1 DEIS Reasonable Alternatives 2 Biological Resources Technical Report 3 SH 68 from I-2/US 83 to I-69C/US 281 4 CSJs: 3629-01-001, -002, -003 5 Hidalgo County, Texas 6 Texas Department of Transportation - Pharr District 7 February 2018 The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. DEIS REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES SH 68 FROM I-2/US 83 TO I-69C/US 281 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 1 Table of Contents 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 3 Project Description .................................................................................................... 1 4 2014 Modified 2 Alternative ..................................................................... 2 5 2014 PSM Alternative ............................................................................... 3 6 FM 1423 PSM Alternative ......................................................................... 3 7 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................... 4 8 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 4 9 Applicable Regulations, Executive Orders (EOs), and Memoranda of 10 Understanding (MOU) ............................................................................................... 4 11 Endangered Species Act (ESA) .................................................................. 4 12 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) ............................................... 5 13 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) .............................................................. 5 14 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) ....................................... 5 15 State Endangered Species Regulations ................................................... 6 16 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) .................................................. 6 17 Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation Management Act (MSFCA) 7 18 Executive Order (EO) 13112 on Invasive Species and Executive 19 Memorandum (EM) on Environmentally and Economically Beneficial 20 Landscaping ............................................................................................... 7 21 TxDOT-Texas Parks and Wildlife Department MOU ................................. 7 22 Description of Review Methods ............................................................................... 8 23 Description of Habitat Assessment Methods .......................................................... 8 24 RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA ...................................................................................... 8 25 Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats .............................................................................. 9 26 Vegetation and Land Use ....................................................................................... 10 27 EMST Types .............................................................................................. 10 28 Land Use/Land Cover Types ................................................................... 12 29 ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................... 13 30 Impacts to Vegetation ............................................................................................. 13 31 2014 Modified 2 Alternative ................................................................... 13 32 2014 PSM Alternative ............................................................................. 16 33 FM 1423 PSM Alternative ....................................................................... 17 34 No-Build Alternative ................................................................................. 17 35 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) ............................................................ 18 36 Invasive Species and Beneficial Landscaping ...................................................... 18 37 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) .................................................................. 19 38 Threatened, Endangered, and Other Protected Species...................................... 20 CSJS: 3629-01-001, -002, and -003 i February 2018 DEIS REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES SH 68 FROM I-2/US 83 TO I-69C/US 281 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 1 Federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species of Potential 2 Occurrence in the Three Reasonable Alternatives from IPaC ............... 26 3 Federal-listed Threatened and Endangered Species of Potential 4 Occurrence in the Three Reasonable Alternatives from Texas Parks and 5 Wildlife Department’s Hidalgo County List of Rare Species ................. 32 6 State of Texas Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of 7 Greatest Conservation Need ................................................................... 34 8 Conservation Areas ................................................................................................. 66 9 Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) ............................................................... 67 10 Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation Management Act (MSFCA) ............. 67 11 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) ........................................................................... 67 12 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) .................................................... 67 13 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 67 14 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 68 15 Attachments 16 Attachment A Exhibits 17 Exhibit 1. Project Location on County Map 18 Exhibit 2. Project Location on USGS Topographic Map 19 Exhibit 3. Waters of the U.S. on Aerial Map Base 20 Exhibits 4.0 through 4.13. Ecological Mapping System of Texas (EMST) 21 Exhibits 5.0 through 5.13. Land Use/Land Cover Vegetation Data 22 Exhibit 6. NRCS Soils within Study Area 23 Attachment B Biological Resources Supporting Documentation 24 Representative Photographs 25 Best Management Practices (BMPs) 26 USFWS IPaC List for Hidalgo County 27 TPWD Species List for Hidalgo County 28 NRCS-CPA-106 form 29 List of Tables 30 Table 1. EMST Vegetation Mapped Within the Three Reasonable Alternatives ...................... 14 31 Table 2. Land Use/Land Cover Data Mapped Within the Three Reasonable Alternatives ..... 15 32 Table 3. Water Resources Within the Three Reasonable Alternatives ..................................... 18 33 Table 4. Prime Farmland and NRCS-CPA-106 Score by Alternative ......................................... 19 34 Table 5. TXNDD Search Results for Element Occurrence Records and Tracked Managed 35 Areas ..................................................................................................................................... 20 36 Table 6. Federal and State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species and Species of 37 Greatest Conservation Need in Hidalgo County ................................................................. 21 38 CSJS: 3629-01-001, -002, and -003 ii February 2018 DEIS REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES SH 68 FROM I-2/US 83 TO I-69C/US 281 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 The Pharr District of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) proposes to construct 3 State Highway (SH) 68, a new highway facility from Interstate Highway (I) 2/U.S. Highway (US) 4 83 to I-69C/US 281, located in eastern Hidalgo County. The proposed project corridor would 5 begin at I-2/US 83 and travel north then west to connect to I-69C/US 281. The total length of 6 the proposed project is approximately 22 miles. 7 The purpose of this technical report is to provide descriptions of biological resources and 8 assess potential impacts for the three reasonable alternatives and the No-Build Alternative 9 identified for the proposed project. This document would serve as support for Section 4, the 10 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of the SH 68 Draft Environmental 11 Impact Statement (DEIS). 12 Project Description 13 SH 68, as currently described in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the 14 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), is a proposed four-lane divided rural 15 highway facility with future mainlanes and overpasses. 16 SH 68 would be constructed in several phases, as funding becomes available. Funding has 17 been secured for Phase I of the project. Funding for future phases has not yet been 18 determined. 19 Phase I would construct a new four-lane divided rural highway facility from I-2/US 83 to Farm- 20 to-Market (FM) 1925, which is also known as Monte Cristo Road. The four-lane divided facility 21 would serve as frontage roads for the ultimate facility and consist of two lanes in each 22 direction with shoulders, separated by a grassy median. Future phases would extend the four- 23 lane divided rural highway from FM 1925/Monte Cristo Road to I-69C/US 281, and eventually 24 would complete the ultimate facility by constructing the mainlanes and overpasses. The 25 proposed project is being developed as a non-tolled facility. 26 The ultimate, controlled-access facility would be contained within a 350-foot typical right-of- 27