Brazos Valley Connection

Because such limited data exist for the Paleoindian period in this area, only certain assumptions can be made regarding Paleoindian cultural development in the region. The presence of large projectile points suggests that hunting large mammals was undoubtedly an important component of the subsistence strategy, although a collection of readily available plant foods probably also contributed to the diet (Collins, 2002). Environmental changes that brought about the extinction or dislocation of Rancholabrean megafauna triggered a shift away from Paleoindian adaptations toward a broad-based subsistence orientation termed Archaic (Willey and Phillips, 1958).

2.3.1.2 Archaic Period (ca. 8,000 - 1,500 years ago [inland] 5,000-2,200 years ago [coastal]) Ricklis (2004) discusses the Archaic period in southeast Texas in terms of inland and coastal adaptations. Inland, the Archaic generally extended from 8,000 to 1,500 years ago. Numerous sites dating to this period have been found along primary streams throughout the region and contain stone projectile points that are diverse and reduced in size from the earlier Paleoindian period. These dart points also tend to be made of poorer quality local resources suggesting reduced group mobility and tighter group territories. A lack of faunal and botanical remains at inland archeological sites precludes inferring more than a generalized hunting and gathering subsistence system. Well-established cemeteries also appear in the archaeological record of inland southeast Texas by the middle Archaic. By the late Archaic, cemeteries have increased substantially in size and most burials contain a diverse array of grave goods (Ricklis, 2004). Story (1985) suggests that the abundance of cemeteries on the western margin of the coastal prairie zone indicates increased territoriality amongst groups in response to an ever-increasing population. Hall (2000) concurs and posits that highly productive environments such as river valley bottoms and the fioodplains of major streams were home to an aggregate of resources that were predictable, concentrated, and fixed on the landscape. Such resources allowed late Archaic groups to operate within smaller, more exclusive territories.

The Archaic period on the upper Texas coast extended from about 5,000 to 2,200 years ago (Ricklis, 2004). However, very few intact early Archaic components are known from this region and Aten (1983), and Story (1985) suggest the inland margin of the coastal plain may have been occupied more intensely than the coast as sea levels rose during the early Archaic. The coastline reached its current location between 7,000 and 5,000 years ago (Aten, 1983) and the earliest known shell middens in the area date to this period (Howard et al., 1991). Coastal Archaic sites that have been tested or excavated near the modern shoreline generally consist of

2-21 99 Brazos Valley Connection shell-bearing sites with lithic tools and debitage, shell and bone tools, and the bones of fish, mammals, and reptiles (Story, 1985). Excavation of 41AU36 on the lower Brazos River revealed a cemetery in use from the middle Archaic through the early Ceramic period (Hall, 1981). Story (1985) suggests the establishment of cemeteries along major streams on the coastal plain indicates increased territoriality during the middle and late Archaic.

Beginning around 3,000 years ago, subsistence systems increasingly focused on coastal zone resources (Aten, 1983; Story et al., 1990). Aten (1979, 1983) hypothesized the establishment of seasonal rounds, including regular movements from littoral to inland areas during the late Archaic. Historic native groups have been demonstrated to move in a yearly round from small, dispersed band-sized or less groups during the warm seasons to aggregated villages during the colder months (Aten, 1979; Newcomb, 1961). Grave goods from 41AU36 indicate the inhabitants of the site during the late Archaic were involved in an import-export sphere extending as far as Arkansas (Hall, 1981).

2.3.1.3 Ceramic Period (ca. 2,000 - 1,200 years ago) Pottery first appeared in southeast Texas along the coast around 2,000 years ago ushering in the Ceramic period. Based on stylistic elements, they arrived in the region via diffusion from Louisiana or the Lower Mississippi River Valley, suggesting an increasing interregional influence from neighboring groups. There were no apparent major shifts in lifeways during the early years after pottery was introduced. The contents of shell-bearing sites along the upper Texas coast during the early Ceramic period vary little from the late Archaic shell middens, except for the addition of pottery and a few evolving dart point types, primarily Gary and Kent types (Ricklis, 2004). Discrete cemeteries located close to major streams continue to enforce the notion of well-established group territories in response to increasing populations first evident during the Archaic (Aten, 1983). Ceramics appeared in inland southeast Texas several centuries later and most likely disseminated from the coastal zone where sandy-paste wares had become commonplace (Ricklis, 2004).

2.3.1.4 Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1,200 - 300 years ago) Around 1,300 years ago, small, light, straight and expanded stem arrow points began to appear in archaeological assemblages, indicating the introduction of the bow and arrow - a hallmark of the Late Prehistoric period in southeast Texas. Findings at the Mitchell Ridge site on Galveston Island suggest that the Late Prehistoric period in the region can be divided into two sub-periods. The initial Late Prehistoric is associated with the introduction of the bow and arrow as evidenced

2-22 100 Brazos Valley Connection

primarily by the presence of Scallorn arrow points. The final Late Prehistoric period in southeast Texas correlates with changes taking place throughout much of Texas. These changes include the appearance of bison bone in archaeological assemblages around 700 to 800 years ago in association with a variety of stone tools. Stone tools associated with the appearance of bison include Perdiz arrow points, thin bifacial knives, expanded base drills and perforators, and unifacial end scrapers. The occurrence of bison bone with these tools suggests a significant shift towards reliance on bison and other large game hunting and the processing of meat and hides (Ricklis, 2004).

Although the adoption of the bow and arrow and shift to bison and large game hunting was occurring across much of eastern Texas, some areas adapted more slowly to the new technology and subsistence strategy. In the southern Post-Oak Savannah region, the continued presence of large dart points in archaeological assemblages indicates that the atlatl continued to be a popular tool even after the bow and arrow were introduced. This was particularly true during the first half of the Late Prehistoric period. At the Jewett Mine site, a full one-third of the projectile points were large dart points. Overall, there appears to have been a subsistence economy that used a variety of animals as well as a variety of plant foods including hardwood nuts, seeds, and tubers (Fields, 2004).

Ceramics in the region continued to evolve during the Late Prehistoric period. Grog and bone tempering are introduced and decorative elements become more elaborate. The change in external design elements along the upper Texas coast reflect those of various types of the Coles Creek-Plaquemine sequence occurring in coastal Louisiana and the Lower Mississippi River Valley, suggesting a continued interaction with groups from the east (Ricklis, 2004).

As noted above, ceramics were introduced to inland populations several centuries after they appeared on the East Texas Coast. Archaeological evidence also indicates that the use of ceramics remained comparatively unimportant to inland groups into the Late Prehistoric period. Ceramic sherds in Late Prehistoric contexts at Jewett Mine and Gibbons Creek Mine sites are generally equal in number to shaped stone tools. The ratio of ceramic sherds to shaped stone tools is significantly higher in the Sabine River valley (Fields, 2004).

2-23 101 Brazos Valley Connection

2.3.1.5 Historic Period At the time of European contact much of the study area was inhabited by the Bidai, a migratory hunting and foraging group with limited agriculture (Christian and Leffler, 2014; Jackson, 2014). A generally peaceful group, the Bidai openly traded with Spanish and French settlers in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Tensions between Spain and France put the Bidai in a precarious position. The Spanish suspected the Bidai of working against them by trading guns and munitions with the French and their allies, the Lipan Apaches (Jackson, 2014; Christian and Leffler, 2014; Sjoberg, 1951). A single epidemic, introduced by Europeans, decimated the Bidai such that by the early 1800s, approximately 100 members remained. They continued to live peacefully among white settlers as well as other neighboring tribes, often serving as protection against raids from the Comanches and Apaches (Jackson, 2014). As European settlements expanded west, the remaining Bidai were eventually moved to reservations in Oklahoma where their identity was lost (Jackson, 2014).

In 1821, Stephen F. Austin founded a colony of 300 settlers between the Brazos and Colorado Rivers (Barker, 2014; Jackson, 2014). Fertile land and numerous creeks and rivers attracted settlers to his colony, including Jared Groce, who, in 1921, established the Bernardo Plantation, the first large cotton farm in Texas, west of present day Hempstead in Waller County (Christian and Leffler, 2014; Holbrook, 1970). In Harris County, settlement of the San Jacinto estuary began when families wrongly assumed the area was part of Austin's empresario grant. In 1824, many of these families moved to the Brazos River, while some stayed to petition for inclusion in the Austin grant (Henson, 2014). By the end of the year, seven of Austin's original 300 colonists had claimed land in what is now Grimes County (Jackson, 2014).

The Texas Revolution, which began in October 1835 and ended on April 21, 1836 at the battle of San Jacinto, did little to dissuade settlement in the area (Barker and Pohl, 2014). The battle and advancing Mexican military would cause families and homesteaders to abandon their homes temporarily but only to repopulate quickly after the threat passed. Germans, Polish, and Czech were a significant part of the influx of immigrants to Texas; however the immigrants that would have the greatest effect on the population and culture of Texas were those from the lower States whose cotton plantation-based economy helped incorporate Grimes, Harris, and Waller Counties into the antebellum culture of the Deep South (Campbell R., 2014). By 1850, slaves would make up 50 percent of the population and the crops and money they produced would affect the economy and local government significantly (Jackson, 2014; Christian and Leffler, 2014; Holbrook, 1970).

2-24 102 Brazos Valley Connection

From the Texas Revolution to the eve of the Civil War, Texas saw a shift from a frontier life of raising cattle, sheep, and oxen to that of major agricultural production. By 1860, corn and cotton were the primary crops in Grimes and Waller Counties. The livestock economy, though diminished, increased over 275 percent in value. The number of slaves in Grimes, Harris, and Waller Counties continued to grow in the last decade leading up to the Civil War (Jackson, 2014; Christian and Leffler, 2014; Henson, 2014), particularly in Grimes County, where slaves made up 53 percent of the population (Jackson, 2014).

In the late 1850s, railroads such as the Houston and Texas Central, which served to expand the economy, also transported soldiers and supplies during the Civil War. The antebellum culture that dominated Texas particularly with a reliance on slaves for agriculture made succession from the United States an easy decision (Jackson, 2014; Campbell R., 2014). During the war, the area saw an influx of immigration from Southern farmers seeking refuge from the war, bringing with them their property and slaves. The defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War in 1865 and the emancipation of slaves brought slow recovery to the area as the economy struggled to support itself on a foundation that had been built on slave labor. Epidemics of cholera and yellow fever contributed to the slow recovery and added to the hostilities toward recently freed slaves. To help facilitate the emancipation, the Freedman's Bureau was established to oversee legal contracts and protect emancipated slaves from exploitation and violence (Jackson, 2014). Their efforts were in vain as violence and homicide toward the freed group continued to grow.

In April of 1868 in Navasota, the Ku Klux Klan emerged as a vigilante effort against African- Americans. In response, the Loyal League was formed, serving as a means to better organize and protect against the violence of the Ku Klux Klan. The size of the African-American population in Grimes and Waller Counties assured Republican support in local government until the establishment of the White Man's Union in 1898, which used intimidation to keep African- American and other minorities from the polls (Jackson, 2014; Christian and Leffler, 2014; Long, 2014). Their hostile tactics caused a massive migration from the area and temporarily crippled the economy, allowing for a growing Hispanic population to take jobs that were otherwise occupied by African-Americans (Long, 2014). The continuing immigration of Germans, Czechs, Polish, French and other European and Asian populations helped to diversify the area culturally as small enclaves established themselves such as the German settlement of Rodolph, north of Anderson in Grimes County (Jackson, 2014).

2-25 103 Brazos Valley Connection

Recovery after the Civil War was slow and violent, and the economy did not reach its pre-civil war levels until the twentieth century (Jackson, 2014). In Harris County at the turn of the century, Japanese farmers were invited to help develop rice farms on flat prairies and in proximity to the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe railways. Their presence, along with the growing industrial power of the oil and trade business, helped the economy to diversify. With the formation of the Harris County Ship Channel District, channels were deepened and improved for large ocean-going vessels, and by 1918, the county saw an expansion in the petroleum and shipping industries. This shift away from agriculture is also seen in Grimaes and Waller Counties, as the early part of the twentieth century saw a steady decline in the cotton industry (Christian and Leffler, 2014; Jackson, 2014). The growing urban economy along with periods of economic hardship contributed to the steady decrease in population from Grimes and Waller Counties. The Great Depression in the 1930s caused an over 16 percent decrease in the population of Grimes County (Jackson, 2014). Of the 15 manufacturing companies that existed in the county, only six companies survived the Depression (Jackson, 2014). The discovery of oil in 1934 in Waller County helped to diversify the economy and provide jobs to the dwindling working class (Christian and Leffler, 2014).

Farming in Waller County during and after World War II turned to ranching and rice agriculture, and the number of farms in Grimes County dropped, shifting into lumber and diversifying into cane, sorghum, pecans, and vegetables like potatoes and soybeans (Jackson 2014; Christian and Leffler, 2014). Oil was not discovered in Grimes County until 1954. Despite the discovery, the population continued to decline until the 1970s, when the oil industry in the area expanded into the 1980s (Jackson, 2014).

2.3.2 Records Review Cultural resource data for the study area were reviewed online through the THSA, TASA, and TARL. GIS shapefiles identifying the locations of previously recorded archeological sites were requested from TARL. GIS data from TARL were used to map cultural resource site locations within the study area. Previously recorded cultural resource site data available online from the THSA and TASA were obtained to identify locations of designated historical sites, SALs, cemeteries, HTCs, and OTHMs within the study area, as well as previously conducted cultural resource investigations. The TxDOT historic bridges database was also reviewed for bridges that are listed or determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. The National Park Service ("NPS") databases and websites pertaining to NRHP, National Historic Trails, and National Historic

2-26 104 Brazos Valley Connection

Landmark properties were also reviewed to locate and define boundaries for historic properties recorded at the national level (NPS, 2014a, b, and c).

The results of the record search are summarized in Table 2-6, including the number of previously recorded archeological sites, SALs, cemeteries, HTCs, NRHP-listed properties, and OTHMs in the study area.

Table 2-6 Cultural Resources Recorded within the Studv Area

RECORDED STATE NRHP- HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL ANTIQUITIES LISTED TEXAS COUNTY SITES LANDMARKS PROPERTIES CEMETERIES CEMETERIES OTHM Grimes 397 4 3 87 7 33 Harris 14 1 0 3 0 1 Waller 8 0 8 19 1 19

Source: THC, 2014a, b.

The review of the THSA, TASA (THC, 2014a, b), and TARL data indicates that 419 archeological sites have been recorded in the study area. Five of these previously recorded sites are designated as State Archeological Landmarks. Archeological materials dating from the Paleoindian period into the historic periods are represented in the study area. Eleven NRHP- listed properties are recorded in the study area, including a prehistoric archeological site, early plantation houses, and historic buildings on the Texas A&M at Prairie View campus (Table 2-7). The Fanthorp Inn, a State Historic Site State Park, is located in the study area. Ninety-nine cemeteries are mapped by the THC in the study area, eight of which are designated HTCs. No NRHP-eligible bridges are mapped within the study area by TxDOT, and no National Historic Landmarks are located within the study area.

i Me c-i _ iMrcn r_rroperues ana i exas Antiquities LanamarKS in tne Study Area NRHP T REFERENCE NUMBER PROPERTY NAME LOCATION COUNTY DESIGNATION Piedmont Springs Archeological Site 82004506 (41 GM4 Address restricted Grimes NRHP Property E of Navasota on 80004123 Foster House TX 90 Grimes NRHP Property Anderson and 74002072 Anderson Historic District environs Grimes NRHP Historic District State Antiquities Landmark; Determined eligible for N/A Grimes County Courthouse Anderson, Texas Grimes listing on NRHP

2-27 105 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-7 NRHP Properties and Texas Anti uities Landmarks in the Study Area NRHP REFERENCE NUMBER PROPERTY NAME LOCATION COUNTY DESIGNATION 41GM63 Kellum Springs State Antiquities Landmark N/A Cabin address restricted Grimes 41GM78 Kellum Springs State Antiquities Landmark N/A Spa address restricted Grimes State Antiquities Landmark; 41GM79 Fanthorp Inn State determined eligible for N/A Historical Structure address restricted Grimes NRHP Prairie View A&M NRHP Property 99000611 L.C. Anderson Hall University Waller Prairie View A&M NRHP Property 99000612 W.R. Banks Library University Waller Prairie View A&M NRHP Property 99000613 Annie Laurie Evans Hall University Waller Prairie View A&M NRHP Property 71000970 Liendo Plantation University Waller Prairie View A&M NRHP Property 99000617 Veterinary Hospital University Waller G.R. Woolfolk Social and Prairie View A&M NRHP Property 99000616 Political Science Buildin g University Waller Prairie View A&M NRHP Property 99000614 Hillard Hall University Waller Prairie View A&M 99000615 Fry-Thomas Power Plant University Waller NRHP Property State Antiquities Landmark; determined eligible for N/A 41HR796 address restricted NRHP Source: THC, 2014a, b.

Review of the previously recorded cultural resource sites data indicates that the study area has not been examined entirely during previous archeological and historical investigations. Consequently, the records review results do not include all possible cultural resources sites within the study area. To further assess and avoid potential impacts to cultural resources, High probability areas ("HPAs") for prehistoric archeological sites were defined during the route analysis process. High probability areas were designated based on a review of the site and survey data within the study area, as well as soils and geologic data, and topographic variables. Native American subsistence was dependent on close proximity to natural features, such as springs and streams, which would provide water and attract game animals. Additionally, backswamps and wetlands afforded access to numerous resources. Areas near these resource- rich areas are considered to have a high potential for prehistoric archeological sites. Terraces and topographic high points near potential sources of water that would provide flats for camping and expansive landscape views affording a hunting or defensive advantage are also considered to have a high probability for containing prehistoric archeological sites.

2-28 106 Brazos Valley Connection

Historic age resources are likely to be found near water sources. However, they will also be located in proximity to primary and secondary transportation routes (e.g., trails, roads, and railroads) which provided access to the sites. Buildings and cemeteries are also more likely to be located within or near historic communities. Locations and patterns of distribution for historic- period sites are not readily predictable or quantifiable, and the route analysis process discussed in Section 4.0 considers only recorded sites listed with official state and federal agencies and HPAs developed for prehistoric resources within the study area.

2.3.3 Previous Investigations According to the TASA (THC, 2014b), there have been 95 previously conducted cultural resource investigations within the study area boundaries. Many of these were undertaken for the Soil Conservation Service, and in advance of highway, flood control, and mining projects. The bulk of the archeological sites recorded within the study were recorded during surveys in advance of mine operations in the northern extent of the project area near the Gibbons Creek Reservoir. Most of the sites that have been tested or excavated are associated with mining, soil conservation, and flood control projects.

2.3.4 Aesthetic Values

Section 37.056(c)(4)(C) of PURA incorporates aesthetics as a consideration when evaluating proposed electric transmission facilities. There are currently no formal guidelines provided for managing visual resources on private, state, or county-owned lands located within the study area. For the purposes of this study, the term aesthetics is defined by POWER to include the subjective perception of natural beauty in a landscape and measurement of an area's scenic qualities. The visual inventory was conducted by describing the regional setting and determining the viewer sensitivity ratings. Related literature, aerial photograph interpretation, and reconnaissance surveys were used to describe the regional setting and to determine the landscape character types for the area.

Consideration of the visual environment includes a determination of aesthetic values (where the major potential effect of a project on the resource is considered visual), and recreational values (where the location of a transmission line could potentially affect the scenic enjoyment of the area). POWER considered the following criteria that combine to give an area its aesthetic identity:

2-29 107 Brazos Valley Connection

• Land form and topography (hills, valleys, etc.) • Prominence of water in the landscape (rivers, lakes, etc.) • Vegetation variety (woodland, meadows) • Diversity of scenic elements • Degree of human development or alteration • Overall uniqueness of the scenic environment compared with the larger region

The majority of the study area is generally comprised of scattered residential and commercial development, rangeland and undeveloped woodlands. The majority of the study area has been impacted by land improvements associated with agriculture, residential structures, airstrips, roadways, oil and gas activities, and various utility corridors. Overall, the study area viewscape consists of open rangeland/pastureland with gently rolling hills that drain into the local creeks.

No known outstanding aesthetic resources, designated views, designated scenic roadways, or unique visual elements were identified from the literature review or from reconnaissance surveys of the study area. The study area is located within the 28-county Texas Independence

Trail Region of the Texas Heritage Trails. The trail runs along U.S. Hwy 290 within the study area, and sites of interest include Liendo Plantation and Prairie View A&M University (THC, 2014c). The study area is also located within the 10-county Texas Brazos Trail Region of the Texas Heritage Trails. The trail runs along SH 90 within the study area, and sites of interest include Anderson Baptist Church, Fanthorp Inn State Historic Site, and Grimes County Courthouse (THC, 2014d).

A review of the NPS website did not identify Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails, National Historic Landmarks, National Parks, National Monuments, National Historic Sites, or National Battlefields within the study area (NWSRS, 2014; NPS, 2014a, b, c).

Based on these criteria, the study area exhibits a moderate to high degree of aesthetic quality for the region. The majority of the study area maintains the feel of a rural community. Although some portions of the study area are visually appealing; overall, the aesthetic quality of the study area is not distinguishable from that of other adjacent areas within the region.

For this study, the potential visual impacts considered for the project were limited to line-of-sight views within the immediate foreground (one-half mile, unobstructed) from points located on federal and state highways, FM roads, and recreational and park areas.

2-30 108 Brazos Valley Connection

2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY Resource inventory data were collected for physiography, geology, soils, surface waters, wetlands, and ecological resource areas. These data were mapped within the study area utilizing GIS layers. Additional data collection activities consisted of file and record reviews conducted with the various state and federal regulatory agencies, a review of published literature, and review of various maps and aerial photographs. Maps and data layers reviewed include USGS 7.5 minute topographic maps, Google Earth aerial imagery, BEG Geologic Atlas maps, NWI maps, FEMA national flood hazard layer, USGS Ecoregions of Texas, NRCS soil survey data, and TPWD and USFWS endangered species county lists.

2.4.1 Physiography and Geology As shown in Figure 2-4, the study area is located within the Coastal Prairies and Interior Coastal Plains sub-provinces of the Gulf Coastal Plains Physiographic Region of Texas (BEG, 1996). The Coastal Prairies Region extends inland from the Texas Gulf Coast, and is characterized by young deltaic sands, silts and clays, creating nearly flat grasslands. Further inland, the Interior Coastal Plains comprise alternating belts of resistant uncemented sands among weaker shales that erode into long, sandy ridges; the region is characterized by pine and hardwood forest and numerous permanent streams (BEG, 1996). Elevations in the study area range from approximately 150 feet to 420 feet above mean sea level ("amsl") (USGS, 2013a - w).

Most of the study area is underlain by Quaternary-aged unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and gravel deposits. The northwestern portion of the study area, North of Richards and Navasota, is underlain by older deposits-Eocene-aged, fossil-bearing sedimentary rocks as well as unconsolidated clay, silt, sand, and gravel. Bedrock in these formations is composed primarily of sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone, with lesser amounts of conglomerate, limestone, and lignite coal beds. Throughout the study area, most creeks and rivers are surrounded by Holocene alluvial deposits, and Quaternary fluviatile bench deposits (Barnes, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1992; USGS, 2014a).

2-31 109 Legend BRAZOS VALLEY CONNECTION Physiographic Region Boundary 1 High Plains FIGURE 2-4 2 North-Central Plains 3 Grand Prairie LOCATION OF STUDY AREA 0 30 60 120 180 240 4 Blackland Prairies 5 Interior Coastal Plains IN RELATION TO THE 6 Gulf Coastal Prairies PHYSIOGRAPHIC Miles 7 Edwards Plateau 8 Central Texas Uplift REGIONS OF TEXAS 9 Trans-Pecos Basin and Range ^ POWER ^ County Boundary ENGINEERS EMN Source Texas Bureau of Economic Geology, 1996 Date 4/17/2015

2-32 Brazos Valley Connection

2.4.1.1 Geological Hazards Several geologic hazards potentially affecting construction and operation of the transmission line were reviewed within the study area. Potential geologic hazards reviewed include karst areas with identified cave locations, fault lines, historical coal mining locations, gravel quarries, subsidence, and subsurface contamination.

A review of Texas Speleological Society ("TSS") maps did not indicate any karst geology or identified caves within the study area (TSS, 2014).

A review of the geology data of the area (USGS, 2014b) did not indicate any faults within the study area. However, the study area occurs within the Gulf-margin normal faults region in Texas. Faults in this region are characterized as having a slip-rate category of less than 0.2 millimeters per year (Crone and Wheeler, 2000).

According to the RRC (2007) database, no coal mining activities have historically occurred or currently occur within the study area. Sand and gravel quarries are scattered throughout the study area (Google, 2014).

Subsidence is occurring in the region due to groundwater withdrawal from the Gulf Coast Aquifer, primarily within Harris, Fort Bend, and Galveston Counties (TWDB, 2012). Though the aquifer underlies all but the northern end of the study area, most of the study area does not appear to be experiencing any subsidence. Approximately one foot of subsidence was measured between 1906 and 1995 at the far southern end of the study area (USGS, 2004). Areas southeast of the study area, within Harris County, have experienced as much as 10 feet of subsidence during the same time period (USGS, 2004).

The presence of subsurface contamination of soils or groundwater from commercial activities, such as dumps or landfills, can require additional considerations during routing and may create a potential hazard during construction activities. A review of Environmental Protection Agency Superfund/National Priority List Sites (USEPA, 2014a) and the TCEQ - State Superfund Sites (TCEQ, 2014) did not indicate any listed sites within the study area. Review of TCEQ records and permit applications indicate numerous historical landfills/dumps within the study area (TCEQ, 2014). While no active landfills were identified within the study area, one proposed landfill (Pintail Landfill) is located near Hwy 6 north of Hempstead in Waller County, Texas. (TCEQ, 2014; USEPA 2014a).

2-33 111 Brazos Valley Connection

2.4.2 Soils 2.4.2.1 Soil Associations The published Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil Conservation Service ("SCS"), soil surveys for Grimes, Harris, and Waller Counties were reviewed to identify and characterize the soils occurring within the study area. A soil association is a group of soils geographically associated in a characteristic repeating pattern and defined as a single unit (NRCS, 2014). Soil associations mapped within the study area are listed in Table 2-8, which also briefly describes each soil association and indicates if any mapped units of the soil series within the association are designated as prime farmlands and/or as hydric soils (NRCS, 2014).

Table 2-8 Soil Associations within the Study Area PRIME SOILS SOIL PERCENT OF HYDRIC DESCRIPTION FARMLAND SERIES ASSOCIATION SOIL ASSOCIATION SOIL Grimac Cni intv fNRCS 1991i _ 7f1141 Nearly level to strongly Axtell 24 No No sloping, moderately well Lufkin 21 No Yes drained and somewhat Gredge 21 No No Axtell-Lufkin- poorly drained, loamy soils Gredge on uplands and terraces; formed under forest Other 34 - - vegetation Gently sloping or Depcor 38 No No moderately sloping, Fetzer 22 No No moderately well drained Huntsburg 21 No No Depcor-Fetzer- and somewhat poody Huntsburg drained sandy soils on uplands and terraces; Other 19 - - formed under forest vegetation Nearly level to strongly Singleton 23 No No sloping, well drained or Burlewash 21 No No moderately well drained, Shiro 21 No No Singleton- sandy and loamy soils on Burlewash-Shiro uplands and terraces; formed under forest Other 35 - - vegetation Gently sloping or Gomery 35 No No moderately sloping, Shiro 19 No No moderately well drained Elmina 17 No No Gomery-Shiro- and somewhat poorly Elmina drained, sandy soils on uplands and terraces; Other 29 - - formed under forest vegetation Gently sloping or Robco 32 No No Robco-Chazos- moderately sloping, Chazos 29 Yes No Axtell moderately well drained, Axtell 16 No No

2-34 112 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-8 Soil Associations within the Study Area PRIME SOILS SOIL PERCENT OF HYDRIC DESCRIPTION FARMLAND ASSQCIATIOA! SERIES ASSOCIATION SOIL SOIL sandy and loamy soils on uplands and terraces; Other 23 - - formed under forest vegetation Gently sloping or Conroe 45 No No moderately sloping, Depcor 39 No No moderately well drained, Conroe-Depcor sandy soils on uplands and terraces; formed under Other 16 forest vegetation Gently sloping or Frelsburg 42 Yes No moderately sloping, well Crockett 15 No No Frelsburg- drained and moderately Brenham 12 No No Crockett- well drained, loamy and Brenham clayey soils on uplands and terraces; formed under Other 31 - - prairie vegetation Gently sloping or Falba 42 No No moderately sloping, Shiro 13 No No moderately well drained, Falba-Shiro- Greenvine 12 Yes No sandy, loamy, and clayey Greenvine soils on uplands and terraces; formed under Other 33 - - prairie vegetation Nearly level, moderately Gladewater 38 No Yes well drained to somewhat Gladewater- Nahatche 29 No Yes poorly drained, loamy and Nahatche- Gowker 20 No No clayey soils on flood Gowker plains; formed in recent Other 13 - - alluvium Nearly level to gently Brazoria 42 Yes No sloping, well drained to Norwood 27 No Yes Brazoria- somewhat poorly drained, Norwood loamy and clayey soils on flood plains; formed in Other 31 - - recent alluvium Harris County (USDA-SCS,1976; NRCS, 2014) Clodine 19 No No Nearly level, loamy, prairie Clodine-Addicks- Addicks 31 No Yes soils; poorly drained , and Gessner moderately permeable Gessner 27 Yes Yes Other 23 - - Nearly level, loamy, prairie Wockley 55 Yes Yes soils; somewhat poorly Gessner 22 Yes Yes Wockley- drained and poorly Gessner drained, moderately slowly permeable and moderately Other 223 permeable soils Nearly level, loamy, prairie Katy 41 Yes Yes soils; somewhat poorly Aris 20 Yes Yes Katy-Aris drained and poorly drained, very slowly Other 39 - - permeable soils

2-35 113 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-8 Soil Associations within the Study Area PRIME SOILS SOIL PERCENT OF HYDRIC DESCRIPTION FARMLAND SERIES ASSOCIATION SOIL ASSOCIATION SOIL Nearly level to gently Segno 34 Yes No sloping, loamy, forested Hockley 32 Yes No Segno-Hockley soils; moderately well drained and moderately Other 34 - - slowly permeable Waller Cniinhr (I ISnA-SCS_ 1984: NRCS. 20141 Nearly level to gently Katy 60 Yes Yes sloping, somewhat poorly Katy drained, loamy soils of Other 40 - - prairies Nearly level to gently Hockley 28 Yes No Hockley- sloping, moderately well Wockley 16 Yes Yes Wockley- drained and somewhat Monaville 11 No No Monaville poorly drained, loamy and sandy soils of prairies Other 45 - - Nearly level to gently Wockley 38 Yes Yes sloping, somewhat poorly Hockley 18 Yes No Wockley-Hockley drained and moderately well drained, loamy soils of Other 44 - - prairies Gently sloping to sloping, Tabor 25 No No moderately well drained No Tabor-Tremona- Tremona 18 No and somewhat poorly Chazos Chazos 12 Yes No drained, loamy and sandy soils of savannahs Other 45 - - Gently sloping to sloping, Kenney 31 No Yes well drained and 15 No No Kenney-Tabor- Tabor moderately well drained, Chazos Chazos 8 Yes No sandy and loamy soils of savannahs Other 46 - - Lake Nearly level to gently 50 Yes No sloping , somewhat poorly Charles Lake Charles- drained and poorly Midland 30 No No Midland-Edna drained, clayey and loamy Edna 10 No Yes soils of prairies Other 10 - - Nearly level to gently Depcor 25 No No sloping, moderately well Yes Yes Depcor- Spendora 15 drained and somewhat Boy 12 No Yes Splendora-Boy poorly drained, sandy and loamy soils of timberlands Other 48 - - Gently sloping to strongly Conroe 45 No No sloping, moderately well Landman 15 No No Conroe-Landman drained, sandy soils of 40 - - timberlands Other Source: USDA-SCS, 1976, 1984; NRCS, 1996, 2014.

2.4.2.2 Prime Farmland Soils The Secretary of Agriculture, within U.S.C. §7-4201(c)(1)(A), defines prime farmland soils as those soils that have the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. They have the soil quality, growing

2-36 114 Brazos Valley Connection

season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed, including water management, according to acceptable farming methods. Additional potential prime farmlands are those soils that meet most of the requirements of prime farmland, but fail because they lack the installation of water management facilities or they lack sufficient natural moisture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture ("USDA") would consider these soils prime farmland if such practices were installed, and these soils are incorporated as Prime Farmland soils in Table 2-8.

According to the NRCS (2014) Web Soil Survey data, there are multiple soil series designated as prime farmland soils located within the study area. The soil associations listed in Table 2-8 were compared to listed prime farmland soil map units and prime farmlands were indicated if the mapped units were listed within the soil series. This does not imply that all map units within the soil series are considered prime farmlands (NRCS, 2014).

This transmission line project is not subject to the requirements of the NEPA or the Farmland Protection Policy Act ("FPPA") because this project will not be completed by, and will not receive assistance from, any Federal agency. The proposed project is exempt from the FPPA because transmission lines are not a conversion of Important Farmlands and the site can still be used after construction (as per NRCS letter to POWER on June 18, 2014; Appendix A).

2.4.3 Water Resources Water resources evaluated in this study include surface water and groundwater. Information on water resources within the study area was obtained from a variety of sources, including the TPWD list of ecologically significant stream segments (2014d), TCEQ report on water quality impairments (2012), FEMA floodplain data (2014), Texas Water Development Board ("TWDB") state water plan (2012), USGS topographical maps (USGS, 2013a - w), and aerial photographs (Google 2014).

2.4.3.1 Surface Waters The study area is located within the Brazos and San Jacinto River basins, with the divide between the two basins running approximately north-south through the center of the study area (TWDB, 2014a). The northwest section of the study area drains into the Navasota River. The southwest half of the study area drains into the Brazos River, which varies from two to 12 miles west of the study area. The confluence of the Navasota and Brazos Rivers is located approximately 0.40 mile north-northeast of the City of Washington, Texas, approximately six

2-37 115 Brazos Valley Connection miles west of the study area. The eastern half of the study area drains into the San Jacinto River, which runs north to southeast approximately nine to 35 miles east of the study area. Major water features in the study area include Gibbons Creek, Gibbons Creek Reservoir, and Clear Creek draining west towards the Brazos River, and Lake Creek, Caney Creek, Mill Creek, and Spring Creek flowing east towards the San Jacinto River. Minor water features in the study area include numerous smaller creeks, lakes, reservoirs, and ponds.

All surface waters and their associated wetlands located within the study area are subject to USACE regulations as "waters of the U.S." under Section 404 of the CWA.

Navigable waters and associated tributaries or backwaters located within the study area may be subject to USACE regulations as "navigable waters of the U.S." under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Review of a list of Section 10 waters in the USACE-Fort Worth District does not indicate any Section 10 (navigable waters) located within the Grimes County portion of the study area (USACE, 1999). While the Harris and Waller Counties portion of the study area is within the USACE-Galveston District, which determines navigable waters on a case-by-case basis and thus does not publish a list of Section 10 waters; it is not anticipated that any navigable waters are located within the study area.

2.4.3.2 Special Status Waters Under 31 T.A.C. 357.8, TPWD has identified Ecologically Significant Stream Segments ("ESSS") based on habitat value, threatened and endangered species, species diversity, and aesthetic value criteria. Review of the TPWD (2014d) data indicates two designated ESSS stream segments within the study area: Lake Creek and Clear Creek. The ESSS portion of Lake Creek within the study area stretches from the eastern boundary of the study area, just east of Richards, upstream to a point 2.5 miles upstream of SH 30. It qualified for ESSS designation because of its biological function and high water quality/exceptional aquatic life. It hosts valuable bottomland hardwood habitat, has high water quality, and a diverse benthic macroinvertebrate community (TPWD, 2014d). The ESSS portion of Clear Creek within the study area stretches from the western boundary of the study area east of Hempstead, upstream to its headwaters north of Prairie View. It qualified for ESSS designation because of its biological function and high aesthetic value. Its aquatic habitat has a high degree of biodiversity (TPWD, 2014d).

2-38 116 Brazos Valley Connection

The Katy Prairie Stream Mitigation Bank protects approximately 20 miles of tributaries of Cypress Creek in Harris County. In 2008 the Warren Family and the Katy Prairie Conservancy developed a state and federal stream mitigation bank under the authority of the USACE- Galveston District.

In accordance with Section 303(d) and 304(a) of the CWA, the TCEQ identifies surface waters with one or more impairments. The index is divided into two main categories: Category 4 includes impaired waters for which Total Maximum Daily Loads ("TMDL") have already been adopted, or for which other management strategies are underway to improve water quality, Category 5 (303d List) includes impaired waters for which TMDLs or other management strategies are planned. Review of the TCEQ (2012), Texas Integrated Report of Surface Water Quality (formerly called the 303(d) list) lists three impaired water bodies within the study area: Gibbons Creek, Spring Creek, and Cypress Creek. Gibbons Creek flows through the northwestern corner of the study area and the entire portion within the study area is listed as impaired due to bacteria. It is listed as Category 5b, indicating that "A review of the standards for one or more parameters will be conducted before a management strategy is selected, including a possible revision to the water quality standards." The impaired portion of Spring Creek within the study area stretches from the eastern boundary on the Harris/Grimes County line, upstream to the most upstream crossing of FM 1736 in Waller County. It has a category 5c impairment for depressed dissolved oxygen, meaning that "additional data or information will be collected and/or evaluated before a management strategy is selected." It has a category 4a impairment for bacteria, indicating that all TMDLs have been completed and approved by the USEPA. The impaired portion of Cypress Creek within the study area stretches from the eastern boundary in Harris County, upstream to the confluence with Snake and Mound Creeks in Waller County. It has a Category 4a impairment for bacteria, indicating that all TMDLs have been completed and approved by the USEPA.

2.4.3.3 Floodplains

Available floodplain and floodway data were obtained from FEMA. The 100-year flood (1 % flood or base flood) represents a flood event that has a 1 % chance of being equaled or exceeded for any given year. Detailed FEMA flood hazard boundary maps show the 100-year floodplain includes a large portion of the study area. FEMA mapped floodplains occur primarily on low lying areas near creeks (FEMA, 2014).

2-39 117 Brazos Valley Connection

2.4.3.4 Future Surface Water Developments A review of the 2012 Texas state water plan did not indicate any evaluated, proposed, or potential new major reservoirs within the study area (TWDB, 2012).

2.4.3.5 Ground Water The Gulf Coast Aquifer is the major groundwater aquifer that underlies the majority of the study area (TWDB, 2012). No minor aquifers were mapped within the study area (TWDB, 2012). The Gulf Coast Aquifer extends along the Texas Gulf Coast from Louisiana to Mexico. The Gulf Coast Aquifer was deposited in a way that generated interbedded sand and clay layers.

Review of the TWDB (2014b) water well data indicated numerous public and private water wells located throughout the study area. Public water well locations were mapped within the study area. Review of the USGS topographic maps indicated numerous springs within the study area, primarily in the northwest portion where Eocene-aged sedimentary rock formations underlie the study area. These include Kellum Springs, Sulphur Springs, and several other unnamed springs (USGS, 2013a - w).

2.4.4 Ecological Resources 2.4.4.1 Ecological Region The study area is located within four different Level III and IV Ecoregions: Western Gulf Coastal Plain-Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies, South Central Plains-Southern Tertiary Uplands, East Central Texas Plains-Southern Post Oak Savannah, and Texas Blackland Prairies- Southern Blackland Prairie (Griffith et al., 2007).

The Western Gulf Coastal Plain-Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies characterize the southern one-third of the study area. Original vegetation was mostly grassland with a few clusters of oaks. Almost all of the coastal prairies have been converted to cropland, rangeland, pasture, or urban land uses (Griffith et al., 2007).

The South Central Plains-Southern Tertiary Uplands, locally termed the "piney woods", characterizes much of the eastern portion of the study area and is largely dominated by pine forest (Griffith et al., 2007).

The East Central Texas Plains-Southern Post Oak Savannah characterizes the west-central and northwest portions of the study area and was originally covered by post oak savanna.

2-40 118 Brazos Valley Connection

Current land cover is a mix of post oak woods, improved pasture, and rangeland (Griffith et al., 2007).

The Texas Blackland Prairies-Southern Blackland Prairie, also known as the "Fayette Prairie" characterizes a large patch in the north-central study area. The original vegetation was largely prairie. Current land cover is a complex mosaic of cropland, pasture, and post oak woods (Griffith et al., 2007).

2.4.4.2 Vegetation Types The study area is located within the Gulf Prairies, Post Oak Savannah, and Blackland Prairie vegetational areas of Texas (Gould et al., 1960). Frye et al., (1984) mapped five vegetation types within the study area: Crops, Native and/or Introduced Grasses, Pine-Hardwood Forest, Young Forest/Grassland, and Post Oak Woods, Forest and Grassland Mosaic. The Gould et al., (1960) and Fry et al., (1984) vegetation maps are roughly similar to the Level IV ecoregions described in Section 2.4.4.1 (see Figure 2-5).

Vegetation within Northern Humid Gulf Coastal Prairies includes prairie grasslands with little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), yellow Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), brownseed paspalum (Paspalum plicatulum), gulf muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaris), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), with some clusters of southern live oak (Quercus virginiana). Riparian forests are dominated by water oak (Quercus nigra), pecan (Carya illinoinensis), southern live oak, American elm (Ulmus americana), cedar elm (Ulmus crassifoila), and sugar hackberry (Celtis laevigata) (Griffith et al., 2007).

Vegetation within Southern Tertiary Uplands includes the historically dominant longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) woodlands, longleaf pine savannahs, pine-hardwood forests, bogs, and sandstone glades with pines and drought tolerant oaks. Dominant species include loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), blackjack oak (Quercus marilandica), sand post oak (Quercus margaretta), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria), hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), slender bluestem (Schizachyrium tenerum), broomsedge bluestem (Andropogon virginicus), and little bluestem (McMahan et al., 1984; Griffith et al., 2007).

2-41 119 Legend BRAZOS VALLEY CONNECTION Vegetational Areas Boundary 1 Pineywoods FIGURE 2-5 2 Gulf Prairies and Marshes 0 30 60 120 180 240 3 Post Oak Savannah LOCATION OF STUDY AREA 4 Blackland Prairies RELATION TO THE 5 Cross Timbers and Pralines IN Miles 6 South Texas Plams VEGETATIONAL 7 Edwards Plateau AREAS OF TEXAS 8 Rolling Plains 9 High Plains *N POWER 10 Trans-Pecos ^ ENGINEERS EH&W Source Gould, et al, 1960 ^ County Boundary Date 4/17/2015

2-42 Brazos Valley Connection

Vegetation within Southern Post Oak Savannah includes oak savannas or oak-hickory forest with post oak (Quercus stellata), blackjack oak, and black hickory (Carya texana) in the overstory, and an understory of eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), mesquite (Prosopis spp.), sandjack oak (Quercus incana), cedar elm, winged elm (Ulmus alata), farkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), yaupon, poison oak (Toxicodendron sp.), American beautyberry, hawthorn, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), coral-berry (Symphoricarpos orbiculatus), little bluestem, purpletop (Tridens flavus), curly threeawn (Aristida desmantha), yellow indiangrass, sand lovegrass (Eragrostis trichodes), and beaked panicum (Panicum anceps) (McMahan et al., 1984; Griffith et al., 2007).

Vegetation within Southern Blackland Prairie was historically tallgrass prairie with little bluestem, brownseed paspalum, big bluestem (Andropogon gerardl), yellow indiangrass, tall dropseed (Sporobolus compositus), asters (Aster spp.), diamondflower (Stenaria nigricans), prairie clovers (Trifolium spp.), and black-eyed susan (Rudbeckia hirta). In more mesic areas, eastern gamagrass (Tripsacum dactyloides), and switchgrass are present. Wooded areas are comprised of post oak, blackjack oak, and eastern red cedar. Riparian forests have bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa), Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii), sugar hackberry, elm, ash (Fraxinus spp.), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), and pecan.

Non-native landcover within the study area includes urban and disturbed land, improved pastureland, and cropland. Crops in this region typically include rice, soybeans, grain sorghum, cotton, corn, wheat, pecans, and hay (Griffith et al., 2007).

Terrestrial Habitats Terrestrial habitats within the study area include prairie grasslands, pine woodlands, pine savannahs, pine-hardwood forests, oak savannas, oak-hickory forest, bottomland hardwood forest, bogs, sandstone glades, pasture lands, croplands, and urban/developed areas. The remaining terrestrial landscape is dissected by roads, gravel and sand quarries, residential subdivisions and commercial developments, and utility lines. Potential tree and shrub species occurring within the study area are summarized in Table 2-9. The occurrence, density, and composition of wooded areas depend on location, hydrology, soil type and magnitude of previous ground disturbance or land management activities (Griffith et al., 2007).

2-43 121 Brazos Valley Connection

Tahle 9_9 Pntential TrePJShruh Snecies within the Studv Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME American beautyberry Callicar a americana Mesquite Proso SPP. American elm Ulmus americana Pecan Ca a illinoinensis Ash Fraxinus s. Post oak Quercus stellata Black Hickory Cara texana Sand post oak Quercus mar aretta Blackjack oak Quercus marilandlca Sand'ack oak Quercus incana Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa Sassafras Sassafras albidum Cedar elm Ulmus crassifolia Shortleaf pine Anus echinata Chinese tallow Triadica sebifera Shumard oak Quercus shumardii Coral-berry S m horicar os orbiculatus Southern Live oak Quercus vir iniana Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides Southern red oak Quercus falcata Eastern red cedar Juni erus vir lniana Sugar hackberry Celtis laevi ata Farkleberry l/acciniumarboreum Sweet um Li uidambarst raciflua Flowering dogwood Cornus florida Water oak Quercus ni ra Hawthorn Cratae us s. Winged elm Ulmus alata Loblolly pine Pinus taeda Yaupon Ilex vomitorla Source: McMahan et al., 1964; (irittith et al., zuui.

Of particular interest within the study area is the Katy Prairie in Harris and Waller Counties. The Katy Prairie Conservancy (KPC) protects over 17,000 acres within the study area. As one of the largest conserved prairies in Texas, the Katy Prairie provides important habitat for native prairie plants and wildlife, including several threatened and endangered species and species of concern. The National Audubon Society designated the Katy Prairie as one of 17 Globally Important Bird Areas in Texas.

Aquatic and Hydric Habitats Aquatic habitats within the study area are associated with surface waters and wetlands. These habitats are numerous and rather evenly dispersed throughout the study area. Other aquatic habitats may be associated with the tributaries to these surface waters, including pooled areas of perennial or intermittent drainages. Emergent vegetation in these aquatic habitats is typically limited to the shallow areas along the shorelines or within shallow marshes. Aquatic environments support vegetative species, such as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), cabomba (Cabomba caroliniana), pickereiweed (Pontederia cordata), pennyworts (Hydrocotyle spp.), water lilies (Nymphaea spp.), spiderworts (Tradescantia spp.), duckweeds (Lemna spp.), widgeongrass (Ruppia maritima), and glasswort (Salicornia depressa) (McMahan et al., 1984).

2-44 122 Brazos Valley Connection

The hydric habitats in the study area are primarily located within floodplains, riparian, and depressional wetland areas associated with creeks, bottomland areas, ponds, and lakes. These habitats undergo a seasonal inundation and maintain saturated soils. Typical woody plant species in these riparian areas include Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera), pecan, lime prickly ash (Zanthoxylum fagara), water oak, black hickory, and winged elm (McMahan et al., 1984; Griffith et al., 2007).

Mapped emergent wetlands are particularly numerous in the southern half of the study area, with the largest examples occurring in the vicinity of Cypress Creek. These wetlands are comprised of aquatic species, such as cattails (Typha spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), flatsedges (Cyperus spp.), smartweeds (Polygonum spp.), bulrushs (Scirpus spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), water hyacinth, water-pennywort, pickerelweed, arrowhead, white waterlily (Nymphaea odorata), cabomba, coontail, and duckweed (McMahan et al., 1984).

Mapped wetland information was derived from digital copies of the NWI maps (USFWS, 2014a). NWI maps are based on topography and interpretation of infrared satellite data and color aerial photographs and are classified under the Cowardin System (Cowardin et al., 1979). These maps are typically conservative estimates of wetlands, primarily because the hydrology of the area has likely been modified by ground disturbing activities, such as farming, channelized streams, installation of levees and drainages. Review of NWI data indicated numerous wetlands throughout the study area with wetland types including palustrine (freshwater) emergent ("PEM"), palustrine forested ("PFO"), palustrine scrub/shrub ("PSS"), freshwater ponds (palustrine unconsolidated bottom; "PUB"), and lakes (lacustrine; "L"). PEM wetlands consist of rooted herbaceous hydrophytes located in pond margins, freshwater marshes, or shallow water areas. PFO and PSS wetlands are mapped throughout the study area, primarily within floodplains along creeks. PFO wetlands are wetland areas comprised of hydrophytic trees that constitute 30% or greater of the areal vegetation coverage. PSS wetlands are areas where hydrophytic trees constitute less than 30% and the scrub-shrub layer constitutes 30% or greater of the areal vegetation cover. The dredging or filling of materials within jurisdictional wetlands is regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. Additional coordination with the USACE may be required to determine if any permit requirements will be necessary for the construction of the proposed transmission line.

Several stream and wetland mitigation banks were identified along the Cypress Creek watershed in Harris and Waller Counties protecting nearly 5,000 acres of aquatic and wetland

2-45 123 Brazos Valley Connection habitat. These mitigation banks provide valuable habitat for plants and wildlife and reduce sediment and pollutant offloads from nearby roads, agriculture and development.

2.4.4.3 Wildlife and Fisheries Wildlife The study area is located on the eastern border of the Texan Biotic Province (see Figure 2-6) (Blair, 1950). The Texan Biotic Province is located adjacent to the Austroriparian Biotic Province to the east and some overlap between these two provinces would be anticipated. At the time of publication, the Texan Biotic Province was known to support 13 anurans, five urodeles, 39 snake species, nine lizards, two land turtles, and at least 49 species of mammals (Blair, 1950).

2-46 124 Legend BRAZOS VALLEY CONNECTION Biotic Province Boundary 0 FIGURE 2-6 ^ County Boundary 0 30 60 120 180 240 LOCATION OF STUDY AREA IN RELATION TO THE Miles BIOTIC PROVINCES OF TEXAS

Wfw'"' ENGtNEERS Source Blwr, 1950, modified Date 4/17/2015

2-47 Brazos Valley Connection

Amphibian species (frogs, toads, salamanders and newts) that potentially occur within the study area counties are listed in Table 2-10. Frogs and toads may occur in all vegetation types and salamanders and newts are typically restricted to moist habitats (Tipton et al., 2012).

Table 2-10 Amphibian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area Counties COMMON NAME I SCIENTIFIC NAME Froqs/Toads American bullfrog Lithobates catesbeianus Blanchard's cricket frog Acris btanchardi Cope's gray tree frog Hyla chr soscelis Couch's spadefoot toad Sca hio us couchii Crawfish frog Lithobates areolatus Eastem narrow-mouth toad Gastro h ne carolinensis Fowler's toad Anaxyrus fowleri Gray tree frog Hyla versico%r Green frog Lithobates clamitans Green tree frog Hyla cinerea Gulf Coast toad lncilius nebulifer Houston toad Anaxyrus houstonensis Hurter's spadefoot toad Sca hio us hurteri Pickerel frog Lithobates palustrIs Rio Grande chirping Frog- S rrho hus c sti nathoides Rocky mountain toad Anaxyrus woodhousii Southern leopard frog Lithobates s henoce halus Spotted chorus frog Pseudacrus darkii Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer Squirrel tree frog Hyla s uireNa Strecker's chorus frog Pseudacris streckeri Upland chorus frog Pseudacris feriarum Western narrow-mouthed toad Gastro hr ne olivacea Salamanders/Newts Dwarf salamander Eurycea uadridi itata Eastern newt Notophthalmus viridescens Marbled salamander Ambystoma opacum Small-mouthed salamander Ambystoma texanum Three-toed amphiuma Am hiuma tridact lum Westem lesser siren Siren intermedia Source: (Tipton et al., 2012).

2-48 126 Brazos Valley Connection

Reptiles (turtles, crocodilians, lizards and snakes) potentially occurring within the study area are listed in Table 2-11. These include those species that are commonly observed near water (i.e., aquatic turtles, alligators, and some snakes) and those that are more common in terrestrial habitats (Dixon, 2013).

Table 2-11 Reptilian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Turtles Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii Chicken turtle Delrochel s retlcularla mlana Diamond-backed terra pin Malac%m s terrapin littoralls Eastern box turtle Terra ene carollna Eastern mud turtle Kinosternon subrubrum hi ocre ls Eastern musk turtle Sternotherus odoratus Eastern snapping turtle Chelydra ser entina False map turtle Gra tem s pseudqqeoqraph1ca Ornate box turtle Terrapene ornata ornata Pallid spiny softshell A alone s rnlfera allida Red-eared pond slider Trachem s scri ta elegans Razor-backed musk turtle Sternotherus carinatus River cooter Pseudemys conclnna Smooth softshell Apalone mutica Texas cooter Pseudern s texana Yellow mud turtle Kinosternon flavescens Crocodilians American alligator Alliqatormississippiensis Lizards Broad-headed skink Plestiodon latice s Brown anole Norops sa rel Common five-lined skink Plestiodon fasciatus Common spotted whiptail As idoscelis ularis Eastern six-lined race runner As idoscells sexllneatus Green anole Anolis carolinensis Little brown skink Scincella lateralis Mediterranean gecko Hemidactylus turcicus Prairie lizard Sceloporus consobrinus Prairie skink Plestlodon se tentrionalis obtusirostris Slender glass lizard 0 hisaurus attenuatus Texas horned lizard Ph nosoma cornutum Texas spiny lizard Sceloporus olivaceus

Blotched water snake Nerodla erythroqastertransversa Broad banded water snake Nerodia fasciata confluens

2-49 127 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-11 Rentilian Snecies Potentially Occurrina within the Studv Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Buttermilk racer Coluber constrictor anthicus Checkered garter snake Thamnophis marclanus Diamond-backed water snake Nerodia rhombifer Eastern coachwhip Mastico his fi4ellum flagellum Eastern garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis Eastem hog-nosed snake Heterodon platirhinos Eastern yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor fla viventris Flat-headed snake Tantilla racilis Glossy crayfish snake Regina ri ida sinlcola Graham's crayfish snake Regina graham# Gulf Coast ribbon snake Thamnophis proximus orarius Louisiana milk snake Lam ro eltis triangulum amaura Marsh brown snake Storeria deka i limnetes Mississi ppi green water snake Nerodia c c% ion Mississippi ring-necked snake Diado his punctatus stricto en s Plains hog-nosed snake Heterodon nasicus Prairie king snake Lam ro eltis calli aster Pygmy rattlesnake Sistrurus millarius streckeri Red-bellied mud snake Farancia abacura reinwardtil Red corn snake Panthero his uttata Rough earth snake l/ir inia striatula Rough green snake 0 heodr s aestivus Smooth green snake 0 heod s vernalls Southern copperhead A kistrodon contortrix contortrix Southern Texas ground snake Sonora semiannulata ta lori Speckled king snake Lam ro eltis etula holbrooki Texas brown snake Storeria deka ltexana Texas coral snake Micrurus tener Texas glossy snake Arizona elegans arenicola Texas lined snake Tro ldoc%nion llneatum texanum Texas rat snake Panthero his obsoleta lindheimeri Texas thread snake Rena dulcis Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus Western coachwhi p Mastico his flagellum testaceus Westem cottonmouth A kistrodon iscivorus leucostoma Westem diamond-backed rattlesnake Crotalus atrox Source: Dixon, 2013.

Numerous avian species are present within the study area, including year-round residents as listed in Table 2-12 (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014). Additional bird species may migrate through the study area in the spring and fall or use the area for nesting in the spring and summer or to overwinter. Migrant winter species that may potentially occur in the study area are

2-50 128 Brazos Valley Connection listed in Table 2-13 (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014). Summer residents that may potentially occur in the study area are listed in Table 2-14 (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014). The likelihood for occurrence of each species depends upon suitable habitat and season. All migratory birds have protection under the MBTA.

Table 2-12 Resident Bird Species Potentially Occurrina within the Studv Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME American coot Fullca americana American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos American kestrel Falco sparverius American robin Turdus migratorius Barn owl Tyto alba Barred owl Strix varia Black vulture Coragyps atratus Black-bellied whistling duck Dendrocygna autumnalls Black-crowned night-heron Nyctlcoraxnyctlcorax Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus Blue jay Cyanocitta crlstata Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Carolina chickadee Poecile carolinensis Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovlcianus Common gallinule Gallinulagaleata Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula Crested caracara Caracara cherlway Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Eastern meadowlark Sturnella magna Eastern phoebe Sa ornis hoebe Eastern screech owl Megascops asio Eurasian collared-dove Streptopella decaocto European starling Sturnus vulgarls Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Great blue heron Ardea herodias Great egret Ardea alba Great horned owl Bubo virginlanus Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Horned lark Eremophila alpestris House finch Haemorhous mexicanus House sparrow Passer domesticus Inca dove Columbina inca Killdeer Charadrius voclferus

2-51 129 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-12 Resident Bird Species Potentially Occurrin within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME King rail Rallus elegans Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus Least grebe Tachybaptus dominicus Loggerhead shrike Lanlus ludoviclanus Mottled duck Anas fulvigula Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Neotropic cormorant Phalacrocorax brasilianus Northern bobwhite Colinus virginlanus Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Pied-billed grebe Podilyrnbus podiceps Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineautus Red-tailed hawk Buteojamaicensis Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Rock pigeon Columba livia Roseate spoonbill Platalea ajaja Tufted titmouse Baeolophus bicolor Turkey vulture Cathartes aura White ibis Eudocimus albus White-eyed vireo Vireo griseus White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi White-tailed hawk Buteo albicaudatus White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus White-winged dove Zenaida asiatica Wood duck Aix sponsa Yellow-crowned night-heron Nyctanassa violacea Source- Lockwood and Freeman, 2014.

2-52 130 Brazos Valley Connection

I able z-i 3 winter migrant Bird Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME American bittern Botaurus lenti inosus American goldfinch Spinus tristis American pipit Anthus rubescens American white pelican Pe%canus er hrorh nchos American wigeon Anas americana American woodcock Sco% axminor Anhinga Anhinga anhinga Belted kingfisher Me acer le alc on Bewick's wren Thryomanes bewickii Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarlus Bonaparte's gull Chroicoce halus hiladel hia Brewer's blackbird Eu ha us c anoce halus Bronzed cowbird Mo%thrusaeneus Brown creeper Certhia americana Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum Bufflehead Buce hala albeola Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia Cackling goose Branta hutchinsii Canada goose Branta canadensls Canvasback A h a valisineria Cedar waxwing Bomb cilla cedrorum Chipping sparrow S lzella asserlna Cinnamon teal Anas c ano tera Common goldeneye Buce hala clan ula Common loon Ga via immer Dark-eyed junco Junco h emalls Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocoraxaurltus Eared grebe Podlce s ni ricollis Eastern towhee Pp lo e hro hthalmus Field sparrow S izella usllla Forster's tern Sterna forsterl Fox sparrow Passerella illaca Gadwall Anas strepera Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa Greater scaup A h a marila Greater white-fronted goose Anser albifrons Greater yellowlegs Trig a melanoleuca Green-winged teal Anas crecca Harris's sparrow Zonotrlchia uerula Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii Hermit thrush Catharus uttatus

2-53 131 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-13 Winter Migrant Bird Species Potent ially Occurring within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Herring gull Larus ar entatus Hooded Merganser Lo hod es cucullatus Horned grebe Podiceps auritus House wren T o lod es aedon Least sandpiper Calidns minutilla LeConte's sparrow Ammodramus leconteii Lesser scaup A h a afflnis Lincoln's sparrow Me%s iza lincolnli Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus Long-billed dowitcher Limnodromus sco% aceus Mallard Anas platyrliynchos Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Merlin Falco columbarius Northern flicker Cola tes auratus Northern harrier Circus cyaneus Northern pintail Anas acuta Northern shoveler Anas clypeata Orange-crowned warbler Oreothl ls celata Osprey Pandion haliaetus Peregrine falcon Falco ere rinus Pine siskin S inus inus Pine warbler Seto ha a pinus Red-breasted merganser Mer us serrator Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis Redhead A h a americana Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis Ring-necked duck A h a collaris Ross's goose Chen rossil Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula Ruddy duck Oxyura amaicensis Rusty blackbird Eu ha us carolinus Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Sedge wren Cistothorus latensls Sharp-shinned hawk Acci iterstriatus Short-eared owl Asio flammeus Snow goose Chen caerulescens Solitary sandpiper Trin a solitaria Song sparrow Me%s iza me%dia Sora Porzana carolina Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularius Spotted towhee Pp lo maculatus

2-54 132 Brazos Valley Connection

I able Z-13 Winter Migrant Bird Species Poten tially Occurring within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFiC NAME Swamp sparrow Me%s iza eor iana Tree swallow TaCl7ycineta bicolor Vesper sparrow Pooecetes ramineus Virginia rail Rallus llmicola Western meadowlark Sturnella ne lecta Western sandpiper Calidris mauri White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leuco hr s White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis Wilson's snipe Gallina o delicata Winter wren Troglodytes Memalls Yellow-bellied sapsucker S h ra icus varius Yellow-rumped warbler Seto ha a coronata Source: Lockwood and Freeman, 2014

Table 2-14 Summer Migrant Bird Species Potentially Occurrinq within the Studv Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Acadian flycatcher Em idonax virescens Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Black-and-white warbler Mniotilta varia Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polio tlla caerulea Blue grosbeak Passerina caerulea Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis Cave swallow Petrochelidon fulva Chimney swift Chaetura ela %a Chuck-will's-widow Antrostomus carolinensis Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas Cooper's hawk Acciccipiteerii Dickcissel Spiza americana Eastern bluebird Sialia sialis Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern wood-pewee Contopus vlrens Fulvous whistlin g duck Dendrocygna blco%r Great crested flycatcher M iarchus crinitus Green heron Butorldes virescens Indigo bunting Passerina cyanea

2-55 133 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-14 Summer Migrant Bird Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Kentucky warbler Geothlypis formosa Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis Little blue heron Egretta caerulea Louisiana waterthrush Parkesia motacilla Mississippi kite lctinia mississippiensis Northern parula Seto ha a americana Northern rough-winged swallow Stel ido ter x serri ennis Orchard oriole Icterus s urlus Painted buntin g Passerina ciris Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea Purple gallinule Por h rio martinicus Purple martin Pro ne subis Red-eyed vireo Vireo olivaceus Ruby-throated hummin gbird Archilochus colubris Scissor-tailed flycatcher Tyrannus fofficatus Snowy egret Egretta hula Summer tanager Piran a rubra Swainson's warbler Limnothl is swainsonii Swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus Tricolored heron Fqretta tricolor Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalls Worm-eating warbler Helmitheros vermivorum Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Yellow-breasted chat Icteria wrens Yellow-throated vireo Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated warbler Seto ha a dominica Source: Lockwood and Freeman, 2014

Mammals potentially occurring in the study area are listed in Table 2-15 (Schmidly, 2004). The occurrence of each species depends upon the availability of suitable habitat.

2-56 134 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-15 Mammalian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME American badger Taxldea taxus American beaver Castor canadensis American mink Neovison vison Baird's pocket gopher Geomys breviceps Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus Big free-tailed bat N ctinmo s macrotis Black-tailed jackrabbit Le us californicus Bobcat Lynx rufus Brazilian free-tailed bat Wanda brasillensis Common gray fox Urocyon clnereoar enteus Common raccoon Procyon lotor Cotton mouse Perom scus oss inus Coyote Canis latrans Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Eastern cottontail S lvila us floridanus Eastem fox squirrel Sclurus ni er Eastern gray squirrel Sclurus carolinensis Eastem harvest mouse Relthrodontom s humulis Eastern mole Scalopus a uaticus Eastern pipistrelle Perlm otis subflavus Eastern red bat Lasiurus borealis Eastern spotted skunk Sp/lo ale utorius Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana Evening bat N ctlcelus humeralis Feral pig Sus scrofa Fulvous harvest mouse Reithrodontom s fulvescens Golden mouse Ochrotorn s nuttalli His id cotton rat Si modon hispidus His id pocket mouse Chaetodipus hispidus Hoary bat Laslurus cinereus Hog-nosed skunk Conepatus leuconotus House mouse Mus musculus Least shrew C totis parva Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Marsh rice rat Or zom s alustris Mountain lion Puma concolor Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Nine-banded armadillo Dasypus novemclnctus North river otter Lontra canadensis

2-57 135 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-15 Mammalian Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Northern pygmy mouse Baiomys ta lori Northern yellow bat Lasiurus intermedius Norway rat Rattus norve icus Nutria M ocastorco us Plains harvest mouse Relthrodontom s montanus Prairie vole Microtus ochro aster Rafinesque's big-eared bat Co norhinus rafines uii Red fox Vulpes vul es Ringtail Bassariscus astutus Roof rat Rattus rattus Seminole bat Lasiurus seminolus Silver-haired bat Lasion cterls noctiva ans Southeastern myotis M otls austrori arius Southern flying squirrel Glaucom s volans Southern short-tailed shrew Blarlna carolinensis Striped skunk Mephitis me hltis Swamp rabbit S lvila us a uaticus Virginia opossum Didel his vir inlana Thirteen-lined ground squirrel S ermo hilus tridecemlineatus White-footed mouse Peromyscus leuco us White-tailed deer Odocoileus vir inianus Source: Schmidly, 2004.

Fisheries The divisions of the biotic provinces were separated on the basis of terrestrial vertebrate distributions; however, the distribution of freshwater fish generally corresponds with the terrestrial province boundaries (Hubbs et al., 2008). Areas showing the greatest deviation from this general rule include northeast Texas and the coastal zone.

The small headwater ephemeral streams and intermittent flowing streams support aquatic species primarily adapted to ephemeral pool habitats. These habitat types will support aquatic species that are typically adapted to rapid dispersal and life cycle completion within in-pool habitats typically having fine-grained substrates. In stream reaches dominated by scoured, sandy-clay bottoms, accumulations of woody debris or leaf pack provide the most important feeding and refuge areas for invertebrates and forage fish. The softer muddy bottoms generally harbor substantial populations of burrowing invertebrates (e.g., larval diptera and oligochaetes) which can be an important food source to higher aquatic trophic levels.

2-58 136 Brazos Valley Connection

The perennial streams, large ponds, and lakes provide consistent aquatic habitat for all trophic levels with fish the most prominent. The relatively stable water levels of the reservoirs and the constant pools and flow of the streams facilitate stable population growth. Species with flowing water or pooled area habitat requirements will utilize perennial streams and those adapted for deeper waters will utilize the lake and pond environments. The larger populations of fish also attract fish eating bird species. Table 2-16 indicates the fish species potentially occurring within the study area (Thomas et al., 2007).

Table 2-16 Fish Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME American eel Anguilla rostrata Banded pygmy sunfish Elassoma zonatum Bantam sunfish Lepomis symmetricus Bigscale logperch Percina macro% ida Black bullhead Ameiurus melas Black crappie Pomoxis ni romaculatus Blacks otted to minnow Fundulus olivaceus Blackstrie to minnow Fundulus notatus Blacktail shiner C rinella venusta Blue catfish lctalurus furcatus Blue ill Le omis macrochirus Blue sucker C c% tus e%n atus Bluntnose darter Etheostoma chlorosomum Bowfin Amia calva Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus Bullhead minnow Pime hales vi ilax Channel catfish lctalurus punctatus Common carp C rlnus car lo Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chubsucker Erim zon oblon us Cypress darter Etheostoma roeliare Dollar sunfish Lepomis mar inatus Dusky darter Percina sc%ra Emerald shiner Notro ls atherinoides Fathead minnow Pime hales romelas Flathead catfish P lodictis olivarls Flier Centrarchus macropterus Freckled madtom Noturus nocturnus Freshwater drum A odinotus runniens Ghost shiner Notro is buchananl Gizzard shad Dorosoma ce edianum Golden shiner Notemi onus c so%ucas Golden to minnow Fundulus chrysotus Goldfish Carasslus auratus Goldstripe darter Etheostoma aryl inne Grass carp Cteno ha n odon idella Green sunfish Le omis c anellus Lake chubsucker Erim zon sucetta Largemouth bass Micro terus salmoldes Lon ear sunfish Le omis me alotis

2-59 137 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-16 Fish Species Potentially Occurring within the Study Area COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Lon nose gar Le isosteus oseus Mexican tetra Astyanax mexicanus Mimic shiner Notro ls voluellus Mississippi silvery minnow H b nathus nuchalis Mountain mullet A onostomus monticola Oran es otted sunfish Le omis humilis Pallid shiner H bo sls amnis Pirate perch A hredoderus sayanus Pugnose minnow 0 so oeodus emiliae Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus Redear sunfish Le omis microlophus Redfin pickerel Esoxamericanus Redfin shiner L hams umbratilis Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis Reds otted sunfish Le omis miniatus Ribbon shiner L hrurus fumeus River car sucker Cariodes carpi o Scaly sand darter Ammocrypta vivax Shoal chub Macrhbo s/s h ostoma Silverband shiner Notro ls shumardl Slou gh darter Etheostoma gracile Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus Spotted gar Le isosteus oculatus Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops Starhead to minnow Fundulus dls ar Striped bass Morone saxatilis Tadpole madtom Noturus inus Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense Yellow bass Morone mississi iensls Yellow bullhead Ameiurus natalls Warmouth Le omis ulosus Weed Shiner Notropis texanus Western mos uitofish Gambusla affinis White bass Morone ch so s White crappie Poxlmus annularis Source: Thomas et al., 2007.

Perennial aquatic habitats located within the study area are associated with larger surface waters including Gibbons Creek Reservoir, Gibbons Creek, Lake Creek, Caney Creek, Mill Creek, and Spring Creek. Other aquatic habitats include smaller perennial and intermittent creeks, ponds, and marshes. The relatively stable water levels and the constant pools and flow of the streams facilitate stable population levels.

Smaller ponds and lakes located in the study area exhibit variability in terms of their age, drainage, use by cattle, past fish stocking, and fertilization history. These aquatic habitats are often exposed to full sunlight and do not typically experience the variations in flow as do

2-60 138 Brazos Valley Connection

streams after heavy rainfall events. Typically, fluctuations in water level are experienced during the summer months due to high evaporation rates, and repeated heavy rainfall events are required to fill the ponds completely. Periods of extended drought in the region may reduce the water level or dry the pond completely.

Several species of turtles, snakes, and amphibians are also dependent on perennial surface waters for their habitat requirements. Several of these species will infrequently use terrestrial habitats to migrate between surface waters, but they primarily inhabit perennial surface waters.

2.4.4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Data on special status species and unique vegetation resources within the study area were obtained from a variety of sources including correspondence with the USFWS and TPWD, and county lists of special status species (USFWS, 2014b; TPWD, 2014e). Additional information was obtained from published literature and technical reports. All biological resource inventory data for the study area was mapped utilizing GIS.

For the purpose of this routing study, emphasis was placed on obtaining known locations of unique vegetative communities and critical habitat or known occurrences of special status species that have been previously documented within the study area. Special status species include those listed by the USFWS as threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate; and those listed by TPWD as threatened, endangered or as a species of concern or rare species. A GIS shapefile of known occurrences for listed species and sensitive vegetative communities was obtained from the TXNDD in July 2014. Review of TXNDD data indicates occurrences of several state and federally listed plant and wildlife species within the study area. It should be noted that TXNDD data is not a substitute for presence/absence surveys, and absence of occurrence records does not necessarily indicate absence of the species. A TXNDD occurrence record is an indication that a species was observed in the study area at one time and may or may not currently inhabit the area. Species not designated as federally threatened or endangered are not afforded any regulatory protection under the ESA.

The USFWS and TPWD maintain listings for all threatened, endangered, and candidate species for each county. By federal definition, a threatened species is defined as likely to become endangered within the near future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. An endangered species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Candidate species are those that have sufficient information on their biological vulnerability and

2-61 139 Brazos Valley Connection threats to support listing as threatened or endangered, and are likely to be proposed for listing in the near future. The Grimes, Harris, and Waller County listings for federal and state listed species were obtained from the USFWS and TPWD (USFWS, 2014b; TPWD, 2014e).

The ESA also provides for the conservation of "designated critical habitat," which is defined as the areas of land, water, and air space that an endangered species needs for survival. These areas include sites with food and water, breeding areas, cover or shelter sites, and sufficient habitat to provide for normal population growth and behavior for the species. The primary threat to threatened and endangered species is the destruction or modification of critical habitat areas by uncontrolled land and water development. There is no "designated critical habitat" in or within five miles of the study area (USFWS, 2014c).

Plant Species There are two state and federally-listed endangered plant species for the study area counties: Texas prairie dawn (Hymenoxys texana) and Navasota ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes parksil) (USFWS, 2014b; TPWD, 2014e). Both have been recorded within the study area (TXNDD, 2014).

The Navasota ladies'-tresses is endemic to Texas and has been reported to occur in only 13 counties, including Grimes County (USFWS, 2009, 2014b). Numerous occurrences of this species have been documented in the northwestern portion of the study area (TXNDD, 2014). This terrestrial orchid prefers openings in post oak woodland habitats within areas of sandy loams along drainages or intermittent streams, ephemeral seeps and areas which have a perched water table associated with a clay pan (Poole et al., 2007). The flowering population of Navasota ladies'-tresses varies from year to year with individuals not flowering every year. The blooming period for the species is from late October to early November/December. Bumblebees are known pollinators (Poole et al., 2007).

The prairie dawn is also endemic to Texas and has been reported to occur in only three counties: Fort Bend, Harris, and Trinity (USFWS, 2014b). Within the study area, populations occur on KPC preserve system lands near Cypress Creek (TXNDD, 2014; KPC, 2014). Two Texas Prairie Dawn Mitigation Banks protect 205 acres of occupied Texas prairie dawn habitat on KPC lands. Habitats for the Texas prairie dawn include the base of poorly drained, sparsely vegetated pimple mounds in open grassland or mostly barren saline soils (Poole et al., 2007). Blooming periods for the species is from late February to early April.

2-62 140 Brazos Valley Connection

Wildlife Species The USFWS and TPWD threatened, endangered, or candidate species lists for Grimes, Harris, and Waller Counties include 36 wildlife species (USFWS, 2014b; TPWD, 2014e). Three species are candidates for threatened or endangered listing with the USFWS. These are provided in Table 2-17 and are briefly summarized after the table.

Table 2-17 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Listed Within the Study Area Counties

RECORDED LISTED COUNTIES LEGAL STATUS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME IN STUDY AREA?' Grimes Harris J Waller USFWSz- TPWD, Anaxyrus Houston toad Yes I houstonensis X X E E Birds American peregrine Falco peregrines falcon anatum No x X X DL T Falco peregrines Arctic peregrine falcon tundrius No x X X DL Attwater's greater Tympanuchus No X E prairie chicken cu ldo attwateri E Halieetus Bald eagle leucoce halus Yes x X X DL T Pe%canus Brown pelican occidentalis No X DL Sterna antillarum Interior least tern athalassos No x X E E Peregrine falcon Falco ere rines No x X X DL T Red-cockaded Plcoldes borealis woodpecker Yes x X E E Sprague's pipit Anthus spragueli No x X X C - White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi No x X - T White-tailed hawk Buteo albicaudatus No x X - T Whooping crane Grus amerlcana No x X X E E Myctena Wood stork No x X Americana X - T risn Cyc%ptus Blue sucker No X - T elongates Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus No x X - T Notropis Sharpnose shiner oxyrhynchus No x X E - Smalltooth sawfish Pristis pectinata No X E E nnammais Ursus americanus Louisiana black bear luteolus No x X X T T Rafinesque's big-eared Corynorhinus bat rafinesquii No X T

2-63 141 Brazos Valley Connection

Table 2-17 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Listed Within the Study Area Counties

RECORDED LISTED COUNTIES LEGAL STATUS COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME IN STUDY AREA?' Grimes Harris Waller USFWSz. TPWD3 Red wolf Canis rufus No X X X EXT EXT Trichechus No X E - West indian manatee manatus Mnllnsks

False Spike mussel Quadrula mitchelli No X X - T

Louisiana pigtoe Pleurobema riddellii No X - T Sandbank pocketbook Lampsilissatura No X - T Quadrula Smooth pimpleback < 5 miles X X C T houstonensis Texas fawnsfoot Truncilla macrodon No X X C T Texas pigtoe Fusconaia askewi No X - T RentileS Alligator snapping Macrochelys No X X X - T turtle temmrnckii Green Sea Turtle Che%nia mydas No X T T Kemp's Ridley sea Lepidochelys No X E E turtle kem li Dermochelys No X E E Leatherback sea turtle coriacea Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta No X T T Liochlorophis No X T Smooth green snake vernalis Phrynosoma No X X X - T Texas horned lizard cornutum Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus <5 miles X X X - T ' TXNDD, 2014. 2 USFWS, 2014b. 3 TPWD, 2014e. C - Candidate Species DL - Delisted Due to Recovery E - Federal or State Listed Endangered T- Federal or State Listed Threatened EXT - Extirpated

USFWS Listed Species Houston toad (Anaxyrus houstonensis) is the only USFWS listed amphibian species in Grimes, Harris, or Waller Counties. The Houston toad is restricted to deep sandy soil (> 40 inches) with sub-surface moisture within open woodland vegetation. Preferred habitats include loblolly pine forest, mixed-deciduous forest, post oak savanna, and coastal prairie. The toads are mostly nocturnal and hibernate/aestivate in burrows dug in the loose friable sandy soil. For breeding, including egg and tadpole development, the species requires still or slow-flowing bodies of water located within one-half mile of their burrow habitat that persists for at least 30 days during

2-64 142 Brazos Valley Connection

the late winter to early spring months. Populations have declined because of urbanization, development, agricultural practices, road mortality, deforestation, prolonged droughts, and coal mining activities. This toad may be found in isolated populations from Harris County west to Bastrop County within central and southeastern Texas (Campbell L., 2003). A specimen was collected near the northwest corner of the study area in Grimes County in 1962 (TXNDD, 2014). The species may occur within the study area if suitable habitat is present.

Two listed fish species are the federally-listed, including the endangered sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) and the federally and state-listed endangered smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). The sharpnosed shiner is endemic to the Brazos River drainage and prefers large turbid waters with a sand, gravel, and clay-mud bottoms (TPWD, 2014e). The smalltooth sawfish's range and abundance is unknown, but they can inhabit shallow coastal, estuarine, and brackish habitats. The smalltooth sawfish may inhabit multiple habitats throughout their lifespan. The young will inhabit sandy and muddy bottoms in bays, estuaries or river mouths, while the adults will occur in mangrove, reef, seagrass, and coral habitats (TPWD, 2014e). Neither of these species have been documented in or within five miles of the study area and are not anticipated to occur due to a lack of large rivers or coastal estuaries in the study area.

The Attwater's greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri) is a medium sized grouse that historically inhabited much of the Texas coastal prairie. Prime habitat is described as large tracts of open native tall grass coastal prairie, dominated by bunchgrasses. The grouse feeds in short to midgrass prairie for plants and insects and congregates at leks to conduct breeding courtship activities. Breeding occurs in early February through July (Campbell L., 2003; TPWD, 2014e). The Attwater's greater prairie chicken occurred historically in Waller County but is now only found in a few isolated populations in Colorado, Galveston, and Goliad Counties. This species is not anticipated to occur within the study area (USFWS, 2010).

The federally endangered whooping crane (Grus americana) breeds in Canada and winters in marshes along the gulf coast (TPWD, 2014e). The study area is located just within the eastern edge of the 200-mile-wide migratory pathway of the population that nests at Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada and winters at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge along the Texas coast, though 90% of sightings have occurred west of the study area. The Aransas/Wood Buffalo Flock is the only naturally occurring population of whooping cranes in the wild, and contains between 250 and 300 birds (TPWD, 2014f). Migration stopover sites typically include small sized surface waters with emergent vegetation cover. Several known stopover sites are

2-65 143 Brazos Valley Connection utilized yearly, but these are located within the Midwest region. Stopover sites may also occur adjacent to agriculture fields where the birds forage. The whooping crane may occur briefly in the study area during the spring or fall migration (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014).

The interior least tern (Sterna antillarum athalassos) is the subspecies of least tern that breeds inland along the Missouri, Mississippi, Colorado, Arkansas, Red, and Rio Grande River systems along sand and gravel bars within braided streams and rivers. Birds breeding within 50 miles of the Texas coast are not federally or state listed. Within Texas, interior least terns winter along the coast (Campbell L., 2003; TPWD, 2014e). The interior least tern is not likely to breed or winter within the study area because it is out of range, but may occur on larger water bodies briefly during spring and fall migration (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014).

The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) is found in mature pine forests of east Texas and the southeastern U.S. They forage in pine forest with trees greater than nine inches in diameter, with or without hardwood trees present, and nest in open, park-like, mature pine forest, with few or no hardwood trees present. Red-cockaded woodpecker is the only woodpecker that excavates cavities exclusively in living trees. They are social, cooperative breeders that maintain year round territories around their nesting and roost trees. Nest trees are mature pines (>60 years old). They may use the same cavity tree for years or even decades. A minimum of 100 acres of pine stands and/or mixed pine/hardwood forest is necessary to support one colony of red-cockaded woodpeckers (Campbell L., 2003). Historically, pine forest mid-stories were maintained in an open state due to naturally occurring periodic fires which restricted hardwood mid-story growth. Habitat loss for this species has occurred through the suppression of fires, harvest of mature pine trees, conversion of habitat to silviculture, and residential and commercial development. Within the study area, a nesting colony was documented approximately three miles southwest of Richards in 1991. Within five miles of the study area, unpublished data from 1983 documented 24 colonies in Sam Houston National Forest just southeast of Richards (TXNDD, 2014). Colonies could currently occur in the study area in mature pine forest habitats.

The four federally-listed reptiles include the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kemph), leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). These four species of sea turtle occupy coastal bays and the Gulf of Mexico, brackish and estuarine areas, and nest on coastal beaches (TPWD, 2014e). Sea turtles

2-66 144 Brazos Valley Connection

are not anticipated to occur within the study area, due to a lack of suitable coastal or marine habitat (Dixon, 2013).

Federally listed mammal species include the Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) and West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus). Neither of the species has been documented in or within five miles of the study area (TXNDD, 2014). Louisiana black bear was once a common inhabitant of forested regions of eastern Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Today, the majority of the remaining population is located in the Atchafalaya and Tensas River basins of Louisiana. In Texas, the bear is an inhabitant of bottomland hardwoods and large tracts of forested areas in east Texas (Campbell L., 2003). The West Indian manatee is a rare aquatic species in Texas, and occasionally occurs within rivers, estuaries, canal, and bays (Schmidly, 2004). It is not anticipated that black bear or manatee are present within the study area due to a lack of suitable habitat.

USFWS Delisted Species The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was delisted in 2007 by the USFWS because the population had recovered beyond the ESA criteria for listing. The status of the bald eagle population is currently monitored by the USFWS and the species is still afforded federal protection under the MBTA and the BGEPA. They are also a Texas state threatened species. The bald eagle nests in tall trees adjacent to major surface waters. Bald eagles have been documented nesting near Gibbons Creek Reservoir during most years since 1984. In 2004 and 2005, two active nests were documented near the reservoir (TXNDD, 2014).

Brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis) are common local residents along the coast: foraging in saltwater and estuarine waters and nesting on small offshore islands. They may occasionally be found further inland during the late summer and early fall, particularly on or near larger bodies of water (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014). The most likely place in the study area for a brief, post-breeding visit would be Gibbons Creek Reservoir.

The Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius) is an uncommon winter resident throughout Texas coastal prairies but are more common along bays, estuaries, and coastlines during the winter months (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014). The peregrine falcon state listing includes two subspecies: American peregrine falcon (F. p. anatum) and arctic peregrine falcon (F. p. tundrius). Although only the American subspecies is listed as state threatened, both sub- species are listed together due to their similarity of appearance (TPWD, 2014e). Both

2-67 145 Brazos Valley Connection subspecies have been delisted from federal listings due to the recovery of population numbers. The American peregrine falcon utilizes many kinds of habitats during migration, particularly areas providing a source of relatively large avian prey, such as ducks, shorebirds, or pigeons (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014).

USFWS Candidate Species Sprague's pipit (Anthus spraguefi) is present in Texas during migration and winter. They are strongly tied to native upland prairie and can be locally common in coastal grassland. They are sensitive to patch size and avoid habitat edges (TPWD, 2014e). This species may occur within the study area, during migration and winter in suitable grassland habitat.

Two mollusk species are candidates to be federally-listed, the smooth pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis) and Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon). The smooth pimpleback occurs in the Colorado, Brazos, and San Jacinto River basins and occupies mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel bottoms in very slow to moderately flowing waters. The Texas fawnsfoot occurs in the Colorado and Brazos River basins and resides in sand, gravel, or sandy-mud bottoms, in moderately flowing waters. While none of these species has been documented in the study area, the smooth pimpleback has been documented within five miles of.the study area on the Navasota and Brazos Rivers (Howells et al., 1996; TPWD, 2014e).

Extirpated Species The red wolf (Canis rufus) historically occurred throughout the eastern half of the state in forests, brushlands, and prairies. The red wolf was known to prey on rabbits, deer, rodents, prairie chickens, crabs, and livestock (Schmidly, 2004). Changes in land-use and over hybridization with the coyote (Canis latrans) are thought to have extirpated the red wolf from Texas. No documented occurrences of this species are recorded within the study area (TXNDD, 2014) and it is not anticipated to occur within the study area.

TPWD Listed Species The white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) is a state-threatened species that inhabits freshwater marshes, swamps, ponds, river, sloughs, and irrigated rice fields. This species is a colonial nester and forages on insects, newts, leeches, earthworms, snails, crayfish, frogs, and fish. This species is a year round resident along the Gulf Coast of Texas (TPWD, 2014e). TXNDD data (2014) includes 1988 documentation of white-faced ibis breeding in a mixed species rookery

2-68 146 Brazos Valley Connection

just southwest of Gibbons Creek Reservoir. This species may occur in the study area where suitable habitat is present.

The wood stork (Mycteria americana) formerly nested in Texas prior to 1960. This species is now present in Texas only during the late summer and fall as post-breeding dispersers from the Mexican breeding population move into Gulf States seeking mudflats and other wetlands. The federally endangered US-breeding distinct population segment does not occur west of Mississippi. Birds in Texas are state threatened but not federally listed. They can be found in prairie ponds, flooded pastures or fields, ditches, and other shallow standing water, including saltwater areas. This species usually roosts communally in tall snags, sometimes in association with other wading birds. This species may occur within the study area as a post-breeding visitor, where suitable habitat is present (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014; TPWD, 2014e; USFWS, 2014d).

The white-tailed hawk (Buteo albicaudatus) inhabits prairies, cordgrass flats, and scrub-live oak habitats near the coast. Farther inland, the white-tailed hawk prefers prairies, mesquite and oak savannas, and mixed savanna-chaparral habitats (TPWD, 2014e). The primary breeding population occurs along the central and southern coasts, south of Matagorda Bay. This species may occur within the study area as a common to uncommon resident in coastal prairies, if suitable habitat is available (Lockwood and Freeman, 2014).

Two state-threatened fishes are listed, the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongates) and the creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus). Neither species have been documented in or within five miles of the study area. The blue sucker is a large freshwater fish that occurs in limited numbers within major rivers in Texas, usually in channels and flowing pools with a moderate current. The blue sucker is mostly carnivorous and feeds within bottom sediments. Spawning occurs during spring within smaller tributaries (Thomas et al., 2007). The creek chubsucker occurs in tributaries of the Red, Sabine, Neches, Trinity, and San Jacinto Rivers, in small rivers and creeks. They prefer headwaters and spawn in river mouths, pools, riffles, and lake outlets. The young are usually in headwater rivulets or marshes (TPWD, 2014e). The creek chubsucker could occur in the study area on tributaries of the San Jacinto River such as Cypress Creek and Spring Creek. The blue sucker is not anticipated to occur due to a lack of large river habitats in the study area.

2-69 147 Brazos Valley Connection

Four additional mollusk species are listed as threatened by the TPWD for Grimes, Harris, or Waller Counties: False spike mussel (Quadrula mitchelli), Louisiana pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellfi), sandbank pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), and Texas pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi). None of these species has been documented in the study area. The false spike mussel occurs in the Rio Grande, Guadalupe, Colorado, and Brazos River systems and occupies mud, sand, gravel, and cobble substrates. The sandbank pocketbook occurs in East Texas rivers including the San Jacinto River basin in small to large rivers with moderate flows and swift current on gravel, and sand bottoms. The Texas pigtoe occurs in East Texas river basins, including the San Jacinto River basin, in rivers with mixed mud, sand, and fine gravel in protected areas associated with fallen trees and other structures. The Louisiana pigtoe occurs in the Sabine and Neches River basins and historically in the Trinity River basin, none of which overlap the study area so the species is unlikely to occur in the study area. While the rest of the species could possibly occur in the study area in larger creeks, it is not anticipated that any of these species will occur within the study area, due to a lack of sizeable rivers (Howells et al., 1996; TPWD, 2014e).

The alligator snapping turtle (Macrochelys temminckii) inhabits perennial freshwater ecosystems, such as lakes, canals, bayous, ponds, and river bottoms (Dixon, 2013). The turtle may also enter brackish waters near the coast. This species is typically most active from March through October and may breed April - October. This species may occur within the study area where suitable habitat is present (TPWD, 2014e).

Smooth green snakes (Liochlorophis vernalis) inhabit grassland prairies, and sometimes moist forests and overgrown fields. The smooth green snake forages during daylight hours for insects likely to inhabit grasslands, such as grasshoppers, crickets, caterpillars, and other larvae (Dixon and Werler, 2005). This species may occur within the study area if suitable habitat is present.

The Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) inhabits a variety of habitats including open desert, grasslands and shrubland in and and semiarid habitats that contain bunch grasses, cacti and yucca on soils varying from pure sands and sandy loams to coarse gravels, conglomerates, and desert pavements. Their primary prey is the harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex spp.), but they may also consume grasshoppers, beetles, and grubs. The Texas horned lizard thermo- regulates by basking or burrowing into the soil and is active between early spring to late summer (TPWD, 2014e). This species may occur within the study area if suitable habitat exists.

2-70 148