THIS PAGE CONTAINS

THIS PAGE CONTAINS

COLOR MAPS OR

DRAWINGS

AND

CAN BE VIEWED

IN

CENTRAL RECORDS(PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS

1701 N. CONGRESS AVENUEAUSTIN, TX 78701)

FIGURE 5-1Page 1 of 2

850

THIS PAGE CONTAINS

COLOR MAPS OR

DRAWINGS

AND

CAN BE VIEWED

IN

CENTRAL RECORDS(PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS

1701 N. CONGRESS AVENUEAUSTIN, TX 78701)

FIGURE 5-1Page 2 of 2

851

(This page left blank intentionally.)

852

Appendix F

LCRA TSC's Oak Wilt Policy

853


854

LCRA EMPLOYEE POLICY MANUAL: 400 SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL

Requirement 402R2: Oak Wilt Prevention

Approval Date October 2014 Owner Manager, Environmental Affairs

Effective Date October 2014 Policy Owner Review Every Three Years

Review Date October 2014 Next Executive Team or Designee Review 2016

402R2.1 Oak Wilt DefinedOak wilt is a tree disease caused by the fungus Ceratocystisfagacearum. The fungus infects the conductive tissue (xylem) that

contains vessels to transport moisture throughout the tree. The oak wilt fungus causes the infected tree to produce tylosis, whichbecomes so significant the tree can no longertransport waterthrough its vascular system. The end result, in most cases, is a dead

tree.

402R2.2 Prevention of Oak Wilt

• Any person representing LCRA involved in field work where oaktrees are trimmed, removed, or could be potentiallywounded shall receive oak wilt training. LCRA representatives required to have training include, but are not limited to, projectmanagers, construction managers, environmental staff, equipment operators, contractors, subcontractors, and volunteers.Training must occur before field work may begin in areas with oak trees. Those working with oak trees shall complete theLCRA Oak Wilt Prevention Report as well. When possible, oak trees should not be trimmed or pruned between February

and June.• At all times, sterilizing equipment and dressing wounds are mandatory when trimming or pruning susceptible

species.• Sterilizing tree removal and trimming equipment will occur before leaving the project area or between property

boundaries, and will involve using either 1) aerosol disinfectant; 2) 10 percent bleach-water solution; or 3)isopropyl alcohol (minimum 70 percent). In addition, tree-trimming equipment must be sterilized thoroughly

before it is used again.• Irrespective of limb size, all cuts and wounds must be painted with a wound or latex-based paint, a product

approved by a certified arborist who has obtained an Oak Wilt Specialist Certification, or one recommended by the

Texas Forest Service. Such painting will include stump cuts and damaged roots (regardless if the stumps are toremain in place or are to be grubbed), both above and below ground. Damaged roots located in a trench orexcavations that a safety supervisor says cannot be accessed safely do not have to be painted. It takes only a fewminutes for an open tree wound to attract insects, so painting cannot wait until all pruning is accomplished.Wound protection must be applied immediately. At a minimum, LCRA representatives will seal all wounds of any

size on all oak trees. However, LCRA representatives may elect to seal cuts of other hardwood trees on a case-by-

case basis.

402R2.3 Disposal• Chipping or shredding the wood from infected trees to use as mulch is an acceptable means of recycling it.

Chipping or shredding dries the wood quickly and kills the fungus.

• Burning diseased wood is an acceptable means of disposal. Burning diseased logs kills the oak wilt fungus, and it

cannot be spread by smoke.• Firewood from diseased trees should not be stored near healthy trees because fungal spores or insects that carry

the spores can spread the fungus. If the brush or logs are to be left for firewood, the LCRA representative mustexplain to the landowner or landowner's representative that the brush or logs may be infected and warn them of

storage hazards.• LCRA representatives may fulfill this landowner notification obligation by providing pertinent information

regarding burning and firewood to the landowner or landowner's representative. Logs over 4 inches, or 10

855

centimeters, in diameter at breast height must be girdled (have the bark removed), as fungal mats have been

found on logs this size and larger after the tree was felled.It is recommended that oak firewood be stored under a sheet of clear plastic, and edges tightly sealed with soil orbricks. That should prevent any spore-carrying beetles from escaping. Use clear plastic because black plastic will

reveal any escape holes to the beetles.Unused disinfectants and paints must be recycled or disposed of properly.Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are required for each paint and disinfectant used.

See Also:

LCRA Oak Wilt Prevention Report

856

i0Q.d

0'++

d>L

a

Y

0

9J

^ 0O

0 CU (n CQ, O S0y+ ^(D ch

Q N^ N N^ N^ v) O'_ O O

O LL co 0 NJ-0i Q

CU O a)X O ^ U)

3:O0Y i O -0 Q(0 O N

O -a= Eo C: >• o E O O° E^ o^

-aEC: CUôa;ô^

a)

N Ua) E E

O

_

- O v)

fn ^ L N Cl)

C +O' O O _U 0)4-a)

o =L^ a)Ea^ c^n°^Q.â)'- o0- Ca

^ V U 0-

"

^ O O7'o-

I-°3Cj

^ o0-0 E

a) m ^ 0) c c cvoy-' to 'U.-

r- CL CU M V)^ O U)U) 0

°U) CcN

w OU= O V^ N++'^ O U 'ap Q-O ° -^Q (a

E ^ C C 3 0)

0a E: U Cc U)

O^ O O LE cn ° 0-0

E^^

COGN) L .Q (D 0

7 i O V cm

OC)Y ^ O ^ c7 ^ O) a)

o NUO O a)

°-aQâ) PEOE âON

(6 y- U

U ^ ^ (t3 -O Vj O

°o°dÔ âi o ° E°.'' cN_3>,â)=c^

O O C6

>(D a)O O p)m tA

f0 f^ Q O ^Cl)

tn.fl- pV) d NCU CO ^p :3

d= N

Y t? "O L= O O

O O 2 a) > N NQ^

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0U U

C°.)U U

0U

U

D Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

_ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \

^d p U U U 0 U U U U

c6

Q)

c6O

CON

CON

caN

«Sa)

coN

CON

N m m m m m m m m ZQ ^..

\ \ \2

\^0

\ \ \ \ s

O dOj N t^N N N

N N {Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^

~ Q Q Q Qa)

Q Q Q

.X

p4)

O ^ ton.

4-o =

oaU °

^

o Nv )̂

a^.

Oco

Q

3v o

a^-

^

0

C wm

^ y d4

> 0 U 4k" i

aJ

S^

COQ i,;E

ùU ^

â^Q̂

a)EzL

Ô

Q)

4-cu

U)

L

Y

O

VôN

Ui

^

oi

Q

t̂i

fi5i

^sz

^N

^

0

^.^.Y

^0^

857


858

Appendix G

Karst Risk Analysis

859


860

KARST AND SALAMANDER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED 138 KV LEANDER- ROUND

ROCK TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TEXAS

Prepared for

POWER ENGINEERS, INC.

3940 Glenbrook Drive

Hailey, Idaho 83333

(208) 788-3456

Prepared by

CAMBRIAN ENVIRONMENTAL

4422 Pack Saddle Pass, Suite 204

Austin, Texas 78745

www.cambrianenvironmental.comGeoscience Firm Registration No. 50484

March, 2016

As a licensed professional geoscientist I attest that the contents of this report are complete and accurate to the best of my

knowledge.

.^,`

^^ {Kemble White Ph.D., P.G.Cambrian [email protected]

861


862

SUMMARY

The LCRA Transmission Services Corporation (TSC) is planning to add 138 kV electric transmission

infrastructure on single pole structures in the area between Leander and Round Rock. Construction

activities within this area have the potential to impact surface and subsurface karst features and

drainage networks connected to the karstic spring systems associated with the Edwards aquifer and thespecies reliant upon it. Caves, springs and spring conduits within the study area occur within the known

range of several species of endangered karst invertebrate, within the known range of the threatened

Jollyville Plateau Salamander (Eurycea tonkawae) and within the potential range of the threatened

Georgetown Salamander (Eurycea naufragia). All of these species are listed as threatened under the

Federal Endangered Species Act (Act). Due to the karstic nature of the aquifer, water quality impacts

have the potential to occur through both surface and subsurface pathways and across relatively long

distances. This analysis identifies known and potential habitat locations for the listed karst species as

well as areas where springshed hydrology has the potential to be impacted by the various route

alternatives for the proposed project. The likelihood of take actually occurring (as defined under the

Act), can be minimized to the extent practicable with relatively simple conservation measures, beginning

with avoidance of areas near springs where groundwater occurs near the land surface. LCRA TSC has

recent project experience with successfully avoiding impacts to JPS through the use of best

management practices, including but not limited to, spanning sensitive areas, minimizing ground

disturbance, and pre-construction geological and hydrogeological studies.

PROPOSED 138 kV LEANDER- ROUND ROCK TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

In response to rapid growth in Williamson County, LCRA TSC is planning to add 138 kV electric

transmission infrastructure on single poles in the area between Leander and Round Rock. Two newsubstations and a high-voltage transmission line are needed to safely and reliably meet the projectedelectric demand of existing and new PEC customers. Approximately thirty-one alternative transmission

routes and 16 substation locations, eight for each respective new substation addition, are currently

being considered within a study area that generally occurs between the U.S. 183-A and IH-35

transportation corridors and stretches from Round Rock in the South to Leander and Georgetown in thenorth. The study area occurs within the Edwards aquifer recharge and contributing zones. Construction

activities within the recharge zone, especially those involving significant subsurface excavation, have the

potential to impact habitat for threatened and endangered terrestrial and aquatic species known tooccur in caves and springs formed in the Edwards limestone and other associated formations. Habitat

for listed species can generally be identified from the surface by qualified geoscientists. However,

previously undocumented caves and smaller karst voids are sometimes encountered duringconstruction. Construction activities within the contributing zone involve a lesser risk of impacting

species habitat due to the lack of cavernous rock in the subsurface.

SALAMANDER AND KARST ECOLOGY AND REGULATORY STATUS

The Jollyville Plateau Salamander (JPS) and the Georgetown Salamander ( GTS) are small (less than 2

inches) closely related, entirely aquatic salamanders. The JPS is endemic to Travis and Williamsoncounties and is currently known to occur in more than 100 springs, spring-fed creek segments, and caveswithin the Brushy Creek and Colorado River drainage basins. Recent field research prompted by thelisting process has resulted in a rapidly evolving understanding of their range, distribution and habitat

863

preferences. While the majority of known location for the JPS occurs in the Bull Creek basin in Travis

County, the northern limits of its known range and distribution extend into the southern end of thestudy area. The GTS is known to occupy seventeen similar habitats to the north within the San Gabriel

River drainage basin. Ongoing unpublished research by Texas State University and the Williamson

County Conservation Foundation indicates that habitat for the JPS and the GTS may be more continuous

than previously thought across the recharge zone within Williamson County.

Within the study area, habitat for both species of salamander is closely tied to the northern segment of

the Edwards aquifer. The Edwards is a karstic aquifer whose host rock, the Edwards limestone, has beenmodified by chemical weathering to form the caves and spring conduits on which the species depend

(USFWS 2012, 2013a). The salamanders have only been found in areas where discharge from the aquifer

is sustained on a permanent or nearly permanent basis. High quality spring habitat is characterized by

clear water flowing over cobble substrate with an abundant macro-invertebrate community and aquatic

vegetation (Bowles 2006). While the species are known to periodically retreat underground into the

spring conduits, how much of their life cycle is spent underground is unknown. Only a few cavepopulations are known to occur and they are poorly understood. The vast majority of caves in

Williamson County do not provide access for researchers to the water table where suitable habitat for

Eurycea salamanders would occur.' Urbanization and declines in water quality and quantity within the

aquifer are cited by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as the primary threats to the species

(USFWS 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2014).

Many caves within the study area do provide potential habitat for endangered karst invertebrates. Of

the seven endangered karst invertebrate species known to occur in the Austin area, only two are known

to occur in the project area. The Bone Cave Harvestman (Texella reyesi) occurs throughout the recharge

zone within the project area. Bone Cave itself (the species type locality) is located adjacent to several of

the currently proposed route alternatives (alternatives 3 through 6). The Coffin Cave Mold Beetle

(Batrisodes texanus) is not known to occur within the project area, but its southernmost known location

is Inner Space Cavern (ISC). ISC is the most extensive cave system in Williamson County. It is located less

than a mile east of the northeasternmost proposed route alternatives and several other extensive caves

occur in the space between.

Since the JPS and GTS were listed as threatened (USFWS 2014), the Act's "take" prohibition has applied

to all activities that would result in harm to the species.Z Any work conducted directly within a spring

run could result in direct mortality of salamanders. Direct mortality of salamanders or karstinvertebrates could also occur from falling rocks, ceiling collapse, or other similar events if a previously

undiscovered karst void containing the species is encountered during construction activities or ifconstruction activities disturb a spring-fed creek channel where previously undocumented habitatoccurs. Protection under the Act goes well beyond prohibiting direct harm to salamanders at the site of

their cave or spring run. The Service has indicated that any activity that degrades the quality or quantityof water upstream of salamander habitat may result in take through habitat modification (USFWS 2012).

1 James Reddell of the Texas Memorial Museum and the Texas Speleological Survey estimates the total number ofcave in Williamson County to be approximately 700. Of these only a handful such as Bat Well, Water Tank Cave and

the Buttercup Creek caves contain permanent aquatic habitat.2 Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits "take" of listed species which has been defined as a broadrange of activities which may interfere with a species' breeding, feeding or sheltering including habitat

modification.

864

All known locations for these species rely on discharge from the Edwards aquifer. Since the aquifer is

recharged by runoff originating in the contributing and recharge zones, those zones represent thegeographic area from which impacts may arise. In order to determine the likelihood that a proposedaction may harm salamanders, two questions need to be addressed. First, is a proposed action likely to

directly impact salamanders on the site? Second, is a proposed action likely to indirectly impact

salamanders downstream of the site? In karst terrain, indirect impact may occur downstream either

through the aquifer or downstream through a surface channel.

In addition to the threatened listing, the Service also designated critical habitat for the JPS (USFWS

2013b). The designation of critical habitat is an entirely separate federal action from the listing that is

intended to highlight the geographic location and regulatory status of the JPS to other Federal agenciesas well as project proponents using Federal funds, Federal permits, or Federal property. The critical

habitat designation requires federalized projects to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat. In a

critical habitat designation the Service delineates areas that are deemed vital to the recovery of thespecies based on habitat components known as primary constituent elements (PCEs). In the case of theJPS, the Service defined two PCE boundary areas for multiple critical habitat units based on biological

and hydrogeological assumptions. The first is the surface PCE boundary, which extends 262 feet (80

meters) in all directions from the spring outlet. This is the area within which it is presumed salamandersmay travel on the surface within the spring run. The second is the subsurface PCE boundary, which

extends 984 feet (300 meters) in all directions from the spring outlet. This is the area within which it ispresumed that salamanders may occur in subsurface flooded karstic refugia (cave habitat) where they

are able to survive periods of drought. Being natural systems, the actual spatial distribution of these

PCEs is likely different for each individual site and is not likely to conform to radial buffers extending thesame distance in all directions. The Service has designated 30 critical habitat units (CHU) for the JPS,

totaling 4934 acres (USFWS 2013b). CHU 1 occurs in the project area. The habitat components orprimary constituent elements used by the Service to delineate critical habitat include spring water, rocky

substrate with open interstitial spaces for shelter, a prey base of aquatic invertebrates, and access to

subsurface refugial areas, including karst spring conduits and deep alluvial gravel, if present. The Service

recognizes two different geographic extents for these elements based on their presence in the surface

(80 meters or 262 feet) and the subsurface (300 meters or 984 feet). Critical Habitat has been proposed

for the GTS (USFWS 2014) but a final designation has not occurred.

HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT AREA

The geology of the project area consists of a thin veneer of calcareous soil overlying Lower Cretaceouscarbonate rocks of the Fredericksburg Group (Garner and Young 1976, Brune and Diffin 1986, Collins2005, Housh 2007). Fredericksburg Group strata exposed in the project area include the Comanche PeakFormation and the Edwards Formation. The project area is located entirely within the recharge andcontributing zones of the northern segment of the Edwards aquifer (Senger et al. 1990). The water-bearing limestone that composes the Edwards aquifer is Cretaceous in age and consists of theComanche Peak, Edwards, and Georgetown strata; however, the Edwards Limestone contains most ofthe aquifer. The northern segment of the Edwards aquifer has an outcrop area covering approximately

400 square miles (Slade 1985).

Potential project-related groundwater impacts could result in impacts to karst aquatic fauna if the faunaoccur down-gradient in terms of surface or subsurface flow paths. The direction of groundwater flow

865

within the northern segment of the aquifer is typically to the north and east (Sanger et al. 1990). As aresult, springs and seeps in the northern segment of the aquifer tend to be formed preferentially alongthe south banks of the larger streams. This pattern can be seen in the distribution of known springs onlocal geologic maps, especially that of Collins (Collins 2005). Local influences such as faults and a locallyhigh hydraulic gradient can modify that general pattern on the local scale, however, and some springs

are known from the north banks of major streams.

METHODS

Cambrian salamander biologists and karst geoscientists identified known and potential habitat locationsfor endangered karst invertebrates and threatened salamanders by conducting a thorough review ofavailable literature, which included federal register documents, geologic maps and literature, hydrologymaps and literature, historic aerial photography, and the scientific literature pertinent to thesalamanders and their habitat in Williamson County. We also drew on our professional experience fromdozens of projects in the general area. Potential habitat sites were identified based on areas whereunsurveyed caves and springs are known to occur, where the Edwards aquifer base level is known to bevery close to the surface, or where caves with perennially wet passages are known to occur. Based onsurface drainage patterns and the general pattern of groundwater flow within the northern Edwardsaquifer, we identified likely utility corridors within the study area with the potential to be within thecontributing springshed areas for known and potential salamander locations. A springshed is thecombined area of hydrological influence for a spring including both surface and subsurface drainageleading to the spring outlet. Surface drainage is simply the function of surface topography. Subsurfacedrainage, however, is generally poorly known for local springs, and we base the following assessment ongeneral patterns of groundwater flow in the northern Edwards aquifer and on general principals of karst

hydrogeology.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The potential for impacts to karst species from each alternative is characterized in Table 1 according to

three primary factors detailed below. These results are based on a literature review and are not a

substitute for detailed site-specific geological surveys.

Cavernous substrate - All of the proposed route alternatives occur at least partially on the recharge

zone of the Edwards aquifer. Karst features such as caves and springs are distributed unevenly

throughout the recharge zone in Williamson County. All route alternatives therefore have some baseline

probability of encountering sensitive karst features. Some of these features are (or will be, with furthersite-specific survey work) detectable from the surface, while others may be discovered only duringexcavation activities. The route ultimately selected should have site-specific karst surveys conducted in

order to better understand the potential for impacts to karst features.

Known Karst Features - Dozens of known caves occur in the general project area with concentrations

around Inner Space Caverns at the northeast tip of the project area, in the Stone Oak and SenderoSprings neighborhoods along FM 1431, in the Wood Glen and Hidden Glen neighborhoods north of FM3406 (Old Settlers Boulevard), and within the Southwest Williamson County Regional Park (SWCRP)

along CR 175. Endangered karst invertebrates are known to occur in all of these areas, with somelocations occurring within a few hundred feet of some alternative routes. Caves within the SWCRP are

particularly of interest because they have been set aside within two large karst preserves intended to

866

contribute to the recovery of the Bone Cave Harvestman as a major biological goal of Williamson

County's Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. Alternative routes 5, 21, and 22 contain elements that are

proximal to either the Millennium Cave Karst Fauna Area or the Wilco Cave Karst Fauna Area. Activities

that could potentially impact either Karst Fauna Area may require consultation with the Service.

Known Springs and spring-fed channels - Only one confirmed habitat site for either salamander species

occurs fully within the project study area. Krienke Springs (also known as Tonkawa Springs) and theUSFWS CHU 1 occur just south of CR 175 (Sam Bass Road) approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the

Round Rock substation. Three associated potentially occupied sites include Tonkawa ponds 1 through 3.

These features are permanent ponds that currently serve as amenities for homeowners in the Tonkawa

Springs subdivision. Previous descriptions of features in this area suggest that they are connected

directly to the aquifer and potential habitat for the JPS. Young (1986) described cenotes (essentially

flooded caves with collapsed skylights) on the old Walsh Ranch in this general area, and Sweet (1978)

and others described quarry pits along Sam Bass Road that had filled with spring water during

excavation activities. The springshed for Krienke Springs is undetermined but it seems likely that watermay originate from the west, southwest and northwest. Alternative routes 8 through 12 and 17 wouldpass along CR 175 adjacent to this site where groundwater conduits (and confirmed JPS habitat) are

known to occur in the shallow subsurface where excavation activities could impact them.

Kreinke Springs is one confirmed location for a network of habitat that likely extends somewhat

continuously under favorable conditions throughout a larger portion of the Brushy Creek drainage basin.Several segments of the creek are known to be spring-fed. From the Dry Branch of Brushy Creek in the

vicinity of Kreinke Springs downstream to its confluence with the main stem of Brushy Creek and then

further downstream at least as far east as IH-35, the main channel of Brushy Creek is fed by springs andseeps where little to no sampling has occurred for the JPS. Alternative routes 8 through 12, 16, 17, 23,

and 24 would have crossings in this area of the Brushy Creek basin where groundwater conduits (andpotentially JPS habitat) are known to occur in the shallow subsurface where excavation activities could

impact them.

Another location of interest near the intersection of CR 175 and FM 1431 includes two groundwaterdischarge points on the southern edge of the Vista Oaks neighborhood. A spring and a seep can be seennorth of FM 1431 within two channels that drain into the Soil Conservation Service Site 13a reservoir

just south of FM 1431. These features have never been surveyed biologically for salamanders. Flow to

the springs may originate from areas including the FM 1431 utility corridor or the CR 175 corridor.Alternative routes 2, 16, 20, 23, 24, and 31 would have crossings in this area of Honey Bear Creek where

groundwater conduits (and potentially JPS habitat) are known to occur in the shallow subsurface where

excavation activities could impact them.

Along the northern end of the study area is one confirmed site for the GTS (Garey Spring) and severalunsurveyed spring locations. Garey Spring has been preliminarily studied by the Williamson CountyConservation Foundation and appears to draw water from the high ground along the FM 2243 corridor.Other unsurveyed sites along the south bank of the South San Gabriel River likely draw water from thathigh ground as well. Alternative route 4 would cross the likely recharge area for Garey Spring andalternative routes 3 and 4 would cross the likely recharge area for two potential GTS-inhabited springs.These springs are located between 0.3 and 0.9 miles from the proposed alignment of the alternatives.

867

Another potential JPS-inhabited spring run occurs in the general vicinity of Alternative routes 5 and 6 onundeveloped land owned by the Texas Crushed Stone (TCS) quarry. Based on local geologic influences,this spring likely draws surface and subsurface water from the west in the area of the Whitetail

subdivision and the SWCRP.

Aerial photography analysis indicates that a pond in the Wood Glen neighborhood may be spring-fedand thus potential habitat for the JPS. It occurs along a fault in a similar hydrogeologic setting to otherknown springs along the eastern edge of the Edwards limestone outcrop. Alternative routes 1 through 7,13, 14, 18 through 22, and 25 through 31 cross this area where groundwater conduits (and potentiallyJPS habitat) may occur in the shallow subsurface where excavation activities could impact them.

Due to the nature of karst resources, crossing any of the springsheds described above with a utility thatrequires bedrock excavation raises the potential for impacts to groundwater resources and potentially

to threatened Eurycea salamanders. The likelihood of take occurring (as defined under the Act) can beminimized with relatively simple conservation measures, beginning with avoidance of areas near springswhere groundwater occurs near the land surface. LCRA TSC has recent project experience withsuccessfully avoiding impacts to JPS through the use of best management practices, including but notlimited to spanning sensitive areas, minimizing ground disturbance, and pre-construction geological andhydrogeological studies. Beyond the potential for take, the presence of designated Critical Habitatcauses some entities with a federal nexus to need to consider the potential for adverse modification (asdefined under the Act) to occur. Because LCRA TSC has indicated the project lacks a federal nexusassociated with funding sources or other required permits, the JPS Critical Habitat designation (andpotential future GTS Critical Habitat designation) may not represent a significant planning issue(independent of the avoidance of take under the Endangered Species Act).

868

Table 1. Potential project constraints related to listed karst species.

SEGMENTSPRIMARY ON POTENTIAL CAVE AND KARST POTENTIAL SALAMANDER

ALTERNATIVE POTENTIALLY CONSTRAINT CONSTRAINTROUTES CAVERNOUS

SUBSTRATE

T1 east to J4 H3/13 juncture near Wood Glen H3/13 juncture near potentially

cave cluster spring-fed pond1

U2 near Mayfield Bat Cave (T.reyesi)

Ti east to J4 W5 and Substation 1-8 adjacent to Y2 near Vista Oaks springsWCCF recovery preserve (T. H3/13 juncture near potentiallyreyes►) spring-fed pond

2 H3/13 juncture near Wood Glencave cluster

Y2 near Round Rock BreathingCave (T. reyesi)

Y east to J4 J5, K5 near inner Space Cavern Z, Al within likely drainage area of

3 (T. reyesi, B. texanus) potential GTS springs in South SanGabriel River valley

Al near Bone Cave (T. reyesi)

S east to J4 15, K5 near Inner Space Cavern S within likely drainage area of(T. reyesi, B. texanus) known GTS spring (Garey Ranch)

G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster Z, Al within likely drainage area ofpotential GTS springs in South San4

Al near Bone Cave (T. reyesi) Gabriel River valley

G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

T1 east to J4 W5 and Substation 1-8 adjacent to B1 near potential JPS spring on TCS

WCCF recovery preserve (T. propertyreyesi) H3/13 juncture near potentiallyE6 within WCCF recovery spring-fed pond

5 preserve

J5, K5 near Inner Space Cavern(T. reyesi, B. texanus)

H3/13 juncture near Wood Glencave cluster

869




SUBSTRATE


H2 east to J4 J5, K5 near Inner Space Cavern B1 near potential JPS spring on TCS

(T. reyesi, B. texanus) property

6 H3/13 juncture near Wood Glen H3/13 juncture near potentiallycave cluster spring-fed pond


T1 east to J4 G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

7 U2 near Mayfield Bat Cave (T.reyesi)

L4, Substation None specifically identified 03 passes through drainage basin

2-6 and T1 for JPS Kreinke Spring site (CHU 1)

8 east to J4 U3, A4 partially in area of shallowgroundwater along Brushy Creek

T1 east to L2 None specifically identified 03 passes through drainage basin

and L3 east to for JPS Kreinke Spring site (CHU 1)

9 J4 U3, A4 partially in area of shallowgroundwater along Brushy Creek

C2, L2 and L3 None specifically identified 03 passes through drainage basin

east to 14 for JPS Kreinke Spring site (CHU 1)

10 U3, A4, D4, F4 partially in area ofshallow groundwater along BrushyCreek

T1 east to 14 W5 and Substation 1-8 adjacent to 03 passes through drainage basinWCCF recovery preserve (T. for JPS Kreinke Spring site (CHU 1)

11 reyesi) U3, A4, B4, F4 partially in area ofshallow groundwater along BrushyCreek

T1 east to 14 W5 and Substation 1-8 adjacent to 03 passes through drainage basin

12 WCCF recovery preserve (T. for JPS Kreinke Spring site (CHU 1)

reyesi) B4a, F4a partially in area of shallow

870




SUBSTRATE

groundwater along Brushy Creek

Z1 east to J4 G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

W2 near Headwall Stream Cave(T. reyesi)


A3 near Sendero Springs caves(T. reyesi)

Z1 east to J4 G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

W2a near Headwall Stream Cave(T. reyesi)


A3a near Sendero Springs caves(T. reyesi)

N3 east to J4 Located on potentially cavernous N3, A4 in area of shallow15 substrate from segment groundwater along Brushy Creek

R2 east to 14 Y2 near Round Rock Breathing Y2 near Vista Oaks springsCave ( T. reyesi) U3, B4, F4 in area of shallowF3 near Hidden Glen Karst groundwater along Brushy Creek

16 preserve ( T. reyesr)

A3 near Sendero Springs caves(T. reyesi)

Y1 east to 14 None specifically identified 03 passes through drainage basinforJPS Kreinke Spring site (CHU 1)

17U3, A4 partially in area of shallowgroundwater along Brushy Creek

N4 and T1 east W5 and Substation 1-8 adjacent to G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

18 to J4 WCCF recovery preserve (T.reyesi)

871




SUBSTRATE


G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster

W2 near Headwall Stream Cave(T, reyesi)

T1 east to J4 W5 and Substation 1-8 adjacent to G3 near potentially spring-fed pondWCCF recovery preserve (T.reyesi)

G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster19



L4, N4, W5 and Substation 1-8 adjacent to Y2 near Vista Oaks springs

substation 2-6 WCCF recovery preserve (T. H3/13 juncture near potentiallyand T1 east to reyesi)

spring-fed pondJ4

Y2 near Round Rock Breathing20 Cave (T. reyesi)

H3/13 juncture near Wood Glencave cluster

P5 near Sendero Springs caves(T. reyesi)

N4, substation W5 and Substation 1-8 adjacent to G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

2-6, and T1 WCCF recovery preserve (T.east to J4 reyesi)

E6 within WCCF recovery21 preserve


W2a near Headwall Stream Cave

872




SUBSTRATE

(T. reyesi)


N4, substation W5, Substation 1-8 adjacent to G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

2-6, and T1 WCCF recovery preserve (T.east to J4 reyesi)

E6 within WCCF recoverypreserve

22




Y1, C2 and H2 Y2 near Round Rock Breathing Y2 near Vista Oaks springs

east to 14 Cave (T. reyesi) U3, B4, F4a partially in area ofA3a near Sendero Springs caves shallow groundwater along Brushy

23 (T. reyesi) Creek

F3 near Hidden Glen Karstpreserve (T. reyesi)

Y1, C2 and H2 Y2 near Round Rock Breathing Y2 near Vista Oaks springs

east to 14 Cave (T. reyes ►) F4 partially in area ofB4U324

,,shallow groundwater along BrushyCreek

T1 east to J4 G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

W2 near Headwall Stream Cave25 (T. reyesi)


873




SUBSTRATE

L4, M4, G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

substation 2-6W2a near Headwall Stream Cave

26and T1 east to

(T. reyesi)J4


N4, substation H3/13 juncture near Wood Glen H3/13 juncture near potentially

2-6 and T1 cave cluster spring-fed pond

east to J4 W2 near Headwall Stream Cave27 (T. reyesi)


N4, substation H3/13 juncture near Wood Glen H3/13 juncture near potentially

2-6 and T1 cave cluster spring-fed pond

east to J4 W2a near Headwall Stream Cave28 (T. reyesi)


N4, substation G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster G3 near potentially spring-fed pond

29 2-6 and T1U2 near Mayfield Bat Cave (T.

east to J4reyesi)

N4, substation H3/l3 juncture near Wood Glen H3/13 juncture near potentially

2-6 and T1 cave cluster spring-fed pond30 east to J4 U2 near Mayfield Bat Cave (T.

reyesi)

T1 east to J4 Y2 near Round Rock Breathing Y2 near Vista Oaks springs

Cave (T. reyesi) G3 near potentially spring-fed pond31 G3 near Wood Glen cave cluster

874

References:

Black and Veatch and Daniel B. Stephens and Associates. 2010. Preconstruction Groundwater

Assessment for the Jollyville Transmission Main. 64 pp.

Bowles, B. D., M.S. Sanders, and R.S. Hansen. 2006. Ecology of the Jollyville Plateau salamander (Euryceatonkawae: Plethodontidae) with an assessment of the potential effects of urbanization. Hydrobiologia

533:111-120.Brune, Gunnar 1985. Springs of Texas. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.---.2002. Springs of Texas, Second Edition. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.

Chippindale, P. T., A.H. Price, J.J. Wiens, and D.M. Hillis. 2000. Phylogenetic relationship and systematicrevision of central Texas hemidactyline plethodontid salamanders. Herpetological Monographs 14:1-80.

City of Austin (COA). 1999a. Jollyville Plateau Water Quality and Salamander Assessment. WatershedProtection Department, Water Quality Report Series, COA-ERM 1999-01.

---. 1999b. Jollyville Salamander Survey Area Map. Watershed Protection Department,

Environmental Resource Management. April 1999.

Collins, E. W. 2005. Geologic Map of the West Half of the Taylor 30x60 Quadrangle: Central Texas UrbanCorridor, Encompassing Round Rock, Georgetown, Salado, Briggs, Liberty Hill, and Leander. Bureau of

Economic Geology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.

---. 1998. Geologic Map of the Round Rock 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Bureau of Economic Geology,

University of Texas at Austin.

Jones, I.C. 2003. Groundwater Availability Modeling: Northern Segment of the Edwards Aquifer,

TexasTexas Water Development Board Report 358.

Kastning, E.H., 1983, Geomorphology and Hydrogeology of the Edwards Plateau Karst, Central Texas.

University of Texas Dissertation.

Reddell, J. R. and Finch, R. 1963. Caves of Williamson County. Texas Speleological Survey Vol.2, No.1. A

Publication of the Texas Speleological Association. October 1963.

Russell, W.H. 1993. The Buttercup Creek Karst, Travis and Williamson Counties, Texas. Report preparedfor the University Speleological Society, a chapter of the National Speleological Society at the University

of Texas at Austin. July 1993.

Senger, R. K., E.W. Collins, and C.W. Kreitler. 1990. Hydrogeology of the Northern Segment of theEdwards Aquifer. Bureau of Economic Geology, Austin Region, University of Texas at Austin.

Sweet, Samuel, S., 1978. The Evolutionary Development of Texas Eurycea. Ph.D. Dissertation, University

of California at Berkeley (Diss. Abst. Intl. No. 7904619).

SWCA 2008. Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared for Williamson County

Conservation Foundation. SWCA Environmental Consultants.

875

Texas Speleological Survey (TSS) 1990. Special Report on Williamson County Karst. 22 October 1990.

Texas Speleological Survey (TSS) 2000. Williamson County Cave Inventory. Compiled 12 January, 2000.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS et. al.). 1998. ConsultationHandbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference activities under Section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Jollyville Plateausalamander (Eurycea tonkawae) as Endangered with Critical Habitat. December 13, 2007. Federal

Register 72(239):71040-71054.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;Endangered Status for Four Central Texas Salamanders and Designation of Critical Habitat; Proposed

Rule. Federal Register 77:50768-50854.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013a. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife andPlants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for the Austin Blind Salamander and ThreatenedSpecies Status for the Jollyville Plateau Salamander Throughout Their Ranges; Final Rule Federal Register

Vol. 78 No. 151, 51278-51326. 20 August, 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013b. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife andPlants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Austin Blind and Jollyville Plateau Salamanders; Final Rule;

Final Rule Federal Register Vol. 78 No. 151, 20 August, 2013.U.S. Fish and Wildl.ife Service (USFWS). 2014. 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and

Plants; Determination of Threatened Species Status for the Georgetown Salamander and SaladoSalamander Throughout Their Ranges; Final RuleFinal Rule Federal Register Vol. 79 No. 36, 24 February,

2014.

Veni, G. 2000. Hydrogeologic and Biological Assessment of Caves and Karst Features Along ProposedState Highway 45, Williamson County, Texas. Draft Report, Submitted 28 May 2000. 140 pp.

Mike Warton and Associates 2000. Karst Terrains Feature survey for Endangered Invertebrate SpeciesHabitat(s), and Associated Point Recharge Value of Karst Features (Phases No. 3&3 of Environmental SiteStudy) 558 acre Tract Located Along County Road 175, Round Rock Area North, Williamson County,Texas. Prepared for Horizon Environmental Services. 14 August 2000.

Mike Warton and Associates 1994. Karst Terrains Feature survey for Endangered Invertebrate Species

Habitat(s), and Associated Point Recharge Value of Karst Features of the Mayfield/Nelson Ranch.

Young, K.P. 1986. The Pleistocene Terra Rossa of Central Texas. In: The Balcones Escarpment; Geology,Hydrology, Ecology and Social Development in Central Texas, Abbot, P.L., and Woodruff, C.M. editors.Published for Geological Society of America Annual Meeting San Antonio, Texas November 9-14, 1986.On-line edition accessed at: https://www.Iib.utexas.edu/geo/balcones_escarpment/pages63-70.html

876

ATTACHMENT 2

EKOT

www.ercot.com

Taylor Austin Page 1 of 19

2705 West Lake Drive 7620 Metro Center Drive

Taylor, Texas 76574 Austin, Texas 78744

T. 512.248.3000 T: 512.225.7000

F:512.248.3095 F:512.225.7020

^ ^• ^

June 18, 2014

Mr. Ross PhillipsVice President and Chief Operating Officer -Lower Colorado River AuthorityP.O. Box 220Austin, TX 78767-0220

Mr. Kenneth A. Donohoo 'Director, System PlanningOncor Electric Delivery2233-B Mountain Creek PKWYDallas, TX 75211-6716 ,

Mr. Robert A. PetersonSenior Director, EngineeringPedernales Electric Cooperative, IncP.O. Box 1Johnson City, TX 78636-0001

RE: Leander-Parmer-Round Rock project

On June 10, 2014 the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) Board of Directorsrecommended the following Tier 1 transmission project as needed to support the reliability of the

ERCOT Regional transmission system:

Leander-Parmer-Round Rock project:

• Construct a new Parmer 13 8 kV Substation

• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 12.6 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Leander and Round Rock substations to thenew Parmer Substation with an emergency rating of approximately 446 MVA'

• Add terminal equipment at the Leander and Round Rock substations for the new

transmission line• Upgrade the 138 kV bus at the Leander Substation

Additional details on this project are included in the Attachment A to this 'letter.

This project was supported throughout the ERCOT planning process, which includedparticipation of all market segments through the ERCOT RPG. ERCOT's recommendation to theBoard was reviewed by the ERCOT Regional Planning Group and the ERCOT TechnicalAdvisory Committee (TAC). ERCOT staff• looks forward to the successful completion of thework and is ready to assist you with any planning and operations related activities.

877

ATTACHMENT 2Page 2 of 19

Should you have any questions please contact me at any time.

Sincerely,

Warren LasherDirector System Planning

cc:Shawnee Claiborn Pinto, PUCTTrip Doggett, ERCOTKen MyIntyre, ERCOTJeff Billo, ERCOT

878


ERCOTPu b lic

.^

^

ERCOT Independent Review of the Leander - Parmer -Round Rock Project

Version 1.0

I © 2014 Electric Reliability Council of Texas. Inc. ERCOT Regional Planning

879

ERCOT Independent Review of the Leander - Parmer - Round Rock Project

Document Revisions


ERCOT Public

Date Version Description Author(s)

Final Ying Li

05/22/2014 1.0 Prabhu Gnanam, JeffReview ed by

Billo

©2014 Electric Reliability Council ofTexas, Inc. All rightsresenred.

880


TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. ..................................................1

2. Study Approach .......................................................................................................... ..................................................2

2.1 Study Base Case ....................................................................................................... ..................................................2

2.2 Study Criteria ............................................................................................................ ..................................................3

2.3 Tools .......................................................................................................................... ..................................................3

2.4 Base Case Study Results ......................................................................................... ..................................................3

3. Description of Project Alternatives .......................................................................... ..................................................4

4. Evaluation of Study Options ..................................................................................... ..................................................8

4.1 Reliability Analysis .................................................................................................. ..................................................8

4.2 Sensitivity Study ...................................................................................................... ................................................11

4.3 Economic Analysis .................................................................................................. ................................................12

5. Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................................ ................................................13

6. Designated Provider of Transmission Facilities ..................................................... ................................................13

7. Appendix ...................................................................................................................... ................................................14

© 2014 Eledric Reliability Coundl of Texas, Inc AN rights reserved.

881


1. Introduction

Electric load in western Williamson County, that includes the cities of Leander and Cedar Park,

is projected to experience significant growth. From 2002 to 2012, the summer peak load in the

area has grown from approximately 183 MW to 360 MW. The summer peak load is forecastedto be 575 MW in 2022 which is an increase of 59% from the actual 2012 load. According toPedernales Electric Cooperative (PEC) assessments, the existing distribution system cannot servethe forecasted load growth in the area since substation transformers and feeders will overload

and distribution-only upgrades are not feasible solutions to address this reliability of service

problem. PEC has identified a need to create two new transmission-to-distribution substations toserve the growing load in the area. One substation, which is needed by 2019, is to be located nearthe intersection of Partner Lane and Highway 1431 and is referred to as Partner substation in this

report. The other substation, which is needed by 2020, is to be located near the intersection of

East Crystal Falls Parkway and Ronald Reagan Boulevard. The existing transmission system

surrounding the locations of these two load areas consist of a 138 kV transmission line that

parallels Highway 183, a 138 kV line that parallels Highway 45; and a 138 kV line that parallel

Interstate 35. There are no transmission sources near these locations to serve the new substations

needed in this area. Figure 1 shows the map of the existing transmission system in the study

area.

Georglo«•nw _^ }SFWAR JU_NCTION•{PK^Je.."e,.,^ ^ ^ GEORGETOW N^ - g^

^

u w.A

• _ ^'` __ -- .. _ _ _ - .

• ' - --- - CHBEF BRADY- -- p

LEANDER (PKT^:;, .. ^ ..^ ^

•..u^dre , _

,.

., ib

- • T^raris{aGok Club

General Locat1on forÎt cKHusERE New Substatlon 2

^^ ^ .. .,. . ..u•mvr:.v . . -`: •^ ^ - . i^3t'6.^Îr ^' ,. 3

,^.}e ' vi

) . -• _ - _^, -'- ` `

ROUND ROCK IONCOR)^HITESTONE PEC)

4k General Location

[ (PK) New -SubstatioKENT1

^BU,^

TTERs(►ECp

hy'eJOLLYV{LLE`' P . . " ..., \ ._- .. l•^

IDD ^'"^• UNDROCKSOUTHIONCOR)

` n , ^ NoMwesf _ ^ ^

ALCONFS' IPKy tPL TIE( R ROUND ROCIq'''

WELLS BRA CH(AE) .^.

^. ^ _ • 1 9^ ^ ° . --%"^ '

y 1 y, yW !. ^ . ^ _$t ^H•O,WAR ^LANE{AEIâ•^

Figure 1: Existing transmission system in Western Williamson County

©2014 EledricReliabilityCoundlof Texas, IncAII rights reserved. 1

882


To meet the significant load growth in the area, Partner Substation needs to be created by 2019.Accordingly, new transmission lines have to be added to serve the load at Parmer Substation by

2019. Additionally, the LCRA Transmission Services Corporation (LCRA) identified thermaloverload and voltage criteria violations on the existing transmission system in the area.

In an effort to serve the new substations and relieve the reliability criteria violations in thewestern Williamson County area, LCRA and PEC proposed the following transmissionimprovements:

• Construct a new Parmer Substation.

• Construct a 138 kV transmission line (approximately 12.6 miles) with an emergencyrating of approximately 440 MVA connecting the existing Leander and Round Rocksubstations to the new Parmer Substation.

• Add terminal equipment at the existing Leander and Round Rock substations for thenew transmission line.

• Upgrade the 138 kV bus at the Leander Substation.

This project was submitted as a Tier 1 project with an estimated cost of $50.9 million. ERCOTanalyzed the system needs and reviewed the proposed project along with several other alternativeprojects. The need for the addition of a new load serving substation in an area near theintersection of East Crystal Falls Parkway and Ronald Reagan Boulevard was not analyzed inthis review since the decision to proceed with the construction of this facility does not need to bemade at this time.

2. Study Approach

2.1 Study Base Case

ERCOT used the 2018 SE summer peak case built for the 2013 Regional Transmission Plan

(RTP) in order to create a study base case for 2019. The 2019 load forecast from LCRA for the

substations in the study area was applied to the case. Based on the result of the 2013 RTP, two

new Tier 4 transmission upgrades in the study area were modeled to create the study case:

• Avery Ranch - Jollyville 138 kV transmission line upgrade

• Marshall Ford - Lago Vista 138 kV transmission line upgrade

ERCOT also analyzed 2022 conditions in the study area. For the 2022 load level study, ERCOTused the latest 2020 SSC summer peak case built for the 2014 RTP. The 2022 load forecast from

LCRA for the substations in the study area was applied to the case. Table 1 summarizes the area

substation loads.

© 2014 Eledric Reliability Cound I of Texas, Inc All rights reserved. 2

883


Tqh1P 1- Qnmmarv nf T.nark in the studv area

Bus Number Substation2019 Load 2022 Load

7524 Seward Junction 28.8 33.1

7525 Leander 61.8 58.0

7527 Blockhouse 54.9 62.4

7529 Whitestone 67.0 77.0

7530 Kent street 35.3 40.5

7531 Buttercup 66.3 75.4

7533 Balcones 90.7 102.4

7534 Avery Ranch 69.0 80.1

7367 Parmer 28.4 45.8Total Load 502 575

2.2 Study Criteria

The criteria applied for the AC power flow analyses are consistent with the ERCOT PlanningGuide 4.1.1.2 and the 2013 RTP. For the reliability analysis, the following limits were enforced:

• Rate A under pre-contingency conditions for 60 kV and above transmission lines andtransformers with a low side voltage of 60 kV and above

• Rate B under post-contingency conditions for 60 kV and above transmission lines andtransformers with a low side voltage of 60 kV and above

• 0.95 pu voltage under pre-contingency conditions for 100 kV and above transmissionlines and transformers with a low side voltage of 100 kV and above

• 0.90 pu voltage under post-contingency conditions for 100 kV and above transmissionlines and transformers with a low side voltage of 100 kV and above

2.3 Tools

ERCOT utilized the following software tools for the independent review of the Leander - Partner

project:• PowerWorld version 17 with SCOPF was used for AC power flow analysis

• VSAT and PSAT version 11 were used to perform power transfer analysis

• UPLAN version 8.12.0.9073 was used to perform security-constrained economic analysis

2.4 Base Case Study Results

Both thermal and voltage analyses were performed using the 2019 and 2022 study cases. No

reliability issues were identified in 2019. Both thermal overloads and low voltages wereidentified in 2022 under G-1+N-1 contingency conditions as shown in table 2 and table 3 (under

the G-l+N-1 condition for the loss of the largest Ferguson unit).

©2014 Electric Reliability Coundl of Texas, Inc Al rights reserved. 3

884


,r w- ')• 'T`horr.-.al nvarinadc in 7077 fnrenactPrl neak load under G-l+N-1

Brancli Coutingency Loading in 2022,;,,

Lago Vista -Nameless 138 kV Whitestone - Buttercup 138 kV 106.7%

Hutto - Round Rock NE 138 kVckt 2

Techridge - Howard Lane 138 kV 103.4%

r L L. 'I. r , ,,.1+- r, ')n')') fnraractaA nPak lnarl imder (T-1+N-1^......_., .,. ^,.... . _-

Bus Name-°a-- -- --.. , . _.,

Contingency.,

Bus Voltage in,2022

Whitestone 138 kV Whitestone - Buttercup 138 kV 0.89 Pu

Blockhouse 138 kV Whitestone - Buttercup 138 kV 0.89 pu

Leander 138 kV Whitestone - Buttercup 138 kV 0.89 pu

Seward Junction 138 kV Whitestone - Buttercup 138 kV 0.89 pu

Round Rock NE 138 kV Hutto - Round Rock NE 138kV ckt 1 0.89 pu

3. Description of Project Alternatives

To address the load growth and the reliability need in the area, thirteen project alternatives werestudied, these options are discussed below.

A 32 MVar of capacitor bank was added at Seward Junction to during the evaluation of eachstudy option to address the low voltage issues along the Andice, Seward Junction and Partnersubstations.

Option 1- Chief Brady - Parmer - Whitestone 138 kV transmission line

• Construct a new Partner 138 kV Substation in Williamson County.

• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 14.8 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Chief Brady and Whitestone substations tothe new Parmer Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Chief Brady and Whitestone substations for newtransmission line.

• Upgrade the existing Round Rock to Chief Brady 138 kV transmission line to achieve anemergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

The estimated cost for Option 1 is $ 62.3 million.

Option 2 - Chief Brady - Parme r - Avery Ranch 138 kV trans mission line

• Construct a new Partner 138 kV Substation in Williamson County.

• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 14.8 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Chief Brady and Avery Ranch substations tothe new Partner Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Chief Brady and Avery Ranch substations for newtransmission line.

©2014 Eledric Reliability Council ofTexas, Inc AII rightsreserved. 4

885



The estimated cost for Option 2 is $60.9 million.

Option 3 - Chief Brady - Partner - Jollyville 138 kV transmission line

• Construct a new Partner Substation in Williamson County.

• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 15.8 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Chief Brady and Jollyville substations to thenew Partner Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Chief Brady and Jollyville substations for newtransmission line.


Option 4 - Seward Junction - Partner - Avery Ranch 138 kV transmission line


• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 14.1 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Seward Junction and Avery Ranchsubstations to the new Partner Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Seward Junction and Avery Ranch substations for newtransmission line.


Option 5 - Seward Junction - Partner - Jollyville 138 kVtransmission line


• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 15.1 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Seward Junction and Jollyville substations tothe new Partner Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Seward Junction and Jollyville substations for newtransmission line.


Option 6- Seward Junction - Partner - Round Rock 138 kV transmission line


• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 16.5 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Seward Junction and Round Rock substationsto the new Partner Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Seward Junction and Round Rock substations for newtransmission line.

@2014 Electric Reliability Coundl of Texas, Inc All rights reserved. 5

886



Option 7- Leander- Parmer - Avery Ranch 138 kVtransmission line


• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 10.3 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Leander and Avery Ranch substations to thenew Partner Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Leander and Avery Ranch substations for newtransmission line.


Option 8 - Leande r - Parme r- Jollyville 138 kV trans miss ion line


• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 11.4 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Leander and Jollyville substations to the newPartner Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Leander and Jollyville substations for new transmissionline.


Option 9- Leander - Parmer - Chandler 138 kV transmission line


• Construct a new Chandler Substation along the existing Chief Brady to Round Rock 138kV transmission line.

• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 13.5 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Leander Substation and new ChandlerSubstation to the new Partner Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Leander Substation for new transmission line.

• Upgrade the existing Round Rock to Chief Brady 138 kV transmission line betweenRound Rock and the new Chandler Substation to achieve an emergency rating of at least446 MVA.


Option 10 - Leander - Partner - Round Rock South 138 Mine


• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 15.4 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Leander and Round Rock South substations tothe new Partner Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

@2014 Electri c Reliability Cound I of Texas, Inc Al rights reserved. 6

887


• Add terminal equipment at the Leander and Round Rock South substations for newtransmission line.


Option 11-Leander - Parme r- Round Rock 138 Mine (LCRA proposed Option)

• Construct a new Parmer Substation in Williamson County.

• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 12.6 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Leander and Round Rock substations to thenew Parmer Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Leander and Round Rock substations for newtransmission line.


Option 12 - Le ande r - Parme r - Chief Brady 138 kV trans mis s ion line


• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 14.8 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Leander and Chief Brady substations to thenew Parmer Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Leander and Chief Brady substations for new transmissionline.



Option 13 -Leander- Parmer - Westinghouse South 138 kV trans miss ion line


• Construct a new Westinghouse South Substation along the existing Westinghouse toWestinghouse Tap 138 kV transmission line.

• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 13.5 miles) on a double circuitcapable structure that connects the existing Leander Substation and new WestinghouseSouth Substation to the new Parmer Substation with an emergency rating of at least 446MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Leander Substation for new transmission line.


©2014 EledricReliability Coundl of Texas, Inc Ad[ rights reserved. 7

888


T^hla il• Q„mmarxf nf flip (lntinne ctiidiPd

Option-- --

From Bus of New

Line

.,To Bus of New

Line

Project Cost($ NTillion)

ApproximateLength(miles)

1 Chief Brady Whitestone 62.3 14.8

2 Chief Brady Avery Ranch 60.9 14.8

3 Chief Brady Jollyville 63.6 15.8

4 Avery Ranch Seward Junction 54.0 14.1

5 Jollyville Seward Junction 56.8 15.1

6 Round Rock Seward Junction 61.9 16.5

7 Avery Ranch Leander 43.1 10.3

8 Jollyville Leander 46.2 11.4

9 Chandler Leander 54.4 13.5

10 Round Rock S Leander 77.5 15.4

11 Round Rock Leander 50.9 12.6

12 Chief Brady Leander 63.7 14.8

13 Westinghouse S Leander 52.4 13.5

4. Evaluation of Study Options

4.1 Reliability Analysis

All the analysis was performed under the G-l+N-1 contingency conditions. The loss of aFerguson unit constitutes to the most limiting G-1 contingency condition in the study area. Table5 and Table 6 show the transmission line loadings in 2019 and 2022. The full contingency

analysis results for 2019 and 2022 are provided in Appendix A and B respectively.

T^1,1A S• Tnr Tranemiecinn T.inP T.nadinuc in 7.019 under Ci-1+N-1

OptionI

From Bus of NewLine

To Bus of NewLine

Hutto - RoundRock NE 138 kV

Lago Vista -Nameless 138 kV

Base Case < 92% 92.7%

1 Chief Brady Whitestone < 92% < 92%

2 Chief Brady Avery Ranch < 92% < 92%

3 Chief Brady Jollyville 93.3% < 92%

4 Avery Ranch Seward Junction < 92% < 92%

5 Jollyville Seward Junction < 92% < 92%

6 Round Rock Seward Junction 96.8% < 92%

7 Avery Ranch Leander < 92% < 92%

8 Joll ville Leander < 92% < 92%

9 Chandler Leander 96.9% < 92%

10 Round Rock S Leander 93.9% < 92%

11 Round Rock Leander 98.9% < 92%

12 Chief Brady Leander 95.0% < 92%

13 Westinghouse S Leander 94.2% < 92%

© 2014 Electric Reliability Coundl of Texas, Inc AI rights reserved. 8

889


^. m.._ ,..,^,, T;,,A T narlincre in ?077 under CT-1+N-1

Hutto - Lago Vista - Howard MarshallFord

Option From Bus of To Bus of Round Rock Nameless 138 Lane - - Bullick

New Line New Line NE 138 kV kV Jollyville 138 Hollow138 kVkV

BaseCase 103.4% 106.7% 88.7% 96.0%

1 Chief Brady Whitestone 108.5% < 92% < 92% < 92%

2 Chief Brady AveryRanch 108.6% 95.1% < 92% < 92%

3 Chief Brady Jollyville 105.4% 94.7% < 92% < 92%

4 Avery Ranch SewardJunction 105.2% < 92% 92.9% 92.8%

5 Jollyville SewardJunction 103.1% < 92% 93.0% < 92%

6 Round Rock SewardJunction 111.4% < 92% < 92% < 92%

7 Avery Ranch Leander 103.8% < 92% 92.1% 93.2%

8 Jollyville Leander 103.1 % < 92% 93.8% < 92%

9 Chandler Leander 110.5% < 92% < 92% < 92%

10 Round Rock S Leander 107.9% < 92% < 92% < 92%

11 Round Rock Leander 113.7% < 92% < 92% < 92%

12 Chief Brady Leander 108.2% < 92% < 92% < 92%

13 Westinghouse S Leander 101.2% < 92% < 92% < 92%

As shown in Table 6, Hutto - Round Rock NE 138 kV circuit # 2 overloads under thecontingency loss of the Techridge - Howard Lane 138 kV line and Lago Vista - Nameless 138kV overloads for the contingency loss of Whitestone - Buttercup 138 kV line in 2022 in the basecase. None of the options studied would resolve the overload on the Hutto - Round Rock NE 138kV circuit # 2 in 2022. Therefore, it was assumed that the Hutto - Round Rock NE 138 kV

circuit # 2 needs to be upgraded by 2022 regardless of this project.

All the thirteen options effectively resolve the Lago Vista - Nameless 138 kV overload in 2022.Under Option 2 and Option 3, the loading on Lago Vista - Nameless 138 kV is relatively high(close to 95%) under the contingency loss of Whitestone - Buttercup 138 kV line in 2022 andany load increase in the area could overload the Lago Vista - Nameless 138 kV beyond 2022.

The study results also showed that the alternatives that terminate at Jollyville and Avery Ranch(Option 4, Option 5, Option 7 and Option 8) would result in an increase in the loading on the

Howard Lane - Jollyville 138 kV line by about 4% under the contingency loss of Williamson -

Northwest 138 kV line. While the alternatives that terminate near Round Rock would reduce the

loading on the Howard Lane - Jollyville 138 kV line by about 15%.

Under Option 4 and Option 7, the Marshall Ford - Bullick Hollow 138 kV line would beoverloaded under the contingency loss of Avery Ranch - Jollyville 138 kV line if the area loads

increase to around 640 MW.

©2014 Eledric Reliability Coundl of Texas, Inc NI rights reserved. 9

890


A power transfer analysis was conducted for each option to evaluate the capability to support thefuture load growth in the study area. For transfer analysis, load in the study area wasincrementally scaled up to simulate the continued load growth in the region. Table 7 shows the

power transfer analysis results at the point thermal overload observed.

T..L.1,. 17. D,,-o« T--f*r Onohreia RacnIi'c 71t1dPr (^T-+N-1

Max Transfer Limit

fB fTOption From Bus of us oTo erransViolation Contingency

New Line New Line W)(NM

I Chief Brady Whitestone 730 Blockhouse - Gabriel - Glasscock

Whitestone 138 kV 138 kV

2 Chief Brady Avery Ranch 635 Lago Vista - Nameless Buttercup -138 kV Whitestone 138 kV

3 Chief Brady Jollyville 630 Lago Vista - Nameless Buttercup138 kV Whitestone 138 kV

4 Avery Ranch Seward 640 Marshall Ford - Bullick Avery Ranch -

Junction Hollow 138 kV Jollyville 138 kV

5 Jollyville Seward 668 Howard Lane - Williamson -

Junction Jollyville 138 kV Northwest 138 kV

6 Round Rock Seward 750 Seward Junction - Avery Ranch -

Junction Leander 138 kV Jollyville 138 kV

7 Avery Ranch Leander 640 Marshall Ford - Bullick Avery Ranch -

Hollow 138 kV Jollyville 138 kV

8 Jollyville Leander 666 Howard Lane - Williamson -Jollyville 138 kV Northwest 138 kV

9 Chandler Leander 702 Leander - Blockhouse Avery Ranch -

138 kV Jollyville 138 kV

10 Round Rock S Leander 690 Leander - Blockhouse Avery Ranch -


11 Round Rock Leander 660 Leander - Blockhouse Avery Ranch -


12 Chief Brady Leander 750 Leander - Blockhouse Avery Ranch -138 kV Jollyville 138 kV

13 Westinghouse Leander 645 Round Rock - Round Avery Ranch -Rock WH 138 kV Jollyville 138 kV

Based on the transfer capability analysis, it is concluded that all three least cost options (Option

7, Option 8, and Option 11) would provide similar transfer capability in the area under G-1+N-1

contingency conditions.

ERCOT also performed the system loss analysis using the 2019 study base case (summer peakcase) to capture the benefit of transmission efficiency improvement for each option. The amountof loss reduction is shown in Table 8 indicating loss reduction realized for each of the selectoptions during the peak hour.

©2014 Eled:ric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc Al rights reserved. 10

891


T.,L.Io Q. T, ^„omieeinn Qvctam inec rPrinetinn in 7019-

Option

---- ^

From Bus of New Line To Bus of New LineTransmissionSystem Loss

reduction (MW)

1 Chief Brady Whitestone 20.9

2 Chief Brady Avery Ranch 0.4

3 Chief Brady Jollyville 20.0

4 Avery Ranch Seward Junction 19.4

5 Jollyville Seward Junction 1.4

6 Round Rock Seward Junction 21.8

7 Avery Ranch Leander 19.6

8 Jollyville Leander 20.0

9 Chandler Leander 2.8

10 Round Rock S Leander 22.3

11 Round Rock Leander 21.7

12 Chief Brady Leander 21.2

13 Westinghouse S Leander 20.6

4.2 Sensitivity Study

LCRA indicated that some of the options might need to consider the paralleling of the newtransmission line with portions of existing 138 kV circuits in the area. This would create thepotential for new double circuit contingencies; specifically for options 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11. Theseoptions were further evaluated to determine the impact to system reliability resulting from thepotential new double contingency conditions. The potential double circuit contingencies were asfollows for each of these options:

• Option 4: Buttercup - Whitestone and Parmer - Avery Ranch 138 kV lines

• Option 5: Buttercup - Whitestone and Parmer - Jollyville 138 kV lines

• Option 6: Round Rock - Chief Brady and Round Rock - Parmer 138 kV lines

• Option 7: Buttercup - Whitestone and Parmer - Avery Ranch 138 kV lines

• Option 8: Buttercup - Whitestone and Parmer - Jollyville 138 kV lines

• Option 11: Round Rock - Chief Brady and Round Rock - Parmer 138 kV lines

Table 9 shows the reliability study results in 2022 for the evaluated options considering the newdouble circuit contingencies. For Option 5 and Option 8, Lago Vista - Nameless 138 kV linewould overload under the contingency loss of Buttercup - Whitestone and Parmer - Jollyville138 kV double circuit in 2022. For Option 4 and Option 7, Lago Vista - Nameless 138 kV linewould overload under the contingency loss of Buttercup - Whitestone and Parmer - AveryRanch 138 kV double circuit in 2022. The potential double circuit contingency loss of RoundRock - Chief Brady and Round Rock - Parmer 138 kV line did not impact the results of Option6 and Option 11 in 2022.

© 2014 Electric Reliability Coundl of Texas, Inc Al rights reserved. 11

892


T T ,,.a.. `)m') „nAar fnr Sensitivity Studv

Hutto - Lago Vista - Howard Marshall

Option From Bus of To Bus of Round Rock Nameless 138 Lane - Ford - Bullick

New Line New Line NE 138 kV kV Jollyville 138 Hollow 138

kV kV

BaseCase 103.4% 106.7% 88.7% 96.0%

4 Avery Ranch SewardJunction 105.2% 108.8% 92.9% 92.8%

5 Jollyville SewardJunction 103.1% 109.0% 93.0% < 92%

6 Round Rock SewardJunction 111.4% < 92% < 92% < 92%

7 Avery Ranch Leander 103.8% 110.5% 92.1% 93.2%

8 Jollyville Leander 103.1% 110.7% 93.8% < 92%

11 Round Rock Leander 113.7% < 92% < 92% < 92%

4.3 Economic Analysis

Although the RPG project in this report is driven by a load-growth related reliability need,ERCOT also conducted an economic analysis to compare the relative performance of eachselected option in terms of production cost savings.

Using the 2018 economic case built for the 2013 RTP, ERCOT modeled each selected option

and performed production cost simulations for the year 2018 (the 2018 economic model was thelatest year available at the time of the analysis). The annual production cost simulation resultsindicate that all the options would produce relatively similar production cost savings with nomeasurable impact on congestion.

©2014 Bectric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc Al rights reserved.12

893


5. Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the review, ERCOT selected Option 11 as the preferred option to meet the projectedload growth and reliability need in the area. Option 11 cost effectively met all of the reliabilitycriteria and includes the following additional benefits:

• Provides a 138-kV transmission source into an area of Williamson County which hasno transmission service and is forecasted to experience high load growth

• Will effectively reduce the east-to-west flows in the Austin Energy area as it is adirect parallel path for the Howard Lane - Jollyville line that also supports the area

• Allows for the flexibility of creating a Round Rock - Chief Brady, Round Rock -Parmer 138 kV double circuit if determined to be necessary for corridor utilizationpurposes

The following facilities constitute the preferred option:

• Construct a new Parmer Substation.• Construct a new single circuit 138 kV line (approximately 12.6 miles) on a double

circuit capable structure that connects the existing Leander and Round Rocksubstations to the new Parmer Substation with an emergency rating of approximately446 MVA.

• Add terminal equipment at the Leander and Round Rock substations for the new

transmission line.• Upgrade the 138 kV bus at the Leander Substation.

6. Designated Provider of Transmission Facilities

In accordance with ERCOT Protocol Section 3.11.4.8, ERCOT staff is to designate transmission

providers for projects reviewed in the RPG. The default providers will be those that own the endpoints of the new projects. These providers can agree to provide or delegate the new facilities orinform ERCOT if they do not elect to provide them. If different providers own the two ends ofthe recommended projects, ERCOT will designate them as co-providers and they can decidebetween themselves what parts of the recommended projects they will each provide.

PEC owns the Leander Substation and Oncor Electric Delivery owns the Round Rock

Substation. PEC has delegated the 138 kV portion of the new Parmer Substation to LCRA

Transmission Services Corporation. Therefore ERCOT designates PEC, LCRA Transmission

Services Corporation and Oncor Electric Delivery as co-providers for the project scope

recommended in this report.

@2014 Electric Reliabi lity Cound I of Texas, Inc AJI rights reserved. 13

894


7. Appendix

AjAppendix A: AC Contingency Analysis Result of 2019 Case (G- k

1+N-1 analysis) Contingency analysisresults 2019.xlsx

G2 C^^

ase ( -Appendix B: AC Contingency Analysis Result of 202l+N-1 analysis) Contingency analysis

results 2022.xlsx

©2014 Electric Reliability Coundlof Texas, Inc AM rights reserved.14

895


From: Billo, Jeffrey <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 3:35 PMTo: Charles DeWitt; Gnanam, GnanaprabhuCc: Sergio GarzaSubject: [External] RE: Leander to Round Rock Transmission Line

Charles,

Thank you for the information. I have reviewed the update, and I do not believe it represents a significant change to the

project.

Regards,

Jeff BilloSr. Manager, ERCOT Transmission PlanningPhone: 512-248-6334 Mobile: 512-905-4064Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of themessage to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and notify the sender by replyemail. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information inthis message that do not relate to the official business of ERCOT shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

From: Charles DeWitt [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 2:08 PMTo: Billo, Jeffrey; Gnanam, GnanaprabhuCc: Garza, SergioSubject: Leander to Round Rock Transmission Line

***** EXTERNAL email. Please be cautious and evaluate before you click on links, open attachments, orprovide credentials. * * * * *

Jeff and Prabhu,

You will find a letter attached to this email providing an update for the Leander to Round Rock Project. We will send youthe original in the mail.

Please call or email if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Charles M. DeWitt, P.E.

Manager, Transmission PlanningLower Colorado River Authority

P.O. Box 220Austin, TX 78767-0220email: [email protected]^Phone: 512-578-4199

896

ATTACHMENT 3Page 2of3

ICAENERGY • WATER • COMMUNITY SERVICES

July 6, 2015

Jeff BilloSr. Manager, ERCOT Transmission PlanningElectric Reliability Council of Texas2705 West Lake DriveTaylor, TX 76574

Subject: Leander to Round Rock Transmission Line

Dear Mr. Billo,

In the time that has passed since the Leander to Round Rock transmission line wasendorsed by the ERCOT Board of Directors in 2014, Pedernales Electric Cooperative(PEC) has determined that the new substation referred to as SE Leander in the 2015ALDR is needed by 2020. The location of the substation is in the general proximity of afuture substation that was incorporated into ERCOT's Independent Assessment of theLeander to Round Rock Project. The name of the future substation was New Substation2 in ERCOT's Independent Assessment report. LCRA TSC is notifying you of thissituation to keep you informed of developments although we do not believe that itconstitutes a significant change as contemplated by ERCOT Nodal Protocols Section3.11.4.10 Modifications to ERCOT Endorsed Projects.

BackgroundYou may recall that the scope analyzed in ERCOT's Independent Assessment, dated22 May 2014, included a future substation (New Substation 2) to be located near theintersection of East Crystal Falls Parkway and Ronald Regan Boulevard. TheIndependent Assessment evaluated years 2019 and 2022, considered that the load atNew Substation 2 would be realized before the summer peak in 2022, and consideredNew Substation 2 as being common to all alternatives studied. Informed by thisassessment, the ERCOT Board of Directors voted to endorse the project. ERCOT sent

a letter to LCRA TSC dated 18 June 2014 informing LCRA TSC of the endorsement.New Substation 2 is referenced in the letter through inclusion of the IndependentAssessment as Attachment A to the letter.

In its March 2015 ALDR filing, PEC provided load information for New Substation 2beginning in 2020. The new substation is named SE Leander in the ALDR filing. Theestimated cost allocated to transmission cost of service associated with New Substation2 is $1.65 Million and is common to all alternatives considered in the ERCOTIndependent Assessment.

P.O. BOX 220 • AUSTIN, TEXAS • 78767-0220 •(512) 473-3200 • 1-800-776-5272 • WWW.LCRA.ORG

897`

ATTACHMENT 3Page 3of3

Mr. Jeff BilloJuly 6, 2015Page 2

Our review of the load provided in the ALDR shows that it is consistent with the loadlevel provided in LCRA TSC's project submittal and the load used by ERCOT in itsindependent assessment for the year 2022.

ConclusionThrough ERCOT power flow cases and TPIT database updates, LCRA TSC will ensurethis project's revised scope is communicated for appropriate modeling.

Sincerely,

. ^C^L^ I . ^ ^ 77fdd3

Charles M. De itt, P.E.Manager, Transmission Planning

L O W E R C O L O R A D O R I V E R A U T H O R I T Y

898^


d'

C0

N

H

MC

dCJ

^

C

F^

OW

OU

C

E

sU

H

Om̂

V

CLQ

zUUY

0

C

0cc

0

LNVCm

J

OOOOOO

.'.OOOO

O.ÔOO O

O0OO

OOO

OOO

OoO

CO).O:

OOO

OOÔ

00O

O

c'O

OOO 0

0O0

C)OO

OOO

C)OO

OOO

O

•0

OOO

OOO

OOO

OIOO

OOO

^=

ONO

O

00

Occ)M

O

^

O

CO

O:

O-aO

OCOO

^

10f0:'

O

h

O

^ N

_

intn ^

:OO'

t00^ :d'

i^(O

d't0`

CMO.ct

' ;

O

a0O

iVd'YiY

MM

Vr

dCOrn

_MO

nM(O

'C•O.

WNM

M,^

^COLO

0 d'nj

.O':-

67ni t*^

O 1^'':.:.; 6

titJN4^

O

V3

O.':N-4

nN40

pD.NE9

CVdJ

a0N.6'3

( 7N63

.O^^4'3

ONtfi

4^'

G?Nff3

N69.

tC)EH

co69^

_

Ef3NEA EH K7

rE^3

.Ef3 tf3

Ef}. 44 ^X3 ER c3 09, b 4 ' ,

C y O O O :O'

O O O OO

OO

O OO

OO

OO

O'O

OO

.O.O

OO

OD

0O

OO;

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

oO

OO

QO

OO

OO

OO

2 d.i.o

V

O0O0O0

Cf OO

ooO0

-o 0 0

O0^0O0 0

OD0.O^

C!6^0n0d

0Q^

0^()

S-

OcM0O

0 03J

0f0

0i70O

0'N^0

^ i^•^j ++

Nn

<DO

d T^:ZA

O7n

O).

T--'

Mfo

aDTV.

O)OS

NI

NV

fr'( O

CO'Î'CV

OO

Mn O

Nr

MN

OC^7.

c0 1^;a0

Mr

OC4

d' ^tN O

N.r. LO cD. O

+' C

G LL Ov V

N

MN

`CF

rO(N

CO

a0N

:OO

(ON

P7

(ON

f^n

N[Q^ ON

N-N N

^Nn 0.r

ON

d'N N

ON

O(V N N

MNON N

EH

O

&4

^

ifrN16%

N(AY

O59

^Ntf^

O

69-0V O EA ca 69. (1-3- cn v3 &3 EiT tA 64 tA if^ 64 b9r tH K3 in, 64 691 tf} 6,, (» tH

NO O

O 4 O O O O O O,O

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

O'O

OO

O.O

OO

:O'O

OO

^DO:

oO

OO

OO

OO

OO

0O

OO

O,O

`

OO

O.Q

OO

•v^ ^

Oh

O,d'

Or

Om

Orn

O;ln

ON

^cV O

^xp d'

ZO

.53:07 YO N 6 rn O O^ rn r 7z •-+. r ., ^

• +

•U ^ M O w co N O M N N N N Nn

(V.n

a0 a)Cl -

W m,i-•(0 co

.co

0O O)o

Mrn

^Mrn rn

c6 Mrn

Mrn

M,rn

M^n

f0nO

vt!T

oN

^r^

^r^ co^:

vV' O>

mM

rn^

dtn

v^:^ ^

;tn (O 'V' n

.1^• l^ n n f^- CO (O N N N N N! n

ytoC V" d î d' -d V it< ^' V. d <t

Fd

)i-FdT

d69

^'6%

VG9

d^9

Vff}

^f'fl3

'd'EA

dH}

di!3

d'^fPr 4f-} fH

'V>

^'64

It03. 1f3

dE/T 4R

MfA

U 0 fR La V3 EH E13 t>-T 64 fH EH E i v .

c O O O ;O O O O O O O O O OO

OO:

O O O C> O O' O O OO

OO

O^

OO.

Oc)

pO

O O.O

^^ O p. N ;^ O ^! O ,^' ^ O O ^ h O ^ ^ O O

r

r r- 0

E'Q

lnoo

d COco

;,tf)'

Md

00.i'7

00rn

h•.ao

tr

COd Lo

:tMLO

V'n

f^-'. V'rnOca

(Dv

IôJ

I^ V:o

O)v'Nco co

Ncp

d7^^

MV

V

^

^^tn 'O, A43i

^.

0 ^ :07 O,

•r- c- co LO 'co 00 O Q> r ^ O r O cm n N No^=

O a. a0 CO. O . SA co f0 tO' (O tD ^ c d ^?A (O t^ c0 ^n c4 cfl_ COY

I^,`st.

n nr

h 1- I` I^. h- e t^Z

L^F (jja o

fH ^g 'EH HJ' ER £H fA' K3 EH EA H3 ^V) dJ' 64 1H EA N3 ^ fA EA' K) FR FA' 4n- 6% EA ER fA ^3' ^; 7

C C^ O O O O O l7'

O OO

OD

O

l

OO

OO

'OO^

OO

OO

OO

DO

OO

' C]O

OO Q.

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

C Qy vd• i

OO

OO O O

C]O

OO

O.O

OO

O;O; O O iE O O O O O O O O Q• 0 O O O O O O O. O O O

O C N p; N C 6î O ^ ^ (MD OdP 1^r__

- tOf)coN (00 ^ W ^

'6M) 6N) O W

^`^ I^ Od) 60) O Oî,

-Od0coC

'p^ Oo0co

aDco r-

;r- c0 n

1

.co co co

fmK!

cDfA

mfH

coEH

coEf3

rER

co63

xo64

coEH

c0'LfJ

(flfA

cob4

n(A

cflfPr

coER

c464

mEA

mEA

nEA

co;(fl ER

O^j () (R u3 <f} b4 EH EA 6 ). 64 FH H

W - ,------ --------

O CD O O 0 O0

0 .10O

O0

OO

OO

OO

-

OO

'OO

OO

OO

OO

;O^ O

0O

O.O

OO

OO.

OIS I

O OO

OO

OO

OO'

OO

CD0

OO

OO

CoO- OcD

O 0

N

O^Lo

IOO m

c0co

:COM

IQm

(Dd'

OV

TJ]

rWtn

^';N

Vd

V_^0

d'7'

Y^

O4)

OCfl N ' d 0 O

J^."7-.

NN

^ d;N (D"

N Iôo

VG)

2co

'(VG4

(O`d'.

coN

Nt^k

MN

NIN

coCO

f-co

CO i-co

coO ^Y

O Q) CO r' inO

f-^

Lf1d

^y •d'

^ O ^ y0' dN'

•

It M.l

.-65 (6 co

^ O ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ g ^ ^ ^C ^

(0 (R (D Z604 W. 60 ^ 69- ^ ^ ^

^^ E9 ^ ErT - • ,

w-- -----------

O O O O0

Oo

OO

Oo

Oo

O'o

O0

O0

-

Oo

-

OO

-

Oo

-

O0

O0

Oo

OO

Oo•

Oo

O0

O0

O0

Oo

Oa

Oo

O0

O0

O0

O0

O0;O%

Ooco3^ o

o0O CO 6l O (O O O: co M o o CD (O co O O ^̂ 6^ Q? O O, M c`^ 67 07 O ^ O-

O CR N

d=O

^- NO

coO^

tV'

rr

i

t':O

I.;co:

=

COt()N

M(O61

CO(O7

u);I'`.

NNf-

OV:N'

cohO

c0'f.f)O

t!)NO

'co

.--nN

'm

m:

dNW

ff1.I^. Q)

P')

R

u7

M

O

'Cf7•

O

(OO4D

mIÎli

c6NP_

N.O)c`')

(0n

JO66 CC

coLO

Of-

NO

^`,6

Co

(O

af^

C4'Zi

V^({): n

'

.- CflN

u)N

I-N

NN

M'.cp rM

.(AM

O)N

:O-N

I-N N

CON

YON

OM ,

CQN

o7Y N

MN

'Ot`3.

NM

MM

MN

G1 V'' Q

MEH

N64

Co69

NfA

COtA

M:tI-T

CO64

N.(fr

NEA Â Cf^ tfT 64

.fi-} tf? ffl Efl EA Efl cfl Ef} E9 Ef3 fH ^3 64 F!} 64 EH E9 Ef^

ai

O p p =p p CI O O'

O O O O'

OO

i0:O'

OO

OO

OO

:OiD

OO

OO

0O

bO

OO

. OO

O0

O10

OO

O,O,

OO

O:O

OO

'O Ny O

OIt

ON

On

C. tw

ON

O.O:

On

A' ^1•

OÔ

O!C1

ON

QN CV. N tp K1 rl N lY

^N N ^ N It

CV d - 'd^ ;^t'

Ô^•h

(^ (D N M N ,i^; O p Oeh

rA

rO

-c-.M N

<D01

41. Me0

T,d' r

00.O'..

rpp

M.0o

MN

Nt-

fco N

t0O>

..A D

O4f1

!O N^

nd

OD.Ql n

N:O

t0O

O1: Mn

er;M N CD 00 N N M tIY O

.r It l0'. QI QT 1- Q1 iI O M^ P% 1^ tU

yGA O) M W

'LO iA;

nl,n

jT

OT On

COnOnroo

Nco

Jt1G)rco

:Ornn

.06n:

ODn o

CO0o

,i'acoPm

to lAnNCo Nco

O:m.:NnLL F

coN}

rfT

rnU3

oo^

mU3

rn .Yf}

co4!} 6A Vl

Did9 ^ 69 d4. !/1 '^ HT it} E9 V3 Rfl GH VJ 61). 613. vim M• F1-1 &} V^ ffl

tll n ^1] ^ <Y f^ I^ N-

LoOJ

co tn V'(7co 'Rto 1- M N

Ncoo7

Nc-

NO

Lod'.

M^

(9(q

C7co

N6J

.CO

M COW

NI

MM

OLfl

dn

C d O N O

N

V. (O

O

N,

(ON ch N N

?

r d' ì'. M (D N un Ln V: tn 'n V d--

V'-

-'r-

3--

d'-

ul-6-M-I -^2 N N - - - - - - - -

NM ^ 00 CD N ^ r Cf^ 1^ _I ^ tc7 tn V ^, CV N c0 CO (D c0 CO: f^ CO (D CO CO CO

N

c0N

00.0a N N N N N N N

.

N'. N YV CV N N N N Cy N .N N N N N N N N N N N N

Cl)

------

C?

-

V

-

CU

-

M

-

N

-

^L7

-

0^

-

QO

-

N

-

N ^ ['7

-

[D oJ D7 CO N (7 [h

- - - -1l^-

I_

-h

-

1^

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

co

-------

w

--

N

-

CO

-

..

V

-

Lo

-

-,

C^)

-

I- co

-

m

-

O

-

.N c`^ V'

u2CO n

.N O

... _OCO N N 'No

V'N

f)N

oN

^N

ON

7N

O(''1

_`')

0

y

0U^N^

NW

10

0F-N

N

cO

NN^

^'aCc0CON

^

Cl0

F

899

Documents

THIS PAGE CONTAINS