HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2017-R0354 - Transmission Route - LP&L - 09/28/2017Resolution No. 2017-RO354
Item No. 6.15 RESOLUTION
September 28, 2017
WHEREAS, the Electric Utility Board of the City of Lubbock has approved and
recommended adoption to the City Council of the City of Lubbock that certain Capital
Improvement Project providing for the construction of Lubbock Power & Light electric
transmission and distribution facilities to be located from the Northwest Substation to
the Mackenzie Substation (the "Electric Project");
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lubbock has approved, through
adoption of the budget for Lubbock Power & Light, the Electric Project;
WHEREAS, as adopted by the City Council, the Electric Project serves
the public use and interests of the citizens of the City of Lubbock inproviding needed
electric utility infrastructure reliability related improvements;
WHEREAS, the route of the Electric Project impacts citizens of the City of
Lubbock;
WHEREAS, due to such impact, Lubbock Power & Light conducted multiple
public meetings inviting input from citizens potentially impacted by the Electric
Project;
WHEREAS, after such public meetings, and considering the comments received
at such public meetings and evaluation of engineering metrics by Lubbock Power &
Light's engineering consultants, the general route of the Electric Project was
designated:
WHEREAS, Lubbock Power & Light believes the general route depicted on
Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "General Route"),
accomplishes the needs of Lubbock Power & Light. while also minimizing impact on
residents of the City of Lubbock;
WHEREAS, due to the authority of the City Council to acquire real property
interests for and on behalf of Lubbock Power & Light, the City Council likewise has
the power and authority to approve the General Route of the Electric Project; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
THAT the General Route of the Electric Project, as depicted on Exhibit "A
attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LUBBOCK:
THAT the Director of Electric Utilities, or his designee, is hereby authorized to
cause the location and survey, and other evaluations, of all real property interests
along or within the General Route necessary or advisable for the Electric Project.
Passed by the City Council this 28th day of September, 2017.
DANIEL M. POPE, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Reb Ic
ca Garza, City Secret ry
►:199: 3If,ACIMEN9CSZK6�1I
a�u-��v
David McCalla, Director of Electric Utilities
APPROVED AS TO RM:
Richard Casner, LP&L General Counsel
Exhibit "A"
LEGEND
—I— Railroad
® Segment
City Limit
County B
j Local Par
Q Substatioi
Data source: BW
LPL_PortradLe,
LUBBOCK
COUNTY
INI�
XFAB Site
PL
L o Zgg�_TY
Lubbock
HOLLY
RECREATION AREA
\HODGES
PRK
PAA
�(anvnti aka
RO_DGERS
PARKS MAEDGEN
PARK
NNn
W-�y�-E
s
nation 0 7.000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
ry
These Preliminary Route
Segments are subject to
modification throughout the
I DVA — USGS routing process
MEWL
August 2d 2Oi i L 794765
�J
HOLLINS
PARK
KANSAS
otctANow i
DAV I ES
PARK
Substation
N
GUADALUPE PARK k\i PARI
GU�DA� L-tJI'E STRIP "NOR
Lubbock P&L
Northwest -Mackenzie Project
Recommended Route Segments
0. BLACK&VEATCH Lubbock Power&Light 1
ROUTE SELECTION STUDY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Lubbock Power & b
Northwest to Mackenzie 115 W
Transmission Line Project
PREPARED FOR
Lubbock Power & Light
28 AUGUST 2017
0- BLACK&VEATCH
Lubbock Power & Light ! ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Table of Contents
AcronymList
.....................................................................................................................................................AL-1
1.0 Introduction
..........................................................................................................................................1-1
4-3
2.0 Project
Purpose and Need................................................................................................................
2-1
3.0 Route
Selection Process....................................................................................................................
3-1
3.1
Preliminary Desktop Route Mapping..........................................................................................
3-1
3.2
Environmental and Infrastructure Factors...............................................................................
3-3
3.3
Factor Values.........................................................................................................................................
3-3
3.4
Agency Consultation...........................................................................................................................
3-7
3.5
Data Collection......................................................................................................................................
3-8
3.6
Field Investigation...............................................................................................................................
3-9
3.7
Environmental Evaluations.............................................................................................................
3-9
3.7.1 Windshield Survey Findings, Land Use..................................................................3-10
3.7.1 Windshield Survey Findings, Wildlife Observed................................................3-12
3.7.2 Parks and Recreation Areas........................................................................................3-15
3.7.3 Historical and Archeological Sites............................................................................3-15
3.8
Local Stakeholders and Public Meetings..................................................................................3-16
3.9
Habitable Structures.........................................................................................................................3-17
3.10
infrastructure evaluations..............................................................................................................3-18
3.10.1 Airstrips..............................................................................................................................3-18
3.10.2 Irrigation Systems...........................................................................................................3-19
3.10.3 Electronic Installations.................................................................................................3-19
3.11
Route Modifications..........................................................................................................................3-20
4.0 Description of Routes and Segments............................................................................................
4-1
4.1
Route Scoring.........................................................................................................................................
4-3
4.2
Description of Best -Scoring Routes..............................................................................................
4-6
4.3
Comparative Resource Inventory.................................................................................................4-7
5.0 Permitting
Requirements................................................................................................................
5-1
6.0 References.............................................................................................................................................
6-1
Appendix A.
Descriptions of Systems, Mapping Subsystems, and Vegetation Types
forTexas...................................................................................................................................
A-1
Appendix B.
Agency Consultation Responses......................................................................................
B-1
Appendix C.
Representative Photographs from Environmental Resource Review ...............
C-1
Appendix D.
Cultural Resources Study Report.....................................................................................D-1
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 Routing Factors and Factor Values............................................................................................... 3-5
Table 3-2 Land Uses Encountered in the Project StudyArea...............................................................3-11
BLACK & VEATCH ( Table of Contents
Lubbock Power & Light
Table 3-3 TPWD Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Texas by County:
LubbockCounty..................................................................................................................................3-12
Table 3-4 Questionnaire Response for Segments Not Favored...........................................................3-17
Table 3-5 Alternative Routes In Relation To Lubbock Preston Smith International
Airport(LBB).......................................................................................................................................3-19
Table 3-6 Electronic Installations within 10,000 feet of Segment Centerlines............................3-20
Table 4-1 Route Numbers, Segments, and Lengths.................................................................................... 4-3
Table 4-2 Raw and Weighted Route Scores................................................................................................... 4-4
Table 4-3 Comparative Resource Inventory.................................................................................................. 4-8
Table 5-1 Project Review, Permitting, and/or Approval Requirements ............................................ 5-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1-1 Project Study Area...............................................................................................................................1-2
Figure 1-2 115 kV Single Circuit Vertical Line Post Tangent Structure (Typical)...........................1-3
Figure 1-3 115 kV Single Circuit Large Angle Structure (Typical).........................................................1-4
Figure 1-4 115 kV Single Circuit In -Line Deadend Structure (Typical)...............................................1-5
Figure4-1 Route Segments Map.......................................................................................................................... 4-1
BLACK & VEATCH I Table of Contents ii
Lubbock Power & Light ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Acronym List
BGEPA
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
BMPs
Best Management Practices
B&A
Blanton & Associates
CCN
Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
CWA
Clean Water Act
DMV
Department of Motor Vehicles
DOT
Department of Transportation
EMST
Ecological Mapping Systems of Texas
ESRI
Environmental Systems Research Institute
ESSS
Ecologically Significant Stream Segment
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FM
Farm -to -Market (Road or Highway)
GIS
Geographic Information System
GLO
General Land Office (Texas)
LBB
Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport
LP&L
Lubbock Power & Light
MBTA
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MRLC
Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium
MVA
Mega Volt Ampere
MW
Mega Watt
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NERC
North American Electric Reliability Council
NHD
National Hydrography Dataset
NHRP
National Register of Historic Places
NLCD
National Land Cover Data
NOAA
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS
National Park Service
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP
National Register of Historic Places
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
OPGW
Optical ground wire
BLACK & VEATCH Acronym List AL -1
Lubbock Power & Light
PUCT
Public Utility Commission of Texas
PURA
Public Utility Regulatory Act
RM
Ranch -to -Market (Road or Highway)
ROW
Right -of -Way
SAL
State Antiquities Landmark
SHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
S1NC
Species in Need of Conservation
SPCC
Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
SPROT
Subnational Protection/Listing Status
SWPPP
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC
Texas Administrative Code
TCEQ
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
TGLO
Texas General Land Office
THC
Texas Historical Commission
TPWD
Texas Park and Wildlife Department Wildlife Division
TRC
Texas Railroad Commission
TxDOT
Texas Department of Transportation
TXNDD
Texas Natural Diversity Database
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
USESA
U. S. Endangered Species Act
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WHAB
Texas Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program
WQC
Water Quality Certification
BLACK & VEATCH I Acronym List M -'
Lubbock Power & Light ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
1.0 Introduction
Lubbock Power & Light (LP&L) is proposing to add electric transmission infrastructure in
the City and County of Lubbock as part of the Northwest to Mackenzie Project (Project). LP&L is
planning to construct a new single circuit 115 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line approximately
6 to 11 miles in length (depending on the final route). The route would connect the existing
Northwest Substation, located west of the intersection of Ursuline Street and North Quaker Avenue,
to the existing Mackenzie Substation, located 1/a mile north of Municipal Drive and east of Interstate
Highway 27. There will be an intermediate routing terminus for a new substation on X -FAB
property located in an area west of North University Avenue and north of the Highway 289 Loop.
LP&L retained the services of Black & Veatch Corporation (Black & Veatch) as an
independent consultant to assist in developing a routing study. The study was to provide a
systematic and methodical process for evaluating various routing options and recommending a
route for the proposed transmission line. This report describes that process.
The study area comprised approximately 13 square miles and extended at least 1/z mile
beyond the Northwest and Mackenzie substations in all directions and 2.5 miles to the north of
Northwest Substation, to take advantage of the relatively open spaces in that area. The study area
for the routing study is depicted in Figure 1-1.
The proposed single -circuit transmission line will be rated at 115 kilovolts (kV) and
designed for 1,600 amps. The 115 kV line will be built primarily with self-supporting, weathered,
steel monopole structures as presented in Figures 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4. Figure 1-2 depicts a typical
single -circuit vertical line -post tangent structure. Figure 1-3 depicts a typical large angle structure,
and Figure 1-4 shows a typical in-line deadend structure. Spans will range from 500 to 600 feet and
right-of-way width will be generally 75 feet.
The transmission line conductors will be arranged in a single conductor per phase. An
overhead shield wire will be located at the top of the structures. The shield wire will be a 96 -fiber
optical ground wire (OPGW) containing optical fibers used as a communications medium for line
protective relaying and for internal communications. The line will also be designed for distribution
underbuild where distribution lines are present in the proposed route area.
Structures may be directly embedded or secured to concrete foundations or piers. Tangent
structures will be directly embedded, and angle and dead-end structures will be constructed on
concrete piers. None of the structures are designed to be guyed.
BLACK & VEATCH I Introduction
Lubbock Power & Light ` ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A
d a] N8 69
Mao
so
Lubbock Power & Light Project Study Area B LACing a K&dVEATCH
Figure 1-1 Project Study Area
BLACK & VEATCH I Introduction 1-2
Lubbock Power & Light
GN-TL-16DO3
GN -TL -16106
STEEL POLE CLASS
AS REO'D BY DESIGN
LCI -2L
AS REO'D
TAP1XMFR
MATERIAL REO'D
SITE SPECIFIC
�- UI -I -A-1 ON 1 FACE
ONLY (OTHER FACES
r SITE SPECIFIC)
MATERIAL REO'D
SITE SPECIFIC
GN -TL -14007
APPROXIMATE
FOUNDATION
DIAMETER 3'-6'
Figure 1-2 115 kV Single Circuit Vertical Line Post Tangent Structure (Typical)
BLACK & VEA TCH I Introduction
Lubbock Power & Light
o
'a
0
c�
STEEL POLE CLASS /
ENGINEERED POLE
w
Z AS REO'D BY DESIGN
J
Z
z
O
Q, -
0
w
0 0
co,
m
v
+a
ea
m
v
N
APPROXIMATE
e
POLE DIAMETER
5'-0' TO 6"-0'
GN -TL -16003 OR
GN -TL -16004
GN -TL -16114
LC1-2L
AS REOT
TAP/XMFR
0
MATERIAL REO'D
SITE SPECIFIC
LJ1-LJ1-1 ON 1 FACE
ONLY (OTHER FACES
SITE SPECIFIC)
O
iO MATERIAL REO'D
SITE SPECIFIC
0
is
GN -TL -14007
APPROXIMATE
FOUNDATION
DIAMETER
6'-0" TO 7'-0"
Figure 1-3 115 W Single Circuit Large Angle Structure (Typical)
BLACK & VEATCH I Introduction i -I
Lubbock Power & Light
GN -TL -16005 OR
GN -TL -16006
�I�GN-TL-16116��l
GN -TL -16102
LC1-2L
AS REQ'D
TAP/XMFR
0
MATERIAL REQ'D
SITE SPECIFIC
0
l\
(OTHER FACES SITESPECIFIC
ENGINEERED POLE
AS REQ'D BY DESIGN
v
0
APPROXIMATE a MATERIAL REO'D
POLE DIAMETERSITE SPECIFIC
0
5'-0" TO 7"-0"
GN -TL -14007
APPROXIMATE
FOUNDATION
DIAMETER
6'-0" TO 8'-0"
Figure 1-4 115 W Single Circuit in -Line Deadend Structure (Typical)
BLACK & VEATCH ( Introduction 1-5
Lubbock Power & Light
As part of the routing study, Black & Veatch provided the following services:
Gathering and evaluation of information concerning land uses, environmental
features, historic and cultural resources, and other criteria considered pertinent to
the construction of an overhead transmission line.
Performance of a desktop review of geographic information system (GIS) files, aerial
photography, topographical maps, land use databases, and agency environmental
resource sites.
Development of technically and environmentally feasible alternatives, broken into
manageable segments, which would provide economical routes with minimal
adverse social and environmental impacts.
Completion of a route reconnaissance, which is a visual analysis of proposed
alternative routes, noting locations of residences, buildings, sensitive habitats and
other constraints, and adjusting the routes accordingly after the visual analysis is
completed.
Performance of a quantitative analysis of land use data and engineering criteria in
evaluating route alternatives, resulting in a "best scoring route" for the Project.
This study included consideration of landowner comments at an open house public meeting
and through comments received in writing during and after the public meeting. These comments
were used to further refine the alternative routes under consideration.
BLACK & VEATCH I Introduction 1-6
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
2.0 Project Purpose and Need
Lubbock Power & Light (LP&L) has initiated a multi-year program of projects necessary to
convert portions of its existing transmission network from an operating voltage of 69kV to 115kV.
This will improve reliability and transmission capacity for the City of Lubbock. The program
includes the new Northwest to Mackenzie 115kV transmission line that will complete the planned
115kV transmission loop around the City of Lubbock. The program of projects also includes
multiple transmission line rebuilds and transmission line reconductor projects, multiple new
substations, 115/69kV autotransformer installations at three or more substations, physical rebuild
of multiple brownfield substations, multiple transformer additions and replacements, and relay
protection upgrades.
The focus of this routing study report is the Northwest to Mackenzie 115kV transmission
line portion of the overall program for improving reliability and transmission capacity.
BLACK & VEATCH j Project Purpose and Need 2_1
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.0 Route Selection Process
The objective of the transmission line route selection process is the identification and
evaluation of an adequate number of unique and diverse alternative routes to meet the
requirements of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §37.056(c)(4)(A)-(D),16 Texas
Administrative Code (TAC) §22.52(a)(4), and 16 TAC §25.101(b)(3)(B). Although LP&L is not
required to apply for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for this Project, it directed
Black & Veatch to apply the PURA and TAC technical standards to the Project's routing study.
The evaluation of the alternative routes within a route network involves a numerical
scoring system that considers many routing factors and their relative advantage (opportunity) or
disadvantage (constraint) for locating a high-voltage transmission line.
The activities associated with the development of routing options for the Project include:
Gathering and compilation of on-line information for the study area.
Consultation with regulatory agencies and other stakeholders.
Preliminary desktop development of a route network.
Field examination of the route network.
Environmental evaluation of the route network study area.
Revision of the route network based on field observations.
LP&L review of and comment on the preliminary route network.
Presentation of the route network to the public at an open house meeting.
Route network revisions based on public comments.
Selection of routes to be further evaluated and scored.
Route scoring and comparison.
Using the information obtained from all of these activities, final route alternatives were
identified and are described in this report.
3.1 PRELIMINARY DESKTOP ROUTE MAPPING
At the outset of routing activities for this Project, and before specifying routing alternatives
on a map, the endpoints of the proposed route were identified and located. For this Project, the
western terminus is the existing Northwest Substation, located west of the intersection of Ursuline
Street and North Quaker Avenue. The eastern terminus is the existing Mackenzie Substation,
located % mile north of Municipal Drive and east of Interstate Highway 27. There will be an
intermediate routing terminus for a new substation on X -FAB property located in an area west of
North University Avenue and north of the Highway 289 Loop. The entire study area lies within
Lubbock County, Texas with approximately 70% of the study area within the boundaries of the City
of Lubbock.
The entire study area comprised approximately 13 square miles and extended at least Y2
mile beyond the Northwest and Mackenzie substations in all directions and 2.5 miles to the north of
Northwest Substation, to take advantage of the relatively open spaces in that area.
After the Project study area was defined, Black & Veatch used a variety of online data
resources to identify constraints and avoidance areas. These include, but are not limited to,
residential areas, commercial, industrial, and institutional buildings, airports, and environmentally
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process < 1
Lubbock Power & Light
sensitive areas, such as wetlands and parks. In this portion of Texas, wetlands can generally be
avoided in the placement of transmission line structures or can be spanned without having direct
impacts to the wetland itself. Other avoidance areas, such as residential areas, commercial,
industrial, and institutional buildings, were kept a reasonable distance from the proposed
centerline of alternative routes if complete avoidance was not feasible. In locations where one or
more transmission lines were already present, the centerline of the proposed transmission line was
located no closer to buildings than the existing lines.
Although environmentally sensitive areas were generally avoided, two of the routes from
Northwest Substation to X -FAB run through the southernmost portion of Lubbock Lake Landmark
and another route is located just outside of the northern boundary of the Landmark. Lubbock Lake
Landmark is an important archeological site and natural history preserve located within the city of
Lubbock. The 336 -acre site is a protected state and federal landmark.
After constraints and avoidance areas were identified, Black & Veatch used the spatial
analysis tool within the ESRI® ArcGIS suite of tools to identify potential route options. This was
accomplished by assigning numerical values to each of the land cover types in the study area. The
spatial analysis tool then seeks the adjacent land cover with the most favorable value for locating a
transmission line. In this analysis, a lower numerical value is more favorable than a higher one.
Ultimately, the route with the lowest score is the one most favorable for locating a new
transmission line based on all the information used in the analysis.
This ability to rapidly locate favorable land use types makes GIS a useful tool for the first -
run analysis. However, Black & Veatch did not use this method exclusively to locate suitable land
types; we also enlisted our experienced routing personnel to perform a detailed desktop review of
the routes and smooth the routes to eliminate any unnecessary angles that the GIS spatial analysis
tool may have placed in the routes. To do this, Black & Veatch used aerial photography from
Google"' Earth, Bing" Maps, or the ArcGIS suite. In this smoothing process, each route is refined in
preparation for the route reconnaissance effort that comes later in the routing process.
Once the first preliminary route is determined and refined, Black & Veatch identifies at least
two other routes that are sufficiently different from the first one in order to satisfy the need for
geographical diversity among routes. Land cover factor values are still used to select feasible
alternative routes to the extent practicable. Because the study area is small, and the land use types
similar among alternative routes, most of the routes share land use and other routing factor
characteristics.
Once preliminary route corridors were carefully examined and the route centerlines were
adjusted to avoid constraints, additional routing opportunities were sought. Black & Veatch looked
for other areas not identified by using the GIS spatial analysis tool alone but still potentially
favorable for routing a transmission line. For example, from Northwest Substation to X -FAB, a
northern route was identified that had the advantage of being located closer to a planned North
Substation to be located and designed at a future date. This northern route, ultimately identified as
route NX2, also had the advantage of traversing relatively undeveloped land. One disadvantage was
its length, but because many routing factors were considered in the analysis, this route was given
serious consideration.
BLACK & VEAiCH j Route Selection Process 3-2
Lubbock Power & Light
Finally, Black & Veatch looked for areas where crossovers between preliminary routes
would provide additional routing options. These crossovers resulted in the creation of route
segments that became part of a route network. These segments were evaluated individually and
combined to form a variety of unique routes from Northwest Substation to X -FAB and from X -FAB
to Mackenzie Substation. After the creation of this route network, maps of the entire study were
made and used to support the field route reconnaissance work described in Section 3.6.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE FACTORS
Reference has been made to the many routing factors used in this routing analysis. The
factors were categorized as environmental or infrastructure factors. Environmental factors address
land use and land cover types, environmentally sensitive areas, species habitats, aesthetics,
habitable structures, cultural resources, and parks and recreational areas. These are important in
addressing potential environmental impacts of the project. There were 34 of these factors in the
routing analysis.
Infrastructure factors address utility corridors and crossings, natural water body crossings,
floodplains, highway and railroad crossings, pipeline crossings, angle structures, land parcels, and
proximity to airports, towers, wells, and cemeteries. These factors are important in addressing
potential impediments to construction, level of effort needed to permit crossings of private and
public facilities, level of effort needed to design and permit water body crossings, number of
landowners from whom easements must be obtained, and potential obstructions to air travel and
communications. There are 25 of these factors in the routing analysis.
The environmental and infrastructure factors are quantified as to the length of a route
segment within or parallel to a land use or existing infrastructure feature or as the number of
occurrences of a factor along or near a route segment. A complete list of routing factors is
contained in Table 3-1. The factors listed in the table include those that would be required by the
PUCT in its review of a CCN application as well as others not required by the PUCT but pertinent to
this analysis nonetheless. Again, a CCN application is not required for this Project but the standards
required for an application were applied to this study.
3.3 FACTOR VALUES
For each of the environmental and infrastructure factors listed in Table 3-1, Black & Veatch
assigned a numerical value to be used in the calculation of scores for each route segment and route.
The values were assigned based on the following:
Relative advantage or disadvantage of the presence or proximity of the factor to the
route centerlines.
Relative suitability of land covers for the siting of a new transmission line.
Environmental sensitivity of certain land covers along the routes.
Environmental sensitivity of potential species habitats along the routes.
Potential difficulty in obtaining permits for a new transmission line within or near
the routing factor.
Specific suitability of the factor as stated in 16 TAC §25.101(b)(3)(B)
BLACK & VEATCH j Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light
In general, factor values range from 1 to 10 with values of 1 being the most favorable (or
least detrimental) for the location of a new high-voltage transmission line and 10 being the least
favorable. However, factors outside of this range were assigned for particularly favorable or
unfavorable factors. These exceptions include:
Length of route crossing a National Wetlands Inventory mapped wetland. This
factor was assigned a value of zero because Black & Veatch used the more accurate,
specific, and current Ecological Mapping Systems of Texas (EMST) database. The
NWI crossing lengths are presented for information only.
Length of route paralleling compatible infrastructure, such as public road rights-of-
way, or paralleling property line boundaries, as described in 16 TAC
§25.101(b)(3)(B). These factors were assigned a value of -3 for being favorable for
locating a new transmission line.
Length of route paralleling an existing LP&L transmission line, offering the
opportunity for a double -circuit line, particularly where the existing transmission
line is in need of upgrading. This factor was assigned a value of -10 for being very
favorable for locating a new transmission line.
Segments in the northern route that would accommodate future construction of a
transmission line to a proposed North Substation. This factor was assigned a value
of -10 for each segment that was in the northern route, each being very favorable for
routing a future line to the North Substation.
Number of deadend and small angle structures in the route. These two factors were
assigned a value of zero because the primary importance of these factors relates to
material and construction costs. Black & Veatch has accounted for these costs and
included them as part of the quantitative analysis in scoring the routes, eliminating
the need for a factor value. The quantities are presented for information only.
Number of FAA registered public use airports within 20,000 feet or 10,000 feet of
the route centerline. These two factors were assigned a value of zero because all of
the routes evaluated come within 20,000 feet of one FAA registered public use
airport, specifically the Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport. Therefore, no
route has an advantage or disadvantage in these factor categories.
The routing factors used in this routing study and the values assigned to each factor are
shown in Table 3-1.
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Table 3-1 Routing Factors and Factor Values
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Barren Land
1
CRP / Other Improved Grassland
6
High Plains: Floodplain Hardwood - Juniper Forest
7
High Plains: Floodplain Herbaceous Vegetation
7
High Plains: Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation
8
High Plains: Shortgrass Prairie
4
Native Invasive: Deciduous - Juniper Woodland
5
Native Invasive: Juniper Shrubland
5
Native Invasive: Mesquite Shrubland
5
Native Invasive: Sand Sage Shrubland
5
Native Invasive: Yucca - Succulent Shrubland
5
Rolling Plains: Breaks Deciduous Shrubland
5
Rolling Plains: Mixedgrass Prairie
5
Row Crops
4
Urban High Intensity
9
Urban Low Intensity
5
Length of route across National Wetland Inventory mapped wetlands
0
Length of route across parks/recreational areas
9
Length of route across known habitat of federally listed endangered or threatened species
9
Estimated length of route within foreground visual zone of Farm-to-Market/Ranch-to-
3
Market roads
Estimated length of route within foreground visual zone of parks/recreational areas
9
Length of route across high archeological/historical site potential
10
Length of route parallel (within 100 feet) to streams or rivers
5
No. of parks/recreational areas within 1,000 feet of route centerline
7
No. of habitable residential/institutional structures within 300' of proposed route
1
centerline already adjacent to existing lines
No. of habitable residential/institutional structures within 300' of proposed route
2
centerline not already adjacent to existing lines
No. of habitable industrial/commercial structures within 300' of route centerline 1
No. of negative comment about a route segment 10
No. of recorded historic or prehistoric sites crossed by route 10
No. of recorded historic or prehistoric sites within 1,000 feet of route centerline 3
No. of National Register listed sites crossed by route 10
No. of National Register listed sites within 1,000 feet of route centerline 5
No. of cemeteries within 1,000 feet of route centerline 5
No. of stream or river crossings 6
BLACK & VEATCH Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light ° ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
ROUTE SCORING OR
INFRASTRUCTURE FACTORS
Length of route using existing transmission line right-of-way for double circuiting (miles)
-10
Length of route parallel to and outside of public road right-of-way (miles)
-3
Length of route parallel to railroad right-of-way (miles)
10
Length of route parallel to gas/oil pipeline right-of-way (miles)
5
Length of route parallel to apparent property line boundaries (miles)
-3
Length of route across land irrigated by traveling systems (rolling or pivot type)
7
Length of FEMA mapped 100 -year Flood plain crossings
9
Segment accommodates access to future North Substation
-10
Segment hinders development of future civic improvement projects
10
No. of dead-end structures
0
No. of small angle structures
0
No. of electric transmission -line crossings (69kv+)
5
No. of transmission pipeline crossings
1
No. of Interstate, U.S. and State Highway crossings
7
No. of Farm -to -Market or Ranch -to -Market road crossings
5
No. of railroad crossings
7
No. of land parcels crossed
1
No. of private use airstrips within 10,000 feet of the route centerline
1
No. of heliports within 5,000 feet of route centerline
1
No. of commercial AM radio transmitters within 10,000 feet of the route centerline
1
No. of FM radio transmitters, microwave towers, etc. within 2,000 feet of the route
2
centerline
No. of existing water wells within 200 feet of the route centerline
2
No. of oil and gas wells within 200 feet of the route centerline
2
No. of FAA registered public use airports (runways > 3,200 feet) within 20,000 feet of the
0
route centerline
No. of FAA registered public use airports (runways < 3,200 feet) within 10,000 feet of the 0
route centerline
Each of the factor values is multiplied by the corresponding factor quantity, whether length
in miles or number of occurrences. All 59 of these products, 34 for environmental factors and 25
for infrastructure factors, are summed for each segment and rolled up for each route to obtain a
raw score. Route scoring is addressed in detail in Section 4.0.
BLACK & VEATCH Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light
During the detailed process of conducting a routing study and developing scores for each
route, many route revisions are made. Reasons for making route revisions include:
Findings from online, desktop research.
Results of consultations with permitting agencies and other stakeholders.
Findings of Black & Veatch's field route reconnaissance efforts.
Comments from the public during and after the open house meeting.
Input from the owning utility.
These changes are made at the segment level so that all affected routes will be updated at
once. For example, if a route segment is used in five routes, using segment analysis allows means
that a change to that segment automatically updates all routes containing that segment. The
alternative is to make changes to five routes separately.
One characteristic of the segment analysis is that factors containing physical features at
large distances from a route centerline might be counted multiple times in the rollup of segment
data to the route level. For example, the Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport is within
20,000 feet of all routes and all but three routes segments in this study area. Therefore, the scoring
for a route with ten segments that are within 20,000 feet of the airport could indicate that there are
10 airports within 20,000 feet of the route. Black & Veatch addressed this issue by overriding the
segment data and entering the number of occurrences (in this case, just one) at the route level. We
also applied a value of zero to the factor due to the fact that no advantage or disadvantage accrued
to any of the routes since they all are within 20,000 feet of the airport.
3.4 AGENCY CONSULTATION
Consultation letters were sent on April 13, 2017, to a number of federal, state, and local
regulatory agencies to assist in identifying issues*of concern and to determine the permits and
approvals that will be required for the Project. The letters included a project description and a
project study area map. The following agencies were contacted:
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Galveston District.
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NCRS)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
National Park Service (NPS).
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
Texas Park and Wildlife Department (TPWD), Wildlife Division, Wildlife Habitat
Assessment (WHAB) Program
Texas Historical Commission (THC)
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT)
Texas General Land Office (TGLO)
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light
Texas Railroad Commission (TRC)
Texas Water Development Board (TWDB).
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS).
The Nature Conservancy, Texas.
City of Lubbock Mayor and Councilmembers
Lubbock County Floodplain Manager
Lubbock County Commissioners
Lubbock County Courthouse
All letters to the agencies, and their responses to date, are provided in full in Appendix B.
3.5 DATA COLLECTION
Prior to the identification of preliminary alternative routes through GIS analysis, Black &
Veatch gathered environmental data pertinent to the locations and environmental evaluation of the
preliminary routing options. The data sources used include the following:
Railroad Commission of Texas, 2016, Pipelines Layer, Lubbock County, to obtainthe
lengths of transmission line routes paralleling pipelines.
Lubbock County land parcel database, 2016, to determine the number ofparcels
traversed by each route.
ESRI ArcGIS suite of databases for churches, hospitals, schools, airports, parks, and
other features for establishing exclusion areas.
Ecology Mapping Systems of Texas (EMST), produced by the Texas Parks & Wildlife
Department.
Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) database of communication and broadcasttower
locations for establishing exclusion areas.
Texas Parks & Wildlife database of wildlife management areas for establishing
avoidance areas.
Energy Velocity database for federal lands, overhead transmission lines, and large
gas pipelines.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) web site for the location of railroads
to obtain the lengths of transmission line paralleling railroad tracks.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for Natural Communities
data in determining avoidance areas.
Multi -Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MLRC), National Land Cover
Data (NLCD), 2011 for land use data along each route and for the initial GIS -
generated routes.
U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) for wetlands and
wetlands avoidance areas.
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light
Federal and state threatened and endangered (listed), candidate, and proposed
plant and animal species and habitats, as well as Species In Need of Conservation
(SINC).
LP&L's kmz file of utility -owned transmission lines.
3.6 FIELD INVESTIGATION
Black & Veatch first performed a route reconnaissance field evaluation of the preliminary
routing options for the Project on April 5 and 6, 2017. The entire study area was examined. Three
Black & Veatch professionals including a permitting manager, routing specialist, and ecological
scientist, performed this field review. The team examined preliminary routing options for
constructability potential, avoidance areas, obstructions, and for the presence of wetlands and
protected species habitats. Observations were made primarily by vehicle and occasionally on foot at
accessible public areas, public access points, and from roads that paralleled or crossed the
proposed route alternatives. No attempt was made to enter private property. In areas where public
roads terminated before crossing preliminary routing options, the survey team found the best
accessible vantage point for observation.
Field observations were made to verify information previously observed on or interpreted
from aerial photography, satellite imagery and composite topographic maps or to examine areas
where new alignments might be needed to avoid natural or man-made features. Field observations
also proved valuable in those few areas where trees on aerial photographs blocked the view of the
ground, potentially hiding residences, buildings, and other structures to avoid.
Handwritten notes regarding areas that required further study, and possible route
realignment, were placed on hard copies of the aerial maps in the field and then used by the routing
specialist in the office to make route adjustments as needed. When all of the needed adjustments
were completed, the data were presented to a GIS specialist for development of the route maps that
accompany this report. An iPad, with all of the route alignments and other study area data loaded
into it, was also used in the field to pinpoint locations, record driving routes, provide up-to-date
maps, and record field data.
On July 20, 2017, the day after the last public meeting, three Black & Veatch professionals
including a permitting manager, routing specialist, and permitting specialist, revisited the study
area to evaluate comments received from landowners during the public meetings. The objective of
this second visit was a determination of the need to make route adjustments based on landowner
comments. In fact, two route segment adjustments were made as a result.
3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS
On April 5 and 6, 2017, a Black & Veatch ecological scientist conducted an environmental
evaluation of the study area and each of the preliminary routing options. Potential impacts from
construction of the proposed 115 kV transmission line to the study area environment were
observed and evaluated. This onsite review provided data used to evaluate and compare the
various routing alternatives with respect to permitting, constructability, and environmental impact
issues. The routes surveyed were along the north side of Lubbock's city limits and in Lubbock
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process 3-9
Lubbock Power & Light ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
County in a primarily agricultural setting, transitioning into light industrial areas, and onward to
the Mackenzie Substation where the area is a more urbanized and industrial portion of the City of
Lubbock.
References used to conduct pre -reconnaissance desktop survey included aerial
photography, USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) information, and TPWD databases. The
Texas Natural Diversity Database (TNDD) was referenced and it draws upon the Texas Ecological
Systems Classification Project. Ecological systems are described in detail in this document.
Ecological systems encountered with the windshield survey are summarized here. Refer to the
excerpt from the document "Descriptions of Systems, Mapping Subsystems, and Vegetation Typesfor
Texas" for species -level descriptions, and detail of the ecological systems encountered, which
appears in Appendix A to this report.
Lubbock is situated in the High Plains, which contains many playa lakes and playa wetlands.
TDWP was contacted during the agency consultation phase, and that agency informed us that these
playa lakes and playa wetlands aren't typically regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
nor are they under state regulation, as they lack a direct surface water connection to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers regulated waters of the United States. Our route network avoids these playa
lakes and playa wetlands.
The route network segments cross low density urban areas, agricultural row -crop (both
irrigated with center pivot and dry -land), pasture land, high density urban areas, and industrial
areas that appear to be abandoned, or minimally used in recent years, with herbaceous and woody
vegetation reestablishing in some areas.
3.7.1 Windshield Survey Findings, Land Use
The photographs referenced in and accompanying this section are found in Appendix C.
From the Northwest Substation (shown in Photo 1), shortgrass lots exist containing an abundance
of prairie dogs (shown in Photo 2). North of the Northwest Substation there is a crossing of a low
drainage area which is the Yellow House River (shown in Photos 3 and 4). This area has a high
potential for containing wetlands.
The Lubbock Lake National Historic Landmark is located along the Yellow House River,
north of the interchange of TX -289 Loop and Highway 84/Clovis Road. It contains thousands of
years of archeologic record along with natural resources, such as a riparian woodland and
shrubland.
Shortgrass prairies were noted, and many of these contained prairie dog towns, both
outside and within city limits. Photo 5 shows a shortgrass prairie along with a jackrabbit to the
west of XFAB.
The area shown in Photo 6 is Blackwater Creek valley where one alignment may cross.
There is a potential for wetlands in some areas. The valley contains riparian woodlands and
shrublands. Photos 7 & 8 show a wide swale which is Blackwater Creek. This area has a high
probability for containing wetlands.
Photos 9 & 10 show Comancheria Lake on Yellow House River, which has an open water
area surrounded by a large wetland fringe containing a solid stand of cattails.
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light
Table 3-2 contains the land type uses encountered in the Project's study area. These were
not all necessarily observed in the field but are listed as contained within the Project's study area,
which extends beyond the route network on all sides.
Table 3-2 Land Uses Encountered in the Project Study Area
Rolling Plains: Mixedgrass Prairie
Rolling Plains: Breaks Canyon
Rolling Plains: Breaks Deciduous Shrubland
High Plains: Floodplain Hardwood - juniper Forest
High Plains: Floodplain Hardwood Forest
High Plains: Floodplain juniper Shrubland
High Plains: Floodplain Herbaceous Vegetation
High Plains: Riparian Hardwood - Juniper Forest
High Plains: Riparian Deciduous Shrubland
High Plains: Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation
High Plains: Shortgrass Prairie
High Plains: Mesquite Shrubland
Barren
Marsh
Native Invasive: Deciduous - juniper Woodland
Native Invasive: juniper Shrubland
Native Invasive: Mesquite Shrubland
Native Invasive: Mesquite Shrubland
Native Invasive: Yucca - Succulent Shrubland
Native Invasive: Sand Sage Shrubland
Non-native Invasive: Elm - Olive Woodland
Row Crops
CRP / Other Improved Grassland
Urban High Intensity
Urban Low Intensity
Open Water
I Texas Natural Diversity Database - Ecological Systems Classification and Mapping Project
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process 11 1 i.
Lubbock Power & Light ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.7.1 Windshield Survey Findings, Wildlife Observed
Prairie dogs were very abundant and occupied shortgrass pasture grasslands and low
density industrial lots throughout the area investigated. Jackrabbits were also noted in several
areas. Pigeons were noted in the more urbanized areas and under highway overpasses. Cliff
swallows were found under highway overpasses, and feeding on insects flying around fields. A red-
tailed hawk was noted near the Lubbock Lake historic site. In light industrial areas, grackle was
noted, along with mourning dove. Killdeer was noted near city limits near agricultural fields.
Table 3-3 contains rare, threatened, and endangered species listed by the U.S. Endangered
Species Act (USESA) and by the TPWD Subnational Protection/Listing Status. None of these species
was observed during the field environmental assessment. No habitat for federally listed threatened
or endangered species was identified in the project area. However, bald eagles, a species protected
under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, could possibly utilize the project area while
foraging for prey.
Table 3-3 TPWD Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Texas by County: Lubbock County
Birds Haliaeetus Bald Eagle DLA T4 Found primarily near rivers and large
leucocephalus lakes; nests in tall trees or on cliffs near
water; communally roosts, especially in
winter; hunts live prey, scavenges, and
pirates food from other birds
Birds Buteo regalis Ferruginous Open country, primarily prairies, plains,
Hawk and badlands; nests in tall trees along
streams or on steep slopes, cliff ledges,
river -cut banks, hillsides, power line
towers; year-round resident in
northwestern high plains, wintering
elsewhere throughout western 2/3 of
Texas
Birds Falco American DL T Year-round resident and local breeder
peregrinus Peregrine in west Texas, nests in tall cliff eyries;
anatum Falcon also, migrant across state from more
northern breeding areas in US and
Canada, winters along coast and farther
south; occupies wide range of habitats
during migration, including urban,
concentrations along coast and barrier
islands; low -altitude migrant, stopovers
at leading landscape edges such as lake
shores, coastlines, and barrier islands.
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
SCIENTIFIC , COMMON
1NAME NAME" I DESCRIPTION
Birds
Falco
Arctic DL
Migrant throughout state from
peregrinus
Peregrine
subspecies' far northern breeding
tundrius
Falcon
range, winters along coast and farther
Mammals Myotis velifer Cave myotis
Colonial and cave -dwelling; also roosts
bat
south; occupies wide range of habitats
under bridges, and even in abandoned
during migration, including urban,
nests; roosts in clusters of up to
concentrations along coast and barrier
limestone caves of Edwards Plateau and
islands; low -altitude migrant, stopovers
winter; opportunistic insectivore
at leading landscape edges such as lake
shores, coastlines, and barrier islands.
Birds
Falco
Prairie Falcon
Open, mountainous areas, plains and
mexicanus
prairie; nests on cliffs
Birds
Grus
Whooping LE, E4
Potential migrant via plains throughout
americana
Crane
most of state to coast; winters in
coastal marshes of Aransas, Calhoun,
and Refugio counties
Birds
Charadrius
Snowy Plover
Formerly an uncommon breeder in the
alexandrinus
Panhandle; potential migrant; winter
along coast
Birds
Charadrius
Birds
Uncommon breeder in the Panhandle;
alexandrinus
potential migrant; winter along coast
nivosus
Birds
Charadrius
Mountain
Breeding: nests on high plains or
montanus
Plover
shortgrass prairie, on ground in shallow
depression; nonbreeding: shortgrass
plains and bare, dirt (plowed) fields;
primarily insectivorous
Birds
Athene
Western
Open grasslands, especially prairie,
cunicularia
Burrowing Owl
plains, and savanna, sometimes in open
hypugaea
areas such as vacant lots near human
habitation or airports; nests and roosts
in abandoned burrows
Birds Ammodramus Baird's
Shortgrass prairie with scattered low
bairdii Sparrow
bushes and matted vegetation; mostly
migratory in western half of State,
though winters in Mexico and just
across Rio Grande into Texas from
Brewster through Hudspeth counties
Mammals Myotis velifer Cave myotis
Colonial and cave -dwelling; also roosts
bat
in rock crevices, old buildings, carports,
under bridges, and even in abandoned
Cliff Swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota)
nests; roosts in clusters of up to
thousands of individuals; hibernates in
limestone caves of Edwards Plateau and
gypsum cave of Panhandle during
winter; opportunistic insectivore
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light ,; ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Mammals
Mammals
Corynorhinus Pale Roosts in caves, abandoned mine
townsendii Townsend's tunnels, and occasionally old buildings;
pallescens big -eared bat hibernates in groups during winter; in
summer months, males and females
separate into solitary roosts and
maternity colonies, respectively; single
offspring born May -June; opportunistic
insectivore
Nyctinomops Big free -tailed
macrotis bat
Mammals
Cynomys
Black -tailed
ludovicianus
prairie dog
Mammals
Canis lupus
Gray wolf LE
Mammals
Vulpes velox
Swift fox
Mammals
Mustela
Black -footed LF.
nigripes
ferret
Mammals
Spilogale
Plains spotted
putorius
skunk
interrupta
Reptiles
Phrynosoma
Texas horned
cornutum
lizard
Habitat data sparse but records indicate
that species prefers to roost in crevices
and cracks in high canyon walls, but will
use buildings, as well; reproduction
data sparse, gives birth to single
offspring late June -early July; females
gather in nursery colonies; winter
habits undetermined, but may
hibernate in the Trans -Pecos;
opportunistic insectivore
Dry, Flat, short grasslands with low,
relatively sparse vegetation, including
areas overgrazed by cattle; live in large
family groups
E Extirpated; formerly known throughout
the western two-thirds of the state in
forests, brushlands, or grasslands
Restricted to current and historic
shortgrass prairie; western and
northern portions of Panhandle
Extirpated; inhabited prairie dog towns
in the general area
Catholic; open fields, prairies,
croplands, fence rows, farmyards, forest
edges, and woodlands; prefers wooded,
brushy areas and tallgrass prairie
T Open, and and semi -arid regions with
sparse vegetation, including grass,
cactus, scattered brush or scrubby
trees; soil may vary in texture from
sandy to rocky; burrows into soil,
enters rodent burrows, or hides under
rock when inactive; breeds March -
September
Plants Ephedra coryi Cory's ephedra Dune areas and dry grasslands in the
southern Plains Country; Perennial;
Flowering April -Sept; Fruiting May -
September
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENI-RAL RASSI_SSi
Plants Heteranthera Mexican mud- Wet clayey soils of resacas and
mexicana plantain ephemeral wetlands in South Texas and
along margins of playas in the
Panhandle; Flowering June -December,
only after sufficient rainfall
Source: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Wildlife Division, Diversity and Habitat Assessment Programs.
TPWD County Lists of Protected Species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Lubbock County.
http://tpwd.texas.gov/gis/rtest/ Accessed 4/3/2017.
1 Federally listed (L) by the USFWS under the Endangered Species Act
z State of Texas listed (L) (Subnational Protection/Listing Status)
3 Federally De -Listed (DL), Listed (L), or Endangered (E)
4 State Threatened (T) or Endangered (E)
3.7.2 Parks and Recreation Areas
Parks and recreation areas within the project area include the Berl Huffman Complex south
of Segment D (see Figure 4-1) and west of the X -FAB site, Canyon Rim Park south of Segment LL
(see Figure 4-1), and Buddy Holly Recreational Area south of Segment U (see Figure 4-1). None of
the routes run through any of these parks and recreation areas and no special permitting for routes
that contain these segments is anticipated. Two routing factors address parks and recreation areas.
See Table 4-3 for information on which routes are close to these areas.
3.7.3 Historical and Archeological Sites
Blanton & Associates, Inc. (B&A), a cultural resources and environmental consulting firm
contracted with Black & Veatch, performed a cultural resources desktop analysis of the project
study area and provided a report of its findings. This report in its entirety appears in Appendix D. A
brief summary of the report findings is provided here. Please note that the resource site maps
are not for public disclosure.
B&A reviewed online resources to determine if any known archeological sites, State
Antiquities Landmarks (SALs), or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties or
previously identified historic standing structures exist within one -mile of the Project area. No
historic standing structures have been documented within the Project area. This review found that
48 archaeological sites within the Project area and one -mile buffer area around the study area. Of
these sites, only one, 41LU1, is currently listed on the NRHP. It is located near Segment F (see
Figure 4-1). Site 41LU1 is also the only SAL in the Project area. Most of the sites within the Project
area have not been fully evaluated for NRHP eligibility and have an unknown eligibility status. Only
site 41LU136 has been evaluated and was determined to be ineligible for the NRHP.
Of the sites in the Project area, Site 41LU1 (The Lubbock Lake Site) is considered to have
considerable significance to our understanding of prehistoric lifeways in the region. The site is
known for rich archaeological deposits from the Folsom Period (10,800-10,300 years ago) and
includes the remains of bison as well as other large extinct mammals butchered by prehistoric
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light
people. Many of the other archaeological sites near 41LU1 and along Yellow House Draw are known
to contain similar significant deposits.
Archeological sites in the region tend to be located along the edges of natural waterways,
like Yellow House Draw, and along playa edges. Most of the Project area has been very heavily
impacted by urban and industrial growth of the City of Lubbock. While this development has
disturbed much of the prehistoric cultural resources in the area, more undiscovered and intact
archaeological sites are likely within the Project area. This is due to fact that sites are often deeply
buried in this region.
Historic archeological sites may exist within the proposed Project area. Generally, to be
recorded and evaluated as archeological sites, historic resources must contain artifact scatters
and/or features indicative of occupation and abandonment prior to 40-50 years ago. The region
likely contains architecture over 50 years of age representing the remains of historic homesteads
and farmsteads; however, such structures are not likely to be disturbed directly by the Project.
Cemeteries are not typically considered eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, but may be considered
eligible if the cemetery derives its primary significance from graves of people who were of
transcendent importance, or from age, or from distinctive design features, or from association with
historic events. However, cemeteries are protected under Title 8, Subtitle C, Chapters 694-715 of
the Texas Health and Safety Code and therefore, the Project must be designed to avoid these
sensitive resources.
Rich archaeological deposits exist in portions of the Project area, but the majority of the
Project area has been disturbed by urban and industrial development. These disturbed areas have a
relatively low potential for intact archeological sites near the surface. The undisturbed portions of
the Project area have a moderate to high potential for impact to cultural resources. Black & Veatch
does not anticipate that the Project will have a significant impact on cultural resources in the area.
3.8 LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS AND PUBLIC MEETINGS
LP&L routinely informs stakeholders about its Projects and engages them in the
consultation process. The principal methods of engagement have consisted of public open house
meetings or workshops and smaller meetings with communityleaders. As a matter of policy, LP&L
seeks positive relationships with affected landowners and communities by means of transparency
and open communication throughout the planning, filing, and construction processes.
For this Project, LP&L hosted and conducted two open -house -format meetings, held on July
18 and 19, 2017 at the Centennial Elementary School, 1301 North Utica Avenue in Lubbock. A total
of 310 invitation letters, which included a map of the study area, were sent to owners of property
within 300 feet of the centerline of one or more of the route segments identified at the time
invitations were sent. The open house public meeting featured several information stations that
included company information, project information, structure design drawings, environmental
features, constraints maps, and a mapping station for landowners to view the precise locations of
the preliminary route segment centerlines on or near their properties. The mapping station also
provided the opportunity for landowners to provide comments regarding the alignment of the
6L+! CK 01 ULA I L H I Route 5eiection Process < K o
Lubbock Power & Light ( ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
preliminary route segments and the potential impacts to their property, existing improvements,
and planned development.
Each individual who attended the open house signed his or her name on a sign -in sheet and
was provided handouts regarding the project. The handouts included project information sheets
and a questionnaire that asked for comments regarding the proposed project and the helpfulness of
the open house meeting and exhibits.
A total of 29 individuals signed the attendance sheet for the open house public meeting and
12 completed the questionnaire. Additional comments were received from several landowner
through telephone conversations. At least two of these conversations addressed the landowners'
concerns and caused them to retract negative comments about one or more route segments. Table
3-4 contains a summary of the route segments receiving negative comments. These comments
were accounted for in the scoring methodology.
Table 3-4 Questionnaire Response for Segments Not Favored
C
7
41.2%
GG
4
23.5%
G
2
11.8%
N
2
11.8%
R
2
11.8%
LL
2
11.8%
B
1
5.9%
SS
1
5.9%
Subsequently, and as a result of public comments received at and after the meeting,
revisions were made to two of the segment alignments. There were no additional landowners
brought within 300 feet of the revised segment alignments as a result of these revisions.
3.9 HABITABLE STRUCTURES
In an application for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity, the PUCT requires for each
route a list of the number of habitable structures. A habitable structure includes single and
multiple -family dwellings, mobile homes, apartment buildings, commercial structures, business
structures, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, schools, or other structures normhlly inhabited by
humans or intended to be inhabited by humans on a daily or regular basis. All such structures
within 300 feet of the alternative route centerlines of the proposed project should be identified.
The locations of habitable structures within 300 feet from the centerlines of the proposed
alternative routes were determined primarily by using online resources. The initial structure
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
capture was collected in ArcGIS by visually locating the structures using the imagery web service
provided by Esri. A 600 -foot wide corridor, 300 feet on both sides the route centerlines, was
created to identify all structures or portions of structures within that corridor. All of these
structures were then exported to a kmz file for confirmation in Google Earth. Any adjustments that
were made in the confirmation process were translated back to the GIS files as necessary.
Adjustments included refinement of distance measurements from the nearest point on each
structure to the route centerline and confirmations of types of structures using Google Earth Street
View and other Google Earth -based information.
Table 4-3 in the next section of the report contains the following information for each of the
routes analyzed and scored:
Number of habitable residential and institutional structures within 300 feet of a
route centerline and already within 300 feet of an existing transmission line.
Number of habitable residential and institutional structures within 300 feet of a
route centerline and not already within 300 feet of an existing transmission line.
Number of habitable industrial and commercial structures within 300 feet of a route
centerline.
3.10 INFRASTRUCTURE EVALUATIONS
The following sections address airstrips, irrigation systems and electronic installations in
the project area.
3.10.1 Airstrips
The only airport within 20,000 feet of the centerline of the route alternatives is the Lubbock
Preston Smith International Airport (LBB). The longest runway in this airport is 11,500 feet. Only
three route segments are further than 20,000 from the airport runway and all routes come within
20,000 feet of the airport. Typical structure heights for the Project would vary from 85 to 110 feet.
Based on estimated above ground structure heights, elevation, and relative distances between each
of the alternative routes and the airport, Black & Veatch estimates that only one route, XM11, may
have structures that exceed the notification criteria and therefore may require FAA notification.
The specific notification criterion that would apply is the requirement that notification is
needed for any construction or alteration that exceeds an imaginary surface extending outward and
upward at 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000 feet from the nearest point of the nearest
runway of each airport with its longest runway more than 3,200 feet in length. The potential for a
110 -foot tall structure means that the notification requirement would apply for any distance up to
11,000 feet from the nearest runway of the Preston Smith International Airport. Taking into
account that a crane may exceed the height of the structure by up to 25 feet, this distance includes a
very small portion of route XM11. Additionally, some structures in this route and others may have
the potential to interfere with FAA microwave and other communication transmissions. This
possibility will be determined at the time that structure data is input to the pertinent FAA website
after selection of a route. Distances and directions from the Preston Smith International Airport to
each of the alternative routes are provided in Table 3-5 below.
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process ; i
Lubbock Power & Light <UUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE>,;,ML,
Table 3-S Alternative Routes In Relation To Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport (LBB)
NX1
D and M
16,700
NE
NX2
C
12,500
E
NX3
J
17,150
NE
NX4
J
17,150
NE
NX5
N and K
14,680
NE
XM1
U and X
13,950
NE
XM2
U and X
13,950
NE
XM3
U and X
13,950
NE
XM4
Y
13,500
NE
XM5
Y
13,500
NE
XM6
T and V
13,600
NE
XM7
Y
13,500
NE
XM8
T and V
13,600
NE
XM9
T and V
13,600
NE
XM10
Y
13,500
NE
XM11
S
11,290
NE
3.10.2 Irrigation Systems
In the course of conducting the routing study for this project, traveling irrigation, as well as
rolling or pivot -type systems, were identified along five of the route segments. These segments are
contained in eight different routes altogether. If a route is selected that approaches one or more of
these existing irrigation systems, pole placement concessions may need to be made to
accommodate landowner irrigation operations. In the event that a new system is planned or
installed during the route selection process, and if that system might be affected by the construction
of the proposed transmission line, reasonable efforts should be made to minimize impacts through
structure placement and conductor height design.
3.10.3 Electronic Installations
Two AM radio transmitters were identified within 10,000 feet of the alternative routes. No
FM radio transmitters were identified within 2,000 feet of the alternative routes. Two route
segments, contained in eight different routes altogether, are within 10,000 feet of an AM
transmitter. Black & Veatch does not anticipate that the Project will have any impact on these
transmitters or their operations.
BLACK & VEATCH I Route Selection Process
Lubbock Power & Light ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The distance of each AM transmitter from the closest segment was measured using GIS and
aerial photograph interpretation. Information on towers was reviewed by using public, online
information compiled by Cavell, Mertz & Associates.
Table 3-6 Electronic Installations within 10,000 feet of Segment Centerlines
33034'56.31"N 101°49'33.65"W AM- KJTV LL 8,925
33036'49.15"N 101"52'31.74"W AM- KJDL U 2,480
3.11 ROUTE MODIFICATIONS
As a result of the field reconnaissance trips, comments from LP&L, and comments received
from the general public, Black & Veatch made modifications to the preliminary routes. These
modifications resulted in refined and updated potential routes for the proposed transmission line.
Modifications to the preliminary routes addressed the issues that could not be identified in
the initial desktop work and that might have presented conflicts with the route segment locations
as presented at the public meeting. Issues included:
Existing commercial buildings.
Plans for residential or small commercial development.
Plans for major commercial development nearly a city park.
Landowners' requests for line relocation within or outside of their properties.
Other existing or planned construction or development near the preliminary routes.
After these and other modifications were made to the route segments, Black & Veatch
developed route scores. These are provided in Section 4.0 of this report. The process for
determining the scores and the best -scoring route is also described in Section 4.0. All of the route
segments shown on the maps are technically feasible for the new transmission line, though the
expected cost of construction varies among the routing options.
BLACK & VEATCH Route Selection Process 3-20
Lubbock Power & Light
4.0 Description of Routes and Segments
Between the Northwest and Mackenzie Substations, Black & Veatch developed a route
network as shown on the map in Figure 4-1. The network comprises 32 route segments, denoted
by letters in the map.
Figure 4-1 Route Segments Map
BLACK & VEATCH I Description of Routes and Segment
Lubbock Power & Light
The initial GIS -generated routes were refined and smoothed as described in Section 3.1. In
order to generate a sufficient number of routes for analysis, Black & Veatch looked for
opportunities to connect routes in locations where two of the three preliminary routes ran close to
one another or where the land between two routes was favorable to the location of a transmission
line. These connections were called inter -route crossovers. In other instances, an alternative
option was found to get from one point on a route to another on the same route. These were called
intra -route connectors. Wherever a crossover or connector intersects with a route, the intersection
point is called a node. The line between any two nodes, or a node and a substation, is called a
segment.
Examples of crossover segments in Figure 4-1 are TT and UU. Examples of connector
segments are GG and MM. Black & Veatch initially assigned alphabetical segment designations
ranging from A to Z, AA to ZZ, and AAA to GGG. The letters I and 0 were not used for any segments
to avoid confusion with numerals. Of the 57 possible segment designations from the letter
combinations above, only 32 segments remain. This is a result of the modifications to the route
network made over the course of the project, both before and after the open house public meeting.
Whenever feedback from stakeholders, observations in the field, or discoveries online led to a
decision to eliminate or reroute a segment, nodes were added, eliminated, or moved. During this
process, 25 segments were eliminated along with their designations. All segments were evaluated
individually and combined to form a variety of unique routes from Northwest Substation to X -FAB
and from X -FAB to Mackenzie Substation.
The 32 remaining segments can combine to form several dozen unique routes. The
objective of this routing study is the evaluation of a sufficient number of routes to provide
geographically diverse, technically feasible routes for further consideration. A total of 16 routes
were identified for further analysis and scoring: five routes for Northwest Substation to X -FAB and
11 routes for X -FAB to Mackenzie Substation. Each of the 32 route segments was used in one or
more of the 16 routes.
For analysis and scoring purposes, each of the 16 routes was assigned an identification
number from NX1 through NX5 for Northwest Substation to X -FAB and XM1 through XM11 for X -
FAB to Mackenzie Substation. Each route and all of the segments composing each route are
shown in Table 4-1.
Routes NX1 and NX2 use segment B to run north from Northwest Substation and routes
NX3 through NX5 use segment E to run east from Northwest Substation. Routes XM1 through
XM7 use segment J to run south, then east from the X -FAB site and routes XM8 through XM11 use
segment M to run north, then east from the X -FAB site.
Table 4-1 also provides the lengths of all 16 routes. They range from a low of 2.26 miles for
Route NX4 to a high of 6.29 miles for Route NX2 for the Northwest Substation to X -FAB routes and
from a low of 3.76 miles for Route XM4 to a high of 4.32 miles for Route XM11 for the X -FAB to
Mackenzie Substation routes. Individual segment lengths range from 0.02 mile for segment RR to
4.40 miles for segment C.
BLACK & VEATCH I Description of Routes and Segments
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Table 4-1 Route Numbers, Segments, and Lengths
4.1 ROUTE SCORING
The routes were scored initially on a raw score basis. Raw scores were calculated by
multiplying factor values, for each of the 59 routing factors, by quantities for each segment. The
complete list of routing factors is provided in Table 3-1. Environmental and infrastructure factors
are quantified both by length in miles and by number of occurrences along a route segment. For
those factors quantified in length, length in miles is multiplied by the factor value to obtain a raw
score for that segment and factor. For those factors quantified in number of occurrences, the
number of occurrences is multiplied by the factor value to obtain a raw score for that segment
and factor. By summing all of the 59 products thus obtained, a raw score is calculated for each
segment. The raw scores for each segment in a route are summed to arrive at the raw score for
that route.
BLACK & VEATCH I Description of Routes and Segments
Northwest to XFAB
NX1
A -B -D -M
3.43
NX2
A -B -C -K -M
6.29
NX3
A -E -G -H -J
2.44
NX4
A -E -F -J
2.26
NX5
A -E -F -Q -R -N -K -M
3.65
XFAB to Mackenzie
XM1
J -H -U -X -SS -LL -RR
3.78
XM2
J-H-U-X-TT-UU-LL-RR
3.84
XM3
J-H-U-X-TT-HH-JJ-NN-QQ-RR
3.81
XM4
J-H-U-Y-VV-HH-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
3.76
XM5
J-H-U-Y-GG-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
3.78
XM6
J -Q -T -V -X -SS -LL -RR
3.81
XM7
J-Q-T-V-Y-VV-HH-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
3.78
XM8
M -K -N -R -T -V -X -SS -LL -RR
4.07
XM9
M-K-N-R-T-V-X-TT-HH-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
4.06
XM10
M-K-N-R-T-V-Y-VV-UU-LL-RR
4.11
XM11
M-K-N-S-V-X-TT-HH-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
4.32
4.1 ROUTE SCORING
The routes were scored initially on a raw score basis. Raw scores were calculated by
multiplying factor values, for each of the 59 routing factors, by quantities for each segment. The
complete list of routing factors is provided in Table 3-1. Environmental and infrastructure factors
are quantified both by length in miles and by number of occurrences along a route segment. For
those factors quantified in length, length in miles is multiplied by the factor value to obtain a raw
score for that segment and factor. For those factors quantified in number of occurrences, the
number of occurrences is multiplied by the factor value to obtain a raw score for that segment
and factor. By summing all of the 59 products thus obtained, a raw score is calculated for each
segment. The raw scores for each segment in a route are summed to arrive at the raw score for
that route.
BLACK & VEATCH I Description of Routes and Segments
Lubbock Power & Light ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
For this Project, the sums calculated from number of occurrences of the various routing
factors are significantly greater than the sums calculated from the length of a segment within a
particular routing factor or feature. This is due to the fact that factor length sums, in miles,
average 2.16 per segment whereas factor occurrence sums average 26 per segment. Therefore,
the ratio of occurrence -based sums to length -based sums is more than 12 to 1. This disparity is
common whenever there are routing factors with many occurrences. Examples from this study
include, for the entire route network, 187 land parcel crossings and 236 habitable structures
within 300 feet of a segment centerline. This compares to length -based factors, none of which
totaled as high as 18 miles.
A similarly common disparity occurs between the raw scores calculated for
environmental factors versus those for infrastructure factors. Only 11 of 34 environmental
factors (32%) are occurrence -based versus 18 of 25 factors (72%) for infrastructure factors. This
means that raw scores for infrastructure factors are higher than those for environmental factors.
In order to compensate for this difference, the route scores in this study were normalized
numerically by selecting a weighting, or contribution, for environmental and infrastructure
factors. The weighting upon which the route recommendations were made in this study was 50%
environmental and 50% infrastructure.
Table 4-2 contains the raw route scores and weighted scores from this study. The raw
scores contain a disproportionately high component of infrastructure factor scores for the
reasons cited above. The weighted scores are based on 50% environmental scores and 50%
infrastructure scores, a reasonable allocation of emphasis for this study.
Table 4-2 Raw and Weighted Route Scores
Northwest to XFAB
NX1
A -B -D -M
209.96
2
250.99 2
NX2
A -B -C -K -M
320.67
5
375.75 5
NX3
A -E -G -H -J
212.92
3
252.96 3
NX4
A -E -F -J
189.27
1
222.56 1
NX5
A -E -F -Q -R -N -K -M
313.76
4
360.05 4
XFAB to Mackenzie
XMi
J -H -U -X -SS -LL -RR
319.74
5
382.02 6
XM2
J-H-U-X-TT-UU-LL-RR
307.25
3
364.86
4
XM3
J-H-U-X-TT-HH-JJ-NN-QQ-RR
318.14
4
356.70
1
XM4
J-H-U-Y-VV-HH-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
327.34
6
379.77
5
XM5
J-H-U-Y-GG-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
■
393.45
11
452.50
11
BLACK & VEATCH I Description of Routes and Segments
Lubbock Power & Light :JW E SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
XM6
J -Q -T -V -X -SS -LL -RR
295.18
1
364.84
3
XM7
J-Q-T-V-Y-VV-HH-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
302.78
2
363.90
2
XM8
M -K -N -R -T -V -X -SS -LL -RR
371.34
9
441.93
9
XM9
M-K-N-R-T-V-X-TT-HH-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
364.89
8
414.25
7
XM10
M-K-N-R-T-V-Y-VV-UU-LL-RR
372.89
10
450.53
10
XM11
M-K-N-S-V-X-TT-HH-JJ-MM-QQ-RR
364.40
7
417.76
8
As the table shows, the routes with the best raw score are Route NX4 for Northwest
Substation to X -FAB and Route XM6 for X -FAB to Mackenzie Substation. However, when the scores
are normalized for a 50%/50% environmental/infrastructure weighting, Route XM3 surpasses
Route XM6 for X -FAB to Mackenzie Substation. Route NX4 kept its top rank for Northwest
Substation to X -FAB. The weighted scores are the ones used as the ultimate basis of comparison
among the various routes.
For Northwest Substation to X -FAB, the route with the best overall (weighted) score
was NX4, with a score of 222.56. Route NX4 is composed of segments A -E -F-1. The next best
scoring route was Route NX1, with a score of 250.99 and composed of segments A -B -D -M.
The third best scoring route was Route NX3, with a score of 252.96 and composed of
segments A -E -G -H -J.
Route NX4 characteristics include the following:
Overall best total weighted score.
Overall best total raw score.
Overall best environmental raw score.
Overall best environmental weighted score.
Best ranked for all environmental weightings of 25% through 75%.
Overall best infrastructure raw score.
Overall best infrastructure weighted score
Shortest overall length at 2.26 miles.
Second lowest number of land parcels crossed at 26.
Second lowest number of habitable structures within 300 feet of its centerline at 32.
For X -FAB to Mackenzie Substation, the route with the best overall (weighted) score
was XM3, with a score of 356.70. Route XM3 is composed of segments J-H-U-X-TT-HH-JJ-NN-
QQ-RR. The next best scoring route was Route XM7, with a score of 363.90 and composed of
segments J-Q-T-V-Y-VV-HH-JJ-MM-QQ-RR. The third best scoring route was Route XM6, with
a score of 364.84 and composed of segments J -Q -T -V -X -SS -LL -RR. Virtually tied with Route
XM6 is Route XM2 with a score of 364.86. It is composed of segments J-H-U-X-TT-UU-LL-RR.
BLACK & VEATCH j Description of Routes and Segments
Lubbock Power & Light
Route XM3 characteristics include the following:
Overall best total weighted score.
Best ranked for all environmental weightings of 25% through 53%.
Overall best infrastructure raw score.
Second best infrastructure weighted score
Only 0.05 mile longer than the shortest overall route length at 3.81 miles.
For the X -FAB to Mackenzie Substation routes, the weighted score difference among the
top -scoring four routes is quite small, only 8.16, or 2.3%. This contrasts with a scoring difference of
28.43, or 12.8%, between the top two scoring routes, NX4 and NX1, for the Northwest Substation to
X -FAB portion of the Project.
4.2 DESCRIPTION OF BEST -SCORING ROUTES
This section describes the paths of Routes NX4 and XM3, the best scoring routes for
Northwest Substation to X -FAB and X -FAB to Mackenzie Substation, respectively.
For Route NX4, segment A begins at Northwest Substation on Ursuline Street west of North
Quaker Avenue. It runs approximately 0.20 mile east to its intersection with segments B and E on
the north side of Ursuline Street. Segment E begins at its intersection with segments A and B and
runs east 0.10 mile to Clovis Ad. At this point, the route turns to the southeast and runs
approximately 0.51 mile to the intersection with segments F and G. From this intersection,
Segment F starts to the northeast, crossing Clovis Road (US Highway 84), entering the Lubbock
Lake Landmark property, and running 0.28 mile before turning to the east-southeast for 0.09 mile.
It turns again to the northeast for 0.66 miles, leaving the Lubbock Lake Landmark property to its
intersection with segments H and J. From this intersection, segment J heads north for
approximately 0.42 mile to its termination at the X -FAB site. The total length of Route NX4 is 2.26
miles.
For Route XM3, segment J leaves the X -FAB site to the south, paralleling Route NX4 for 0.42
mile to its intersection with segments F and H. It runs south on segment H for 0.06 mile, crossing
the Highway 289 Loop to its intersection with segments G and U. The route turns to the east on
segment U and parallels the Highway 289 Loop for 1.15 mile to its intersection with segments V and
X. From this point, it heads south on segment X for approximately 0.95 mile to the intersection with
segments SS and TT. From this point the route heads east on segment TT for 0.15 mile to the
intersection with segments HH, UU, and W. At this point, the route continues east on segments HH
and JJ for approximately 0.76 mile to the intersection with segments MM and NN. The route
continues east on segment NN for 0.05 mile, then turns south for 0.19 mile, and then southwest for
0.02 mile to its intersection with segments MM and QQ. It continues southwest for 0.05 mile to the
intersection with segments LL and RR. From this point, segment RR runs 0.02 mile to the southeast
into Mackenzie Substation.
BLACK & VEATCH I Description of Routes and Segments
Lubbock Power & Light
4.3 COMPARATIVE RESOURCE INVENTORY
Table 4-3 provides a comparative resource inventory for all of the routes developed for this
project. It contains a list of features and characteristics identified within and along each of the 16
routes as well as the length of each feature or number of occurrences within each route. These
quantities were used directly in the computation of scores for each route.
As stated earlier in this report, the factors are categorized as environmental or
infrastructure factors. Environmental factors address land use and land cover types,
environmentally sensitive areas, species habitats, aesthetics, habitable structures, cultural
resources, and parks and recreational areas. These are important in identifying potential
environmental impacts of the project. There are 34 of these factors in the route analysis.
Infrastructure factors address utility corridors and crossings, levee and canal crossings,
natural water body crossings, floodplains, highway and railroad crossings, angle structures, land
parcels, and proximity to airports, towers, and cemeteries. The factors are quantified either as
length of a route or route segment within or parallel to a land use or existing infrastructure feature
or as the number of occurrences of a factor along a route or route segment. These are important in
identifying potential impediments to construction, level of effort needed to permit crossings of
private and public facilities, number of land parcel easements to be obtained, and potential
obstructions to air travel and communications. There are 25 of these factors in the route analysis.
BLACK & VEATCH I Description of Routes and Segments 4-7
M
e
v
z=q r m c
r
F�E
Y Y
N
C
O
O O
C
N
^
€
O
o O
O O O p
p
S
O
v
O O
p p
d
6
O o
o
m
e
r�
o e e p e
e e p
e e
e
e S
x
€
S
8 S
€
S
e
8
- p
S S e
e p
[S
2FrgY
r
=
c O o
0 0 €
e o€
o m
S �
0
0
l-s>�
L N
_
S
C
z H
-
€
d O
o
6
i >
O O6
O o O
O C o O O O O
O O O
O C
O .+
o O
Y
} �Y
O
M
o
C O O o
0
a
O p
-
O
'
f
O o
C .-
O o O o o 0
o - O
o
p6
6
S
e p p
p e e e eop
e e e
e
p
uo
x_
d p
d
e o
sY
e
d S
6 8
S d 8 8
S S
`
OS e e
p p e -e
e8
p8
�z
x=Y
€ S1. S
clm1. G 1.8
e
d
8
S
ixa
m
p e e = 6e
e
de
5
�
_ �'
m
•+ �+
O o ci OO
C O
O
O p
h Y
` p
~ O
o C O
M
o O
Y
a�
Y
Ll.o
V
M M
o o
` O O O o O
n =
C O O o C O O ..
C
O e o
O
O p m
d
N
C
O
O O
C
N
N
O
o O
O O O p
O O O p O O
O
O
O O
p p
d
6
e
e
p g p p
o e e p e
e e p
e e
e
e S
x
€
S
8 S
€
S
e
8
- p
S S e
e p
6
S �
L N
_
S
C
p
-
€
ry
L �
M
O O6
O o O
O C o O O O O
O O O
O C
O .+
o O
a
E'
12 E t C 2
- E d
.a v ec'b ec d `a
z z' z z z z° c >> .°SE .� "SH IF IF u °O
r
ag
�a ��erveeee o�=oIli m 0 ee_���Y�_ri
P
o N O O N p C
a
o o c 0 0 o e N o o .. $ o0 0 o a .- " ry n o <
I c ee s ee a �_, rvMe
N e w e e e e a e Is N 6 e e a
ry e e N e e e e ¢¢ ry
o
o-
log
lie
iKon
' m
o .,
deo
_ne
=
u E
am
._-4
BA
.seq
se
`e
i.
i i°
z° zo
b
z° z° z i
�
\ . . . . . . . .
n
G
} d
!2
f
-i
!®
n
!Jo41®
■
`
/7
§e
_
!!
J!
�§
w§
J;
+w
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL A.... r
The routing factors listed in the preceding table include those needed to meet the
requirements of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA) §37.056(c) (4) (A) -(D), 16 Texas
Administrative Code (TAC) §22.52(a)(4), and 16 TAC §25.101(b)(3)(B). This was the standard
used for this Project even though LP&L is not required to file and application for a CCN with the
PUCT.
BLACK & VEATCH I Description of Routes and Segments 4-11
Lubbock Power & Light ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
5.0 Permitting Requirements
A detailed search of regulatory requirements identified those federal, state, and local
permits or formal approvals that will or might be required for the construction of the Project. These
reviews, permits, and/or approvals are summarized in Table 5-1.
Section 3.4 of this report contains information on formal agency consultation efforts made
to date. Appendix B contains all of the agency responses to the consultation request letters that
were sent to those agencies. Those consultation requests were for the Project study area and
included the area covering the entire route network of 32 segments. After a route has been selected
for construction, a focused search of regulatory requirements for that specific route will be
performed and new consultation request letters will be sent to the jurisdictional agencies as the
first step in the pre -construction permitting process for this project.
BLACK & VEATCH I Permitting Requirements 5.1
H
z
W
V)
to
W
Ln
Ln
Q
a
H
z
vi
o
v_
m
y
u y v
au
L
v
^
v
w c
y
.�
L
yp•�
O ()
0.'p
y4y
a X Y cam.
O w Co O
O c
a) ^a t,'
y
.L ^
i
L
O
c 0
cG E
Y
ca
E
L c cm a
�'
u°"C.
v E
CWw u
a)
3�p
Q)
O
Y
O
y
a)
a) .a
y t0.
c y O
° E w
`
y R O
a) CZ c
.a
c O
La.
E Y
L
G O
O u L y
x
a) a
C%
O
�
R
-a
Ln
^a u
+O•�
3
tea
ac
mcu
0 ycC„ �O
ac,yo
d.
OcnCD
� �-'
tcm
O
--°
o
co
L
Y 11 c Y
rr fC �.
Y
O {a.
U
O v
°
c
c
O C
C
L3. L i O
a) c�
L O O
:
y y O
c
O F
Y O
C
bc O v
M
O
pp
m
LO
O p w
°
,
c
rA
H
O
yr M
y
cu
•L
n
R
w
f>6 ^O cu
.c c .--, ,a E
cu c
f/1
u •�
a)
cu
cc Co
y b
o
p
u
a) ^
aO L 1
3
O
p
o
ai
E L1.
Cq
E t+
L
y R
to .Y.
o f° o,
Y 17 '� y
m¢
y Lx- Ln
° u
0-0O0
of
mc0..
c
y
obis
y
Lr]
CU
o
a)
1-
CL V)
y
aj a)
CU u m
c
v
o a
a. 3 n
I-
aL)pL�
v
c
0
CL
0
�
7 E
c y
Q'
i° o
of
�
3 Al
o i° E
�.°
Z
d .� y u
y�Fa
N
iv `g
i .a U
M
E .c
Een
G Li. LO
L 'a
u
bLl Ew.,
c tri cu
co
L O '�
Q)
C) C
O y
ac' Y
'y y y
Lp. ^
Q U
'y ... E
>,'x. c 'a >
a! O
O U L
c .--•
y u
aJ c
y
w L
Z
C
a) M a)c
'a
a° co a
CL
.i
O c) to
L c
w
y
C
b0 b[1
Z
U
.a 0.
O c Y
O d m
'a to a) U
w bcD°y
O •� ,a
-0
b O
U •% 6)
`� 'y
^O y
y two
to y
—O C
is r-Y
L c
ca Q
=3
O
b V?
tC tt1
3 Y „
cl) fa L
L N O L
N p
a m
y:3 � U
�° ca
a) ••-• 4i
1 E u
L p
i7
L c M O
G^
u o
V)
y a
°) c y
v
E$ m y
C o
o
u
y" n
o
E y .°
cr o
-
y u
E„ o
a
uos
C]...
U Y
Gc
a m
W o
=. o c u
a>i
Lx
U Y ca
Q)
Lr ba
B m
a)()Jv
cGm O
°'
rn
m
^
v
w c
o
A
G
E
O
u
is
E
y
�.
4+ u
z
>
CU
y
o
CL)
E
°
v y
a
¢
u
c
y 0
c
p
0
r
L'
U
too
c
c
O
c
O
o
Z
U
o
i;
b
c w
U
O
c
u
c
O Y
z E
O.
to
fC
n
td
y
u
)
^
L
U
O
G
ai
E L1.
�a"i
>
y
C
U
aci
Lr]
a)
O
u
y
>
c
taES-
c�
O
,.+
L1
c
0
fl.
O
U
7 E
Y
to ^
t•^
°Y)
O
to
•t7 O
w0
O O
o oa..
o
°ca
°
Q)
a
y;
p, En
;� a
c>
O
C0 ,_4
Lp. ^
Q U
p
u
�.
M
L.
CA
v
%
W
0
u=
o ff
•oc
=a
O
o
u
O a)
a
y
co
U
v)
LTJ L)
E�
a
Z
U
ZC7
C-) 0.
°
c tn
c
o v)
o
u
c
"�-
�"'
O
d
L L
1
�+
°
U
O
cC a
C13
❑
94
c A
to=y
y
L
O
u
p
y
c L, -�
c
�
cy
A
a)
a
Ubu
E
°iv
o0
i
a
°.-,
W o
°
ou
n
3
v o¢.
U -d
En
z cn
O
y
OE
y
'o
L o
pfs,
.a
EW
o c
EnO
cz
.>
C
L
c�
az,
.Y..0
E y
tan
�
>L+ U
L
GL
U
Q V)
U
Q
.y..
CL
[S]
u O
a .E
t". r�
EW"
Q
,.U„ y
y
Ca •>
d
W
��
En
V)
��
a
�Q
c
ztnU
b
.a x
x
Li:�
LEn
o°.F
E -w
E"
H
z
w
N
Ln
LU
Ln
N
a
a
z
Cw
C
z
0
z
w
66
}
O
D
F -
Z
O
u
W
J
t
m
co
v
O
CL
Y
u
0
J2
3
J
0
6)
E
61
N
O
y
N
L
O
O
y
3
--
3
co
ai
E-
o
R
ai
ai
c
C
ca
0
°
C
C
L
6) 0.
6)
N
.G
6)
L
y
O
L1.
-C
O
O
•tn
i+
v
i LO
y
L
�'"•
O
y
- -
O
N
c6
u
Uy
�a
N
a
N
0
>
U
m
W
O
c
c
N
d
r i
d
R
R
G4
i
L.
E
L.
G O
+� "'
C 0
3 -o
v
c
vi
—>'
G
a
o
\
o
n
oa�
L
cu
M.
a)
$
°ccc
cts
fC
ccv
cca
b
U
N
C
II'
N
�
Qj
C
C
C
C
N W
L
O
_
R
Bu¢
a)
L3.
W
c
v
t
Y
O
Ll'
N
Q)
a)
tR.�
ru
—
-0
t0 N
a) N
w
cuu
'a.ii
6
>
c
.O
=3
'�
0
to
y
u
O
ca O
H
>
0
¢
CJ
4-1
C
E
L
0u=
O
C
w
%-
I-
ORVLO
R
f0
y
6)
�-
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
-
0
O
3
N
LO
c i
C
O
C
O
CN.0
O
OC
1uA
bD
c
m
d
yi+
L.(L)
Sb^44.1
Z
y C
}L,
ct
O
N
O
UU
u
U
uz
L O
c
u
R 7
CL O'
N fC
C a�
a)>
0
fa
6)
L
> O
i+
>
i+
N
%
N
C
f�/1
C
N
c
y
(1)
0.'
O O
U C
L
G.
a)
Z
U M
d�
V
Q
O
U
O
U
O
U
O
U
-0
O
N
0
6)
E
ca
3
co
u
C
�
6)
W
N
U
u
cu
y
En
v
�a
NtudV
v
>
U
v
CL
8
L
d
r i
d
R
CU
'a
O
,W
U
f4
�u+
6)
U
cts
fC
+'
1>
Qj
i.
LI)
C
'-�
CLCL
CD
`N°
W
c
G)
3
y
°-
O
¢0
E
cuu
c
bD
'�
to
4
O
O
ca O
'C3
>
0
¢
E
L
C
O
G.
4)
O
U
U
_O
C y
O
f0
N
6)
�-
y
O
p"
6)
V) U
y O
6) i
N
'N
3
U
'C
LO
c i
,
;
bD
c
m
d
rL+
C
fy6
c
Sb^44.1
}L,
U3
UU
t-
FU
aa))
O
c
u
Z
T
$
U
U
w
m
v
y
y
C u
6C1
6)
L
o
•
i
E
.LO.
O
N0 O
OCJ
Oc)
L
ca
L
f9
^A
E
=
v
a)
O
OA
y�
L
bZ
cu
A
A
'V) 80
cu
N
6c)
U
�`+
Es
C
u
O
Aca
R
E
E
CZ
ca
O
N
0.
v
v
0
o
V
A
a)
a0.i
v
a0.)'
F.
�.
O
L
ar
E
cas
W
w
c7
0.
A a,
A
x
a
.a
p
3
L
c
W
W
w'
U
aj
v
aa)) 0
cu v
a)
cu H aNL)
Z
0
j
�
�
$
m
o
0
F-
F
F A
E- >
L.
E- —CL
m
.a
ami
u
U
c
v
E
a
cr
w
N
n6
.y
`m
x
V
Cl
o�J
Y
V
Q
m
Lubbock Power & Light
6.0 References
ABB 2016. Ventyx Energy Velocity Suite. Data downloaded 2016.
Cavell, Mertz & Associates, Inc. 2016. FCC Info on Google Earth (AM, FM and Antenna Structures).
http://www.fccinfo.com/fccinfo_google_earth.php
Ecological Mapping Systems of Texas (EMST). 2015. GIS Data Download. Available on the internet:
https://tpwd.texas.gov/gis/data/downloads#EMS-T.
Federal Communication Commission (FCC). 2012. Geographic Information Systems — Licensing
Database Extracts. Available on the internet: http://wireless.fcc.gov/ (last updated 2012).
Google. 2015. Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.5.1557) [Computer program]. Available online:
http://www.google.com/earth/download/gep/agree.html.
Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jinn, S., Danielson, P., Man, G., Coulson, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham,
J.D., and Megon, K., 2015, Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the
Conterminous United States -Representing a decade of land cover change information.
Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, v. 81, no. 5, p. 345-354
Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC). 2015. Pipeline Routes Data. Online at
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2016. Consultation Letter Response dated May 8,
2017 and notes from conversations with TxDOT on April 25 and May3, 2017.
Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). 2016. Railroad Map. Available on the internet:
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/railroad.html
Texas Historical Commission (THC). 2016. Consultation Letter Response dated May 3, 2017.
Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD). 2017. Data Request. Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department. Texas Biological and Conservation Data System. Austin, Texas.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2016. Consultation Letter Response dated May 8,
2017.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). 2016. Texas Parks and Wildlife Annotated County
List of Rare Species. Available on the internet: http://tpwd.texas.gov/gis/rtest/.
Willis, Mark. 2017. Desktop review of Cultural Resource Review at the Proposed Lubbock Power &
Light Northwest to Mackenzie Project. Blanton & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas, August 8,
2017.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016 Consultation Letter Response dated April
18, 2017.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Mapper.
Available on the internet: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.
BLACK & VEATCH I References
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & LNViKUNPViE+N i AL ASSESS Mh
Appendix A. Descriptions of Systems, Mapping Subsystems,
and Vegetation Types for Texas
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix A A_1
Lubbock Power & Light
Land use classifications within a 100 -ft buffer of alignments. Excerpts from:
"DESCRIPTIONS OF SYSTEMS, MAPPING SUBSYSTEMS, AND VEGETATION TYPES FOR TEXAS"
Lee Elliott
14 January 2014
The following descriptions cover the systems that have been identified for the legend for all the
phases of the Ecological Systems Classification and Mapping Project in support of the Texas
Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Many
of these descriptions were drafted from System descriptions available from NatureServe
(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/). Most System descriptions were modified, and all
Vegetation Type descriptions were generated from discussions regarding these cover types. These
brief narratives generally focus on 'typical' type concepts, and mapped vegetation types often
circumscribe more variation on the ground than what is described here. For each system, a number
of cover types, or "Vegetation Types" were described. A common name is given for each Vegetation
Type, and this name is used in the table of contents and for the map legend. Additionally, a second
name is provided which more directly ties the Vegetation Type to the system of which it is a part. A
numeric identifier is also provided. This identifier represents the identifier used by NatureServe for
the system. For the Vegetation Type, a digit suffix is provided to distinguish the various cover types
within the system. In parentheses directly following the common name of the Vegetation Type, a
number is provided. This number represents the numeric code used to track the Vegetation Types
during the mapping process.
Llano Estacado Caprock Escarpment and Breaks Shrubland and Steppe
Identifier: CES303.725
Geology: May occur on various surfaces that are sufficiently resistant to erosion to form breaks or
escarpments. This includes sedimentary deposits such as sandstones, limestones, or shales, or less
frequently, igneous formations such as basalt. Breaks associated with the Permian Blaine
Formation may have gypsum exposed or influencing the vegetation.
Landform: Breaks and escarpments including slopes and nearby uplands, sometimes associated
with canyons or drainages, but not necessarily. The system occupies slopes, but may continue over
transitions to more level sites upslope and downslope.
Soils: May occur on various soils, as well as on sites where little soil development has occurred.
Rough Breaks Ecological Sites are characteristic of this system, but other sites such as Rocky Hill,
Shallow, and Gravelly Ecological Sites may also be occupied by this system.
Description: This system is closely related to, and may overlap with the previously described
system Southwestern Great Plains Canyon System (CES303.665), though the currently considered
system is not confined strictly to canyons. The physiognomic character of occurrences ranges from
sparsely vegetated to shrubland, to sparse woodland. Bare ground is often conspicuous and
herbaceous cover is usually dominated by mid- to shortgrasses such as Aristida purpurea (purple
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix A
Lubbock Power & Light
threeawn), Bouteloua curtipendula (sideoats grama), Bothriochloa laguroides sspp. torreyana (silver
bluestem), Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama), Bouteloua hirsuta (hairy grama), and Schizachyrium
scoparium (little bluestem). Forbs, including species such as Artemisia ludoviciana (western
mugwort), Thelesperma filifolium (slender greenthread), Calylophus spp. (sundrops), Chaetopappa
ericoides (heath least -daisy), Krameria lanceolata (trailing ratany), Zinniagrandifora (plains
zinnia), and Melampodium leucanthum (plains blackfoot), may also be present. Shrub canopy may
be dense, with some species reaching tree stature, and on some sites forming sparse woodland.
Shrub and tree species include Juniperus pinchotii (redberry juniper), Juniperus ashei (Aske
juniper), Prosopisglandulosa (honey mesquite), Rhus trilobata (skunkbush sumac), Rhus
microphylla (littleleaf sumac), Dalea formosa (feather dalea), Ziziphus obtusifolia (lotebush),
Ephedra antisyphilitica (joint -fir), Artemisia filifolia (sand sage), Mahonia trifoliolata (agarito),
Cercocarpus montanus (true mountain mahogany), Quercus mohriana (Mohr's shin oak), and
Gutierrezia sarothrae (broom snakeweed). Occurrences over gypsiferous formations (such as the
Permian Blaine Formation) are mapped separately, though they are compositionally very similar to
the typical type. Some species that may suggest the presence of gypsum influence include Nama
stevensii (Stevens' fiddleleaf), Calylophus berlandieri (Berlandier's evening primrose), Phacelia
integrifolia (gyp phacelia), Thelesperma megapotamicum (Navajo tea), and Haploesthesgreggii
(false broomweed), but these species may or may not be present at all sites. The gyp breaks tend to
have sparser shrub canopy, reduced herbaceous cover, and more visible bare ground, sometimes
with exposed gypsum strata visible.
VEGETATION TYPE:
Rolling Plains: Breaks Canyon (2100)
Llano Estacado Caprock Escarpment and Sparsely Vegetated Breaks
Identifier: CES303.725.0 MoRAP Code: 2100
Rolling Plains: Breaks Deciduous Shrubland (2106)
Llano Estacado Caprock Escarpment and Breaks Deciduous Shrubland
Identifier: CES303.725.1 MoRAP Code: 2106
Description: As described for the system.
VEGETATION TYPE:
High Plains: Sand Prairie (8007)
Identifier: CES303.670 MoRAP Code: 8007
Description: As described for system.
Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie
Identifier: CES303.672
Geology: This widespread system occurs on various geologic formations.
Landform: Often on level to gently rolling uplands.
Soils: Within Phase 1, this system occurs on Rough Breaks, Shallow Clay, Very Shallow, and Very
Shallow Clay Ecological Sites.
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix A
Lubbock Power & Light
Description: This system is better developed and more widespread to the north and west of Phase
1, and occurs sporadically on the western edge of Phase 1. Bouteloua dactyloides (buffalograss) and
Bouteloua gracilis (blue grama) are common dominants. Other species that may be present include
Aristida purpurea (purple threeawn), Bouteloua curtipendula (sideoats grama), B. hirsuta (hairy
grama), B. rigidiseta (Texas grama), Erioneuron pilosum (fluffgrass), Hilaria belangeri
(curlymesquite), and Pascopyrum smithii (western wheatgrass). Shrub cover is generally low, but
may include species such as Acacia greggii (catclaw), Rhus microphylla (littleleaf sumac), Rhus
trilobata (skunkbush sumac), Dalea formosa (feather dalea), Mahonia trifoliolata (agarito),
Juniperus spp. (juniper), and Prosopisglandulosa (mesquite). Forbs such as Calylophus spp.
(sundrops), Melampodium leucanthum (plains Blackfoot), Krameria lanceolata (trailing ratany), and
others are often present. Gutierrezia sarothrae (broom snakeweed) may be present with significant
cover, especially on sites with intense and continuous grazing. In this, the southeastern most
expression of the system, it tends to occur on sites with soils providing relatively dry conditions
such as Shallow Clay, Very Shallow, and Very Shallow Clay Ecological Sites.
VEGETATION TYPE:
High Plains: Shortgrass Prairie'(2907)
Western Great Plains Shortgrass Prairie
Identifier: CES303.672.9 MoRAP Code: 2907
Description: As described for system.
Western Great Plains Floodplain
Identifier: CES303.678
Geology: This system generally occurs on Quaternary Alluvium.
Landform: Valley floors of large rivers and perennial streams. This system tends to occupy broad
valley bottoms with deep alluvial deposits. In Phase 1, this system is found within the Clear Fork of
the Middle Brazos watersheds.
Soils: This system occurs on Loamy Bottomland, Clayey Bottomland, and Draw ecoclasses.
Description: This system is characteristic of valley floors of large rivers and perennial streams
where significant alluvial deposition occurs. Broad alluvial deposits commonly occur and are
generally mapped as Bottomland soils. This system can be expressed in numerous cover types
including forests, woodlands, shrublands, and herbaceous vegetation (where marshes may develop
in the floodplain soils, or mesic prairie dominated by Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem) and
Panicum virgatum (switchgrass) may be conspicuous). Populus deltoides (eastern cottonwood),
Sapindussaponaria var. drummondii (western soapberry), Prosopisglandulosa (mesquite), Salix
nigra (black willow), Ulmus americana (American elm), and/or Celtis laevigata var. reticulata
(netleaf hackberry) may be important components of forests or woodlands of this system. Juniperus
ashei (Ashe juniper), Juniperus pinchotii (redberry juniper), and/or Quercus fusiformis (plateau live
oak) may be present to dominant, but such evergreen dominated sites generally occur on the
eastern edge of the range of this system. As this is the eastern extent of the overall distribution of
the system, some species occur in the system at the western edge of their range, and may not be
represented further west within the range of the system. Such species include Quercus fusiformis
Lubbock Power & Light
(plateau live oak) and Ulmus americana (American elm). Shrublands may also have Prosopis
glandulosa (mesquite) and Salix nigra (black willow) as important components. Some shrublands in
this system, especially those on more saline sites, may be dominated by the non-native Tamarix
spp. (saltcedar). Woodlands may sometimes be dominated by the non -natives Tamarix spp.
(saltcedars), Ulmus pumila (Siberian elm), or Elaeagnus angustifolia (Russian olive). Herbaceous
vegetation may include marshes occupying floodplain sites, with species such as Schoenoplectus
spp. (bulrush) and/or Typha spp. (cattails). Some sites may be dominated by tallgrass species such
as Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem) and Panicum virgatum (switchgrass). More typically, sites
lacking significant woody cover may be dominated by Pleuraphis mutica (tobosa), Nessella
leucotricha (Texas wintergrass), and Panicum obtusum (vine mesquite). Non-native graminoids are
also commonly encountered and include Cynodon dactylon (bermudagrass), Sorghum halepense
(Johnsongrass), Bromus arvensis (Japanese brome), and Bothriochloa ischaemum var. songarica
(King Ranch bluestem). Shrublands are commonly dominated by Prosopisglandulosa (honey
mesquite) and are mapped as Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland
(CES303.668).
VEGETATION TYPES:
High Plains: Floodplain Hardwood / Juniper Forest (2503)
Western Great Plains Floodplain Mixed Deciduous — Evergreen Forest and
Woodland
Identifier: CES303.678.4 MoRAP Code: 2503
Description: Forest or woodland as described for system. Overstory is dominated
by a mix of evergreen species (such as Juniperus ashei (Aske juniper), Juniperus
pinchotii (redberry juniper), and/or Quercus fusiformis (plateau live oak)) and
deciduous species.
High Plains: Floodplain Hardwood Forest (2504)
Western Great Plains Floodplain Deciduous Forest and Woodland
Identifier: CES303.678.6 MoRAP Code: 2504
Description: Forest or woodland as described for system with a deciduous
overstory canopy.
High Plains: Floodplain Juniper Shrubland (2505)
Western Great Plains Floodplain Juniper Shrubland
Identifier: CES303.678.7 MoRAP Code: 2505
Description: Shrubland on floodplain dominated by Juniperus ashei (Ashe juniper)
or Juniperus pinchotii (redberry juniper). This is a very minor component of the
system, at least in Phase 1.
High Plains: Floodplain Herbaceous Vegetation (2507)
Western Great Plains Floodplain Herbaceous Vegetation
Identifier: CES303.678.9 MoRAP Code: 2507
Description: This herbaceous vegetation may be represented by marshes on
floodplains, where Schoenoplectus spp. (bulrush), Eleocharis spp. (spikerush),
and/or Typha spp. (cattail) dominate. Patches of tallgrass prairie that may be
dominated by species such as Andropogon gerardii (big bluestem) or Panicum
virgatum (switchgrass) may also be mapped as this vegetation type.
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix A
Lubbock Power & Light
Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland
Identifier: CES303.668
Geology: This system occupies areas of alluvial deposition.
Landform: Along drainages and on floodplains.
Soils: Bottomland soils and soils along drainages.
Description: Because Prosopisglandulosa (honey mesquite) is the characteristic dominant of this
system, and that species can occupy various sites and is thought to have expanded on the landscape
as a result of land -use, it is difficult to distinguish this system from areas where Prosopisglandulosa
(honey mesquite) has invaded. The system is only mapped on Bottomland soils and along
drainages, while other shrublands dominated by the species are mapped as Native Invasive:
Mesquite Shrubland. Prosopisglandulosa (honey mesquite) typically dominate the sites, sometimes
occurring in the overstory canopy. Other overstory species may include species of the Western
Great Plains Floodplain (CES303.678) or Western Great Plains Riparian (CES303.956) systems,
such as Celtis laevigata var. reticulata (netleaf hackberry), Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii
(western soapberry), Populus deltoides (eastern cottonwood), and Salix nigra (black willow).
Prosopisglandulosa (honey mesquite) is dominant in the shrub layer, but other shrub species
encountered include small representatives of the overstory, Ziziphus obtusifolia (lotebush), Prunus
angustifolia (Chickasaw plum), and Baccharis spp. (baccharis). Herbaceous species present in the
understory may include Panicum virgatum (switchgrass), Bothriochloa laguroides var. torreyana
(silver bluestem), Nassella leucotricha (Texas wintergrass), and Schizachyrium scoparium (little
bluestem). Non-native species such as Cynodon dactylon (bermudagrass), Bromus catharticus
(rescuegrass), Sorghum halepense (Johnsongrass), and Bromus arvensis (Japanese brome) are also
commonly present and may be dominant.
High Plains: Mesquite Shrubland (5406)
Western Great Plains Mesquite Shrubland
Identifier: CES303.668.1 MoRAP Code: 5406
Description: Shrub dominated occurrences with a scattered overstory component,
if any.
Western Great Plains Riparian
Identifier: CES303.956
Geology: As defined, this type occurs along headwater streams and generally occurs over upland
soils that have developed in place over a variety of bedrock types, often limestone in Phase 1.
Landform: This system occurs along drainages that may be intermittent and tend to be dominated
by erosional processes (as opposed to depositional processes) within the drainage of the Clear Fork
of the Middle Brazos River.
Soils: As this system is mapped, it by definition occurs outside of areas mapped as bottomland soils.
Soils are therefore mapped with soils of the surrounding uplands.
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix A
Lubbock Power & Light
Description: Forests and woodlands may have species such Populus deltoides (eastern
cottonwood), Salix nigra (black willow), Celtis laevigata var. reticulata (netleaf hackberry), and
Sapindussaponaria var. drummondii (western soapberry). Juniperus ashei (Ashe juniper),Juniperus
pinchotii (redberry juniper), or Quercus fusiformis (plateau live oak) may occur along the eastern
edge of the range of this system where it grades into Edwards Plateau Riparian (CES303.652) or
Southeastern Great Plains Riparian (CES206.709). Grasslands associated with riparian corridors
may also be present and will generally be somewhat more mesic than grasslands of the
surrounding landscape. Herbaceous species commonly encountered include Pleuraphis mutica
(tobosa), Nassella leucotricha (Texas wintergrass), Bothriochloa laguroides sspp. torreyana (silver
bluestem), and Schizachyrium scoparium (little bluestem). Marshes within these drainage corridors
are mapped as Western Great Plains Open Freshwater Depression Wetland (CES303.675).
Shrublands are typically strongly dominated by Prosopisglandulosa (honey mesquite) and are
mapped as Western Great Plains Mesquite Woodland and Shrubland (CES303.668). The non -
natives Tamarix spp. (saltcedars), Elaeagnus angustifolia (Russian olive), and Ulmus pumila
(Siberian elm) may also be commonly encountered in this system.
VEGETATION TYPES:
High Plains: Riparian Hardwood / Juniper Forest (2703)
Western Great Plains Riparian Mixed Deciduous - Evergreen Forest and Woodland
Identifier: CES303.956.4 MoRAP Code: 2703
High Plains: Riparian Deciduous Shrubland (2706)
Western Great Plains Riparian Deciduous Shrubland
Identifier: CES303.956.8 MoRAP Code: 2706
Description: Shrubland of riparian situations dominated by deciduous shrub
species, primarily Prosopisglandulosa (mesquite). This is the primary vegetation
type mapped as this system.
High Plains: Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation (2707)
Western Great Plains Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation
Identifier: CES303.956.9 MoRAP Code: 2707
Description: Grassland or marsh of riparian situations as described for the system.
Agricultural and other Human -related Mapped Types
CRP / Other Improved Grassland (9327)
MoRAP Code: 9327
Description: Grasslands of highly managed areas, sometimes dominated by non-
native grasses such as Cynodon dactylon (bermudagrass), Sorghum halepense
(Johnsongrass), and Panicum coloratum (kleingrass).
Row Crops (9307)
MoRAP Code: 9307
Description: This type includes all cropland where fields are fallow for some
portion of the year. Some fields may rotate into and out of cultivation frequently,
and year-round cover crops are generally mapped as grassland.
BLACK & VEATCH J Appendix A
Lubbock Power & Light
Urban Low Intensity (9411)
MoRAP Code: 9411
Description: This type includes areas that are built-up but not entirely covered by
impervious cover, including most of the area within cities and towns.
Urban High Intensity (9410)
MoRAP Code: 9410
Description: This type consists of built-up areas and wide transportation corridors
that are dominated by impervious cover.
Mainly Natural Azonal Mapped Types
Azonal types are those types that are widespread and not particularly characteristic of any region
or naturally occurring vegetation type. This may be due to disturbance, where wide ranging species
adapted to disturbed conditions predominate. In other areas, land management may have resulted
in invasion of widespread species such as juniper or mesquite. Azonal types may also be used to
refer to general physiognomic types that are not ascribable to particular naturally occurring
systems.
Barren
MoRAP Code: 9000
Description: This type includes areas where little or no vegetative cover existed at
the time of image data collection. Large areas cleared for development are included,
as well as rural roads and buildings and associated clearing in primarily rural areas.
Stream beds with exposed gravel or bedrock, rock outcrops, quarries, and mines
may be mapped as this type. Fallow fields or areas within cropland blocks that
remain barren throughout one growing season or heavily grazed pastures where
bare soils are dominant may also be mapped as barren.
Marsh (9007)
MoRAP Code: 9007
Description: Areas mapped as marsh are small, and consist of wet or alternately
wet and dry soils with herbaceous vegetation. These are often near tanks or ponds,
and may contain Typha spp. (cattails), Eleocharis spp. (spikerushes), Schoenoplectus
spp. (bulrushes), other sedges,Polygonum spp. (smartweeds) and grasses such as
Sorghum halepense (Johnsongrass) or Cynodon dactylon (bermudagrass) as
important species. Some shrubs such as Cephalanthus occidentalis (common
buttonbush) and Salix nigra (black willow) may be important in this mapped type.
Native Invasive: Deciduous - Juniper Woodland (9103)
MoRAP Code: 9103
Description: Woodlands, typically of disturbed sites, sharing dominance between
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix A
Lubbock Power & Light IOUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Juniperus spp. (junipers) and deciduous species such as Celtis laevigata var.
reticulata (netleaf hackberry), Sapindus saponaria var. drummondii (western
soapberry), Prosopisglandulosa (honey mesquite), and the non-native Ulmus pumila
(Siberian elm).
Native Invasive: Juniper Shrubland (9105)
MoRAP Code: 9105
Description: Various species ofJuniperus (juniper) dominate these shrublands.
Juniperus virginiana (eastern redcedar) is the primary dominant of these shrublands
or low woodlands in the Blackland Prairie, Post Oak Savanna, and far northern
Crosstimbers ecoregions. To the west, on the Rolling Plains, Juniperus pinchotii
(redberry juniper) may be the dominant. In other areas, Juniperus ashei (Ashe
juniper) may dominate these shrublands. Other sites mapped as this type may be
dominated by Ilex vomitoria (yaupon). A variety of deciduous species may also be
present, including Ulmus crassifolia (cedar elm), Ulmus alata (winged elm), Celtis
laevigata (sugar hackberry), Liquidambar styracif ua (sweetgum), Quercus nigra
(water oak), and Prosopisglandulosa (honey mesquite). To the east, sites dominated
by young Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) may be mapped as this type.
Native Invasive: Mesquite Shrubland (9106)
MoRAP Code: 9106
Description: Prosopisglandulosa (honey mesquite) is often the dominant species of
this broadly-defined type, but species such as Acacia farnesiana (huisache), Celtis
laevigata (sugar hackberry), Juniperus ashei (Ashe juniper), Ulmus crassifolia (cedar
elm), Ziziphus obtusifolia (lotebush), Mahonia trifoliolata (agarito), Ulmus alata
(winged elm), Rhus spp. (sumacs), Condalia hookeri (brasil), Diospyros virginiana
(common persimmon), Diospyros texana (Texas persimmon), Celtis ehrenbergiana
(granjeno), and Opuntia engelmannii var. lindheimeri (Lindheimer pricklypear) may
also be important. Trees such as Quercusfusiformis (plateau live oak), Quercus
virginiana (coastal live oak), or Quercus stellata (post oak) may form a sparse
canopy.
Native Invasive: Sand Sagebrush Shrubland (9206)
MoRAP Code: 9206
Description: Shrublands dominated by Artemisia filifolia (sand sagebrush), usually
in overgrazed and/or fire suppressed prairie soils. This species occupying deep
sands would likely be mapped as Western Great Plains Sandhill Steppe
(CES303.671).
Native Invasive: Yucca — Succulent Shrubland (9118)
MoRAP Code: 9118
Description: Canopy dominated by shrub or succulent species such as Yucca glauca
(narrowleaf yucca), Cylindropuntia imbricata (tree cholla), or Opuntia spp.
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix A
Lubbock Power & Light
(pricklypear).
Non-native Invasive: Elm - Olive Woodland (9224)
MoRAP Code: 9224
Description: This woodland typically occupies sites that do not naturally support
woodland, but they may occur in floodplains or riparian sites as well. This type is
often found on fence rows, home sites, and $helterbelt plantings typically of the High
Plains and Rolling Plains. It is often dominated by Ulmus pumila (Siberian elm) and
Elaeagnus angustifolia (Russian olive), though Prosopisglandulosa (honey mesquite)
and Celtis spp. (hackberries) may also be present.
Open Water (9600)
MoRAP Code: 9600
Description: In addition to large lakes, rivers, and marine water, ephemeral ponds
may be mapped as open water. Some mapped areas may support vegetation with
pioneering species such as Salix nigra (black willow), Populus deltoides (eastern
cottonwood), Triadica sebifera (Chinese tallow), Suaeda spp. (seepweeds), Borrichia
frutescens (sea ox -eye daisy), Batis maritima (saltwort), Juncus spp. (rushes), sedges,
Typha spp. (cattails), and Eleocharis spp. (spikerushes).
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix A A -LO
Lubbock Power & Light ! ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Appendix B. Agency Consultation Responses
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix B g.]
BLACK &VEATCH
Building a World of difference.
April 13, 2017
BLACK & VEATCH COMPANY NAME
11401 LAMAR, OVERLAND PARK, KS 66211 USA
+1913-458-3380 1 FALCONESJ@BV.COM
Lubbock Power & Light Transmission Line Project
B&V Project 194785
Subject: Request for Environmental Project Review
Dea
Our client, Lubbock Power & Light (LPL), is proposing to construct a new transmission line in
the City of Lubbock and in Lubbock County to increase electrical reliability in the area. Because
preliminary route alternatives have not yet been finalized, a study area in which the new route
would be located is used to define the project area. A map of the study area is enclosed for your
reference, illustrating the areas where the new transmission line could be located.
Black & Veatch has been retained by LPL to conduct an environmental review for the project.
This letter is a request for a review of the study area for current known or potential concerns
affecting the City of Lubbock and its resources within the study area. The following is a brief
description of the proposed project work.
The project includes construction of a new 115 kilovolt transmission line from one existing
substation in the west portion of the study to another existing substation in the southeast
portion of the study area. The entire transmission line will be approximately 7 to 10 miles long,
depending on the final route selected.
The line will be built using self-supporting tubular steel monopoles. Other structure types may
be used for special situations, such as long -span crossings or heavy angles. Right-of-way width
will be generally 100 feet Typical span lengths between structures will be approximately 350
feet and 600 feet, and will be adjusted to minimize interference with agriculture operations,
protected natural resources (e.g., wetlands, streams), and other potential obstacles. The
transmission line in-service date is planned for 2019, with line construction beginning
sometime in 2018.
Comments can be mailed to me at the letterhead address or if more convenient, emailed to me
at falconesj(@bv.com. Please provide your comments by May 10, 2017, if possible. I can be
reached at (913) 458-3380 or by e-mail if you have questions regarding this request
Very truly yours,
BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
. � W4 kX7 �_e
Salvatore Falcone
Enclosure
No Text
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources April 18, 2017
Conservation Service
State office Black & Veatch
101 S. Main Street 11401 Lamar
Temple, Tx 76501 Overland Park, Kansas 66211
Voice 254.742.9800
Fax 254.742.9819
Attention: Salvatore Falcone
Subject: Lubbock Power & Light Transmission Line Project
B&V Project 194785
NEPA/FPPA Evaluation
City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas
cc. Angeli (Tina) Tuley, via email
We have reviewed the information provided in your correspondence dated April 13,
2017 concerning the proposed transmission line installation located in the City of
Lubbock, Texas. This review is part of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) evaluation for the City of Lubbock and Lubbock County, Texas. We have
assembled an environmental assessment of resources and evaluated the proposed site
as required by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA).
The proposed utility pole and transmission line installations are considered minimal
activities that do not adversely affect productive farmlands. For these reasons, the
proposed project area is exempt from provisions of FPPA and no further
consideration for protection is necessary.
Please find the attached Custom Soil Resources Report (CSRR) for the proposed
project area. The soil physical and chemical properties are presented, along with
additional restrictions or interpretations for the project area.
The main concerns within the proposed project area are presence of potential
wetlands (in the form of playa lakes) and a high potential for soil erosion by wind.
Playa lakes or basins are delineated on the CSRR as "Randal Clay, 0 to 1 percent
slopes, occasionally ponded". We recommend that the entities developing these
areas continue coordination with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the
US Fish and Wildlife Service to avoid adverse impacts to wetland ecosystems and
habitats. Additionally, we have included a map of the Wind Erodibility Index (WEI)
for the project area. Caution should be exercised while transporting construction
equipment and construction traffic should be limited as to reduce soil erosion in
these areas.
The proposed site does not involve USDA-NRCS floodwater retarding structures
(FRS) or Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) conservation easements on or near the
project area.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
If you have further questions, please contact me at 254.742.9836 or by email at
carlos.villarreal@tx.usda.gov.
Sincerely,
CARLOS Digitally signed by
CARLOS VILLARREAL
VILLARREAL Date: 2017.04.18
13:27:56 -05'00'
Carlos J. Villarreal
MRCS Soil Scientist
Attachment: Custom Soil Resource Report for Lubbock County, Texas
Wind Erodibility Index Map
Attachments not included in this report due to size (72 pages)
M Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FORT WORTH DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 17300
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 70102-0300
April 20, 2017
SUBJECT: Project Number SWF-2017-00157, Lubbock Power & Light
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Black & Veatch Corportation
11401 Lamar
Overland Park, Kansas 66211
Dear Mr. Falcone;
Thank you for your letter received April 14, 2017, concerning a proposal by Lubbock Power
& Light to construct a new transmission to increase electrical reliability located in the City of
Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas. Mr. Joseph L. Shelnutt has been assigned as the regulatory
project manager. The project has been assigned Project Number SWF-2017-00157, please
include this number in all future correspondence concerning this project.
We are unable to determine from the information provided whether Department of the Army
authorization will be required. Please provide a more detailed description of the entire proposed
project, a suitable map of the proposed project area showing the location of proposed
discharges, the type and amount of material (temporary or permanent), if any, to be discharged,
and plan and cross-section views of the proposed project. Please refer to the enclosed
guidtince for Department of the Army submittals for additionardetails about what you should
submit for this and future projects.
If a Department of the Army permit is required, the project may be authorized by one or
more general permits. For work to be authorized by general permit it must comply with the
specifications and conditions of the permit. Projects that would not meet the specifications and
conditions of a general permit may require authorization by individual permit.
We encourage you to avoid and minimize adverse impacts to streams, wetlands, and other
waters of the United States in planning this project. Please forward your response to us as soon
as possible so that we may continue our evaluation of your request. If we do not receive the
requested information within 30 days of the date of this letter, we will consider your application
administratively withdrawn. If withdrawn, you may re -open your application at a later date by
submitting the requested information.
Please note that it is unlawful to start work without a Department of the Army permit when
one is required.
-2 -
You may be contacted for additional information about your request. For your information,
please refer to the Fort Worth District Regulatory Branch homepage at
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/Missions/regulatory and particularly guidance on submittals at
http://media.swf.usace.armv mil/pubdata/environ/Re-ulatory/introduction/submital Ddf, and
mitigation at http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Permitting/Mitigation that may
help you supplement your current request or prepare future requests.
If you have any questions about the evaluation of your submittal or would like to request a
copy of one of the documents referenced above, please refer to our website at
http://www.swf.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory or contact Mr. Joseph L. Shelnutt at the
address above or telephone (817) 886-1738 and refer to your assigned project number. Please
note that it is unlawful to start work without a Department of the Army permit if one is required.
Please help the regulatory program improve its service by completing the survey on the
following website: http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulator"urvey
Stephen L. Brooks
Chief, Regulatory Division
TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE
GEORGE P. BUSH, COMMISSIONER
April 17, 2017
Salvatore Falcone
Black & Veatch
11401 Lamar
Overland Park, KS 66211-1508
Re: Lubbock Power & Light Transmission Line Project
B&V Project 194785
Dear Mr. Falcone:
On behalf of Commissioner Bush, I would like to thank you for your letter concerning the above -
referenced project.
Using your map depicting the project's study area, it does not appear that the General Land Office
will have any environmental issues or land use constraints at this time.
When a final route for this proposed project has been determined, please contact me and we can
assess the route to determine if the project will cross any streambeds or Permanent School Fund
(PSF) land that would require an easement from our agency.
In the interim, if you would like to speak to me further on this project, I can be reached by email
at glenn.rosenbaum@glo.texas.gov or by phone at (512) 463-8180.
Again, thank you for your inquiry.
Sincerely,
44W 4RW1,44�A
Glenn Rosenbaum
Manager, Right -of -Way Department
Leasing Operations
1700 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701-1495
P.O. Box 12873, Austin, Texas 78711-2873
512-463-5001 glo.texas.gov
EXAS
ARKS &
1LDLIFE
Iter outside.0
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Black & Veatch Corporation
11401 Lamar
Commissloners
Overland Park, KS 66211
T. Dan Frledkin
Chairman
Houston
RE: B&V Project 19485, Lubbock Power & Light Transmission Line Project
7alph H. Dugglns
Vice-chairman
Dear Mr. Falcone:
Fort Worth
Anna B. Galo
aedo
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has received the preliminary
Bill Jones
information request regarding the above -referenced proposed transmission line
Austin
project. TPWD staff has reviewed the information provided and offers the
-anne W. Latimer
following comments concerning this project.
San Antonio
James H. Lee
Houston
TPWD Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program is now accepting projects
S. Reed Morlan
through electronic submittal. Future project review requests can be
Houston
submitted to WHAB@tpwd.texas.gov. If submitting requests electronically,
Dick Scott
please include geographic location files when available (e.g. GIS shape tile,
Wimberley
.kmz, etc.).
Kelcy L. Warren
Dallas
Lee M. Bass Please be aware that a written response to a TPWD recommendation or
alrman-Emerltus
FortWorth informational comment received by a state governmental agency may be required
by state law. For further guidance, see the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code,
Section 12.0011, which can be found online at
Carter P. Smith http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PW/htm/PW.12.htm# 12.0011. For
cecutive Director tracking purposes, please refer to TPWD project number 37863 in any return
correspondence regarding this project.
Proiect Description
Lubbock Power & Light (LP&L) is proposing to construct a new transmission line
in the City of Lubbock and in Lubbock County to increase electrical reliability in
the area. The project includes construction of a new 115 kilovolt transmission
line from one existing substation in the west portion of the study area to another
existing substation in the southeast portion of the study area. Depending on the
final route selected, the transmission line will be approximately 7 to 10 miles long.
Recommendation: TPWD recommends using existing facilities whenever
possible. Where new construction is the only feasible option, TPWD
recommends routing new transmission lines along existing roads, pipelines,
transmission lines, or other utility right-of-way (ROW) and easements to
reduce habitat fragmentation. By utilizing existing utility corridors, county
roads and highway ROWS, adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources
ITH SCHOOL ROAD
rEXAS 78744-3291
512.389.4800 To manage and conserve the natural and cultural resources of Texas and to provide hunting, fishing
:pwd.texas.gov and outdoor recreation opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Page 2
May 8, 2017
would be mitigated by avoiding and/or minimizing the impacts to undisturbed
habitats. Please see the TPWD Recommendations for Electrical
Transmission/Distribution Line Design and Construction found online at
http://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/habitat_assessment/tool
s.phtml. Please review the recommendations and incorporate these measures
into design and construction plans.
Federal Laws
Clean Water Act
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a federal program to regulate the
discharge of dredged and fill material into the waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental
Protection Agency are responsible for regulating water resources under this act.
Although the regulation of isolated wetlands has been removed from the USACE
permitting process, both isolated and jurisdictional wetlands provide habitat for
wildlife and help protect water quality.
As seen on the attached map, several wetland feature types are located the study
area.
Recommendation: If the proposed project would impact waterways or
associated wetlands, TPWD recommends LP&L consult with the USACE for
potential impacts to waters of the U.S. including jurisdictional determinations,
delineations, and mitigation. All waterways and associated floodplains,
riparian corridors, playa lakes, and wetlands provide valuable wildlife habitat
and should be protected to the maximum extent possible. Natural buffers
contiguous to any wetlands or aquatic systems should remain undisturbed to
preserve wildlife cover, food sources, and travel corridors. During
construction, trucks and equipment should use existing bridge or culvert
structures to cross creeks. Destruction of inert microhabitats in waterways
such as snags, brush piles, fallen logs, creek banks, pools, and gravel stream
bottoms should be avoided, as these provide habitat for a variety of fish and
wildlife species and their food sources. Erosion controls and sediment runoff
control measures should be installed prior to construction and maintained until
disturbed areas are permanently revegetated using site specific native
vegetation. Measures should be properly installed in order to effectively
minimize the amount of sediment and other debris from entering the
waterway.
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Page 3
May 8, 2017
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits taking, attempting to take,
capturing, killing, selling/purchasing, possessing, transporting, and importing of
migratory birds, their eggs, parts and nests, except when specifically authorized by
the Department of the Interior. This protection applies to most native bird species,
including ground nesting species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Migratory Bird Office can be contacted at (505) 248-7882 for more information
on potential impacts to migratory birds.
Several playa lakes are located in the study area. Playa lakes are important habitat
features that are used by a host of wildlife species including large numbers of
waterfowl and predator species. There is potential for electrocution and collision
of large -bodied waterfowl and avian predators with electrical wires near these
water features. Direct loss to wildlife from collisions may be less significant than
the potential for disease created by decomposition after these fatalities. Indirect
adverse impacts imposed by these collisions and subsequent decomposition of
animal tissue within a water regime significantly contributes to the concentration
of botulism bacteria that is highly toxic and often fatal to wildlife. During disease
epidemics, playa lakes which are highly concentrated with botulism bacteria can
have devastating adverse impacts on the remaining waterfowl and wildlife
populations which use them.
Recommendation: TPWD recommends LP&L route the transmission line to
avoid crossing or disturbing water resources in the project area to the extent
feasible. Lines that cross or are located near water resources should have line
markers installed at the crossings or closest points to the drainages to reduce
potential collisions by birds flying along or near the drainages. To prevent
electrocution of perching raptors, raptor protection measures such as adequate
conductor spacing, perch guards, and insulated jumper wires should also be
used.
For additional information, please see the guidelines published by USFWS
and the Avian Power Lines Interaction Committee (APLIC) in the updated
guidance document Reducing Avian Collisions with Power Lines: State of the
Art in 2012. This manual, released on December 20, 2012, identifies best
practices and provides specific guidance to help electric utilities and
cooperatives reduce bird collisions with power lines. A companion document,
Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines, was published by
APLIC and the USFWS in 2006. For more information on both documents,
please visit www.aplic.org.
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Page 4
May 8, 2017
State Law
Parks and Wildlife Code, Section 68.015
Section 68.015 of the Parks and Wildlife Code regulates state -listed species.
Please note that there is no provision for the capture, trap, take, or kill (incidental
or otherwise) of state -listed species. A copy of TPWD Guidelines for Protection
of State -Listed Species, which includes a list of penalties for take of species, can
be found on-line at
httpJ/tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlife diversity/habitat_assessment/media/t
pwd_statelisted_species.pdf. State -listed species may only be handled by persons
with appropriate authorization from the TPWD Wildlife Permits Office. For more
information, please contact the Wildlife Permits Office at (512) 389-4647.
Based on review of the project location, the state -listed threatened Texas horned
lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) may be present in the project area. Texas horned
lizards are generally active in this part of Texas from mid-April through
September. At that time of year, they may be able to avoid slow (less than 15
miles per hour) moving equipment. The remainder of the year, this species
hibernates only a few inches underground and they will be much more susceptible
to earth moving equipment and compaction.
Recommendation: TPWD recommends LP&L avoid disturbing the Texas
horned lizard and colonies of its primary food source, the harvester ant
(Pogonomyrmex sp.), during clearing and construction. TPWD recommends a
permitted biological monitor be present during construction to try to relocate
Texas horned lizards if found. If the presence of a biological monitor during
construction is not feasible, state -listed species observed during construction
should be allowed to safely leave the site.
A mixture of cover, food sources, and open ground is important to the Texas
horned lizard and harvester ant. Disturbed areas within suitable habitat for the
Texas horned lizard should be revegetated with site-specific native, patchy
vegetation rather than sod -forming grasses.
Species of Concern/Special Features
In addition to state and federally -protected species, TPWD tracks special features,
natural communities, and rare species that are not listed as threatened or
endangered. TPWD actively promotes their conservation and considers it
important to evaluate and, if necessary, minimize impacts to rare species and their
habitat to reduce the likelihood of endangerment and preclude the need to list.
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Page 5
May 8, 2017
These species and communities are tracked in the Texas Natural Diversity
Database (TXNDD).
Based on TXNDD records and publically available aerial photography, the
following rare species and special features could potentially be impacted by
project activities:
Species of Concern
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis)
Western burrowing owl (Achene cunicularia hypugaea)
Black -tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus)
Plains spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius interrupta)
Special Features
Prairie dog colonies
The black -tailed prairie dog is a keystone species which provides food and/or
shelter for rare species tracked by TPWD such as the ferruginous hawk and the
western burrowing owl, as well as many other wildlife species.
Recommendation: TPWD recommends LP&L survey the project area for
prairie dog colonies and species that depend on them. If prairie dog colonies
are found in the project area, TPWD recommends LP&L avoid these areas
during construction. If prairie dog burrows would be disturbed as a result of
the proposed project, TPWD recommends non -harmful exclusion methods be
used to encourage the animals to vacate the area prior to disturbance and
discourage them from returning to the area during construction.
The western burrowing owl is a ground -dwelling owl that uses the barrows of
prairie dogs and other fossorial animals for nesting and roosting. The western
burrowing owl is protected under the MBTA and take of these birds, their nests,
and eggs is prohibited. Potential impacts to the western burrowing owl could
include habitat removal as well as displacement and/or destruction of nests and
eggs if ground disturbance occurs during the breeding season.
Recommendation: If prairie dog colonies would be disturbed as a result of
the proposed project, TPWD recommends the burrows be surveyed for
burrowing owls. If nesting owls are found, disturbance should be avoided
until the eggs have hatched and the young have fledged.
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Page 6
May 8, 2017
The plains spotted skunk is found in open grasslands, brushy areas, and
cultivated lands. Their dens are located below ground in grassy banks, rocky
crevices, or along fence rows.
Recommendation: TPWD recommends that precautions be taken to avoid
impacts the plains spotted skunk if encountered in the project area during
construction.
Please note that the absence of TXNDD information in an area does not imply that
a species is absent from that area. Given the small proportion of public versus
private land in Texas, the TXNDD does not include a representative inventory of
rare resources in the state. Although it is based on the best data available to
TPWD regarding rare species, the data from the TXNDD do not provide a
definitive statement as to the presence, absence or condition of special species,
natural communities, or other significant features within your project area. These
data are not inclusive and cannot be used as presence/absence data. This
information cannot be substituted for on -the -ground surveys. The TXNDD is
updated continuously. As the project progresses and for future projects, please
request the most current and accurate information at
TexasNatural.DiversityDatabase@tpwd.texas.gov.
tpwd.texas.gov.
Recommendation: Please review the TPWD county list for Lubbock County,
as rare species in addition to those discussed above could be present
depending upon habitat availability. These lists are available online at
http://tpwd.texas.gov/gis/rtest/. If during construction, the project area is
found to contain rare species, natural plant communities, or special features,
TPWD recommends that precautions be taken to avoid impacts to them. The
USFWS should be contacted for species occurrence data, guidance,
permitting, survey protocols, and mitigation for federally listed species. For
the USFWS rare species lists by county please visit http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
Determining the actual presence of a species in a given area depends on many
variables including daily and seasonal activity cycles, environmental activity
cues, preferred habitat, transiency and population density (both wildlife and
human). The absence of a species can be demonstrated only with great
difficulty and then only with repeated negative observations, taking into
account all the variable factors contributing to the lack of detectable presence.
Monarch Conservation Plan
Significant declines in the population of migrating monarch butterflies (Danaus
plexippus) have led to widespread concern about this species and the long-term
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Page 7
May 8, 2017
persistence of the North American monarch migration. Augmenting larval
feeding and adult nectaring opportunities is part of an international conservation
effort for the monarch.
Recommendation: For disturbed sites within the monarch migration
corridor, TPWD recommends revegetation efforts include planting or seeding
native milkweed (Asclepias spp) and nectar plants as funding and seed
availability allow. Where appropriate and sustainable, TPWD recommends
landscaping plans incorporate monarch -friendly plants and/or butterfly
gardens. Information about monarch biology, migration, and butterfly
gardening can be found at http://www.monarchwatch.org.
Veeetation
Based on a review of the Ecological Mapping Systems of Texas (EMST) project,
the following vegetation types are found in the study area:
• Barren
• CRP / Other Improved Grassland
• High Plains: Depressional Marsh
• High Plains: Floodplain Hardwood —Juniper Forest
• High Plains: Floodplain Hardwood Forest
• High Plains: Floodplain Herbaceous Vegetation
• High Plains: Floodplain Juniper Shrubland
• High Plains: Mesquite Shrubland
• High Plains: Playa Lake
• High Plains: Riparian Deciduous Shrubland
• High Plains: Riparian Hardwood —Juniper Forest
• High Plains: Riparian Herbaceous Vegetation
• High Plains: Riparian Juniper Shrubland
• High Plains: Shortgrass Prairie
• Marsh
• Native Invasive: Deciduous — Juniper Woodland
• Native Invasive: Deciduous Woodland
• Native Invasive: Juniper Shrubland
• Native Invasive: Mesquite Shrubland
• Native Invasive: Sand Sage Shrubland
• Native Invasive: Yucca — Succulent Shrubland
• Non-native Invasive: Elm — Olive Woodland
• Open Water
• Rolling Plains: Breaks Canyon
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Page 8
May 8, 2017
• Rolling Plains: Breaks Deciduous Shrubland
• Rolling Plains: Breaks Evergreen Shrubland
• Rolling Plains: Mixed Grass Prairie
• Row Crops
• Urban High Intensity
• Urban Low Intensity
Project vegetation types are shown on the attached map for your reference.
Additional information about the EMST, including a link to download shapefiles,
can be found at http://tpwd.texas.gov/gis/gallery/.
Conservation Easements
A conservation easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and a land
trust or governmental agency that permanently limits uses of the land (including
future fragmentation) to protect and conserve the land's natural values such as
fertile soils, mature trees, and wildlife habitat. Lands with conservation easements
protect existing wildlife habitat from future fragmentation and therefore have
greater environmental integrity than comparable lands without conservation
easements. Potential fragmentation of wildlife habitat from transmission line
construction on properties where conservation agreements serve to protect the
state's natural resources now and in the future is of concern to TPWD.
Recommendation: TPWD recommends properties protected by conservation
easements be identified in the constraints analysis and avoided during
development of alternative routes. Data sources for the location of these
properties include, but are not limited to, online databases such as the
Protected Areas Data Portal at https://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/padus/ and the
National Conservation Easement Database at http://conservationeasement.us/,
as well as available county records. If properties protected by conservation
easements would be affected, TPWD recommends the length of routes
through these properties be included in any accounting of alternative route
impacts presented in the EA.
Mr. Salvatore Falcone
Page 9
May 8, 2017
I appreciate the opportunity to provide preliminary input on potential impacts
related to this project, and I look forward to reviewing the EA. Please contact me
at (806) 761-4936 or Richard.Hanson@tpwd.texas.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Rick Hanson
Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program
Wildlife Division
RH: 37863
Attachments: (2)
cc: Karen Hubbard, PUC
6
Coully Rom
Wetland Feature Types
40
OUN/ R-ld -32---1 .441
r)
z
E ReqA
0
E
Mm
L
Tr- L.btjh "C'
C.U.uv A..
Or Club
LtAbInk
G
A Ih-
-1 N. Ir
LOOP W
0 k
E
0 nb Z 7 31! IL Ix 25,
4 ION
CI�I;t, 51
z
109 r 114, 2
E,
D;L 11'
z Auburn'
1,1 P1 GO,
F.
L'n111 _v
gni P1
rd T -W J. I PI ca
411- -%t 1h&.5harp@F-y IN
f4h el
10W 5, a Sources: Esrl, HERE DeLorme Intermap, Incremlant P rp-..GE13CO.(
USGS. FAQ, NPS Pj�r,�N. de68ase, IGN KadesterNlt Ordnance Survey
Ead.dapan. MER 6A China (Hong KdAV)7614topp, MppRrpyindia. a
OpenStreetMpp contributors, and the GIS User Commur)
Date; 05103/17
Map complied by the Texas Parks and Wildlife- Department,
Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program. No claims are made to the
accuracy of the data or to the suitability of the data to a particular use
Legend
0 L-ft-flubstalon = MUMade
M -a -"Ar. PISY4
All Watiands law w
WWITYPO Sol" Left
go EMpcul-* am 3mbaftor
Life's better outside? [=] L ke r-1 UWuWkd VA"nd
Vegetation Types
Legend
Q LPnL_Su 3lalw,
® High Plahs Floodplain Herbaceous Vegetation
Marsh
® Rolnp Plains Breaks Canyon
=PnL_SludyArea
O High Plains Floodploh Jumper Shrubtand
® Nsltve Inas" Deciduous • Juniper Nerw.and Roll Plains Breeks Deelduous Shrubland
High Plains
Q High Plains Mesquee Shrubland
Naltve Invasive Oodduous Modland
O Rol ing P erns Breaks Evergraw Shrubland
Common Name
=High Plains Playa Lake
Nathre InvasWe Jumper Shrubland
O Ro Ind Pains mite Pre6de
Q Barren
Q High Plains Riparian Deciduous Shrubtena
- Nethro Invasive Mesquae Shrublend
LJ Row Crops
CRP / Other Improved Grassland
Q High Plains- Riparian Hardwood • Juniper Forest Native Invasive. Sand Saps Shrubland
Urban High niensly
High Plabrs Oepresslonat Marsh
High Plains R-parian Herbaceous Vegetation
Q Native invasivo Yum avmussne Bhrubtand
Q U: ban Low In vAir
QHigh Plains Floodplain Hardwood • Jun per Fwast High Plains Riparian Juniper ahrubland
Non-native invaswe Elan - awe woodland
High Plains Floodplain Hardwood Foresl
- High Plains Shongross Prdirle
open vveter
05/03/17
Map compiled by the Texas Parks and Wildllfe Department„
Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program. No claims are made to the
accuracy of the data or to the suitability of the data to a particular use
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.
Annotated County Lists of Rare Species
American Peregrine Falcon
LUBBOCK COUNTY
BIRDS
Falco peregrinus anatum
Page 1 of 3
Last Revision: 1/5/2016 11:45:00 AM
Federal Status
DL
State Status
T
year-round resident and local breeder in west Texas, nests in tall cliff eyries; also, migrant across state from
more northern breeding areas in US and Canada, winters along coast and farther south; occupies wide range
of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and barrier islands; low -altitude
migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines, and barrier islands.
Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius DL
migrant throughout state from subspecies' far northern breeding range, winters along coast and farther
south; occupies wide range of habitats during migration, including urban, concentrations along coast and
barrier islands; low -altitude migrant, stopovers at leading landscape edges such as lake shores, coastlines,
and barrier islands.
Baird's Sparrow Ammodl•amus bairdii
shortgrass prairie with scattered low bushes and matted vegetation; mostly migratory in western half of
State, though winters in Mexico and just across Rio Grande into Texas from Brewster through Hudspeth
counties
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus DL T
found primarily near rivers and large lakes; nests in tall trees or on cliffs near water; communally roosts,
especially in winter; hunts live prey, scavenges, and pirates food from other birds
Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis
open country, primarily prairies, plains, and badlands; nests in tall trees along streams or on steep slopes,
cliff ledges, river -cut banks, hillsides, power line towers; year-round resident in northwestern high plains,
wintering elsewhere throughout western 2/3 of Texas
Mountain Plover
Charadrius montanus
breeding: nests on high plains or shortgrass prairie, on ground in shallow depression; nonbreeding:
shortgrass plains and bare, dirt (plowed) fields; primarily insectivorous
Peregrine Falcon
Falco peregrinus
DL T
both subspecies migrate across the state from more northern breeding areas in US and Canada to winter
along coast and farther south; subspecies (F. p. anatum) is also a resident breeder in west Texas; the two
subspecies' listing statuses differ, F.p. tundrius is no longer listed in Texas; but because the subspecies are
not easily distinguishable at a distance, reference is generally made only to the species level; see subspecies
for habitat.
Prairie Falcon
Falco mexicanus
open, mountainous areas, plains and prairie; nests on cliffs
Snowy Plover
Charadrius alexandrinus
formerly an uncommon breeder in the Panhandle; potential migrant; winter along coast
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.
Annotated Countv Lists of Rare Species
LUBBOCK COUNTY
BIRDS
Page 2 of 3
Federal Status State Status
Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea
open grasslands, especially prairie, plains, and savanna, sometimes in open areas such as vacant lots near
human habitation or airports; nests and roosts in abandoned burrows
Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
uncommon breeder in the Panhandle; potential migrant; winter along coast
Whooping Crane Grus americana LE E
potential migrant via plains throughout most of state to coast; winters in coastal marshes of Aransas,
Calhoun, and Refugio counties
MAMMALS Federal Status State Status
Big free -tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis
habitat data sparse but records indicate that species prefers to roost in crevices and cracks in high canyon
walls, but will use buildings, as well; reproduction data sparse, gives birth to single offspring late June -early
July; females gather in nursery colonies; winter habits undetermined, but may hibernate in the Trans -Pecos;
opportunistic insectivore
Black -footed ferret Mustela nigripes
extirpated; inhabited prairie dog towns in the general area
Black -tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus
LE
dry, flat, short grasslands with low, relatively sparse vegetation, including areas overgrazed by cattle; live
in large family groups
Cave myotis bat Myotis velifer
colonial and cave -dwelling; also roosts in rock crevices, old buildings, carports, under bridges, and even in
abandoned Cliff Swallow (Hirundo pyrrhonota) nests; roosts in clusters of up to thousands of individuals;
hibernates in limestone caves of Edwards Plateau and gypsum cave of Panhandle during winter;
opportunistic insectivore
Gray wolf
Canis lupus
LE E
extirpated; formerly known throughout the western two-thirds of the state in forests, brushlands, or
grasslands
Pale Townsend's big -eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens
roosts in caves, abandoned mine tunnels, and occasionally old buildings; hibernates in groups during
winter; in summer months, males and females separate into solitary roosts and maternity colonies,
respectively; single offspring born May -June; opportunistic insectivore
Plains spotted skunk Spilogale putorius interrupta
catholic; open fields, prairies, croplands, fence rows, farmyards, forest edges, and woodlands; prefers
wooded, brushy areas and tallgrass prairie
Swift fox Vulpes velox
Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept.
Annotated County Lists of Rare Suecies
LUBBOCK COUNTY
MAMMALS
Page 3 of 3
Federal Status State Status
restricted to current and historic shortgrass prairie; western and northern portions of Panhandle
REPTILES Federal Status State Status
Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum T
open, and and semi -arid regions with sparse vegetation, including grass, cactus, scattered brush or scrubby
trees; soil may vary in texture from sandy to rocky; burrows into soil, enters rodent burrows, or hides under
rock when inactive; breeds March -September
Cory's ephedra
Ephedra coryi
PLANTS
Federal Status State Status
GLOBAL RANK: G3; Dune areas and dry grasslands in the southern Plains Country; Perennial; Flowering
April -Sept; Fruiting May -Sept
Mexican mud -plantain Heteranthera mexicana
wet clayey soils of resacas and ephemeral wetlands in South Texas and along margins of playas in the
Panhandle; flowering June -December, only after sufficient rainfall
1585
I
i
388 2528
00 1 88
289 I
2255 -f'
Lubbock
I
326
I
to
62 `
_;...
327
62 289
k
179 1730
2192
835
3523
Benson
Buffalo
Lake
Springs Lake
Lake Ransom
3020
Canyon
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Appendix C. Representative Photographs from
Environmental Resource Review
BLACK & VEATCH ( Appendix C C-1
Lubbock Power & Light I ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
�.�� a.:. � � �•-:j`r"-' ;� SII � � r
Photo 1 Northwest Substation (looking north)
6-.A^�`� _-'-��+w� {sem g • �. ~« ` - �`
4 "
21
�It=k
Photo 2 Near 1-289 & Hwy 84 (looking north). Area is typical of that containing prairie dogs
throughout project.
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix C
Lubbock Power & Light
Photo 3 Low drainage area is the Yellow House River containing potential wetlands north of Kent
Street at N. Quaker Avenue (looking west)
y &
i. sf
w1j,
T t"
F
yAll
y• �Aa#i$ � ♦ ,:;�7trtl .'' ef. .i +fr�f 4�"�� '�',,tr•' % #.� � it
Photo 4 Low drainage area is the Yellow House River containing potential wetlands north of Kent
St at N. Quaker Avenue (looking east).
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix C i.
Lubbock Power & Light
Photo 5 Jackrabbit immediately west of XFAB (looking South)
Photo 6 Tulane Street near N. Ash Avenue, looking westerly across valley containing Blackwater
Creek flowing north to south
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix C
—
��t
P4lot
•rte
f�...'� -•w .� % '_ y.�M
��f'
1..r.4r�/�4s
�y�i
i�-� ;
`�' ��+hte�� y,+�
i 1��1 �i��,ij����r,
.�,yj .r•► � /f141R � j�����y/ �y
_
61ii�`���'u.
Photo 5 Jackrabbit immediately west of XFAB (looking South)
Photo 6 Tulane Street near N. Ash Avenue, looking westerly across valley containing Blackwater
Creek flowing north to south
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix C
Lubbock Power & Light i ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Photo 7 Wetland drainageway of Blackwater Creek at Municipal Drive west of N. Ash Drive
(looking southeast)
Photo 8 Wetland drainageway of Blackwater Creek at Municipal Drive farther west of N. Ash Drive
(looking southeast)
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix
Lubbock Power & Light
Photo 9 Comancheria Lake near Erskine StreetbetweenN. Avenues S & U (looking south)
Photo 10 Comancheria Lake near Erskine Street between N. Avenues S & U farther west (looking
south)
BLACK & VEATCH Appendix C
Lubbock Power & Light ROUTE SELECTION STUDY & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
d
C _
D
B s
P
XFAB N Q S
Northwest I R
Substation M
A T Yr PP
)J QQ
E F H L U W p BB CC KK
K' Z DD RR
G CON(?UISTADOR
/J SS
V EE LL
LLANO
XX
ESTAGIDO GG TT { vV
. FF } MM WW 'yy_ AAA
HH -UU 7
�Tech COMA�NGNERIA NN GGG. EEE
Kirms Macken ie Substaitior(FFF
Rusnfano
Park
ushland
Parkr^ Esnis ., , HERE DeLorme. Mapirr OpenStreetMap contributors,
and the GIS user community
WW E Land Use Mapping
s LEGEND Preliminary Route Network
av 7 TX–Wetlands wbbc.k Powe a ,,Frt ILPLL1
Fra ori
I Inch =3333 feet TX Riparian
Data source 0 Lakes es Esn, HERE, N
6RI, 8&V BLACK 8 VEATCH
u RI,B&V l — StreamCanyonLake [me, USGS, Intermap,
Texas Parks & Wildlife
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix C
Lubbock Power & Light
Appendix D. Cultural Resources Study Report
BLACK & VEATCH I Appendix D D-1
Blanton a Associates, gym.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING•PLANNING-PROTECT MANAGEMENT
August 8, 2017
Salvatore Falcone
Project Manager, B&V Power
Black & Veatch Corporation
11401 Lamar Avenue
Overland Park, KS 66211-1508
Re: Desktop Review of Cultural Resources at the Proposed Lubbock Power & Light Northwest to
Mackenzie Project
Dear Mr. Falcone:
Blanton & Associates, Inc. (B&A) conducted a desktop -level analysis of known and potential cultural
resources for the proposed Lubbock Power & Light Northwest to Mackenzie Transmission Line Project
(Project) to be located on the north side of the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas (Figure 1). A
summary of the applicable regulatory programs and results of this analysis are presented below.
Regulations and Potential Applicability
A number of state and federal laws exist to protect cultural resources on private and public land in Texas.
The following laws may apply to projects located on federal, state, or private lands depending on funding
source and permitting requirements:
• The Antiquities Code of Texas (Texas Natural Resource Code, Title 9, Chapter 191) and
accompanying Rules of Practice and Procedure (Texas Administrative Code, Title 13, Chapter 26)
was enacted in 1969 to protect archeological sites and historic buildings on public land. The
Antiquities Code requires state agencies and political subdivisions of the state, including cities,
counties, river authorities, municipal utility districts, and school districts, notify the Texas
Historical Commission (THC) of ground -disturbing activity on public land. Lands owned by the
City of Lubbock are within portions of the Project area. As a political subdivision of the state, those
lands are subject to the Antiquities Code.
• Marked and unmarked human burials are afforded protection on public and private land under Title
8, Subtitle C, Chapters 694-715 of the Texas Health and Safety Code (as amended through 2009).
No impact to burials are allowed for any project in Texas.
• The Natural Resource Code § 191.132 (a) prohibits the intentional defacing of American Indian or
aboriginal paintings, hieroglyphics, or other marks or carvings on rock or elsewhere that pertain to
early American Indian or aboriginal habitation of the country. The Natural Resource Code
§ 191.132 (b) states that a person who is not the owner shall not willfully injure, disfigure, remove,
or destroy a historical structure, monument, marker, medallion, or artifact without lawful authority.
5 LAKEWAY CENTRE COURT, SUITE 200 • AUSTIN, TEXAS 7 8 7 3 4
PHONE 512.264. 1095 • FAx 512.264. 1531
Desktop Review of Cultural Resources
at the Proposed Lubbock Power & Light Northwest to Macken_ie Project
August 8, 2017
Page 2
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended through 2000
requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their activities and programs on historic
properties. When a federal agency funds, licenses, or permits an activity that may affect cultural
resources, the agency must consult with the State Historic Preservation Office in cooperation with
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACNP) in Washington, D.C. to comply with
Section 106 of the NHPA.
Results of Desktop Analysis
B&A reviewed online resources to determine if any known archeological sites, State Antiquities Landmarks
(SALs), or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties or previously identified historic standing
structures exist within one -anile of the Project area. No historic standing structures have been documented
within the Project area. This review found that 48 archaeological sites within the Project area and one -mile
buffer (Figures 2.0 through 2.8). The sites are summarized in Table 1. Of these sites, only one, 41LU1, is
currently listed on the NRHP. Site 41LU1 is also the only SAL -in the Project area. Most of the sites within
the Project area have not been fully evaluated for NRHP eligibility and have an unknown eligibility status.
Only site 41LU136 has been evaluated and was determined to be ineligible for the NRNP.
Of the sites in the Project area, Site 41 LU 1 (The Lubbock Lake Site) is considered to have considerable
significance to our understanding of prehistoric lifeways in the region. Initial work at the site began in 1939
and continues today with Texas Tech University administering the research. The site is known for rich
archaeological deposits from the Folsom Period (10,800-10,300 years ago) and includes the remains of
bison as well as other large extinct mammals butchered by prehistoric people. Many of the other
archaeological sites near 41LU1 and along Yellow House Draw are known to contain similar significant
deposits.
A review of all previously conducted archaeological surveys in the Project area was also conducted. Most
of the research in the area was conducted before the State of Texas began officially tracking archaeological
investigations. Therefore, the records are very incomplete. It is clear that almost all of these official surveys
conducted within the Project area were sponsored by Texas Tech University.
There were six cultural resource surveys conducted by companies other than Texas Tech. Of those, two
surveys were led by Geo -Marine, Inc. in 2003 and 2005 for the Texas Department of Transportation. These
surveys resulted in negative findings. There were also two surveys by American Archaeology Group, LLC
in 2009 and 2014 for the City of Lubbock and the Lubbock Northwest Water Reclamation Plant. Those
surveys resulted in additional recording at sites 41LU78 and 41LU82 (Figure 2.8). In addition to the work
by American Archaeology Group, LLC and Geo -Marine, Inc., two surveys were mentioned that were
directed by the Federal Highway Administration in 1975 and 1978. Other than the survey dates, no
additional information are available for these surveys. Based on mapping data, it appears those surveys had
negative results.
Desktop Review of Cultural Resources
at the Proposed Lubbock Power & Light Northwest to Macken_ie Project
August 8, 1017
Page 3
Archeological sites in the region tend to be located along the edges of natural waterways, like Yellow House
Draw, and along playa edges. Most of the Project area has been very heavily impacted by urban and
industrial growth of the City of Lubbock. While this development has disturbed much of the prehistoric
cultural resources in the area, more undiscovered and intact archaeological sites are likely within the Project
area. This is due to fact that sites are often deeply buried in this region.
Historic archeological sites (i.e., scatters of glass, structural debris) may exist within the proposed Project
area. Generally, to be recorded and evaluated as archeological sites, historic resources must contain artifact
scatters and/or features indicative of occupation and abandonment prior to 40-50 years ago. The region
likely contains architecture over 50 years of age representing the remains of historic homesteads and
farmsteads; however, such structures are not likely to be disturbed directly by the Project. Cemeteries are
not typically considered eligible for inclusion in the NRNP, but may be considered eligible if the cemetery
derives its primary significance from graves of people who were of transcendent importance, or from age,
or from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events. However, cemeteries are
protected under Title 8, Subtitle C, Chapters 694-715 of the Texas Health and Safety Code and therefore,
the Project must be designed to avoid these sensitive resources.
Summary
Rich archaeological deposits exist in portions of the Project area, but the majority of the Project area has
been disturbed by urban and industrial development. These disturbed areas have a relatively low potential
for intact archeological sites near the surface. The undisturbed portions of the Project area have a moderate
to high potential for impact to cultural resources.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Mark Willis
Blanton & Associates, Inc.
Attachments: Figures
Table I
Desktop Review of Cultural Resources
at the Proposed Lubbock Power & Light Northwest to MackenJe Project
August 8, 2017
Page 4
CR 6000
PROJECT AREA
J
LL CN LubbocklnrornationalAtrpr
U
)�
e
CR 1400 Bluefield Sl
Nevycam St
CR 6300 Kent St E c
a w
a w a
84
Of
I�
G f+
CR 6400 _ Urs: line St
m o, `mi 8.
a'¢ wz
C,apt
g Erskine StPa io
X
/. J y
11
m
e
c
a
c
1St PI
t
82
Broadway S::
-
tam St
17th st
PROJECTAREA
26Th St
25Th St
z
3131 St .
84
�OTJhS
m
c
34Th St
33Rd St
2
�.
d
`
U
o
41St St
Y
d
6
4
7
_
5
a
87
�,
W
LL
60Th
t -J
c
Z)'
60Th
St
62Nd St
6Th St
66Th St
I
78Th St
a
7STh SU
- � a
Base Map ESRI-USA Base Map
ESRI-U S and Canada Detatied Streets
Figure 1
Project Location Map
Project Area Lubbock Power & Light
Miles 0
1. Northwest to Mackenzie Project
Miles Lubbock County, Texas
G 1 2 3
Desktop Review of Known and Potential Cultural Resources
at the Proposed Lubbock Power & Light Northwest to Mackenzie Project
August 8, 2017
Attachments
Table 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources Sites
Trinomial
Site Type
Size
Year
Recorded
NRPH
SAL
Recording
by
41 LU I
Paleo-Indian kill site
700m x 400m
1970
Yes
Yes
TTU'
41 LU3
Multi component
Unknown
1973
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU4
Paleoindian Site
400m x 260m
1973
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU5
Hearths
270m x 180m
1973
Recommended
Eligible
Unknown
TTU
41 LU6
Cache pit
Unknown
1974
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU26
Bison kill and butchering
site
480m x 220m
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU27
Possible campsite
Unknown
1974
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU28
Bison kill and butchering
site
320m x 80m
1974
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU29
Open campsite
510m x 580m
1974
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU30
Open campsite
400m x 350m
1974
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU31
Probable campsite
Unknown
1974
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU32
Probable campsite
Unknown
1974
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU35
Butchered bone bed
420m x 300m
1975
Ineligible
Unknown
TTU
41 LU37
Probable campsite
Unknown
1975
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU38
Bison bone bed
30m x 80m
1975
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU39
Probable campsite
Unknown
1975
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU41
Probable campsite
Unknown
1975
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU42
Lithic scatter
l Om x I Om
1975
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU44
Lithic scatter
5m x 5cm
1975
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU45
Lithic scatter
Unknown
1975
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU46
Lithic Scatter
410m x 250m
1975
Recormnended
Eligible
Unknown
TTU
41LU50
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU53
Apache butchering site
260m x I 00
1982
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU62
Hearths
2m x 2m
1982
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU63
Scattered hearth
5m x 6m
1982
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU64
Unknown
3m x 3m
1982
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU65
Burnt rock scatter with
broken bone and lithics
77m x 45m
1982
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU66
Isolated lithic tool
5m X ?
1982
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU67
Isolated lithic tool
Unknown
1982
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU68
Hearth
60cm x 60cm
1982
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU69
Unknown
1 m x 1 m
1984
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU70
Bones
Unknown
1984
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU73
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU74
Open campsite
50m x 30m
1990
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU76
Open campsite
100m x 30m
1991
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
Desktop Review of Known and Potential Cultural Resources
at the Proposed Lubbock Power & Light Northtvest to Mackenzie Project
August 8, 2017
Attachments
Table 1. Previouslv Recorded Cultural Resources Sites
Trinomial
Site Type
Size
Year
Recorded
NRPH
SAL
Recording
by
41 LU78
Open campsite
20m x 25m
1983
Unknown
Unknown
AAG"
41 LU82
Bison Bones
Unknown
1986
Unknown
Unknown
AAG
41 LU83
Hearth
Unknown
1990
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU84
Open campsite
Stn x 20m
1989
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU85
Open campsite
200m x l Om
1987
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU89
Paleo-Indian campsite
40th x 20m
1992
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU91
Open campsite
40m x 20m
1993
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU92
Open campsite
21 in x 44m
1993
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU 101
Prehistoric open campsite
5m x 51n
1994
Unknown
No
TTU
41 LU 128
Open campsite
655m x 180m
2003
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41LU 131
Open campsite
140m x 20tn
2003
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU 135
Open campsite
740m x 320m
2004
Unknown
Unknown
TTU
41 LU 136
Open campsite
290m x 220m
2002
Ineligible
within ROW
Unknown
TTU
TTU u = t exas tech university
**AAG = American Archeology Group, LLC
LUBBOCK
COUNTY
fft
.0"
LEGEND
--+- Railroad
Segment Designation
City Limit
County Boundary
m Local Park
Q Substation Site
Data source: B&V; ESRI; LP&L; NHD; USGS
XFAB Site
\X BERN
HUFFMAN
\COMPLEX
A
Loop 289
BUDDY Lubbock
HOLLY;
R_ODGERS
PARK's MAEDGEN
PARK
NN
W- y` -E
S
0 3.000
Feet
1 inch = 3,000 feet
'These Preliminary Route
Segments are subject to
modification throughout the
routing process.
1051
HOLLINS
PARK
DAVIES
PARK
Mackenzie
CANYON RIM
Substation
PARK �
e��ia�:ii�arH•0..
UPE PARK
PARK
UrADA� STRIP
-N
DAVIES
PARK
Mackenzie
CANYON RIM
Substation
PARK �
MACKENZIE
UPE PARK
PARK
UrADA� STRIP
-N
Lubbock P&L
Northwest -Mackenzie Project
Recommended Route Segments
0. BLACK&VEATCH LUbbockPower&Light