July 8, 2020 

Michael Johnsen 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Attention: Kevin Wright

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., MS-20 

Washington D.C., 20590 

Subject: Biological Opinion for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail; Dallas, Ellis, Navarro,

Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris counties, Texas 

Dear Mr. Johnsen: 

This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Biological Opinion based 

on our review of the effects of the proposed Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project (Project) 

on the federally endangered large-fruited sand-verbena (Abronia macrocarpa) (LFSV) and the 

federally endangered Navasota ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes parksii) (NLT) pursuant to section 

7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

There is no critical habitat for either the LFSV or NLT within the Project’s Action Area. We 

originally received a request for formal consultation on December 13, 2019. However in order 

to fulfill the formal Section 7 process as outlined under the Act, we requested additional species 

and project-specific information in order to complete our Biological Opinion. We received a 

revised Biological Assessment on April 28, 2020. Although we received an updated request for 

formal consultation on January 9, 2020, upon agreeance with the federal action agency, Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), we jointly agreed to provide a final Biological Opinion on or 

before July 1, 2020. 

In your letter, you requested our concurrence that the proposed action was not likely to adversely 

affect the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), whooping crane (Grus americana), and the 

Houston toad (Anaxyrus houstonensis). We concur with these determinations under Section 7 of 

the Act, contingent on the implementation of the species-specific measures outlined in Appendix 

A. There is no suitable habitat within the Action Area for the piping plover (Charadrius 

melodus) or red knot (Calidris canutus rufa) and therefore, it was not necessary to conduct 

consultation under Section 7 of the Act. You further have determined that this action will not 

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Division of Ecological Services

17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211 

281/286-8282 / (FAX) 281/488-5882 In Reply Refer To:

FWS/R2/02ETT

X00-2019-F2135
Michael Johnsen 2 

affect the West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga 

chrysoparia), or Texas prairie dawn (TPD) (Hymenoxys texana) and these species will not be 

addressed further in this Biological Opinion. The Project does include counties with the 

potential geographic range of the Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon); however, this species 

is a candidate and therefore not afforded protections under the Act. The Service has advised 

FRA that should the species become listed under the Act, reinitiation of Section 7 consultation 

may be required. 

This Biological Opinion is based on information provided in the June 2020 Biological 

Assessment (Revision 4); telephone conversations between calendar years 2016 and 2020 with 

staff from FRA, Texas Central Railroad (TCRR; the applicant), and the environmental consultant 

(AECOM); conversations with species experts; and, other sources of information (Endangered 

Species Consultation Handbook, species recovery plans, 5-Year Reviews, etc.). Literature cited 

in this Biological Opinion is not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species 

of concern and any county-wide activities that could include, but are not limited to, agriculture 

and urban development and/or private land activities (i.e. livestock grazing, oil and gas, mining 

activities, etc.) and their effects, or on other subjects considered in this opinion. A complete 

administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Service’s Texas Coastal Ecological 

Services Field Office (TCESFO) in Houston, Texas, and is available upon request. 

CONSULTATION HISTORY

The following is a brief summary of the consultation history for the Project: 

October 8, 2014 – Agency workshop to discuss the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

August 10, 2016 – The Service’s Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) liaison contacted 

the TCESFO regarding HSR and survey protocols for LFSV, NLT, and TPD. Reports and 

species information provided by TCESFO leads in August 2016. 

August 2016 – A call scheduled with TCESFO plant leads, AECOM, and TCRR to discuss plant 

habitat assessment and survey approaches. 

October 31-November 15, 2016 – AECOM conducted year 1 of surveys for NLT and provided to 

the Service in 2017 (letter dated March 2, 2017). 

March 21, 2017 – The Service was notified by AECOM that reference population for LFSV was 

in bloom; plans to conduct a 2017 season survey. 

April 21, 2017 – TCESFO received files from AECOM for year 1 survey report for LFSV. 

June 5, 2017 – Notification from the Austin ESFO that internal Service review shifted project 

managers. 

July 17, 2017 – FRA scheduled a webinar with TCESFO leads and the Service’s TxDOT liaison 

to discuss a version of the Draft EIS (DEIS). 
Michael Johnsen 3 

August 11, 2017 – The TCESFO lead for the Houston toad provided comments and feedback 

regarding the DEIS, the species modeling and habitat assessment, and minimization measures. 

August 2017 – The project was added to the Service’s consultation tracking system (TAILS). 

August 22, 2017 – A joint call between the TCESFO lead for the Houston toad and AECOM 

regarding the species’ survey results from 2017. 

September 21, 2017 – FRA sent request to agencies to review/comment on proposed preferred 

alternative (Build Alternative A) within DEIS by September 29, 2017. 

December 1, 2017 – AECOM conducted year 2 of surveys for NLT between October 23 – 

November 3, 2017, and provided results to the Service. 

December 14, 2017 - AECOM provided technical memo to Houston toad lead for nocturnal 

audio surveys between February 10 - May 25, 2017. 

December 22, 2017 – The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Worth District, published a public 

notice for review and comment for Section 404 permit (SWF-2011-00483) related to the Project. 

December 23, 2017 - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Galveston District, published a public 

notice for review and comment for Section 404 permit (SWF-2014-00412) related to the Project.

January 2018 – Correspondence from the new Service project lead from the Arlington ESFO, 

informing the TCESFO species lead of his new role. 

March 5, 2018 – AECOM provided 2017 LFSV survey memo and survey plan documents, as 

well as their response to DEIS comments on the LFSV. 

March 9, 2018 – AECOM recommended removing the canopy cover from the habitat suitability 

mapping for the LFSV. 

March 9, 2018 – Coordination between TCESFO and Service’s project lead in Austin, Texas, 

regarding comments to DEIS. 

June 14, 2018 – Correspondence from Service’s project lead in Austin, Texas, regarding 

upcoming conference call with FRA to discuss species in consultation. Confirmation that NLT 

individuals were found during Year 1 of surveys, but no individual LFSV or Houston toads. 

End of June 2018 – TCESFO became lead for Project. 

July 10, 2018 – Received year 2 of LFSV surveys via email from AECOM. 

August 9, 2018 – In-person meeting with TCESFO and AECOM (FRA on phone) regarding 

species-specific survey results. 
Michael Johnsen 4 

November 7, 2018 – AECOM provided technical memo to Houston toad lead for nocturnal audio 

surveys between February 9 - May 17, 2018. 

February 13, 2019 – AECOM provided survey results of year 3 of NLT surveys that were 

conducted between October 15 and 26, 2018. 

February 14, 2019 – Meeting with FRA, AECOM, and TCESFO to discuss NLT. 

February 21, 2019 - Call with TCESFO, AECOM, and FRA to discuss formal consultation 

process and schedule. 

March 20, 2019 - Meeting with FRA, AECOM, and TCESFO to discuss NLT population found 

near Madison County. 

May 1, 2019 – Email coordination from TCESFO to Centerpoint Energy regarding potential 

NLT individuals within their right-of-way (ROW). 

May 3, 2019 – TCESFO received year 3 of survey results for LFSV from AECCOM. 

May 16, 2019 – Draft of FRA’s Biological Assessment provided to NLT-species lead with 

TCESFO to review and provide comment. 

May 23, 2019 – Conference call with TCESFO, FRA, and AECOM regarding LFSV survey 

results and biological assessment. 

July 11, 2019 – TCESFO sent email to orchid experts regarding NLT and habitat variables in 

model. One species expert responded on July 14, 2019, with survey specifics. 

August 8, 2019 – Ongoing discussions with NLT species lead, FRA, and AECOM regarding 

potential opportunities for offsetting disturbance. 

August 27, 2019 – NLT species lead sent comments to FRA and AECOM regarding ratios of 

offset and offset opportunities. 

September 11, 2019 – Meeting with TCESFO, FRA, and AECOM to discuss details of habitat 

modeling and suitable offset ratios for NLT. 

December 13, 2019 – FRA sent a corrected request on letterhead (and in-person via AECOM), 

requesting formal consultation with the Service. 

January 9, 2020 – Conference call between TCESFO, FRA, and AECOM on DEIS and offsets 

for LFSV and NLT. 

January 15, 2020 – TCESFO sent comments on Houston toad and LFSV to AECOM addressing 

language in Draft Biological Assessment. 
Michael Johnsen 5 

January 21, 2020 – Conference call between TCESFO, FRA, and AECOM regarding offsets for 

LFSV and NLT. 

February 7, 2020 – Service received a revised Biological Assessment from FRA addressing 

comments to Houston toad and LFSV. 

February 11, 2020 – Project call regarding offset for LFSV and NLT. 

March 11, 2020 – TCESFO lead contacted Austin ESFO regarding Texas fawnsfoot and its 

geographic range, habitat needs, listing status, etc. 

March 12, 2020 – TCESFO received new proposed offset language from FRA and TCRR for 

LFSV and NLT. 

March 27, 2020 – TCESFO provided feedback to FRA on most February 2020 draft of the 

Biological Assessment in order to make complete. 

March 27-31, 2020 – TCESFO contacted lead biologist for whooping crane, regarding species 

migration information and avoidance and minimization measures. 

April 2, 2020 – TCESFO sent updated whooping crane measures to AECOM for 

review/comment. 

April 20, 2020 – TCESFO contacted interior least tern regarding species’ listing status and 

avoidance and minimization measures. 

April 28, 2020 – TCESFO received email from AECOM with clean version of Biological 

Assessment and appendices for species discussed in Project. 

April 29, 2020 – Joint conference call with TCESFO and FRA regarding status and completion 

date for the Biological Opinion. Agreed with FRA that a final Biological Opinion would be 

delivered on or before July 1, 2020. 

May 7, 2020 – Received draft placeholder language from AECOM regarding offsets for LFSV 

and NLT to be inserted in Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). TCESFO sent 

comments back via email on May 12, 2020. 

May 8, 2020 – Phone discussion between Service lead for NLT and AECOM regarding 

avoidance and minimization measures for NLT individuals located in Madison County. 

May 12, 2020 – AECOM provided TCESFO with May 2020 compiled version of the Biological 

Assessment that will be attached to FEIS. 

June 4, 2020 – TCESFO received email correspondence from AECOM and TCRR regarding 

offset language for LFSV and NLT for final biological assessment. 
Michael Johnsen 6 

June 11, 2020 – Conference call with TCESFO, AECOM, FRA, and TCRR regarding offsets for 

LFSV and NLT to finalize language. Offset language was agreed to by all parties on the call for 

LFSV and NLT and be incorporated into the biological assessment. 

June 19, 2020 – TCESFO received the final Biological Assessment from AECOM and FRA. 

June 29, 2020 – TCESFO provided a copy of the Draft Biological Opinion to FRA for review 

and comment. 

BIOLOGICAL OPINION

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define “action” as “all activities or programs 

of any kind authorized, funded, or carried out, in whole or in part, by federal agencies of the 

United States or upon the high seas.” 

The following is a summary of the proposed action and a detailed description can be found in the 

U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) FRA Biological Assessment in Sections 1.1 and 

1.2 (USDOT FRA 2020a), as well as the FEIS. 

The Service understands that FRA is the lead federal agency and that FRA has approved a Rule 

of Particular Applicability (RPA) to enable effective safety oversight of the operation of a highspeed passenger rail (HSR) system. In its petition to FRA for rulemaking, Texas Central HighSpeed Railway, LLC’s (TCRR) and its affiliates’ propose to construct and operate a 240-mile

(mi) (386 kilometer (km)) HSR closed-corridor system that would intersect Dallas, Ellis, 

Navarro, Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, Grimes, Waller, and Harris counties, Texas (the 

Project). Three stations are proposed as part of the Project: two terminal stations within Dallas 

(Dallas County) and Houston (Harris County) and one intermediate Brazos Valley Station 

(Grimes County). The HSR ROW would vary in width with an average width of 328 feet (ft) 

and a minimum ROW of 100 ft that would include the track, overhead catenary system

(catenary), access roads, and security fencing. The double-track system would be constructed 

using a combination of at-grade/embankment, retained fill, retained cut, and a bridge-like 

structure, called viaduct. Approximately 55 percent of the HSR line would be constructed on 

viaduct which would allow for movement underneath the rail system. This Biological Opinion 

analyzes the effects of the construction and operation of the 240-mi HSR system within the 

Action Area. 

Early coordination with the Service’s transportation liaison and the Austin Ecological Services 

Field Office (ESFO) - resulted in the TCESFO taking the lead for the entire proposed HSR 

system. Coordination also included staff from the Austin and Arlington ESFO, where needed, 

along with other regional species leads. 

The Project would also intersect streams, wetlands, and open water (pond) that are considered 

waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 

under the regulatory authority of the 404 Clean Water Act. The Project spans both the Galveston
Michael Johnsen 7 

(permit SWG-2014-00412) and Ft. Worth District’s (permit SWF-2011-00483). The Service 

submitted its most recent comments on both permits on April 30, 2020, addressing concerns 

solely on the WOTUS. At this time, the Corps has not issued either permit. 

Conservation Measures

FRA has made the following determinations pursuant to Section 7(a)(1)(A) of the Act (Table 1). 

These determinations have been developed in concert with experts and species leads, and based 

on the best scientific information available for each species and current best management 

practices. 

Table 1. Species Considered for Project (see Table i, in USDOT FRA 2020a). 

Species Status Determination of Effect

West Indian Manatee Threatened No Effect

Golden-cheeked Warbler Endangered No Effect

Interior Least Tern Endangered May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Whooping Crane Endangered May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Houston Toad Endangered May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Texas Fawnsfoot Candidate No Effect Determination Warranted for 

Candidate Species

Large-fruited Sand 

Verbena

Endangered May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Navasota Ladies’ Tresses Endangered May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect

Texas Prairie Dawn Endangered No Effect

The FRA has determined the action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the interior 

least tern, whooping crane, and the Houston toad. For these species, conservation measures will 

be implemented by TCRR on behalf of FRA with the intent to avoid and minimize adverse 

effects to these species resulting from the proposed action; see Appendix A for these 

conservation measures. For the LFSV and NLT, TCRR on behalf of FRA has agreed to mitigate 

for the effects of the proposed action by implementing the following: 

Large-fruited sand-verbena (section 3.3.4 of USDOT FRA 2020a):

A total of 116 ac (46.9 ha) of modeled suitable habitat was not accessible during the three 

consecutive years of species-specific surveys within the Action Area, and TCRR on behalf of 

FRA has agreed to offset impacts to LFSV within the Action Area in Freestone and Leon 

counties, Texas. The offset would include the preservation of compensatory mitigation lands 

through fee purchase or conservation easement of 116 ac at a 1:1 ratio in modeled suitable 

habitat where surveys could not be undertaken due to inability to access private property. 

Regarding these offsets:

• TCRR on behalf of FRA will obtain and post adequate financial assurances prior to 

initiating construction, to provide sufficient funds for habitat or conservation easement 

acquisition, transaction costs, and long-term management in perpetuity.
Michael Johnsen 8 

• TCRR on behalf of FRA will develop a monitoring and management plan for all 

compensatory mitigation properties and establish a conservation easement for protection 

in perpetuity. Each conservation easement will be held by an accredited third-party land 

trust (i.e. member of either the National Land Trust Alliance or Texas Land Trust 

Council). TCRR will make the conservation easement agreement available to the Service

for review prior to execution. 

• TCRR on behalf of FRA will obtain compensatory mitigation before construction begins 

in modeled LFSV suitable habitat in Freestone and Leon counties where three years of 

surveys have not been conducted, unless otherwise approved by the Service. 

• Compensatory mitigation property (fee property or conservation easements) may be 

donated to an accredited third-party conservation organization or land trust (i.e. member 

of either the National Land Trust Alliance or Texas Land Trust Council). TCRR on 

behalf of FRA shall include a financial endowment with the property donation that is 

sufficient to provide perpetual management (including monitoring and maintenance) for 

the conservation of the LFSV at the donated property. TCRR would make the donation 

agreement available to the Service for review prior to execution. 

Additionally, avoidance and minimization measures for the LFSV within the Action Area in 

Leon and Freestone counties, will be implemented by TCRR on behalf of FRA: 

• Avoid Transporting Nonnative Seed. During vegetation clearing and construction, 

TCRR will ensure off-road vehicles (ORV) and equipment are free of plant debris and 

seeds before entering and leaving worksites in Freestone and Leon counties, if known 

LFSV individuals are found, to avoid potential transport of nonnative seed to 

construction areas. TCRR will restore sites with native seed mixes certified as “weed 

free.” If native seeds cannot be used, then the area will be left bare. If left bare, the areas 

would be stabilized by other appropriate control measures in compliance with the Texas 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (TPDES) permit requirements. Measures that 

could potentially introduce nonnative species; smother plants or rosettes; and/or, alter 

hydrology of habitat into or out of habitat should not be used. 

• LFSV Site Training. Site training will occur prior to and during construction. TCRR 

will hire a qualified biologist to develop appropriate environmental awareness training 

that TCRR will administer to all site personnel before beginning work on the Project. 

The training will include the definition of “take” relative to protected species, the 

potential presence of protected species, reporting requirements, and measures to be taken 

to minimize impacts to the natural environment. TCRR will hire staff to train all site 

personnel on identification of the species prior to starting work within potential LFSV 

habitat. TCRR will document training activities and retain documentation for the 

duration of construction. The documentation will include names of site personnel 

undergoing training, names of trainers, name of qualified biologist that developed the 

curriculum, dates and duration of training, and curriculum materials. 

• Minimize Limits of Disturbance. During construction, TCRR shall minimize 

disturbance to vegetation by using previously disturbed areas when feasible for staging 

and equipment storage and limiting driving speeds in sensitive areas. Sensitive habitats 

are areas intended to be avoided by the Project and may include: 

o Areas identified that provide habitat for protected species.

o Areas adjacent to habitats of protected species.
Michael Johnsen 9 

o When feasible, areas that include Texas Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) 

Element of Occurrence Records (EOs). 

In addition, TCRR will ensure disturbed ground is rehabilitated as soon as possible 

following construction activities to minimize exposure of bare ground susceptible to 

colonization by nonnative plants.

Navasota ladies’-tresses (section 3.3.5 of USDOT FRA 2020a):

A total of 570 ac (230.7 ha) of modeled suitable habitat was not accessible during the three year 

survey period within the Action Area. Of these 570 ac, 167 ac (67.6 ha) were modeled as 

optimal habitat and 403 ac (163.1 ha) marginal habitat. Proposed compensatory mitigation 

would include preservation at a ratio of 1:1 for the 167 ac of modeled optimal habitat and 1:0.5 

for the 403 ac of modeled marginal habitat1

 where surveys could not be undertaken due to 

inability to access private property. Regarding these offsets:

• TCRR on behalf of FRA will obtain and post adequate financial assurances prior to 

initiating construction, to provide sufficient funds for habitat or conservation easement 

acquisition, transaction costs, and long-term management in perpetuity.

• TCRR on behalf of FRA will develop a monitoring and management plan for all 

compensatory mitigation properties and establish a conservation easement for protection 

in perpetuity. Each conservation easement will be held by an accredited third-party land 

trust (i.e. member of either the National Land Trust Alliance or Texas Land Trust 

Council). TCRR will make the conservation easement agreement available to the Service

for review prior to execution. 

• TCRR on behalf of FRA will obtain compensatory mitigation before construction begins 

in modeled NLT suitable habitat in Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, and Grimes 

counties where three years of surveys have not been conducted, unless otherwise 

approved by the Service. 

• Compensatory mitigation property (fee property or conservation easements) may be 

donated to an accredited third-party conservation organization or land trust (i.e. member 

of either the National Land Trust Alliance or Texas Land Trust Council). TCRR on 

behalf of FRA shall include a financial endowment with the property donation that is 

sufficient to provide perpetual management (including monitoring and maintenance) for 

the conservation of the NLT at the donated property. TCRR would make the donation 

agreement available to the Service for review prior to execution. 

During the 3 years of presence-absence surveys conducted by AECOM for FRA, 25 individual 

NLTs were found on a single parcel within the Action Area in Madison County in a transmission 

line ROW (USDOT FRA 2020a). To avoid and minimize effects to these plants, TCRR on 

behalf of FRA will implement the following measures within the Action Area in Madison 

County: 

• Exclusion Fencing. TCCR will place and maintain exclusion fencing, prior to 

construction, around the avoidance area to ensure site personnel do not come in direct 

contact with the known population. No construction activities would occur within the 

 

1 This ratio is consistent with TxDOT projects “TxDOT. Widening of US Hwy 79”, “TxDOT Construction of 9.6 miles of SH6”, “TxDOT. 

Widening of 15.8 miles of SH21 and US Hwy 190”, “TxDOT, New 8.3-mile 4-lane US Hwy 79”, and “TxDOT. Improvements to CR169 

(road approaches to two new bridges on Mathis Creek)”. USFWS. Navasota Ladies’-Tresses (Spiranthes parksii) 5-Year Review: Summary 

and Evaluation. Austin, Texas: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009.
Michael Johnsen 10 

avoidance area. As of June 2020, the Project schedule has not been defined to a level to 

identify when these potential activities would specifically occur outside of the avoidance 

area of this specific NLT population; however, they will not coincide with the blooming 

period of the NLT (September-November). The design and construction of the reroute 

will not affect the current drainage into and out of the NLT avoidance area. 

• Maintenance of Habitat Features. The existing tree line around the population will be 

maintained as to preserve 9.25 ac (3.7 ha) of habitat which includes approximately 3.4 ac 

(1.4 ha) of forested area and 80 ft of tree line on both sides of the transmission line ROW. 

Furthermore, the existing road segment would be abandoned in place north of the 

population to avoid disturbance to the NLTs. 

• Avoid Transporting Nonnative Seed. During vegetation clearing and construction, 

TCRR will ensure ORV and equipment are free of plant debris and seeds before 

entering and leaving worksites in Madison County, to avoid potential transport of 

nonnative seed to construction areas. TCRR will restore sites with native seed mixes 

certified as “weed free.” If native seeds cannot be used, then the area will be left bare. If 

left bare, the areas would be stabilized by other appropriate control measures in 

compliance with the TPDES permit requirements. Measures that could potentially 

introduce nonnative species; smother plants or rosettes; and/or, alter hydrology of habitat 

into or out of habitat should not be used. 

• NLT Site Training. Site training will occur prior to and during construction. TCRR will 

hire a qualified biologist to develop appropriate environmental awareness training that 

TCRR will administer to all site personnel before beginning work on the Project. The 

training will include the definition of “take” relative to protected species, the potential 

presence of protected species, reporting requirements, and measures to be taken to 

minimize impacts to the natural environment. Prior to and during construction, TCRR 

will hire staff to train all site personnel to avoid fenced areas of the known NLT 

individuals. TCRR will document training activities and retain documentation for the 

duration of construction. The documentation will include names of site personnel 

undergoing training, names of trainers, name of qualified biologist that developed the 

curriculum, dates and duration of training, and curriculum materials. 

• Minimize Limits of Disturbance. During construction, TCRR will minimize disturbance 

to vegetation by using previously disturbed areas when feasible for staging and 

equipment storage and limiting driving speeds in sensitive areas. In addition, TCRR will 

ensure disturbed ground is rehabilitated with native vegetation as soon as possible 

following construction activities to minimize exposure of bare ground susceptible to 

colonization by nonnative plants. 

• Dust suppression techniques. During construction, TCRR will cover and/or treat 

disturbed areas with dust suppression techniques, including but not limited to soil 

binders, sprinkling, watering and/or chemical stabilizer/suppressants. This will also 

include effectively controlling fugitive dust emissions by the application of water, 

presoaking, or other dust suppression technique during all clearing, grubbing, scraping, 

excavation, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities. If winds are greater than 25 

miles per hour (40 kilometer per hour), TCRR will either soak the exposed work area or 

suspend dust-generating activities.
Michael Johnsen 11 

Action Area

The Action Area is defined at (50 CFR 402.02) as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly 

by the federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action. The Service has 

determined that the Action Area for this project include the Limits of Disturbance (LOD) of the 

Preferred Alternative which includes Segments 1, 2A, 3A, 4, and 5; see Figure 1 below for more 

detail (USDOT FRA 2020a). More detail on Segment locations, see Section 1.2.1. – 1.2.8 within

the Biological Assessment (USDOT FRA 2020a). The Action Area also includes these 

additional areas: 

• Construction of rail infrastructure, access roads, drainage swales, and ancillary facilities 

(e.g., stations [Dallas Terminal Station, Brazos Valley Intermediate Station and Houston 

Northwest Mall Terminal Station]; trainset maintenance facility and maintenance of way 

(MOW) facilities; traction power substation; maintenance roads; and, signal houses). 

• Relocation or alteration of existing utilities, easement locations (i.e., underground 

pipelines, aboveground electrical transmission lines, or existing roads), or roads. 

• Construction of new electrical transmission lines.

• Temporary construction areas needed for staging locations (i.e. construction laydown and 

workspace areas) and modifications to existing utility easements (e.g., pole adjustments 

of electrical utilities or cathodic protection). Also, areas that would require temporary 

construction easements.

• Stream, wetland, and/or open water habitats that would be traversed by rail infrastructure, 

access roads, ancillary facilities, and/or temporary workspace areas. 
Michael Johnsen 12 

Figure 1. Project Route Alternatives, including the Preferred Route along Segments 1, 2A, 3A, 4, 

and 5 (see Figure 1.2-1 in USDOT FRA 2020a) 

STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT 

Per Section 7 regulations of the Act (50 CFR 402.12(g)(2)), it is the Service’s responsibility to 

“evaluate the current status of the listed species or critical habitat.” 

To assess the current status of the species, it is helpful to understand the species’ conservation 

needs which are generally described in terms of the reproduction, numbers, and distribution 

(RND). The Service frequently characterizes the RND via the resiliency (ability of a 

species/population to withstand stochastic events – numbers, growth rates); redundancy (ability 

of a species to withstand catastrophic events – numbers of populations and their distribution); 

and, representation (variation/ability of a species to adapt to changing conditions). These are 

collectively referred to as the three R’s. 
Michael Johnsen 13 

Large-fruited sand-verbena 

The LFSV was listed as an endangered species without critical habitat on September 28, 1988 

(53 Federal Register (FR) 37975 – 37978). At the time of listing, the Service assigned the LFSV 

a species recovery priority number (RPN) of 2. However with increased recovery efforts, a 

better understanding of the species life history, and documentation of additional populations, the 

Service reassigned the LFSV with a RPN of 8 (medium degree of threat, high recovery potential, 

and the listed entity is a species) (USFWS 2010). The LFSV is endemic only to the post oak 

savannah ecoregion in Texas and is known from nine populations range-wide, all of which are 

located on private lands, in Freestone, Leon, and Robertson counties (Figure 2 below). 

 

Figure 2. Global Range of the Large-Fruited Sand-Verbena (source: USFWS 2010). 

The species’ Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) profile, Service’s most recent 

5-Year Review (2010), Recovery Plan (1992), and other pertinent species’ literature can be 

found on our ECOS website at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=1882. To 

date, the state (TPWD) has also funded several LFSV-directed projects on the species’ biology, 

ecology, and life history through Traditional Section 6 grants (Williamson 1996, 2002, 2008); 
Michael Johnsen 14 

those can be accessed on their website at: 

https://tpwd.texas.gov/business/grants/wildlife/section-6/projects/plants. 

Distribution

The LFSV is an edaphic endemic found in the post oak savanna region of eastern Texas. The 

nine documented wild populations are separated by no more than 50 miles (mi) (80 kilometers 

(km)) each. LFSV is restricted to a specialized habitat of deep sandy and sometimes acidic soils 

of the Arenosa, Silstead, Padina, Pickton, and Wolfpen series (Kennedy et al. 1990; Williamson 

1996, 2002), derived from the Eocene geological formations known as the Carrizo Sand, Sparta 

Sand, and Queen City Sand (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1989, Stoeser et al. 2005). 

Known populations occur on sand dunes (often referred to “sandy blowouts”) within openings in 

a mosaic landscape of a post oak savannah and grassland (Poole et al. 2007). LFSV is known 

from sites where bare ground is greater than 50 percent and with a soil pH from 4.8 - 6.6 

(USFWS 2010). Soil parameters, percent vegetation cover, and associated plant species at 

known sites can be found in more detail in Tables 6, 8, and 9 of the 5-Year Review (USFWS 

2010). 

Reproduction 

LFSV will reproduce sexually and is an obligate-outcrosser, relying on moth species of the 

families Sphingidae and Noctuidae for pollination (Williamson et al. 1994). LFSV plants 

usually form rosettes from October through February, then begin flowering with the peak of 

anthesis and fruit set in April and May, followed by senescence (ageing and ultimately plant 

death) of the above-ground portion from mid-May or June until October (Williamson 1996). 

The species may occasionally flower into the fall (Kennedy et al. 1990, Corlies 1991, USFWS

1992). During the summer months, the plants perenniate as taproots found at depths of 0.4 - 4.7 

in (1 to 12 cm) (Williamson 1996). Seed dispersal range in the wild is extremely limited (usually 

less than 3.28 ft (1.0 m)). The known populations possess a relatively high amount of genetic 

diversity, considering their isolation and extreme endemism. However, the populations are 

genetically distinct, and there is little or no gene flow between them. The structure of known 

populations indicates that recruitment occurs regularly at all sites, and one population is slowly 

recolonizing a severely-disturbed portion of formerly-occupied habitat (USFWS 2010). 

Although LFSV anthocarps (small, one-seeded fruit) are wind-dispersed, the majority fall within 

11.8 in (30 cm) of the parent plant, thus perhaps explaining the species’ “clumped-contagious” 

spatial distribution in occupied habitats (Williamson 1998). “Clumped-contagious” distribution 

means that the presence of one individual indicates a high probability that there are others nearby 

(USFWS 2010).

Abundance 

At the time the Recovery Plan was published, only three populations of LFSV were known from 

private lands. Surveys conducted in 1990 (Kennedy et al. 1990), 1996, and 2008 (Williamson) 

focused on surveying new sites in Texas for additional populations. To date, there are now nine 

known wild populations on private lands (USFWS 2010). Three experimental populations have 

also been successfully established on private land. The total known population size has 

increased from 35,250 individuals in 1996 to 94,509 individuals in 2008 (Williamson 1996, 

2008). 

 
Michael Johnsen 15 

Recovery Goals and Needs

The criterion to downlist the species from a listed status of endangered to threatened under the 

Act, states that at least 20 healthy, stable populations with a minimum of 600 plants in each, 

must be located or established, on 25 ac (10.1 ha) of habitat each. These populations should be 

distributed throughout the natural, potential geographic range of the LFSV. The species may be 

delisted if the downlisting criterion of 20 populations is maintained for at least 10 years. In 

addition, long-term agreements and management plans should be in place that will ensure their 

continued protection (USFWS 1992, USFWS 2010). Based on new information from 

Williamson (2002, 2008) and Goodson (2007), significant progress towards the species recovery 

has been made over the last 18 years, indicating that the recovery criteria should be revised but 

also that full recovery of LFSV is possible. 

Stressors

Primary threats to the LFSV include destruction and modification of habitat including clearing of 

vegetation for petroleum exploration and residential development within habitat; conversion of 

native grassland to improved pastures of introduced grasses; conversion of open grassland to 

woodland or food plots; and, over-stocking of grazing animals. Additionally, other incompatible 

land use practices include herbicide application from October to April; mowing from February to 

April; ORV use within populations from October to April; and, broad-scale insecticide use 

(which could kill pollinators) (Williamson 2008). 

Climate change may be a factor affecting the LFSV; however, we do not know whether these 

changes that have already occurred have affected populations or its distribution, nor can we 

predict how the species might be affected by the type and degree of climate changes in the 

future. Due to the species’ endemism, rising temperatures might enable the species to survive 

further north than at present, but might also reduce the southern limit of the range. Similarly, 

changes in the frequency and amount of precipitation could favor a shift in geographic range or 

habitat type. However, the discontiguous nature of the populations and potential habitat, the 

limited seed dispersal range, and the existence of new, anthropogenic barriers to migration could 

impede the spontaneous movement of the range. Changes in temperature and rainfall amounts 

and patterns could alter the species’ competitive advantage in the unique micro-habitats it now 

inhabits in relation to competition from nonnative grasses. The susceptibility of LFSV to 

competition from parasites and pathogens could increase however, we cannot predict how the 

species will respond or adapt to these changes. 

Navasota ladies’-tresses

The NLT was listed as endangered May 6, 1982 (47 FR 19539) without critical habitat. A 

member of the orchid family (Orchidaceae), the NLT reaches 8 - 15 in (20.3-38.1 cm) tall and 

has a single row of small blooms (0.25 in (0.64 cm)) wound loosely around the top third of the 

slender inflorescence (Poole and Riskind 1987, USFWS 1984, Campbell 1995). Two other 

common ladies’-tresses species may be found in the same habitat as NLT, thus conducting 

surveys during the appropriate time of year and identifying key morphological characteristics is 

essential to correctly identify the NLT (USFWS 2009, TPWD 2020). The species’ was 

originally assigned an RPN of 2 (meaning a high degree of threat, a high recovery potential, with 

a listed entity as a species) (USFWS 1984). However, the Service updated the RPN to an 8C due 

to an increase in the knowledge of the species’ biology and ecology; a change in the degree of 
Michael Johnsen 16 

threat; and, a potential conflict with economic activity (USFWS 2009). NLT is known from 13 

Texas counties (Figure 3) on private and state lands with almost all potential habitat on privatelyowned lands (USFWS 2009). There are 24 small protected reserves, of which 21 resulted from 

Section 7 consultation with the Service (USFWS 2009). The status of some of these reserves is 

unknown as some are not permanently protected. 

Figure 3. Global Range of the Navasota Ladies’-Tresses (source: USFWS 2009). 

The species’ ECOS profile, Service’s most recent 5-Year Review (2009), Recovery Plan (1984), 

and other pertinent species’ literature can be found on our ECOS website at: 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=1570. To date, the state (TPWD) has also 

funded NLT-directed projects through Traditional Section 6 grants on the species’ monitoring 

and management along Texas ROWs (Poole and Janssen 1997); development of digital geologic 

data (Strom 2002); and, the population structure and dynamics (Manhart 2006). These reports 

can be accessed directly from the TPWD website at: 

https://tpwd.texas.gov/business/grants/wildlife/section-6/projects/plants. 

Distribution 

The species is an edaphic endemic dependent on ephemeral seeps with sandy soils, and found 

mainly in small clearings within post oak savanna in central east Texas. Often found along 

naturally eroded slopes of the upper reaches of drainages and ephemeral streams, NLT can 

occasionally be found near the margins of seeps and swales (Tejas Ecological Surveys 2001, 

Poole et al. 2007, Hammons et al. 2009). NLT’s ecology is intertwined with its mycorrhizae
Michael Johnsen 17 

(fungi), like other orchids, which complicates the understanding of its breeding system and 

genetics (see USFWS 1984 and 2009 for more detail). Plants are often found under canopy gaps, 

where the woody and herbaceous vegetation are less dense than surrounding areas (USFWS 

2009). Associated plant species can be found in the 5-Year Review (Table 6, in USFWS 2009). 

When NLT was listed in 1982, it was known only from Brazos County however it has now been 

confirmed in a total of 13 Texas counties including: Bastrop, Brazos, Burleson, Fayette, 

Freestone, Grimes, Jasper, Leon, Limestone, Madison, Milam, Robertson, and Washington. The 

Jasper County location consists of a few plants in two small sites in Angelina National Forest 

and is disjunct from the other populations being 114 mi (183 km) east of the nearest population 

in Madison County (Bridges and Orzell 1989). The known range of the species spans 210 mi 

(338 km) east to west, and 110 mi (177 km) north to south. 

Reproduction 

Flowering in NLT occurs in mid-October to mid-November, and fruits form until the first frost, 

usually in late November. Each fruit contains thousands of tiny seeds. Its linear basal leaves are 

usually absent by bloom time, but the inflorescent stalk has several leaf like sheathes (USFWS 

1984, Poole and Riskind 1987, Campbell 1995). Pollination may occur regularly with NLT, 

however due to its unusual biology, sexual reproduction is rare and most individuals at a site are 

clonal. This means that even if many plants are found, the effective genetic population size often 

is one individual. A “population” may consist of one or many sites among which gene flow, 

such as pollination or seed dispersal, may occur. Geographic clusters of interacting populations 

may be considered “meta-populations,” and the geographic area of a meta-population is a 

“macro-site.” Large expanses of unsuitable habitat, cropland, or urban and residential 

development may serve as barriers to gene flow. Therefore, while individual sites may have too 

few individuals to meet the criterion of minimally sustainable populations, a group of sites may 

function as components of a larger, more viable population if their proximity and the continuity 

of habitat allow for gene flow from site to site (USFWS 2009). Updated information regarding 

the pollination and reproduction of the NLT can be found in the 5-Year Review (USFWS 2009). 

Abundance 

To date, there are a total of 11,537 NLT individuals globally (USFWS 2009). The individuals 

observed includes plants derived from TPWD’s TXNDD EOs. There are currently 141 EOs for 

the NLT; however, TPWD is currently in the process of revising its EOs to conform to the 

standard published by NatureServe (2002) related to separation distances between EOs. 

Consequently, many of the 141 EOs for NLT have been recombined into a smaller number of 

geographically-larger EOs, however the total number of populations this represents will stay the 

same (USFWS 2009). 

Recovery Goals and Needs 

The 1984 Recovery Plan states that in order to downlist the species from endangered to 

threatened, that “the establishment and securing of two safe sites containing portions of the 

existing NLT population, through cooperative agreements, purchases, easements or other means 

of obtaining management rights, and through preparation and implementation of management 

plans” needed to occur. Since then, the regionally-approved recovery team has discussed a 

revision of this recovery plan, as the species will not recover solely through the establishment of 

these two sites. An updated plan should address the extensive amount of new information on the 
Michael Johnsen 18 

species’ biology, ecology, and management, as well as the recovery criteria (USFWS 2009). The 

1984 plan does not have sufficient criteria nor meet current recovery planning guidance 

requirements (USFWS 2009). 

As part of the Department of Interior’s Agency Priority Performance Goal to develop 

quantitative delisting criteria for those species’ lacking such in their recovery plan, the Service 

developed the following criterion for both downlisting and delisting in 2019 for the NLT 

(USFWS 2019a): 

Downlisting Criterion 1: One or more viable populations or metapopulations occur in 

each of the seven USGS Hydrologic unit code (HUC) 8-digit watersheds within its 

known range. To be considered viable, each population or metapopulation will consist of 

at least 1,500 mature individuals, and will total at least 10,500 individual plants across 

the seven HUCs.

Downlisting Criterion 2: The populations or metapopulations that meet criterion 1 occur 

in protected natural areas. Protected natural areas include lands owned by federal, state, 

or local government agencies, or by private landowners, that are legally protected for the 

purpose of conserving native plants and animals and their habitats. Examples include, 

but are not limited to, state parks, state natural areas, and state wildlife management 

areas, conservation easements on private lands, lands owned and managed for 

conservation by non-profit organizations, and legally-binding long-term management 

agreements with other public agencies or private landowners. To be considered under 

this criterion, the potential habitats of NLT must be managed in a manner that promotes 

the continued survival of this species.

Delisting Criterion 1: The criteria for downlisting to threatened, described above, have 

been met: One or more populations or metapopulations, each consisting of consisting of 

1,500 or more mature individuals, occur in protected natural areas within each of the 7 

HUC-8 watersheds of the species’ geographic range.

Delisting Criterion 2: Periodic monitoring indicates that the minimum viable population 

level of 1,500 individuals within each protected natural area remains stable or increases 

over a period of at least 39 years. Monitoring (censuses) of each protected natural area 

must be conducted annually for the first 10 years and subsequently every 5 years up to 

the 39 year timeline.

In addition to the amended downlisting and delisting quantitative criteria from 2019, the 

following is established in the Services’ 1984 recovery plan and includes the following: 1) 

remove immediate threats to NLT by protecting the major population systems from threats posed 

by human modification of the habitat and impact from collecting; 2) minimize long-term threats 

to NLT through development of a base of information that is relevant to recovery; and, 3) 

develop public awareness, appreciation, and support for protection and recovery of NLT. 

Stressors

NLT is threatened primarily from the loss and/or modification of habitat, stemming from mining, 

landfill, and pipeline related operations, highway construction, and various private development 
Michael Johnsen 19 

projects that have not required Section 7 consultation with the Service. Even where the species’ 

habitat remains secure, habitat quality is declining as a result of a dense woody understory 

replacing the herbaceous component of the post oak savanna region. This “thicketization” has 

occurred throughout this region, and elsewhere, and is attributed to a greatly reduced frequency 

of wildfire and to poor rangeland management techniques (USFWS 2009). 

Previous Related Consultations 

There are several formal consultations related to the LFSV and/or NLT across our Ecological 

Services region (includes Texas as well as three other states). No projects specifically address 

the construction of a railroad system and potential effects to the LFSV or NLT; however, lineartype projects (pipelines, transmission lines, roads/highways, etc.) are listed below as they could 

have similar effects. Only relevant Biological Opinions or habitat conservation plans that pertain 

to effects within this Project’s Action Area have been included. These consultations reflect those 

submitted into our ECOS database to date and are listed in reverse chronological order in Table 2

below. Final Biological Opinions are available upon request from the TCESFO. 

Table 2. Summary of Biological Opinions related to linear-type-projects involving the largefruited sand-verbena (LFSV) and/or Navasota ladies’-tresses (NLT) within pertinent counties of 

the Project’s Action Area (USFWS 2009, 2020). 

Consultation Code Conclusion 

Date

Project Name County Species Project-related 

Disturbance (in acres 

(ac) of habitat and 

plants)

02ETTX00-2017-F1748Nov 2018 Targa Downstream LLC / Grand 

Prix South Pipeline

Ellis, Freestone, 

Hill, Johnson, 

Leon, Madison, 

Navarro

LFSV, 

NLT

52.8 ac of habitat (LFSV); 

504.2 ac of habitat (NLT)

21450-2011-F-0184 Jan 2012 Oncor Electric Habitat 

Conservation Plan

100 Texas counties 

including Leon, 

Limestone, 

Freestone, Grimes 

LFSV, 

NLT

5.5 ac of habitat (LFSV); 

943 ac of habitat (NLT)

21450-2002-F-0589 Jan 2003 TxDOT widening of State 

Highway (Hwy) 21 Kurten to 

North Zulch, U.S. Hwy 190

Madison, Brazos NLT 15.03 ac of habitat

21450-2001-F-0557-

R001

Sept 2001 XTO Energy Pipeline (Formerly 

Cross Timbers)

Freestone, Leon, 

Limestone, 

Robertson

NLT 2.43 ac of habitat

21450-2000-F-0413 Feb 2000 USDOT Longhorn Pipeline Crane to Houston NLT 5.2 ac of habitat

21450-1999-F-0055 Jan 2006 TxDOT US 79 from FM 1512 to 

IH 45 (Jewett to Buffalo, Texas)

Leon NLT 64.87 acres of habitat

21450-1997-F-0098 Apr 1997 Riley #1 Central Delivery Point 

to Bear Grass CDP Pipeline 

Anderson, Leon, 

Freestone, 

Robertson 

LFSV, 

NLT

No effect for LFSV; 1.96 

ac of habitat (NLT)

21450-1996-F-0291 Nov 1997 Rockland Pipeline Company, 

Plum Creek Pipeline

Freestone, Leon LFSV, 

NLT

1.44 ac of potential 

habitat
Michael Johnsen 20 

There are no formal consultations addressing critical habitat as no critical habitat has been 

designated for either the LFSV or NLT. 

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

Regulations implementing the Act (50 CFR 402.02) define the environmental baseline as the 

condition of the listed species or its designated critical habitat in the action area, without the 

consequences to the listed species or designated critical habitat caused by the proposed action. 

The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private 

actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed 

Federal projects in the action that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, 

and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in 

process. The consequences to listed species or designated critical habitat from ongoing agency 

activities or existing agency facilities that are not within the agency’s discretion to modify are 

part of the environmental baseline. 

Status of the Species and Critical Habitat within the Action Area

Large-fruited sand-verbena 

The LFSV is listed in two Texas counties within the Action Area, including Freestone and Leon, 

in Segments 3C and 4. Mapping efforts by FRA and AECOM determined that there were a total 

of 22,248 ac (9,003 ha) and 79,870 ac (32,322 ha) of suitable habitat county-wide within 

Freestone and Leon counties, respectively (E. Lee, pers. comm. 2020). Currently we have 

records of three known documented EOs for the LFSV within these counties (TPWD 2014), but 

none can be found within the Action Area. The nearest EO within Freestone County was 

reported approximately 18.0 mi (29.0 km) east of Segment 4. The remaining two EO records are 

both reported in Leon County, each west of Segment 4, with one approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) 

west and the other approximately 7.8 mi (12.6 km) west (the reference site at Hilltop Lakes) of 

the Action Area. Additionally, there are three established introduced populations within these 

counties but also, none are located within the Action Area (USFWS 2010). 

Habitat suitability mapping and three years of presence/absence surveys were completed within 

the Action Area (Segments 3C and 4) from 2017-2019. The Service worked with FRA to 

identify suitable habitat variables for the LFSV. These suitable habitat parameters are based on 

the current and best scientific information for the species, yet could vary should more 

information become available in the future. Suitable habitat parameters for the LFSV include: 

• Post oak woodlands vegetation; 

• Soils comprised of 70‐100 percent sand and 0‐15 percent clay at depths of 0-4.7 in (0‐12 

cm); 

• Soils with a pH of 4.8‐6.6 at depths of 0-4.7 in (0‐12 cm); and, 

• Areas over the Carrizo Sand, Sparta Sand, and Queen City Sand geologic formations 

(USDOT FRA 2017). 

Areas of habitat characterized as “dense canopy cover” or “dense canopy cover with thick 

understory” were removed after the 2017 survey (AECOM 2017a, USDOT FRA 2020a) in 

coordination with the Service. FRA conducted surveys for LFSV during its’ flowering season 
Michael Johnsen 21 

and a reference site (Hilltop Lakes, Leon County) was assessed prior to surveys to ensure the 

species was indeed blooming. Surveys conducted from 2017 to 2019 (USDOT FRA 2017, 

AECOM 2018, and AECOM 2019a) did not identify any individual plants within the Action 

Area in those acres that were accessible (USDOT FRA 2020a, see Table 3 below). Due to 

access limitations, only 13 ac (5.2 ha) of the 129 ac (52.2 ha) total mapped acres of suitable 

LFSV habitat within the Action Area were surveyed consecutively from 2017-2019 (USDOT 

FRA 2020a). FRA determined that there are 116 ac (46.9 ha) of suitable habitat for the LFSV 

that were not accessible during any part of the survey efforts from 2017-2019. 

Table 3. Modeled and Surveyed Acres of Suitable LFSV Habitat within the Action Area (see 

Table 3.2.7-1, in USDOT FRA 2020a). 

Table 3.2.7-1: LFSV Habitat by Segment for the Action Area 

Year Segment Total Modeled Suitable Habitat 

Acreage to be Impacted

Surveyed 

Acreage

Acres not surveyed

2017 4 445 64 381

2018 4 144 23 121

2019 4 129 13 116

 

The landscape within the Action Area is predominately rural landscape, and includes farmland 

and woodland, interspersed with roads, railroads, oil and gas wells, some residential 

development, and cleared utility ROWs. The species is primarily susceptible to habitat 

destruction and modification of its sparsely vegetated oak woodland habitat (Poole et al. 2007) 

within the Action Area. Conversion of forested areas to agriculture and overgrazing by livestock 

resulted in the removal and degradation of suitable habitat, and the likely reduction and 

extirpation of local populations. Road construction, oil and gas wells, and utility ROWs would 

also have likely reduced the available habitat within the Action Area. All sites are privatelyowned and consistent tracking of the species’ population data nor the extent of current or past 

stressors within the Action Area has occurred. Therefore, we cannot clearly define the amount 

of habitat that has been reduced and/or fragmented within the Action Area. 

Navasota ladies’-tresses

The NLT is listed in five Texas counties within Segments 4 and 5 of the Action Area, including 

Freestone, Grimes, Leon, Limestone, and Madison counties. Mapping efforts by FRA and

AECOM determined that there was a total of 847,819.28 ac (343,100.29 ha) of marginal and 

optimal NLT habitat within these counties (E. Lee, pers. comm. 2020; see Table 4 below. 

Currently, of the 64 EO records for the NLT within these counties (of which may constitute one 

or more “sites”), none can be found within the Action Area (USDOT FRA 2020a). 
Michael Johnsen 22 

Table 4. County-wide acreages of modeled suitable NLT habitat within counties located within 

the Action Area (E. Lee, pers. comm. 2020). 

County Acres of Suitable Habitat

Freestone County 104,969.17

Marginal 51,751.84

Optimal 53,217.34

Grimes County 276,618.93

Marginal 214,944.77

Optimal 61,674.15

Leon County 264,120.95

Marginal 152,627.49

Optimal 111,493.46

Limestone County 1,038.64

Marginal 573.67

Optimal 464.97

Madison County 201,071.59

Marginal 146,548.35

Optimal 54,523.24

Habitat suitability mapping and three years of presence/absence surveys were completed within 

the Action Area from 2016-2018. Optimal habitat included areas where all habitat parameters 

were met, and marginal habitat included areas with all but one habitat parameter. The Service 

worked with FRA to identify suitable habitat parameters for the NLT. These parameters are 

based on the current and best scientific information for the species, yet could vary should more 

information become available in the future. Suitable habitat parameters for the NLT include:

• Post oak woodlands vegetation; 

• Soils comprised of 50-90 percent sand at depths of 0-3.54 in (0-9.0 cm);

• Soils comprised of 0-20 percent clay at depths of 0-3.54 in (0-9.0 cm); 

• Soils with a pH of 5.1-6.5 at depths of 0-3.54 in (0-9.0 cm); and, 

• Areas with elevations between 197-361 ft (60.0-110.0 m) above mean sea level. 

FRA conducted surveys in coordination with two orchid experts during the NLT’s peak 

flowering season and when reference populations (Twin Oaks Landfill, Grimes County) were in 

bloom. No individual NLT plants were observed during the fall 2016 survey (USDOT FRA 

2016). During the 2017 and 2018 surveys, a total of 25 individuals were observed, all in 

Segment 4 of the Action Area in Madison County (AECOM 2017b, AECOM 2019b, and 

USDOT FRA 2020a). Twenty one individuals were observed in optimal habitat (USDOT FRA 

2020a). Due to access limitations and changes in the limits of disturbance, FRA determined that 

there were a total of 570 ac (230.7 ha) mapped as optimal or marginal suitable habitat not 

accessible to surveyed for three consecutive years (Table 5 below) (USDOT FRA 2020a). 
Michael Johnsen 23 

Table 5. Modeled and Surveyed Acres of Suitable NLT Habitat within the Action Area (see 

Table 3.2.8-1, in USDOT FRA 2020a). 

Consecutive 

Years 

Surveyed Segment

Habitat 

Suitability* 

Total Modeled Suitable 

Habitat Acreage to be 

Impacted 

Surveyed 

Acreage 

Acres not 

surveyed

3 

4 Optimal 144 65 79

4 Marginal 297 102 195

5 Optimal 152 64 88

5 Marginal 364 156 208

Total 957 387 570

The habitat within the Action Area is predominately rural, dominated by farming and ranching 

and interspersed with development from transportation (roads, railroads), residential, and 

industrial (lignite mining) development; oil and gas development and related activity; and, 

cleared utility ROWs. The NLT is primarily susceptible to habitat destruction and modification 

of its sparsely vegetated oak woodland habitat (Poole et al. 2007) within the Action Area. 

Conversion of forested areas to agriculture and overgrazing by livestock resulted in the removal 

and degradation of suitable habitat, and the likely reduction and extirpation of local populations. 

Even where habitat remains, the invasion of dense woody understory reduces the viability of that 

habitat for NLT. Herbivory by deer, squirrels, and perhaps other herbivores has been 

documented to cause a significant amount of damage to flower stalks (USFWS 2009). The 

development pressures mentioned above would also have likely reduced the available habitat 

within the Action Area. All sites are privately-owned and consistent tracking of the species’ 

population data nor the extent of current or past stressors within the Action Area has not 

occurred. Therefore, we cannot clearly define the amount of habitat that has been reduced and/or 

fragmented within the Action Area. 

No critical habitat has been designated for the LFSV or the NLT. 

EFFECTS OF THE ACTION 

In accordance with 50 CFR 402.02, effects of the action are all consequences to listed species or 

critical habitat that are caused by the proposed action, including the consequences of all other 

activities that are caused by the proposed action. A consequence is caused by the proposed 

action if it would not occur but for the proposed action and it is reasonably certain to occur. 

Effects of the action may occur later in time and may include consequences occurring outside the 

immediate area involved in the action (see §402.17). 

Large-fruited sand-verbena 

The construction, maintenance, and operation activities associated with the Project could affect 

the LFSV and its habitat within the Action Area. A total of 116 ac (46.9 ha) of potential suitable 
Michael Johnsen 24 

habitat was identified within the Action Area in Freestone and Leon counties. Anticipated 

construction is planned to occur between 2020 and 2024. TCRR anticipates this project 

becoming fully operational in 2026. Daily train maintenance activities would occur on the track 

or on the permanent ROW each evening, as required (TCRR 2020a). Ongoing maintenance 

would occur for the life of the Project. 

The primary stressors for the LFSV within the Action Area associated with construction-related 

activities include the direct loss of habitat and/or its fragmentation, and the direct loss or impact 

to the LFSV seeds/seedbank. Land clearing and grubbing will permanently remove and/or 

reduce the quality of habitat and its necessary features. Additionally, the expansion of existing 

roads within the Action Area to allow for the transit of heavy equipment and machinery may 

reduce the quality and quantity of habitat. The direct killing of individual flowering plants or 

rosettes could impact the LFSV across its range by reducing: the number of individuals in a 

population; a population as a whole; the future migration of individuals to new areas within

suitable habitat; foraging opportunities for known pollinators; and, any genetic novelties or 

variation of individual plants within or among a population. However, since there is a lack of 

any genetic information on the population dynamics of the LFSV, we cannot draw any 

reasonable conclusions on the effects to its representation at this time. Clearing and grubbing 

activities will include stripping a layer of topsoil and stockpiling for future use, if feasible 

(TCRR 2020b). Direct loss of the species’ seedbank could occur during these activities, 

effecting the resiliency of the LFSV to future stochastic events, reducing future reproductive 

opportunities, and impacting the representation across its range. Indirect effects of land clearing, 

soil disturbance, and introducing foreign material/seed from other sites (during material hauling; 

see TCRR 2020b) could result in an increase of nonnative invasive species within suitable LFSV 

habitat and adjacent habitats. The colonization and spread of these nonnative species 

outcompetes LFSV for water, light, and space resources and alter suitable habitat variables. 

Exposure to dust, air particles, and/or hazardous wastes could occur during construction-related 

activities and could directly kill plants and effect its seedbank. It may be necessary to alter 

existing oil and gas infrastructure within the Action Area (TCRR 2020a) thereby, introducing 

opportunities for LFSV or its habitat to be impacted by a spill or release of hazardous materials, 

as well as soil disturbance and the introduction of nonnative invasive species. 

Activities associated with the ongoing operation and maintenance within the Action Area could 

affect the LFSV. Site restoration and revegetation, and maintenance plans have not been 

finalized and would be detailed in the Landscaping Plan (AS-MM #5, in USDOT FRA 2020b). 

Maintenance will likely include mowing and/or herbicide use. Any LFSV plants growing within 

the mowed area would likely be destroyed. Timing and frequency of mowing is important as 

mowing of LFSV during blooming reduces its reproductive output potential. Introduction of 

nonnative invasive grasses can be introduced by persons or equipment should mowing 

machinery not be cleaned prior to entering the habitat within the Action Area. Altering mowing 

timing and frequency may be beneficial to the LFSV since it may respond favorably to light 

disturbance (USFWS 2010) and may reduce encroachment from nonnative invasive species. 

Herbicides may occasionally be needed to control woody growth in the Action Area. The type, 

timing, frequency, and mode of application of herbicides would likely directly affect LFSV 

plants, its seeds/seedbank, and habitat. Aerial application could cause drift, killing plants within 
Michael Johnsen 25 

and adjacent to the Action Area and may indiscriminately kill known pollinating moth species 

(during the LFSV blooming period) and/or other pollinators visiting the LFSV. 

TCRR on behalf of FRA will offset the loss and disturbance to 116 ac (46.9 ha) of suitable LFSV 

habitat within the Action Area in Freestone and Leon counties, by agreeing to preserve lands 

through either fee purchase or conservation easements through an accredited third-party land 

trust at a ratio of 1:1. TCRR on behalf of FRA will post adequate financial assurances and will 

obtain offsets (compensatory mitigation) prior to beginning construction in modeled LFSV 

suitable habitat within these counties. The Service will have an opportunity to review the 

conservation easement agreement and/or the donation agreement prior to its execution. Securing 

116 ac (46.9 ha) will likely provide extreme recovery benefit to the LFSV and its overall 

viability if easements are at, or near, the habitat threshold stated in the downlisting recovery 

criteria. 

Navasota ladies’-tresses: 

The construction, maintenance, and operation activities associated with the Project could affect 

the NLT and its habitat within the Action Area. A total of 570 ac (230.7 ha) of potential suitable 

habitat were identified within the Action Area in Freestone, Grimes, Leon, Limestone, and 

Madison counties. Of those acres, a total of 167 ac (67.6 ha) were mapped as optimal and 403 ac 

(163.1 ha) were mapped as marginal for the NLT. See the LFSV section above for details on the 

anticipated construction windows. 

The primary stressors for the NLT within the Action Area associated with construction-related 

activities include the direct loss of habitat and/or fragmentation and the direct loss or impact to 

its seeds/seedbank. Land clearing and grubbing will permanently remove and/or reduce the 

quality of habitat and its necessary features. Additionally, the expansion of existing roads within 

the Action Area to allow for the transit of heavy equipment and machinery may reduce the 

quality and quantity of habitat. The direct killing of individual adult flowering plants or rosettes 

could impact the species’ redundancy and representation across the range by reducing future 

migration to new areas of suitable habitat; reducing foraging opportunities for potential 

pollinators; and, reducing any genetic novelties of such individuals within a population or a 

population itself. Rosette leaves support the formation of storage tubers between November and 

March that sequester resources in preparation for sending up a leafless bloom stalk at some 

future time. It is believed that plants often require more than one year of photosynthate storage 

to successfully send up a bloom stalk. Thus, if local conditions have not been favorable for 

forming sufficient below-ground reserves or soil or habitat is disturbed such that storage of these 

materials is not feasible, the plant may not bloom (Wilson l993). Clearing and grubbing 

activities will also include stripping a layer of topsoil and stockpiling for future use, if feasible 

(TCRR 2020b). NLT are extremely slow-growing and long-lived. Individual plants depend on a 

symbiotic relationship with soil fungi that is established before the seed germinates. The NLT is 

not known to have a well-established seedbank (Wilson 1993) and therefore, any direct loss 

would likely effect the resiliency and representation of the NLT. Indirect effects of land clearing 

and/or soil disturbance; changes in the soil horizon; and, introducing foreign material/seed from 

other sites (during material hauling; TCRR 2020b) could result in an increase of nonnative 

invasive species within suitable NLT habitat. The colonization and spread of these nonnative 

species could outcompete the NLT for water, light, and space resources and alter suitable habitat 
Michael Johnsen 26 

variables. Modification of natural or preexisting drainages within the Action Area could change 

the availability of moisture, causing a significant effect on NLT. 

Exposure to dust, air particles, and/or hazardous wastes could occur during construction-related 

activities and could directly kill plants. It may be necessary to alter existing oil and gas 

infrastructure (TCRR 2020a), thereby introducing opportunities for NLT or its habitat to be 

impacted by a spill or release of hazardous materials. 

Activities associated with the ongoing operation and maintenance within the Action Area could 

affect the NLT. Site restoration and revegetation, and maintenance plans have not been finalized 

and would be detailed in the Landscaping Plan (AS-MM #5, in DOT FRA 2020b). Maintenance 

will likely include mowing and/or herbicide use. Any NLT plants growing within the mowed 

area would likely be destroyed. Timing and frequency of mowing is important as mowing of 

NLT during blooming reduces its reproductive output potential. Introduction of non-native 

invasive grasses can be introduced by persons or equipment should mowing machinery not be 

cleaned prior to entering the habitat within the Action Area. Altering mowing timing and 

frequency may be limit effects to NLT. Herbicides may occasionally be needed to control 

woody growth in the Action Area. The type, timing, frequency, and mode of application of 

herbicides would likely directly affect NLT plants and rosettes, its seeds/seedbank, and habitat. 

Aerial application could cause drift, killing plants within and adjacent to the Action Area and 

may indiscriminately kill potential pollinators. Since NLT is associated with drainages, 

herbicides could have an effect on local water quality if appropriate measures are not taken. 

In an effort to avoid and minimize effects to the 25 individual NLT plants observed in Madison 

County, TCRR on behalf of FRA has committed to institute measures that include: installing an 

exclusion fence; maintaining habitat features; avoiding the transport of nonnative seed; site 

training for workers; minimizing the LOD; and, initiating dust suppression techniques. For more 

detail on these measures, see the ‘Conservation Measures’ section above for the NLT. These 

measures will appreciably reduce impacts to the 25 individuals observed during the three years 

of NLT surveys. 

TCRR on behalf of FRA will offset the loss and disturbance to 570 ac, of which includes 167 ac 

(67.6 ha) of modeled optimal habitat and 403 ac (163.1 ha) of modeled marginal habitat within 

the Action Area in Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, and Grimes counties, by agreeing to 

preserve lands through either fee purchase or conservation easements with an accredited thirdparty land trust at a ratio of 1:1 for optimal habitat and 1:0.5 for marginal habitat. TCRR on 

behalf of FRA will post adequate financial assurances and will obtain offsets (compensatory 

mitigation) prior to beginning construction in modeled NLT suitable habitat within these 

counties. The Service will have an opportunity to review the conservation easement agreement 

and/or the donation. Conserving these acres would assist with the species’ Downlisting Criteria 

1 and recovery actions through the conservation of the post oak savanna ecosystem and NLT 

specific habitat needs. These offsets would also contribute to the overall recovery needs of the 

species. 
Michael Johnsen 27 

CUMMULATIVE EFFECTS

Cumulative effects are those “effects of future State or private activities, not involving federal 

activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area” considered in this Opinion 

(50 CFR 402.02). 

FRA points to the ongoing and future energy development project by Mid-South Synergy Solar 

Power in rural areas of Grimes, Walker, Madison, Montgomery, Brazos, and Waller counties. 

This project provides both residential and commercial solar power2

 within these counties. These 

developments may potentially impact habitat for listed species assessed in FRA’s biological 

assessment, including the LFSV and NLT; however, this project may not require consultation 

with the Service under Section 7 should a federal nexus be lacking. Similarly, oil and gas 

pipelines and other planned projects that may enter into the Action Area may also not require 

consultation under Section 7 of the Act (USDOT FRA 2020a). 

The Service is not aware of other state, tribal, or local actions that are reasonably certain to occur 

within the action area at this time; therefore, no cumulative effects are anticipated.

CONCLUSION

After reviewing the current status of the LFSV and NLT, the environmental baseline within the 

Action Area, the effects of the proposed action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s 

Biological Opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the LFSV or NLT. No critical habitat has been designated for the LFSV or NLT; 

therefore, none will be adversely modified. 

We base this conclusion on the following: 

• Modeled suitable habitat for LFSV for Leon and Freestone counties totaled 102,118 ac 

(41,326 ha) while modeled suitable habitat within the Action Area in these two counties 

totaled 126 ac (51 ha). After three years of consecutive species surveys on acres that 

were accessible, 116 ac (46.9 ha) of suitable habitat within the Action Area were not

accessed and surveyed. While the amount of disturbance of 116 ac of LFSV habitat 

exceeds the size of a single known extant population or the amount of acres of known 

EOs for the species range-wide, this expected disturbance is approximately 0.11 percent 

of the total modeled suitable habitat within Freestone or Leon counties. Therefore, we 

do not anticipate that this scale of habitat loss will significantly reduce the overall 

viability of the LFSV or its RND. 

• TCRR on behalf of FRA has agreed to offset the loss of 116 ac (46.9 ha) for the LFSV 

by conserving acres under permanent protection within the species’ known geographic 

range. Since all known LFSV EOs and additional acres of suitable habitat are all on 

private lands, offsets put forward by TCRR may aid in finding new populations and/or 

areas of potential reintroduction. Since so few sites are known for LFSV and none are 

under permanent protections, these offsets will provide significant benefit to the species. 

Offsets of this nature will assist in meeting Recovery Action 1.0 for the species (USFWS 

1992). 

 

2 See MidSouth Electric Co-Op, online at: https://midsouthelectric.com/midsouthsolarenergy/. 
Michael Johnsen 28 

• Modeled suitable habitat for NLT within Freestone, Limestone, Leon, Madison, and 

Grimes counties totals 847,819.28 ac (343,100.29 ha) of marginal and optimal habitat 

(E. Lee, pers. comm. 2020). Within the Action Area, only 957 acres were mapped as 

suitable, and 570 ac were not accessible and not consecutively surveyed for three years. 

This expected disturbance is approximately 0.067 percent of the total modeled suitable 

habitat within the Action Area, and therefore we do not anticipate that this scale of 

habitat loss will significantly reduce the overall viability of the NLT or its RND. 

• TCRR on behalf of FRA has agreed to offset the loss and/or disturbance of 570 ac of 

optimal and marginal habitat for the NLT by conserving acres under permanent 

protection within the species’ known geographic range. Since known EOs and 

additional acres of suitable habitat are under private and state-owned lands, offsets put 

forward by TCRR may aid in finding new populations. Many of the more recently 

discovered sites for NLT have concentrated around the Bryan/College Station (Brazos 

County) area because of the University, and these offsets may explore new areas of the 

species range. Permanent protections afforded by these offsets will provide benefit to 

the species via Recovery Action 1 (USFWS 1984). Offsets of this nature will assist in 

meeting recovery actions for the species. 

• TCRR on behalf of FRA will institute measures to avoid and minimize potential impacts 

to the 25 NLT individuals found during species-specific surveys in Madison County. 

• The Service is not aware of state, tribal, or local actions that are reasonably certain to 

occur within the Action Area at this time that would cumulatively impact the LFSV or 

NLT. 

The conclusions of this Biological Opinion are based on full implementation of the Project as 

described in the Description of the Proposed Action section of this document, including any 

conservation measures that were incorporated into the project design. 

INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT

Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take 

of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. “Take” is 

defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt 

to engage in any such conduct. “Harm” is further defined (50 CFR § 17.3) to include significant 

habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” is 

defined (50 CFR § 17.3) as intentional or negligent actions that create the likelihood of injury to 

listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which 

include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering. “Incidental take” is defined as 

take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. 

Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not 

intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act 

provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Incidental Take 

Statement. 

Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act generally do not apply to listed plant species. However, 

limited protection of listed plants from take is provided to the extent that the Act prohibits the 
Michael Johnsen 29 

removal and reduction to possession of federally listed endangered plants from areas under 

Federal jurisdiction, or for any act that would remove, cut, dig up, or damage or destroy any such 

species on any other area in knowing violation of any regulation of any State or in the course of 

any violation of a State criminal trespass law.

Since the Action Area is under private landownership and no portion is within Federal 

jurisdiction, Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) do not apply for this project for either the LFSV or the 

NLT. 

AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE

The Service does not anticipate the proposed action will incidentally take any LFSV or NLT as

prohibitions under Section 9 of the Act do not apply to listed plants. However, the Project’s 

effects on the LFSV and the NLT have been evaluated herein for the Service’s jeopardy 

analyses. 

EFFECT OF THE TAKE

In this Biological Opinion, we have determined that the proposed action will not result in 

jeopardy to the LFSV or NLT. 

CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the 

purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and 

threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to 

minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to 

help implement recovery plans, or to develop information. 

Large-fruited sand-verbena: 

• Maintenance activities developed as part of the Landscaping Plan within the Action Area, 

should coincide with the species biology and ecology. We recommend that mowing 

activities occur outside of the LFSV blooming and fruiting/seeding season. Mowing 

should be at a height of 10 in or higher for maintenance. The use of pesticides during this 

timeframe should also be avoided or minimized as to reduce impacts to pollinating 

species and other plant associates within the LFSV habitat. 

• Equipment and machinery should be cleaned, the maximum extent practicable or 

necessary, prior to entering any areas identified as either suitable habitat so as to avoid 

the introduction of nonnative species. 

• Promote public support for conservation and recovery of the LFSV through displaying 

public signage or other forms of public outreach on associated train and terminal 

locations (see Recovery Action 7, in USFWS 1992). Information could include ways to 

support conservation and recovery of endangered and threatened species and their 

habitats. 
Michael Johnsen 30 

Navasota ladies’-tresses: 

• Maintenance activities developed as part of the Landscaping Plan within the Action Area, 

should coincide with the species biology and ecology. We recommend that mowing 

activities should be scheduled to avoid the blooming season September - December, or 

February - May when the species produces above-ground rosettes (USFWS 2009). 

Mowing should be at a height of 10 in or higher for maintenance. The use of pesticides 

during this timeframe should also be avoided or minimized as to reduce impacts to 

potential pollinating species and other plant associates within the NLT habitat. 

• Equipment and machinery should be cleaned, the maximum extent practicable or 

necessary, prior to entering any areas identified as either suitable habitat so as to avoid 

the introduction of nonnative species. 

• The NLT Recovery Team, is currently seeking support for a contract to prepare a new 

recovery plan. Service personnel provided a draft Recovery Outline to the recovery team 

in June 2007, for the purpose of guiding recovery efforts until a new recovery plan is 

finalized; this outline remains in draft form. 

Landscaping to benefit the LFSV, NLT, and/or their habitats: 

• Spot treatment of invasive species within the ROW or MOW is appropriate, if activities 

are conducted outside of the blooming/seeding periods for the LFSV and NLT. We 

recommend minimizing the use of herbicides and pesticides. Should herbicides and/or 

pesticides be needed within the ROW or MOW, we recommend that contractors will use 

only appropriate treatments and application methods that limit impacts on non-target 

species (e.g., low volume basal and foliar applications, narrow-spectrum herbicides, and 

herbicides with low environmental persistence); adjacent acres of habitat; nearby streams

and drainages, or WOTUS; and, comply with the Service’s guidelines for pesticide 

application, including but not limited to, “Recommended Protection Measures for 

Pesticide Applications in Region 2 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” (USFWS 

2004). Coordination with the TCESFO on best management practices is recommended. 

• Disturbed areas will be returned to approximate preconstruction contours, where 

practicable, based on baseline survey data, with the intent to minimize impacts to 

hydrology and avoid adverse indirect impacts to the covered species. 

• Disturbed areas will be reseeded with native species unless specifically prohibited by the 

landowner. The Project will be monitored to ensure that the reseeding achieves sufficient 

native vegetation cover and in areas where sufficient cover is not achieved, the reseeding 

process will be repeated. Site-appropriate species will be selected by qualified biologists 

to achieve perennial vegetative cover, either through selection of perennial species or a 

combination of warm and cool season annuals. 

Texas fawnsfoot: 

The Texas fawnsfoot is currently a candidate species as the Service found listing was warranted 

but precluded by higher priority actions (USFWS 2011, USFWS 2019b). To date, the Service is 

reviewing the need for protection of the Texas fawnsfoot under the Act. This Biological Opinion

does not cover the Texas fawnsfoot but the Service has advised FRA and TCRR that should the 

species become listed in the future, that initiation of Section 7 consultation could be applicable. 

FRA was not able to conduct species-specific aquatic surveys as access was limited. TCRR on 

behalf of FRA has committed to conduct surveys for the Texas fawnsfoot, per TPWD protocol 
Michael Johnsen 31 

(see Appendix C) closer to the construction of the Project. Should individuals be found, they 

will be relocated under a TPWD permit; a Section 10 permit with the Service may be required if 

this species becomes listed in the future. 

Since freshwater mussels have limited mobility and will not be able to avoid any adverse 

conditions potentially created in the Action Area, we recommend TCRR on behalf of FRA 

institute certain precautions. These best management practices are in full in Appendix B, and 

include such measures as avoiding these habitats; using silt fences or filter fabric to reduce 

sedimentation within creeks and tributaries; and, timing of construction activities. 

Avian Species including Migratory Birds: 

TCRR on behalf of FRA will monitor any strike occurrences should any wildlife/bird mortality 

be observed during operation, recording and documenting such events for a period of five years 

(USDOT FRA 2020a). However, since birds may be covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA), reporting should continue during the life and operation of the Project, not for a 

period of 5 years. Upon locating a dead, injured, or sick listed avian species (including those 

covered by the MBTA) notification should be made to the TCESFO (#281-286-8282) within 

three working days of its finding. Written notification to the TCESFO should then be made 

within five calendar days and include the date, time, and location of the animal, a photograph if 

possible, and any other pertinent information. Care must be taken in handling sick or injured 

animals to ensure effective treatment and care, and in handling dead specimens to preserve the 

biological material in the best possible state. 

For the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or 

benefitting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation 

of any conservation recommendations. 

REINITIATION NOTICE

This concludes formal consultation on the LFSV and NLT. As provided in 50 CFR §402.16, 

reinitiation of consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or 

control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) new information 

reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner 

or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (2) the agency action is subsequently modified in a 

manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat not considered in this 

Biological Opinion or written concurrence; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat 

designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of 

incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation. 

This Biological Opinion does not cover the Texas fawnsfoot but the Service has advised FRA 

and TCRR that should the species become listed in the future, that initiation of Section 7 

consultation could be applicable. 

The Service understands that FRA is the lead federal agency for this Project. Any additional 

mitigation sites resulting from other agency permitting are not covered by this consultation. If 
Michael Johnsen 32 

FRA chooses to incorporate those mitigation sites into the Project, the Service recommends that 

FRA reinitiate any necessary consultation procedures pursuant to Section 7 of the Act. 

Please refer to the consultation number, 02ETTX00-2019-F-2135, in future correspondence 

concerning this Project. Should you require further assistance or if you have any questions 

please contact Amber Bearb at amber_bearb@fws.gov or 281-212-1501. 

Approved: 

July 8, 2020 

Charles Ardizzone, Field Supervisor Date 

Texas Coastal Ecological Service Field Office – Clear Lake
Michael Johnsen 33 

LITERATURE CITED

AECOM. 2017a. Technical Memorandum, RE: Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail - Largefruited sand-verbena Field Surveys. April 21, 2017. 9 pp. 

_______. 2017b. Technical Memorandum, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail – Navasota 

ladies’-tresses Field Surveys. December 21, 2017. 94 pp. 

_______. 2018. Technical Memorandum, RE: Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail - Largefruited sand-verbena Field Surveys. July 6, 2018. 97 pp. 

_______. 2019a. Technical Memorandum, RE: Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail - Largefruited sand-verbena Field Surveys. May 3, 2019. 140 pp. 

_______. 2019b. Technical Memorandum, Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail – Navasota 

ladies’-tresses Field Surveys. February 13, 2019. 104 pp. 

Bridges, E.L. and S.L. Orzell. 1989. Additions and noteworthy vascular plant collections from 

Texas and Louisiana with historical, ecological, and geographical notes. Phytologia

66:12-69. 

Campbell, L. 1995. Threatened and Endangered Species of Texas (Revised). U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Austin. June 1995. 

Corlies, G.K. 1991. Reproductive biology and leaf structure of Abronia macrocarpa Galloway 

(Nyctaginaceae), an endangered east Texas endemic. Master of Arts thesis, Southwest 

Texas State University. 79 pp. 

Goodson, J. 2007. Testing reintroduction potential of Abronia macrocarpa (Nyctaginaceae).

Master of Science thesis. Texas State University – San Marcos. 34 pp. 

Hammons, R., F.E. Smeins, W.E. Rogers, J.A. Thomas and M. Oden. 2009. Progress report on 

habitat management and life history research for Navasota ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes parksii 

Correll) in support of the adaptive management plan. Twin Oaks Landfill, Grimes County, 

Texas. Prepared for Brazos Valley Solid Waste Management Agency.

Kennedy, K.L., J.M. Poole., and S. Orzell. 1990. Revised status report on Abronia macrocarpa. 

Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 75 pp. 

Lee, E. 2020. Personal Communication, “NLT LFSV Acreages.” March 25, 2020. 

Manhart, J. 2006. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Final Report (Grant E-56): Population 

Structure and Dynamics of the Navasota Ladies’-Tresses, an Endangered Orchid of EastCentral Texas. 53 pp. 
Michael Johnsen 34 

Pearse, A., K. Metzger, D. Brandt, M. Bidwell, M. Harner, D. Baasch, and W. Harrell. 2020. 

Heterogeneity in migration strategies of Whooping Cranes. The Condor. 122. 1-15. 

Poole, J., and G. Janssen. 1997. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Final Report (Grant E-1-

6, Project 35): Managing and Monitoring Rare and Endangered Plants on Highway Right-ofWays in Texas. 128 pp. 

Poole, J.M., and D.H. Riskind. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, or Protected Native Plants of 

Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin.

Poole, J., W. Carr, D. Price, and J. Singhurst. 2007. The rare plants of Texas. Texas A&M

University Press. College Station, Texas. 640 pp. 

Stoeser, D.B., G.N. Green, L.C. Morath, W.D. Heran, A.B. Wilson, D.W. Moore, and B.S. Van 

Gosen. 2005. Txgeol_dd_polygon.shp. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1351/. Accessed: June 25, 2020. 

Strom, E. 2002. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Final Report (Grant E-1-13, Project 

WER70): Development of Digital Geologic Data for Spatial Analyses of Houston Toad and 

Navasota Ladies’-Tresses Habitat. 3 pp. 

Tejas Ecological Surveys. 2001. A compendium on Spiranthes parksii Correll (Navasota 

ladies’-tresses). Prepared for Texas Municipal Power Agency, Bryan Texas. 23 pp + 4 

appendices.

Texas Central Railroad. 2020a. Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Appendix F: Final Constructability Report (FCEv3), Set 1 of 2. 358 pp. 

_______. 2020b. Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

Appendix F: Final Constructability Report (FCEv3), Set 2 of 2. 113 pp. 

Texas Natural Diversity Database. 2014. Abronia macrocarpa (large-fruited sand-verbena), 

Element of Occurrence Record. June 13, 2014. 14 pp. 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2020. 

https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/nongame/listedspecies/plants/navasota_ladies_tresses.phtml. Accessed June 2, 2020. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1989. Soil Survey of Leon County, Texas. Soil Conservation 

Service. 238 pp. and 60 maps. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 2016. RE: Navasota 

Ladies-Tresses Field Survey Technical Memorandum for the Dallas to Houston High-Speed 

Rail Project. March 2, 2017. 93 pp. 
Michael Johnsen 35 

_______. 2017. RE: Large-fruited sand-verbena Field Survey Technical Memorandum for the 

Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail Project. April 20, 2017. 144 pp. 

_______. 2020a. Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Biological Assessment; Revision 4. June 

2020. 390 pp. 

_______. 2020b. Dallas to Houston High-Speed Rail, Final Environmental Impact Statement: 

Main Text I. May 2020. 770 pp. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Navasota Ladies’-Tresses Spiranthes parksii Recovery 

Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. Iii +61 pp. 

_______. 1988. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of endangered 

status for Abronia macrocarpa (Large-fruited sand-verbena). Federal Register 53(188): 

37975. 

_______. 1992. Large-Fruited Sand-Verbena (Abronia macrocarpa) 

Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. 37 pp.

_______. 2004. Recommended Protection Measures for Pesticide Applications in Region 2 of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. J. Allen White, USFWS Austin Fish and Wildlife 

Service Office. July 2004.

_______. 2009. Navasota Ladies’-Tresses Spiranthes parksii 5-Year Review: Summary and 

Evaluation. August 26, 2009. Austin, Texas. 

_______. 2010. Large-Fruited Sand-Verbena (Abronia macrocarpa), 5-Year Review. U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Austin, Texas. 43 pp. 

_______. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List Texas Fatmucket, Golden Orb, Smooth Pimpleback, Texas Pimpleback, and 

Texas Fawnsfoot as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 76 (194): 

62166-62212. 

_______. 2019a. Recovery Plan for the Spiranthes parksii (Navasota ladies’-tresses), Final 

Amendment 1. September 26, 2019. 

_______. 2019b. Review of Domestic and Foreign Species That Are Candidates for Listing as 

Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notification of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; 

Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions. Federal Register 84(197): 54732-54757. 

_______. 2020. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), Tracking and Integrated 

Logging System (TAILS). Report: Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office Formal 

Section 7 Consultations for large-fruited sand-verbena and Navasota ladies’-tresses. 

Accessed May 29, 2020. 2 pp. 
Michael Johnsen 36 

Williamson, P. 1996. Project 44: Large-fruited sand-verbena (Abronia macrocarpa) Monitoring 

and Management Study. TPWD Section 6 grant (E-3-1). 107 pp. 

Williamson, P. 2002. Project WER41: Large-fruited sand-verbena Landowner Technical 

Assistance. TPWD Section 6 grant (E-11). 56 pp. 

_______. 2008. Protection on Private Lands and Research for Recovery of Large-fruited SandVerbena. TPWD Section 6 grant (E-58). 54 pp. 

Williamson, P., L. Muliani, and G. Janssen. 1994. Pollination biology of Abronia macrocarpa 

(Nyctaginaceae), an endangered Texas species. The Southwestern Naturalist. 39(4): 336–

341. 

Wilson, H. 1993. Navasota ladies’-tresses Spiranthes parksii Recovery Plan (draft). 32 pp. 
Michael Johnsen 37 

APPENDIX A

USFWS CONCURRENCE WITH SECTION 7 DETERMINATIONS

The FRA requested our concurrence that the proposed action was “may affect, but is not likely to 

adversely affect” the interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), whooping crane (Grus americana), 

and the Houston toad (Anaxyrus houstonensis). TCRR on behalf of FRA agreed to implement 

avoidance and minimization measures outlined below and listed in sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 

3.3.3, respectively, in FRA’s Biological Assessment (2020a) for these species. With the 

implementation of these measures, we concur with FRA’s determination that the proposed 

Project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the interior least tern, whooping crane, 

and Houston toad. Reporting requirements listed below, should be submitted directly to the 

TCESFO annually for each species. This concurrence is based on the information provided by 

FRA and TCRR; coordination meetings and materials; coordination with the Service’s species’ 

experts; and, is contingent upon the implementation of the conservation measures. 

Interior Least Tern (ILT) (section 3.3.1 of USDOT FRA 2020a):

• Coordination and Inspection for Suitable Habitat and Nesting ILT in all counties. 

Prior to the start of construction activities, TCRR will hire a qualified biologist with 

experience in identifying avian species to inspect all suitable habitats and open sand bars 

or gravel areas during the species breeding season, defined as April 1 through August 31. 

TCRR will coordinate with the Service to ensure appropriate timing, frequency, and 

duration of surveys. Inspections will occur by a qualified biologist/environmental 

inspector immediately prior to construction to determine the presence or absence of 

nesting ILT. If nesting ILTs are identified during inspections, TCRR will contact the 

Service to determine species avoidance measures. Due to the Jewett Mine occurring 

within Segment 4 of the Preferred Alternative, where ILT have been documented to nest, 

and prior to and throughout construction, TCRR will coordinate with the Jewett Mine 

operators to obtain the latest data on known nesting locations to avoid impacts to this 

species.

• Site Training. Site training will occur prior to and during construction. TCRR will hire 

a qualified biologist to develop appropriate environmental awareness training that TCRR 

will administer to all site personnel before beginning work on the Project. The training 

will include the definition of “take” relative to protected species, the potential presence of 

protected species, reporting requirements, and measures to be taken to minimize impacts 

to the natural environment. TCRR will also hire staff to train all site personnel on 

identification of the ILT prior to starting work within ILT habitat. TCRR will document 

training activities and retain documentation for the duration of construction. The 

documentation will include names of site personnel undergoing training, names of 

trainers, name(s) of qualified biologist(s) that developed the curriculum, dates and 

duration of training, and curriculum materials. 

• ILT Sensitive Habitat Areas. Prior to vegetation clearing, TCRR will hire a qualified 

biologist to determine the placement of flagging and/or fencing of sensitive habitats and 

install signs signaling the need for avoidance of these areas to avoid unnecessary adverse 

impacts and preclude construction impacts from occurring within the area. Sensitive 

habitats are areas intended to be avoided by the Project and may include: 
Michael Johnsen 38 

o Areas identified that provide habitat for protected species.

o Areas adjacent to habitats of protected species.

o Areas where shorebird rookeries and nests are located.

o All lakes, wetlands, estuaries, lagoons, streams, and rivers.

o Riparian corridors. 

o When feasible, areas that include TPWD TXNDD EOs. 

• Construction and Nesting Season. TCRR will avoid construction activities within a 

buffer not to exceed 1,300 ft during ILT breeding and nesting season (April 1 through 

August 31). 

• Water quality. The Project will be required to meet various general compliance measures 

specific to water quality and contamination regulations. To prevent degradation of 

waterways that may supply important foraging habitat for the ILT, TCRR will obtain a 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification; General Construction Permit (TXR150000) and 

Multi-sector General Permit (TXR050000); Stormwater Management/Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan. TCRR will also implement a Hazardous Materials 

Management Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan to address 

potential construction and operational impacts to water quality and sensitive ILT habitat. 

TCRR will coordinate with the Service on this plan prior to its approval, should there be 

any potential impacts to sensitive ILT habitat. 

• Minimization of Lighting and Noise. TCRR will implement a Construction Noise 

Control Plan if ILT are present at the Jewett Mine. Artificial lighting during construction 

will be limited at night to the degree that work can be safely completed. Similarly, 

lighting will be focused downward to lessen the impact to migratory birds including ILT. 

Whooping crane (WHCR) (section 3.3.2 of USDOT FRAa):

• Suitable Habitat Ground Surveys for WHCR. TCRR will hire a qualified biologist with 

experience in identifying avian species to inspect all suitable migratory stopover habitats 

that may be impacted, including palustrine and emergent wetlands, and adjacent cropland 

prior to vegetation clearing during the species migration season, defined as April 6 

through May 2 and September 28 through November 11 (Pearse et al. 2020). This 

qualified biologist/environmental inspector will have “stop work” authority. Inspections 

shall also occur by a qualified biologist/environmental inspector immediately prior to 

construction to determine the presence or absence of WHCR in suitable stopover habitat. 

If migrating WHCR are detected using stopover habitat within 1,000 ft of the Action 

Area, then construction near that location would be directed to cease work by the 

qualified biologist/environmental inspector until the whooping crane vacates the area and 

is no longer within 1,000 ft, unless otherwise agreed to by FRA and the Service. 

• Site Training. Site training will occur prior to and during construction. TCRR will hire 

a qualified biologist to develop appropriate environmental awareness training that TCRR 

will administer to all site personnel before beginning work on the Project. The training 

will include the definition of “take” relative to protected species, the potential presence of 

protected species, reporting requirements, and measures to be taken to minimize impacts 

to the natural environment. TCRR will hire staff to train all site personnel on 

identification of the WHCR within its’ stopover habitat before site personnel can begin 

work on the Project. TCRR will document training activities and retain documentation 

for the duration of construction. The documentation will include names of site personnel 
Michael Johnsen 39 

undergoing training, names of trainers, name of qualified biologist that developed the 

curriculum, dates and duration of training, and curriculum materials. 

• WHCR Sensitive Habitat Areas. Prior to vegetation clearing, TCRR will hire a qualified 

biologist to determine the placement of flagging and/or fencing of appropriate sensitive 

WHCR stopover habitats and install signs signaling the need for avoidance of these areas 

to avoid unnecessary adverse impacts and preclude construction impacts from occurring 

within the area. Sensitive WHCR stopover habitats are areas intended to be avoided by 

the Project and may include lakes, emergent wetlands, streams, rivers, and adjacent open 

upland habitats including agricultural areas. 

• Equipment Storage During Construction. Equipment, such as a mechanical crane, when 

not in use will be laid down to its lowest position at night and during periods of inclement 

weather. If any equipment cannot be lowered below 15 ft above ground, then it will be 

marked or flagged to alert migrating WHCR of its position to avoid collisions. 

• Water quality. The Project will be required to meet various general compliance measures 

specific to water quality and contamination regulations. To prevent degradation of 

waterways that may supply important stopover foraging habitat for the WHCR, TCRR 

will obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification; General Construction Permit 

(TXR150000) and Multi-sector General Permit (TXR050000); Stormwater 

Management/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. TCRR will also implement a 

Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure Plan to address potential construction and operational impacts to water 

quality and sensitive WHCR habitat. TCRR will coordinate with the Service on this plan 

prior to its approval, should there be any potential impacts to sensitive WHCR habitat. 

• Minimization of Lighting and Noise. TCRR will implement a Construction Noise 

Control Plan should WHCR be present on any stopover habitat. Artificial lighting during 

construction will be limited at night to the degree that work can be safely completed. 

Similarly, lighting will be focused downward to lessen the impact to migratory birds 

including WHCR. TCRR will coordinate with the Service on this plan prior to its 

approval, should there be any potential impacts to sensitive WHCR habitat. 

• Reporting. TCRR has agreed to monitor, record, and document any wildlife/bird 

mortality and strike occurrences, during the Projects’ operation for a period of five years. 

Inspections will occur at each terminal station after each arrival. Additionally, records of 

any obvious wildlife electrocutions/mortality related to the overhead catenary system will 

be recorded and documented for a period of five years after initial operation. Data would 

be available to the Service upon request. 

Houston toad in Leon County (section 3.3.3 of USDOT FRA 2020a):

• Avoid Transporting Nonnative Seed. During vegetation clearing and construction, 

TCRR will ensure ORV and equipment are free of plant debris and seeds before entering 

and leaving worksites in Leon County, to avoid transport of nonnative seed to 

construction areas. TCRR will restore sites with native seed mixes certified as “weed 

free.” If native seeds cannot be used, then the area will be left bare. If left bare, the areas 

would be stabilized by other appropriate control measures in compliance with the Texas 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit requirements.

• Construction Monitoring for Houston Toad. Prior to and during construction, TCRR 

will hire one or more qualified biologists working under the direction of at least one 
Michael Johnsen 40 

biologist whom holds federal and state permits for the Houston toad, to survey, capture, 

transport, relocate and monitor suitable habitat for the species. TCRR will coordinate 

with Service to ensure appropriate timing, frequency, and duration of monitoring to 

ensure no lethal take occurs. 

• Exclusion of Houston Toad During Construction in Leon County. TCRR will erect 

physical exclusion (silt fence or other physical barrier to anurans) at the boundary of 

work areas located within Houston toad habitat to exclude entry by Houston toads. Daily 

monitoring by a qualified biologist and maintenance of this perimeter is necessary to 

ensure integrity of exclusion measures. Active monitoring and trapping (e.g., pitfall traps 

and cover boards) should continue within the exclusion barrier and particularly following 

precipitation events. Within 24 hours following rain events, cumulatively of 2 in (5.1 

cm) or more, a qualified biologist will inspect the site before work can resume. TCRR 

will deploy a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities within all areas 

identified as Houston toad habitat within the Action Area in Leon County. During 

construction, should an unexpected Houston toad be encountered, TCRR will cease work 

in that area immediately. The permitted biologist will secure the area containing the 

Houston toad and consult FRA and Service. The permitted biologist will hold an 

appropriate Service recovery permit to survey, capture, transport, relocated, and monitor 

Houston toads. 

• Site Training. Site awareness training will occur prior to and during construction. 

TCRR will hire a qualified biologist to develop appropriate environmental awareness 

training that TCRR will administer to all site personnel before beginning work on the 

Project. The training will include the definition of “take” relative to protected species, 

the potential presence of protected species, reporting requirements, and measures to be 

taken to minimize impacts to the natural environment. Prior to and during construction, 

TCRR will hire staff to train all site personnel on identification of the Houston toad prior 

to starting work within Houston toad habitat. TCRR will document training activities and 

retain documentation for the duration of construction and provide copies to Service upon 

request. The documentation will include names of site personnel undergoing training, 

names of trainers, name of qualified biologist that developed the curriculum, dates and 

duration of training, and curriculum materials. 

• Cover Open Trenches. During construction, TCRR will ensure that open trenches are 

covered overnight and/or inspected every morning by a qualified biologist to ensure that 

no Houston toads or other wildlife are trapped. During construction, TCRR will ensure 

that escape ramps are placed in any open trenches when needed to ensure that wildlife, 

including Houston toads, can escape. Should wildlife become trapped, a permitted

biologist hired by TCRR will free the wildlife before construction can resume. The 

permitted biologist will hold an appropriate Service 10 recovery permit to survey, 

capture, transport, relocated, and monitor Houston toads. 

• Downed Tree, Log and Stump Removal within Houston Toad Habitat in Leon County.

The qualified biologist hired by TCRR will inspect downed trees and logs to be moved, 

removed to a staging area, mulched, disturbed by a falling tree that is scheduled to be cut, 

or otherwise disturbed to determine if any Houston toads are sheltering beneath, per 

Service guidance. In addition, during removal of any stumps, the qualified biologist shall 

inspect the area prior to removal and monitor the activity during removal. 
Michael Johnsen 41 

• Mowing Height Restriction within Houston Toad Habitat in Leon County. During 

operation and maintenance of the HSR within Leon County, TCRR will set any mowing 

equipment used for clearing grass, forbs and small-diameter woody vegetation to a height 

of at least 5 in (12.7 cm) above the ground to minimize the loss of cover for the Houston 

toad and other anurans. 

• Water quality. The Project will be required to meet various general compliance measures 

specific to water quality and contamination regulations. To prevent degradation of 

wetland and streams that are important habitat components to the Houston Toad, TCRR 

will obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification; General Construction Permit 

(TXR150000) and Multi-sector General Permit (TXR050000); Stormwater 

Management/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. TCRR will also implement a 

Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure Plan to address potential construction and operational impacts to water 

quality and sensitive Houston toad habitat. TCRR will coordinate with the Service on 

this plan prior to its approval, should there be any potential impacts to sensitive Houston 

toad habitat. 
Michael Johnsen 42 

APPENDIX B

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE EFFECTS TO THE 

TEXAS FAWNSFOOT 

Best Management Practices For Projects Affecting Rivers, 

Streams And Tributaries

The project crosses or potentially affects river, stream or tributary aquatic habitat. Therefore 

the Service recommends implementing the following applicable Best Management

Practices:

1. Construct stream crossings during a period of low streamflow (e.g., July - 

September);

2. Cross streams, stream banks and riparian zones at right angles and at gentle slopes;

3. When feasible, directionally bore under streamchannels;

4. Disturb riparian and floodplain vegetation only whennecessary;

5. Construction equipment should cross the stream at one confined location over an 

existing bridge, equipment pads, clean temporary native rock fill, or over a 

temporary portable bridge;

6. Limit in-stream equipment use to that needed to construct crossings;

7. Place trench spoil at least 25 feet away landward from streambanks;

8. Use sediment filter devices to prevent movement of spoil off right-of-way when 

standing or flowing water is present;

9. Trench de-watering, as necessary, should be conducted to prevent discharge of silt 

laden water into the stream channel;

10. Maintain the current contours of the bank and channel bottom;

11. Do not store hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, lubricating oils, and other such

substances within 100 feet of streambanks;

12. Refuel construction equipment at least 100 feet from streambanks;

13. Revegetate all disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction to prevent 

unnecessary soil erosion. Use only native riparian plants to help prevent the spread 

of exotics;

14. Maintain sediment filters at the base of all slopes located adjacent to the streams 

until right-of- way vegetation becomes established;

15. Maintain a vegetative filtration strip adjacent to streams and wetlands. The width of 

a filter strip is based on the slope of the banks and the width of the stream. Guidance 

to determine the appropriate filter strip (stream management zone, SMZ) width is 

provided below; and

16. Direct water runoff into vegetated areas.

SMZ WIDTH

SMZ widths should consider watershed characteristics, risk of erosion, soil type, and stream 

width. SMZ widths are measured from the top of each bank and established on each side of 

the stream. Erosion risk is increased with sandy soil, steep slopes, large watersheds and 

increasing stream widths. Recommended primary (refers to ephemeral streams) and 
Michael Johnsen 43 

secondary SMZ (refers to intermittent, braided, and perennial streams, lakes, and ponds)

widths are provided in the table below.

Stream Width (Feet) Slope (Percent) Primary SMZ (Feet) Secondary SMZ (Feet)

<20 < 7 35 0

<20 7-20 35 50

<20 >20 Top of slope or 150 75

20-50 <7 50 0

20-50 7-20 50 50

20-50 > 20 Top of slope or 150 75

> 50 < 7 Width of stream or 100 max. 0

> 50 7-20 Width of stream or 100 max. 50

> 50 > 20 Top of slope or 150 75

PERMITREQUIREMENTS

A permit may be required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should fill material be 

placed in wetlands or other waters of the United States. Should such a permit be required, 

the BMP's contained in this enclosure, as well as other conservation provisions, may 

become permit conditions. Additional permit requirements may apply, depending upon the 

nature of individual projects.

Literature Cited

Arkansas Forestry Commission. 2001. Draft Arkansas Forestry Best Management 

Practices for Water Quality Protection.
Michael Johnsen 44 

APPENDIX C

TPWD PROTOCOL FOR TEXAS FAWNSFOOT 

Kills and Spills Team, Freshwater Mussel Survey and Relocation Protocols 

Can be accessed at: 

https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_lf_t3200_1957.pdf.