1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

CITY OF AUSTIN, et al., §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

v. § 1:20-CV-138-RP

§

KINDER MORGAN TEXAS PIPELINE, §

LLC, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER

Before this Court is the Plaintiffs City of Austin, City of San Marcos, Travis County, 

Hays County, Barton Springs Edwards Aquifer Conservation District, Larry Becker, Arlene 

Becker, Jonna Murchison, and Mark Weiler’s (“Plaintiffs”) Application for a Temporary 

Restraining Order (“TRO Application”) filed on February 11, 2020. (Dkt. 18). Defendants 

Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LLC and Permian Highway Pipeline, LLC (collectively, “Kinder 

Morgan”) filed a response in opposition. (Dkt. 28). United States Department of Interior, David 

Bernhardt, in his official capacity as Secretary of Interior, United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

and Aurelia Skipwith, in her official capacity as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(collectively, “Federal Defendants”) also filed a response in opposition. (Dkt. 29). The Court 

held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ TRO Application on February 14, 2020. Having considered the 

parties’ briefing, the arguments presented at the hearing, and the relevant law, this Court will 

deny Plaintiffs’ TRO Application.

I. BACKGROUND

This case is about Kinder Morgan’s proposed natural gas pipeline that would intersect 

through several hundred miles of land, including the scenic Central Texas Hill Country. Kinder 

Morgan intends to begin construction immediately, first by clearing the land. That land contains 

habitat for the Golden-cheeked Warbler (“warbler”) which is endangered. 

Case 1:20-cv-00138-RP Document 31 Filed 02/14/20 Page 1 of 8
2

A. Endangered Species Act

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) makes it illegal to “take” any members 

of an endangered species. The ESA defines “take” to mean “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” 16 

U.S.C. § 1532(19). “Harass” in the definition of “take” under the ESA means “an intentional or 

negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such 

an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited 

to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.350. “Harm” means “an act which actually 

kills or injures wildlife. Such act may include significant habitat modification or degradation 

where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding or sheltering.” Id.

However, the incidental taking of an endangered species is permitted under two 

exceptions embodied in § 7 and § 10 of the ESA, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1536 and 16 U.S.C. § 

1539, respectively. Under the § 10 exception, private parties may apply for an incidental take 

permit after navigating a rather rigorous and time-consuming procedure. By contrast, the § 7 

exception provides a procedure whereby federal agencies and certain “applicants” may obtain 

determinations in the form of incidental take statements through a comparatively informal 

process. 

B. Overview of the Section 7 Process

Under Section 7, a federal agency must “insure that any action authorized, funded, or 

carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 

endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 

[critical] habitat of such species.” Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 698 F.3d 

1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2)). Here, the relevant federal agency is the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”). Before beginning any “major construction 

activities,” the Corps must prepare a biological assessment to determine whether an endangered 

Case 1:20-cv-00138-RP Document 31 Filed 02/14/20 Page 2 of 8
3

species or critical habitat is “likely to be adversely affected” by the proposed action. Id. (citing 50 

C.F.R. § 402.12). After the Corps determines that a proposed action may affect listed species or 

critical habitat, it must initiate the formal consultation process with the appropriate wildlife 

agency, in this case the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”). 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(a). After 

the Corps initiates the formal consultation process, neither the Corps or the applicant shall 

“make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the agency 

action which has the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable 

and prudent alternative measures which would not violate subsection (a)(2) of this section.” 16 

U.S.C. § 1536(d).

Formal consultation is a mandatory process for proposed projects that may adversely 

affect listed species. See id. The process is initiated in writing by the relevant federal agency (here, 

the Corps) and concludes with the issuance of a Biological Opinion by the Service. 16 U.S.C. § 

1536(b)(3)(A). The Biological Opinion states the opinion of the Service as to whether the 

proposed action is likely “to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or 

threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species” 

as required under § 7(a)(2). 16 U.S.C. § 1536; 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(4). If the Service concludes 

that jeopardy or adverse modification is likely, any take resulting from the proposed action 

violates section 9 of the ESA (unless that take is authorized by other provisions of the [ESA]). 

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 698 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2012)

In cases where the Service concludes that no jeopardy or adverse modification is likely, 

and that the proposed action is likely to result only in the “incidental take” of an endangered 

species, then the Service will provide an incidental take statement along with its biological 

opinion. Id. (citing 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i)). The incidental take statement will specify the extent of 

the incidental take and indicate “those reasonable and prudent measures that the [Service] 

considers necessary or appropriate to minimize such impact.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(i). 

Case 1:20-cv-00138-RP Document 31 Filed 02/14/20 Page 3 of 8
4

Any taking of an endangered species in compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

incidental take statement is not a prohibited taking under the Endangered Species Act and no 

other authorization or permit is required. 16 U.S.C. § 1536(h) and (o)(1); 50 C.F.R. § 

402.14(i)(5). Importantly, the Biological Opinion and the Incidental Take Statement do not 

become effective for the Corps or the applicant until the Corp issues all required Clean Water 

Act authorizations for the project.

While it is up to the Corps to determine whether and to what extent it will comply with 

the incidental take statement issued by the Service, the Corps and the applicant must comply 

with the incidental take statement in its entirety if they wish to be insulated from take liability 

under § 9 of the Endangered Species Act. See Fath v. Texas Dep’t of Transportation, No. 1:16-CV234-LY, 2016 WL 7442868, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2016).

Here, the Corps determined that the pipeline project may adversely affect golden-cheek 

warbler habitat and accordingly initiated the formal consultation process with the Service. See 50 

C.F.R. § 402.14(a). On February 3, 2020, the Service issued the Biological Opinion based on its 

review of the pipeline project and its effects on the endangered golden-cheek warbler. 16 U.S.C. 

§ 1536(b)(3)(A). The Biological Opinion concluded that the proposed action was “not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of the [warbler].” (Biological Opinion, Dkt. 12-1, at 48). The 

Service further noted that it “does not expect, directly or indirectly, that the proposed project 

will reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the [warbler] in the 

wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of [warbler]. (Id. at 50). 

As part of the incidental take statement, the Service specified several reasonable and 

prudent measures to minimize the incidental take of the warbler. (Id. at 55); see also 50 C.F.R. § 

402.14(i). Importantly, the incidental take statement specifies that Kinder Morgan is prohibited 

from clearing vegetation within the warbler habitat from March 1 to July 31. (Id. at 56). 

“Vegetation clearing within defined project workspaces shall be cleared prior to March 1.” (Id.). 

Kinder Morgan received authorization from the Corps pursuant to the Clean Water Act on

Case 1:20-cv-00138-RP Document 31 Filed 02/14/20 Page 4 of 8
5

February 13, 2020, which made the Biological Opinion and the Incidental Take Statement 

effective. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 permits the Court to issue a temporary restraining 

order without notice to the adverse party only where “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified 

complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the 

movant before the adverse party can be heard in opposition,” and “the movant’s attorney 

certifies in writing any efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be 

required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1). The party moving for a temporary restraining order must 

establish that: “(1) there is a substantial likelihood that the movant will prevail on the merits; (2) 

there is a substantial threat that irreparable harm will result if the injunction is not granted; (3) 

the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm to the defendant; and (4) the granting of the 

preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Clark v. Prichard, 812 F.2d 991, 993 

(5th Cir. 1987). The party seeking relief has the burden of proving each element. Id. Upon 

reviewing the Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their burden 

under Rule 65 and the Fifth Circuit’s requirements.

III. DISCUSSION

In considering the four requirements and deciding whether to grant injunctive relief, 

courts must keep in mind that the granting of a TRO or preliminary injunction “is an 

extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be granted unless the movant clearly carries 

the burden of persuasion,” and a TRO or preliminary injunction is necessary “to preserve the 

court’s ability to render a meaningful decision on the merits.” Canal Auth. of State of Fla. v. 

Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (5th Cir. 1974). In this case, the Court determines that Plaintiffs have 

not satisfied one of the four required prongs: irreparable harm. Having made that determination, 

the Court does not reach the other three prongs of the TRO analysis.

Case 1:20-cv-00138-RP Document 31 Filed 02/14/20 Page 5 of 8
6

Plaintiffs claim that Kinder Morgan will clear a “125-foot swatch of occupied [warbler] 

habitat to construct its pipeline.” (Memo. Pls.’ Prelim. Injunc., Dkt. 10, at 32). Plaintiffs argue 

that Kinder Morgan’s clearing process will cause a direct take of the warblers and that their 

habitat will be destroyed. The warblers’ habitat is “used by the species for essential biological 

functions such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering” and that their nesting period begins in late 

February or early March. (Id. at 32–33). Plaintiffs contend that the destruction of warbler habitat 

will harm Plaintiffs’ interests in “observing and protecting” warblers. (Id. at 34). Plaintiffs further 

elaborated on the effect of Kinder Morgan’s activities on the warbler at the hearing, explaining 

that the landowners who moved to the Central Texas Hill Country have an interest in viewing 

warblers and their ability to view them would be diminished.

While the Court appreciates Plaintiffs’ arguments and has concerns about the fate of the 

warblers whose habitat is in the path of the pipeline, the Court cannot grant a TRO at this 

juncture when Plaintiffs have not met their burden of a showing of irreparable harm to the 

species as a whole. See Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d 641, 663–64 (5th Cir. 2014) (reversing a 

district court’s preliminary injunction because it found that plaintiffs had not proven that there 

was “a reasonably certain threat of imminent harm to a protected species”). To that point, the 

Biological Opinion concluded that the proposed action was “not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence” of the warbler. (Biological Opinion, Dkt. 12-1, at 48). The Service noted 

that it “does not expect, directly or indirectly, that the proposed project will reduce appreciably 

the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the [warbler] in the wild by reducing the 

reproduction, numbers, or distribution of [warbler]. (Id. at 50). The Service found that there 

would be impacts to only 0.04% of the breeding habitat available for the species in three 

identified regions. (Id. at 32).

As part of the incidental take statement, the Service specified several reasonable and 

prudent measures to minimize the incidental take of the warbler. (Id. at 55); see also 50 C.F.R. § 

402.14(i). Importantly, the incidental take statement specifies that Kinder Morgan is prohibited 

Case 1:20-cv-00138-RP Document 31 Filed 02/14/20 Page 6 of 8
7

from clearing vegetation within the warbler habitat from March 1 to July 31. (Id. at 56). 

“Vegetation clearing within defined project workspaces shall be cleared prior to March 1.” (Id.). 

Kinder Morgan will implement those conservation measures specified in the Biological Opinion, 

including the protection of 1,363 acres of occupied warbler habitat (Igua Ranch) located in 

Travis County. (Id. at 43). The Service found that Kinder Morgan’s preservation efforts “is 

anticipated to fully offset impacts to the species.” (Id. at 48). Accordingly, at this time, the 

potential injury does not rise to the level of being irreparable. Rather, the injury is limited in 

terms of takes and destruction of habitat due and the effect will be mitigated by the conservation 

measures Kinder Morgan has and will take pursuant to the Biological Opinion.1In addition, it 

appears that adequate remedies exist to address future harm, e.g., the requirement that Kinder 

Morgan establish additional conservation areas that will create “large, contiguous areas of high 

quality habitat.” (Id. at 43). “The Service considers the [warbler] able to tolerate the loss of 

poorer quality habitat when offset with larger acreages of permanently protected high quality 

habitat.” (Id.).

 

1 Plaintiffs also allege irreparable injury with respect to the pipeline construction’s effect on the Barton Springs 

salamander, the Austin blind salamander, the San Marcos salamander, the Fountain darter, the Comal Springs 

dryopid beetle, and the Comal Springs riffle beetle. Plaintiffs showing as to those species is less compelling than 

their insufficient showing with respect to the warbler.

Case 1:20-cv-00138-RP Document 31 Filed 02/14/20 Page 7 of 8
8

IV. CONCLUSION

Because Plaintiffs have failed to show that the potential harm has risen to the level of 

irreparable harm that would justify granting the extraordinary relief of a TRO, this Court 

DENIES Plaintiffs’ Application for TRO.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties or counsel acting on their behalf appear 

by phone for a conference on February 18, 2020 at 3:30p.m to set a date for the Court to hear 

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and to set a briefing schedule for the motion for 

preliminary injunction. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall be responsible for coordinating the call and 

providing dial-in information at least 24 hours prior to the hearing to the courtroom deputy at 

julie_golden@txwd.uscourts.gov.

SIGNED on February 14, 2020.

________________________________

ROBERT PITMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00138-RP Document 31 Filed 02/14/20 Page 8 of 8