BE317 and BBE321 were ~ ~ o r d d during a USFS management survey in 1982. Site 3BE317 consists of a small sparse scatter of lithic debris and tools neac the h d of an upland drainagc. The age of the Site and the depth of deposits is unknown, Site 3BE32I consists of a sma21 sparse scatla of blue tinted boae fngments located adjacent to an old road bed near the head of an upland drainas. IBc a@ of the site and the depth of deposits is unhowa. Thc sits' potentbl eligibiliry for the National Register of Historic Places is currently unevaluated. The sites are: bisected by the proposed ROW of the Eastern AIternative Route and may be affected by ROW canstmction within the sites' boundaries unlcss they can be avoided.

Sites 3BE426 and 33E430: Sites 3BE426 and 3BE430 were mr&d during arrbivd Eesearcb BS chc locations of strncture indicated on the FayetteviUe USGS 30-rninutt quadtangle map dating to 1899. The extent of remains or depth of deposits is nnhown and the sites' potential eligibdity for the NRHP is cun-cntly unevduated, The si- are bisected by tbc pmposcd ROW a€ the Eastem Alternative Ronte md may be affected by ROW constmction within the sites' boundaries UnIeSs they can be avoided.

Site 3WA266: Site 3WA26S consists of a lithic debris and tool scatter Iomted withiin a mksheIter and bluff above tfie shelter. Thc sire was recorded during an Arbsas Archeological Survey summer training session b 1977. The site has been heavily impacted by bddoising and powerlime consuuction and mahtenance. The age of the remains and depth of deposits is unhown and the site's potential eligi>itity far the NRHP is currently unevaluated The site is bisected by the proposed ROW of the Southem Alternative Route and may be affected by ROW construction within the site's boundaries d e s s it can be avoided.

Site 3WA450: Site 3WA450 consists of a small sparse s c a m of lithic debris and tools near the head of an upland drainage off of m urnnamed trihsaty of the lllinois River. Site 3WA4SO WILS xecorded during a forcst service management survey in 1982. The age of the site and the deprh and extent of deposits is unborn. The site's potcn&l e&ibdity for the NRRP is currently uncvduatcd. Site 3WA450 is bisected by the proposed ROW of the Eastern Alternative Route and may be affected by ROW construction within the sib's boundaria "'$"s it can be avoided

1644

S i t e 3WA32gS,3WAl289,3WA1293,3WA1294,3NAl29%, 3WA1299,3WAl304, "305, and 3WAl306: Thsc nine eriltnral resource Sites were recorded d&g a dtml r e s o u w w c y of a proposed lran&ssion line h 2005. Site 3WA1288 con&& of a small sparse lithic scatter located at the base of an upland tenace slope above Spring Creek Site 3WA1289 ctmsis(s of a medium-sized lit& and burned ruck scatter lccated at the edge of the Illinois River floodplain. Site 3WA1293 is a W subsurface lithic and burned rock scatter dong the narrow floodplain of a tritmtary of the I h o i s River, Site 3WA1294 is a large surface and subsurface Ethic and burned rock swrter dong tbe floadplam of Spring creek Site 3WA1298 consists of a scatter of lithic and faunal r e d associated witb l ars eompIex of rock shelters and caves on both sides of a lribntaq of the xllinois River. Site 3WA1299 consists of a large IithiL scatter on a h o U at thc month of a tributary drainage's confluence with the Illinois River floodpl I Sit0 3WA13M consists of a Iarge lithic scattat on a fold dong the floodphh of Clew G-eek Site 3WT305 consists of a large lithic scatter located within a rockshelter and bluff above the shelter east of the Illinois River. Site 3WA1306 consists of a small W c scatkr located Witbin a ruchhelter and bluff dong an unnamed tributary of the Jlhois River With the exception of Site 3WAI288, which is not NRHP eligible, all of the sites' potential eJ@bXty far h e N" is cmently unevduated. These nina sites are bisected by the proposed ROW of the Soutbcrn Alternative Ronte. Site 3WA1294 is also bis-d by the proposed ROW of the Eastern Altemtive Route, Thesc nhe si@ may be nffeckd by ROW c~struction Within the sites' boundaries unless they can be avoided.

Thirty-seven additional sites am located within 1,000 ft of the proposed ROW dtemaiim. Along the no&m alkmak m u sites 3BE227,3BE228,3BE332,3BE473,3BE477,3BE478,3BE479,3BEA80, 3BE481,3WA1253, an 3WM2s4 are located. Moog the eastem alternate route, sites 3BE322-,3BE325, 33341,3BE432,3B 1 ,3BE445,3BE681,3WA448, and JWA449 are located. Along the sonthem alternative, sites 3WA$ 3W-, 3WA252, 3WA267, 3WA%S, 3WA270, 3WA687, 3WA1284, 3WA1285, 3WA1291, 3WA1296, 3WA1297, 3WA1300, 3WA1301, 3WAl302, and 3WAB03 are Iocakd, Site 3BE584 is hxtd dong both thc northern and eastera alternative mutes and site 3WA1189 is located along all three dtematives. Sites 3BE325, 3BE432, 31313444, 33E44-6, 3BE473, 3BM77, 3BE481,3WA687,3WA1189, and 3WAI300 are historic in nahm. The remainder of the 37 Sites are p&tonc in nature. Sites 3BE332,3WA5 and 3WA252 arc: ansidered to be NRHP eligible, Sites 33E584 and 3BE1254 are considered to be heligible for h e NRHP- Hone of the remhhg 32 sites are known to have been evduated with regard to potential eligibility for the NRHP. Although no direct impact is anticipated to these 37 s ib from the project, iscreased indirect impact d d be d s e d k a u s c of he project's proximity. Howwcr, folloving wnsmxdon, additional in- impact from transmission line ROW maintenance and increased access along the maintained ROW will likely be negligi'ble.

Corrcspmden= received from the Department of Arkansas Heribg*Mcansas Kstoric PreservAon Program (sa lCkr dated Angust 25,2006, Appendix D], indicates that 10 total sim are sufficiently near the APE to bc of concern. Fnrther, hey acknowledge that the digihiity of 9 sites for inclnsion in the NRl3P is undetermined. One site was detemined to be not eligibIe for inclusion in the NRHF. As was indicated by the &put State Historic Presmtioa Officer, jf alI the sites were avoided and prutectd t

1645

I

5.0 REFERENCES

Adam, LM. 1941. Rockhouse Cave. The Missouri ArchaeoIogist 7: 18-27.

Arkansas GeaIagical Commission (AGC) Information CimIar 36- 1998. Stratimphk summary of &kansas, cumpired by JB. McFarland

-. 1998. Stratigraphic Summay of the Ozark Plateaus Region. h#p$date.ar.udagdomkhbn (accessed Jamrary 20,2006).

Avian Power Line htemctioa Commitlee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collions with power lines: the state of the art m 1994. Edison Electric Institute. Washingion, D.C. 77 pp. + qqs.

Impacts of transrmss ' ion limes on birds in flighk PFoccedings of a Woikshop. Oak Universities. Oak Ridge, Tanessee. Inter-agency Agreement No. 4C-570-76

ofthe Intmior and U.S. Department of En=* FWS103S-78/48.151 pp

of bid cobions with tmmnksion lincs. Bomevdlc Power

US. Census Bureau OC). 1490 American Fa-der. 1990 Stmunary Tape of US Ceosas Data httpJ/facthder. ~.gov/servlcuDatasetMainPageS ervlet lgmgam=DEC&-hn~ (accessed January 16,2004-

t

-. 2 0 0 0 ~ Population Estimates Program, Population Division. btlp~/m.cenms.gov/popestl ~~vcsll990dcc-99-06l99C6~05.at {accessed February 7,2006).

Center for P h t C h t i o n (CFC). 2006. Center for Plant Conservation Nationnl Collection Plant ProfiIe. http ~/m.ceriterforplmtcans ~ t i o ~ o r ~ A S P 1 C P C - ~ ~ ~ ~ - F ~ ~ (accessed March 2006).

c=bapman, C.H., RA. M m W , l2T. Bray, WX Wood, D.R. Henning, RB. Pangbum, CM. Keller, and BB. Keller. 1960. kchaeulogicd Invsiigations in the TabIe Rock Resarvoir Area Report to National Park SerOicc, Midwest R~eareh Cmter, Lincoh, Nebrash

Davis, 1994

Department of Workibm Services (DWS). 2006. Covered Employment and Earnings. h # p J / w v w . d i s c o v e I n t l (accessed January 13,2006).

Elccftic Power Research Tnstitute 0. 1993. Froceedings: avian htmctions with utility structures. International Wo&shop, Miami, Florida, 13-6 September 1992. EPRI TR-203268, Pdo Alto, Califwnia

1647

Faaborg, L, M. Brittiagham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake. 1992. Habitat hgrnmmtion in the temperate zone: a perspective for managers. In. D.M. Fmch and P.W. Stangd (e&.>. Slatus and management of neotropid migratory birds. USDA Forest Service General Techaid Report RM-229. Fort CoBins, CoIOrado.

Fames, CA. 1987. Bird behavior and mortaIity in relation to power ha in prairie habitats. Fish and Witdlifc T e c h i d Report 7, U.S. Fish and Wildiife Service, W~~bhgton, D.C. 24 p p

Fed& lhergmv Mmgemmt Agency (FEMA). 1991. Flood W m c e Rate Map for Bentan County, Arbs andheoxprated Areas, National F l o o d h m c e program- J V f i g t o n , D.C.

Gall- S.A, Jr. 1978. Migatow behavior aad flight patterns. Ia M L A v q (d), hpact s of Transmission Lines 011 Birds in Flight - Proceedings of a Wofkshap. Pp. 12-26. U.S. Fish and Wirdtife Service, Washbgton, D.C.

t Horizon Environmental S&ces, hc. (Horizon). 2004. Environmental -act Statemmt New Chambers

Spring to Tuntit WIL 345 kV Transmission Line Bentan and WasEngtan Counties, M z n s a s HM 040146 BE. Allstin, Texas. December 2004. P

hncarich, Frank. comudcation between George L. Vaugbt @€orizon, h ~ ) and Frank

on the USGS topographic map of the project area 4 November 2004. Game and Fish Commission- Wedington Unit Ofsee) about " F i t Hatchery"

NatureServe. 2004. NatureSave Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web appliWtionJ. Versiw 4.1 .NatureSwe, Arlington, Virginia. h t t p : / / ~ ~ a ~ ~ e . o ~ a p l a m -

Northwest ATkansas Regional P I d g Commission WAWC). 2005. Regbnal Devdopmt Reports: H o h g worts. htQJhvwawqc.coahousing-reportshm (accessed March 13,2006].

OWen, MJ,, and W.4 Wood 1998. The Rehistmy of hlhouri. UaiverSity of Missouri P-.

OImdorff, Ilft , m. Eiltller, and RN. Lehman. 1981. Suggested p m d m €or raptor prokction on power k. The state-of-the.-art in 1981, Raptor Research Foundation, St. Paul, Mhesota 111 pp.

Pattick T-S., JL Allison, and GA, Ksakow. 2995. Protected Plants of Georgia Cseorgia Department of N u Resources. Social Circle, Georgia.

'Robbins, C.S., D. Dawsm, and B. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirementS of breeding forest birds of the

Rusz, P.J., H.H. Prink, RD. Rwz, and G.A Dawson 1986. Bird collisions WithkansmiSSion lhm near a

Middle A h t i c s t a b . Wildlife Monographs No. 103. The Wildlife Society, Blacksburg, Vi@&

power p h t coo g p o d Wildlife Sociery Bulletin 14441444. f

E648

Sabo, G. ID, A N . Early, J.C. Rose, B.A. Bumett, L. VogeIe, Jr., and J 2 . HartcouL 1990- Human Adaptation in the Ozark and Ouachita Mountains. Arkansas ~ h t d o g i c a t S w e y Research SeticS No. 3 I. Arkaasas Archeological Survey, Faytttwille.

Sm& Edwin B. 1988. An A h and Annotated List of fhc Vascular Plants of Arkansas. Universiry of ArkansSs Prcss, Faycttde.

Stcyermark, Julian A..l963. Ham of MissoUri,The Iowa State University Press, h s , Iowa.

Spclich, Martin A, ed. 2004. Upland oak eco?ogy symposium; history, m e n t conditions, and sustainability. Gen. Tacb. Rep. SRS-72. Asheville, NC U.S. Deparlznent of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southan Research Station. 31 1 p.

Stout, J. and G.W. ComweIl. 1976. Nonhunting mortality of fledged North American watufowl. Journal of WiIdlXe Management 40(4):68 1493 .

Soulhwcstem E I d c Power Company (SWEFCO). 2004. Project description mfonnation and a l b d v e s considered, New Chambers Spring to Tontitown 345 kV TtansmissiOn Lhe, Benton aod Washingto Cornti- Adamas. October 2004.

me have all the b a s gone?: essays in the biology and conservation of birds that Tcrborgb, 1. 1989. migrate to thc &can lmpics. Princeton University Res, Prbxtan, New Jersey. 207 pp. i

Thompson, Frank R, md Daniel R Dessecker. 1997. Mamgement of Early-Succcessional CommUnities Cabal Hardwood Forcsts With Special Emphasis on the h l o g y and Management of O&,

RMcd Grouse, and Forest Songbirds. General Technid Report, NE-195, US. Forest Service.

Tucker, Gary E. 1976. Endangered and lkeatmed Plants of &e Ozarkst. F m d National Fortsts. Mountain View, Adransas.

-1980. Jnvcntog of Tlmateaed a d Endangered Species of the h k S t Fmck Nalional For&. Mountah View, !Arbs=.

I . 1989. Dmfi 'hterjm Management Guide for ozark Chinquapin (Cmtmea pumilu var.

Omkcnsis). Ozark4t. FrancisNational Fomts, MoUrrtain View, Arkansas.

I

1 4416211060250

1649 I

-- 3977. Soil Survey: Benton County, AR. Soil Conservation Service and For& Service, wa&iIlgton, nc.

- .2002. Envkonmental Assessment: Analysis Unit 7, Homochitto NationaI Fomk US. Forest Servict.

.2005. Draft bvjronmenlal Impact Strttemcnt for the Proposd &vised Land and Raource Management Plan. Forest Service - Southem Region, Jmuq 2005. Management BuI?etin R8- MB-123B.

of Agriculture: Arkansas State and County Pmfilw. httpJ/www.nass.usda

Raource Mamgement Plan, O m k National Forest.

Vegetation Management in thc Ozaik1Ouachita

(accessed March 23,2005).

- .I%. Evaluation of Oak Decline Artas in the South, Protection Report R8-PR17.

. I997-present ozark-st. Francis National Forests. R8 h d Bird Records.

- ,1997. Biological Assessment on Indiana, Gray and O d big- Bats, Omrk National Forest, R8. I

.2001. OSFNF, Management Micah Specis Papulation and Habitat Trends.

- ,2002. Omikst. Francis National Forests Threatened and Endangered Species List.

- ,2002.Od4t. Francis National Fomts Sensitive Species L i a US. Fish and Wildlife Service.

- -2002. M a n d 2600, Southern Region (Rcgion S), Supplement m8-2600-2002-2,

. 2003. Handbook 1909.15, Environmental PoIiicy and Procedures Handbook, Chapter 30- Categorical Exclusion From Documentation, Section 30.3-Policy. 44I6211060179 9-5

. 2004. Hurricane creek Watershed Assessment Ozark-St Francis National Forestq Boston Mountain Ranger Dkf& k k , Arkaasas.

Frescnbed Buming and Compartments 417, 419, 420, 423, 422, 423, 424,

582, 645, 664, Ozark-St. Francis Nafiona! Forest, Boston

listed as threatened and c n h g e r d wks of Service, EcoIogical Services Field OEce,

Fom U.S. Fish aad Wildlife S d e e

US. DepL of the Interior,

Conway, M a n s

Washington, D.C.

- . 1990-2001. S$kmic3y of Arkansas. U.S. Deparlmmt of the Interior, Washington, D.C. h ~ f / l w w w ~ n i c . ~ g s . g o v / n ~ s t a ~ ~ ~ (accessed Jawary 20,2006).

Watson, LE. of *a tatebracteata, Waterfall’s sedge, in Arkansas and Uklahonm

lines on birds (and vice versa). In: M L A v q (ed-), FI@t -Aoceedings of a Workshop, m. S7. US. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Ecological ScrVices, Tulsa, Oklahoma

AppendSx A

Arkansas Public Sewice Commission, Docket No. 05421-U, Order No. 7

1651

1652

.

I

-...-- - . .,. , . 4 .. _I..

. .

. . . .. . 4 .

I ' I

* .-

I

. . 1654 .; **: - . . . ..

. *

. . . .* -.. . I -

. .

..

1656

. . - . - I - . ,

..

a-

. . .. - . . , .

1657 I .

. . . . .. . : . D6cizi .NO. Ds-021-u PAGE4 - :: -.

. -:. . . . .- . .

1658

@ . ' .

. .

1659 . . . . - _. . .

. .

..

.-..

9660

. - . . - .-..!-.A .-..- -. . . . ... . . ._...

1.662

:?; .. ...

1663

_.

I. . .

.. . PAGE31 . -

f .

1665

. .

1666

I

I

1667

1668

1 .?

I669

H1.I.

1673

. *

1674

Appendix B

Biological Survey Summary far AEPISWEPCO 345~kV Transmission l ine Project through

Wedington Unit, Boston Mountain Ranger District, &ark=%. Francis NationaI Forest

APPENDIX B

BlOLOGICAL SURVEY SUMMARY

THROUGH WEDINGTON UNIT, BOSTON MOUNTAIN RANGER DISTRICT, OZARK-ST. FRANCIS NATIONAL FdREST

FOR AEPlSWEPCO 345-KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

I .o i N T RU D U CTI 0 N

Biological and karst: smveys were pmhrmed together along thc portion of the proposed AEPISWEPCO 345-kV transmission line mute that crosses the Wedington Unit, which is part of Qe Boston Mom& Ranger District of the Omk& Francis National Forests an May 17-18, 2006 by PBSW Wildlife biologist Gary McClanahan, and P3SM karst geologist fames Killian. The proposed project route be- at the exisling Chambers Spring Substation in Bcnton County, Arkansas, and extends for approximatCly 15.5 miles northeast adjacent to an existing 161-kV tmnsrmss * ion line to the Cxisting Tontitom Substation in Washington County, Arkansas. The project route crossa through public and private lmds including portions of the Wodingtoo Unit and the Illinois River.

The survey transect began from the southwat US. Forest Service border of the. Wedington Unit and conhued dong the proposed project route, pamlld to the existing 161 kV transniSsion h e easement at an estimated 150 feet m width noah of the existing 161-kV transrms * sion iine c e n t m e , to tbe northcastern US. Foxest Service border of the Wedington Unit east of the Iuinois Ever.

* 2.0 BIOLOGICAL SURVEY METHODS .

Thr: objectives of the biological sumey were to identify the presence of Threatened, Endangered, and Sasitivc (TIS) species; and to characterize the vegefafive coommunities within the 150-foot canidor adjacent to the existing transmissiw line caterline through the Wedington Unit prior to the ficld surveys; US. Forest S d c e , U.S. Fish and Wddlife Service, Arkansas Natural Heritage Commissioq and other available text and on-line soufces were utilized to conduct baseline mearch on the project study area, the ozark-st. Frrancis National Forests, and TES species of potenb'al and known mmettce WitbJn thc Wedington Unit

Vegetative communiiy characterizatcms were conducted by docurneating dominant spec& Wilbin each vcgetative strata at a spatial scale dictated by floristic and ph~*ognomic s idar i t ics Witbin a& plant c o w and within the estimated transect boundary. Dominance was estimated by percent cover witbio each mpMve vegetative sham Percent cover wag estimated by a v i d estimation of features hchding heighc caflopy cover, or basal area. Individuals were categorized within a vegetative strahun {k, cauqy/m&tory/lree layer, s W w o o d y vine layw, and herbactouslseedling layer based upon bdividual height M physiognomy fwoody vs. berbaceousD in order to estimatc fay= composition and

1676 APPENDIX B (Cont'd)

layer dominance within the f m t communities. Generaliitions were aIso documented based on hydrophytic regimes and topogmphic slope (;.e., zcric, mesic, hydric). Field guides and dichotomous keys relative to the vegetative region were utilized as aids in p l a t identification. '

3.0 SURVEY RESULTS AND UBSERVATIONS

Generally, the $ant commuuities observed during the s w e y consisted of slight variations of an oak- hickory farest of vnrying densities and individud species cohorts, as well as occasional differerlccs in c0mmUnity seral stages among which indicated some minimal timber barvesting in the past The ~andsmpe is dissected by =Vines cut out by htemiltent and ephemd s l r m n s flowing generally north to swlh and drainiag into t h e Illinois fiver. These ravines con~bute to a m h g topography with s t c q

dopes. DiEmnces in the forest com~unities were noticed primarily at these topographic changes, and minhally at areas of potential disturbance. The major forest c o m m d c s observed at the time of the m e y can be labeled as o&-bichy uplands or billtop communities, mapledogwood mesic slopes and oak-hiekory-maple bottomlaud communities, upland pine communities, upland redmiax communities, and sumac-honeymrckldewbwberry mrment communities,

oak-hickory uplands or Wtops at the time of the w e y were typicatry represented by mature oak- hiekcg kea with fairly open to dense s h b layers and limited herbaceous cover. S h b layers wefe W i d y do* by dogwood (connrSj70niia), maples (A= spp.}, and sapling oaks (Q~(ercus spp.) aad hickories (Cmya spp.). Vines and shrubs included Virginia creeper (Pmhenuchw gtringa$uh), &rim (Smilax spp.), hawhom [Chdugus spp.), and dewberry (Rubus spp.). Most areas within the forwt cammit ics were nearly absent of herbaceous cover. The forest floor remained covered mostly by I d l i f t c r .from the pmious wine however, new seedlings w m beginning to appear- Herbaceous layers were typidy dominated eatirely by nmly homogenous c p d t i e s of Virginia creeper seedlings. Omsionally, some areas were dominated in the h a b a a u s Iayer by seedling oaks, hickories, mubemy (Mom spp.), sass& ( S w q h s atbidurn) dewberry, and poison ivy (Toxicodendron mdicam).

Mesic slope. communiti~ at the rime of the survey were represented by a dominance of mature m a p h and dogwocds, with occasional occurrences of oaks, hickories and other hardwoods. Mesic bottomlands were also characterized by an increase in Occurrence of mapla, American hornbeam (Cmpinus caroIinimm), and occumnces ofnon-vascdar species in the herbaceous Iaya such as ferns, mossa, and liverworts. Some buttomlands M d 5Iqpes wen: represented by an h m e in shnrb Iayer density and d-e m canopy wvm. The ocrmrrene of occasional stumps and few mature species suggest historical sdectivc tinib= harvesting. The thinned canopy cover appeared to be giving rise to a dense shrub layer mqfied of 811 increase of the mmy sfages of juveniie tree s p e c k with occasional eastera redcedar (Jun@m virginiana) along with an increase ofwoody vine species such as dewberry, and greenbrier.

Uplaad pine and uplaad redcedar communities consisted of generally small secludcd areas within oak- hickory uplands that transiiionod to nmfy homogenous stands of either loblolly pine ( P h r taeda) or

1677 APPENDIX 8 (ConPd)

eastern micedar. Due to densc evergreen canopy or midcanopy aerial cover, sunlight was restricted to tbc lower laycrs of the forest floor limihg herbaceous ?aym to m i o n a l tree seedlings, Virginia creeper, grambrier, and dewberry.

Because the &insect paralleled d included part of an existing maintained easemcnt, a major abrupt vegetative change, or ecotone, occurs contniuting to an “edge effect” where the maintained easement meets thc fa& communities. This “edge effect” cunfributd to sighfhg an increased diversity of fauna as opposed to fiuna observed stxictly withia the forest communities. The easement may normally be maintained in an herbaceous vegetative state; however, due the time of the survey being undergone during the peak of the growing season, rhe mjo@ of the easemeat was overgrown by herbmudshrub layers consisting of sumac (Ma sp), Japanese honeysuckle @onicemjapuni@, greenbrier, and dmvbeny. These overgrown areas o c c m d throughout tbe easement, but were concentrated mostly at lowlands where top so& had not.yet been completed croded away. Many portians of the easement consisted of exposcd limestone outcroppings and gravel mads and questrim hails, completely absent of vegetation. Other areas along the existing easemmt not overg~wxl were composed of some native grasses.

No individual occu11w1ces of TES species were observed during the mey. Three individud s&@ suspected of being Ozark chinquapins were documented, photographed, flagged, and recorded with a Global Positioning System (GPS). After examination, it was determined that these hdividnals were acWy seedling Cbquapin oaks ~ e r ~ ~ l e n b e r g i i l ,

No iignificant karst €cam were identified dong the transect tbat could indicate the presence of subterranean habitat fot h t invertebratts, cave% or bat h i i a c u l a

Appendix C

Geologic Karst Survey within Ozark National Forest Segment,

Benton and Washington Counties, Arkansas

1679

APPENDIX C

1.0

GEOLOGIC KARST SURVEY WITHIN OZARK NATIONAL FOREST SEGMENT

BENTON AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, ARKANSAS

INTRODUCTION

AEF proposes to construct an additimal overbead eleceid (345-kv) traosmission line located immedtiateIy north of an existing traasmission route withiu portions of Benton and Washingtoa CountieS, from Chambers Spring to Tonitown, Arkansas, An environmental m e y colridw qqxoxhakly 150 feet (tt) north ofthe existing right of way @Ow centerhe was evaluated soIeIy within the Omk National Forcst segment of the project.

The project a m is bated h the &ark Plateaus physiopphic province in nortbwcstem Arkansas. TIC Ozark Plateaus is an upland r e g i o n . d g from southern Missauri to northem Arkansas, wbich also extends into southeastern Kansas and northeastern Oldahom. The Ozerrk PIakaus is divided into three su~'mvincq the Sprbg6eld Plamu, the Salem Platean, end the Boston Mountains (Adcansa~ Geological Commission [AGC], 199s).

The project iS located in the Sprhgfield Plateau, an upland area extending h m norhestem Admsas, northeastem Oklahoma, and southw&km Miss&. This plateau is mostly gentIy rolling pIaios and bills except nmr main drainage ways, like the Illinois River, which crosses the project area. Within the pIeteau, karst solution fm such as caves, sinktroles, and Weys arc rather cormon. The vdlcys are characterized by their linear shape, uniform wid&, and semi-circular heads.

I .I Karst Survey

The purpose of the karst swey was to determine the Ioation of gedogic karst features (Le., caves, siokholcs, fauk, solution cavities, joint hctuTes, etc.) and d c h c their o v d sensitivity in regards tu point recharge capability for underlying ground watcr aquifer@) and associated subsurface structural concern. Additionally, environmentnl concerns refated to pobtial habitat for fededy lkted endangered cave invertebrates and vertebrates (ie., bats] will be addressed This phase of the karst survey did not address the stnrctural development, subgrade exten?, or the biologd mnbt &e., presendabsence of endangered cave invertebrate species) of ea& i d a a e d karst feahm

Thc karst sutvey involved walldng pmaUc1 transects about 20 to 30 ft apaa along approximtely four miles of proposed ROW, looking for srrrface qressions of subsutfacc voids (Le. , karst feabms).

This report p m t s the xesults of the 17 and 18 May 2006 Geld effort conducted by P3SBu on !hat portion of the proposed overhead'electrical transmission tine heated about 3,000 ft northeast of State Highway 16 in Benton County, across Lookout Tower Road, to appmximateIy 1,000 fi east of the llIiaois

1680 APPENDIX C (ConPd)

River in Wahbgton County. A hand-held Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver was available to record the Iocatim of each feature discovered.

$ .2 Geology

Regionally, the Ozark Plateaus consists of Pdeozoic age strata divided into three plateau surhces (AGC, 1948). The Salem Plateau (stratigaphially lowest and northemmost) is tmdalain by dolostones, sandstones, and lim&ones of Ordovician age. Next, the S@@eld PIafcau consists of lower MissisSippian age hestones and cherts. The Boston Mountains (stratigqhidy highest and southern- most) consists of Paqlvanian age shales, siltstorm, and sandstones. All af &csc plateaus are deeply dissected by numerous streams throughout the area. The depositional environment of the sfmta located in the region is one of a shallow marine continental shelf that genedy shpes to*sard the s o h This shallowwater platform emerged many times during the Paleoroic producing rmmerous uncanfodties throughout the sequence (AGC, 1998). The strucW geology in the reson consists of a few normal, northeast-southwm trending inactive faults displaying a neaIy v a t i d displacement down on the southem sidk In addition, sbjke-slip faults and very low amplitude folded beds mn be pmtat in the region,

&mination of the “GeoIogic Mag of Arkaasas” (US Geological Survey yUSGSl, 1976) indicates tbat the project a m is situated primariry on an outaop of the Early to Middle Mississippian, Boom P m t i o n @%I, The Baone Formation eomists of gray, fie to marse-grained fossilifmous Iimestonc interbedded witb chert. The cherts are dark in color in the lower part of thc sequence and light in. the upper part. Thc sequence includes an oolite mcmber (Short Creek Member) near the tap of thc Boom Formation in western exposmx aad the g m d y chert-free St. Joe Member &.its base. The Boone Formarion is well laown for dissoIUtional ftatnres such as shkhdes, caves and enlarged fmures. The tbichess of tbis fomahn ranges from 300 to 390 .A (AGC, 1998). Fossils (Crinoids, clams, coral, molIu~ks, shark material, and trilobites) are abundant in the Boone F O ~ O E

Geologic mapping by the WSGS indicates fhe existence of n continuous, normal fault about one mile northwd of the project area mar the S Q U ~ ~ W ~ S ~ podon. AdditionaUy, a series of shark, d s c u n b o u s normal f i l ts occur about two miles west near the soudwcstem terminus of the project area. No faults appear to intersect fhc project area Typidy, bedrock joint fractures or lineammis can occur parallel or perpendicular to these faulted areas, producing bigher densities of geologic karst features such as sinkholes, ma, or enlarged b u m .

I .3 Karst Features

Surface g o d coxlditions consisted ofa thick leryersofIeaflitter and organic material which limited the visibirity of (smdi) surface karst q&ws. Soil thickness varied h m lass than 6 inchcs along steep dopa to about 2 ft thick in the forested bottdands.

1681 APPENDIX C (Cont'd)

NO apparent karst featma were eocwntered within the Omrk National Fortst segment ofthe proposcd elecbkd transmission ROW during the field survey.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUJREMENTS

It is recommended that if any subsurface voids or karst feabms ae encountered d h g construction within the project area, B geologist specializing in karst geology should be notified to 8 ~ 5 ~ s the structural devclopment, subgrade extent, or biologid conteflt (i.e,, pmencelabsence of d m g d cave vmtebraie and invertebrate species) ofthe karst feature.

3.0 REFERENCES

U.S. Gmlogical S w q (LEGS). 1976. Geologic Map of Arkansas. U.S. DepL of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

1682

Appendix D

Letter from the Department of Arkansas Heritage-Arkansas Historic Presewation Program

1683

Heritage