PART II - RECOVERY

Reevaluation/Confirmation of Status

    The status of S. parksii as an endangered species came into question immediately after listing. Listing was based on an extremely small number of known plants and a paucity of historical records from the area. Initial, detailed surveys accomplished during preparation of the initial Recovery Plan revealed the presence of fairly large populations of the 'core' areas in Brazos and Grimes Counties. Subsequent reports of populations from Post Oak woodlands along the entire Navasota drainage expanded the known range of this species. While the emerging picture of this plant's distribution lacks full documentation and clarity, it is clear that S. parksii has a broader distribution than some Texas endemics, such as Liatris cymosa, that are not listed as endangered. However, unlike Liatris cymosa, S. parksii shows 'core' centers of distribution, in terms of population density, and an affinity for undisturbed woodland habitat. Given the complex set of circumstances that have developed in association with this species since its listing in 1982, those responsible for status assignment should reevaluate the endangered status of this species.

    Implementation of this Recovery Plan will require a strong initial commitment.  The plan, however, is designed to minimize long term conflict between environmental and developmental objectives in the College Station area.  If the fundamental objectives of this plan - long-term preserves - are not achieved, then conflicts that are detrimental to both conservation and development will continue. Thus, this plan assumes continued listing of this species as endangered with a recovery priority that will allow implementation of the plan.

Objectives and Recovery Criteria

    Objectives:  Of the 20 plant species that are endemic to Texas and listed as endangered by both Federal and State agencies, S. parksii is atypical. It does not occur at a remote site in the western portion of the state.  Its habitat, in terms of soils, drainage, and associated vegetation, lies within a fairly large ecological zone, the Post Oak Savannah.  Its native range of distribution is congruent with a state center of economic development and population expansion.  As opposed to other endemic plant species inhabiting the woodlands of east/central Texas (Liatris cymosa, Abronia macrocarpa, Brazoria pulcherrima, Rhododonciliatus, Paronychia drummondii, P. chorizanthoides, Thalictrum texanum, Lupinus texensis, L. subcarnosus, Astragalus leptocarpus, Lechea san-sabeana, Cucurbita texana, Coreopsis nuecensis, Palafoxia reverchonii, Evax candida, Habranthus texanus, Polygonella parksii), S. parksii is not adapted to either open or disturbed sites.  It is the only listed species from Texas that is directly associated with typical, Oak-Elm-Hickory vegetation of the Post Oak Savannah. Thus, the fate of S. parksii is directly linked to the fate of relatively old-growth Oak-Elm-Hickory woodlands currently standing in central Grimes County and southern Brazos County.  As indicated in the original Recovery Plan for this species, and confirmed by development within the range of S. parksii since 1984, habitat for this species is steadily diminishing as development in the area proceeds. Maintenance or expansion of the native range of distribution is therefore an unrealistic objective. Thus, this plan is focused on survival, rather than recovery, of the species. Biological diversity represented by S. parksii will be preserved in perpetuity only if areas of old growth Oak-Elm-Hickory forest within its range of distribution are set aside as long term preserves or, as indicated in the original Recovery Plan, "safe sites."

  Recovery Criteria: Areas currently designated as protected sites in Grimes and Brazos Counties include populations that represent genetic diversity from the two 'core' areas of S. parksii distribution. Spiranthes parksii should be considered for downlisting when:

· Extant protected sites, or other areas of comparable size and S. parksii population density on both sides of the Navasota Valley, are set aside - in perpetuity - as S. parksii preserves.

· Procedures are established and in place to monitor, on an annual basis, S. parksii populations inhabiting the preserves. Observation of S. parksii populations over the past 8 years indicates that management activities in these areas should be minimal. Consequently, management plan development should be delayed until data from annual monitoring indicates that management intervention is needed.

 The species should be downlisted when both of these criteria are attained. Downlisting is an essential element of this revised Recovery Plan. As indicated below, work toward the establishment of two S. parksii preserves in the Navasota Valley can proceed quickly if this is viewed - by all concerned - as a positive goal. Rapid and efficient movement toward the recovery objectives will require active cooperation from elements of the local community that tend of view this species as an impediment to economic development. Removal of this perceived difficulty, via downlisting, stands as an objective that can be clearly appreciated by all concerned with local environmental impacts on this species. If the establishment of permanent preserves is firmly linked to a release from pressures associated with this species that have been generated by State and Federal agencies in the past, then movement in that direction should be facilitated. If this linkage is not established, then conflict between conservation and development in the Bryan-College Station area will continue and, as a result, progress in both areas will be impaired.

Outline of Recovery Actions

1. Reevaluation/Confirmation of Status. Assess available data relating to distribution and abundance. Consider the source of the information, in terms of quality, documentation, and confirmation. Determine appropriate status and recovery priority for Spiranthesparksii.

2. Consider sale of Peach Creek Preserve. The single long-term S. parksii preserve, located at the junction of Peach Creek Road and State Rt. 6 does not function to shelter populations of S. parksii. It has no value as a general biodiversity preserve. The land does, however, have considerable commercial value. Funds secured from sale of this land could be invested in recovery actions listed below.

3. Establish Lick Creek Park as a permanent preserve. The initial Recovery Plan designated woodlands adjacent to Texas World Speedway as a high priority safe site in Brazos County. While the species currently occupies this area, construction associated with impoundments of the local drainage system has impacted this population system. While populations of the species inhabiting Lick Creek Park are smaller than those that once existed North of Texas World Speedway in terms of plant density per unit area, they are robust and well established. They occur along four temporary streams that feed Lick Creek from the northeastern uplands of the park area, ca. 1 mile from the Texas World Speedway site.

31. Examine possibilities for land or stewardship transfer. While plants within the park boundaries are currently 'protected' by usage rules established by the City of College Station, the City's commitment, in terms of enforcement and management, is tentative. Correspondence associated with a bicycle race in the Park (Beachy, 1991) indicate that the City explored "giving the site to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department" in 1989. After a site visit in April of 1989, this offer was rejected by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
 
  311. Determine the position of College Station as a potential donor. Exchanges concerning the proposed bicycle race at Lick Creek Park among representatives of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (Sansom, 1991), local environmental groups, and the City (Beachy, 1991) included an indication from the City (Beachy, 1991) that the City's offer of Lick Creek Park as a donation remains active. This offer must be firmly established. 312. Assess potential receivers. If Lick Creek Park is available, then an entity that will provide support and stewardship must be located.
 
  3122. The Nature Conservancy. While this organization has indicated a lack of interest in Lick Creek Park (Anderson, 1991), reexamination of the issue from a broader perspective (see item 3 below) might produce a different result.
 
 

3123. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. This organization rejected the park as a gift in 1989 (Beachy, 1991). A request to reconsider (Wilson, 1991b) produced no result. Again, reexamination of the issue from a broader perspective (see item 3 below), and involvement of the Endangered Species Branch, could produce a different result from this organization.
 
 

3121. Texas A&M University. Texas environmental issues often involve graduates of this institution. Aggies are often part of institutions, ranging from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, that are engaged in large scale actions that are of critical importance to state conservation biology. The institution is currently moving toward a more active position, in terms of curriculum and program development, on environmental education and research. Texas A&M University, with no formal association with Lick Creek Park, is a primary user of the park in that it is the only local natural area accessible to faculty in life science departments. The TAMU Development Foundation is well positioned to pursue possible patrons and long-term endowments. These factors place TAMU as a prime candidate for institutional responsibility for this area.
 
 

 313. Establish primary responsibility for governance and operations. Efforts to establish the Lick Creek Park Preserve could involve more than one agency, institution, or organization. Long term stewardship of the preserve will require specific allocation of responsibility for establishment, development, and maintenance of the area.
 
 

314. Establish procedures for operations of the preserve. While preservation of S. parksii and subsequent downlisting stand as the primary rationale for the creation of the preserve, maximum utilization (see item 3 below) could involve other conservation biology activities. Given the primary mission, the obvious benefit of maximum use, and the dynamics of long term stewardship, specific operational protocols are essential.
 
 

3141. Maintenance. Establish a developmental plan, designate areas that might require management, deal with problems posed by peripheral interfaces.
 
 

3142. Monitoring. Consolidate available information on the park area and endangered taxa within the park. Establish an information base on history of the area, current biotic composition, immediate or potential impacts

 3143. Ancillary functions. Determine the need to extend usage of the preserve area to include current community usage as a natural area, use as a sanctuary, use for environmental training or research.
 
 
 
  4. Establish the Grimes County preserve(s). Initial surveys of isozyme variation produced no indication of patterned genetic structure with S. parksii. Superficial examination of comparative morphology among populations has revealed no significant intraspecific structure. However, if intraspecific genetic diversity exists, it is reasonable to assume that the Navasota Valley represents a significant breakpoint. Thus, if genetic differentiation is present, it is probably expressed by populations that occur on either side of this potential barrier to gene flow. While genetic variation representing the 'eastern' types of this species could be preserved by transplants into a Brazos County preserve, the best option would be to insure long term in situ preservation of populations currently establishing along with eastern side of the Navasota Valley.
 
  41. Examine the possibilities for land acquisition. Uplands of the eastern Navasota Valley include Grimes, Madison, Leon, and Freestone Counties. If all reports are accepted, S. parksii occurs in all counties. While a permanent preserve would be logically placed at the center of population density in central Grimes County, other considerations could apply.
 
  411. Current Sites (C1-C5). These are high-density sites as determined by detailed surveys of the TMPA mining area. Locations of the five sites are depicted by K. Parker (1992). Site descriptions are present in the current TMPA Management Plan (1991, p. 13-17 and exhibits). As indicated above, they are sheltered from mining and other disturbance as defined in the TMPA management plan and associated Conservation Agreement resulting from the most recent section 7 consultation (TMPA, 1991).
 
  4111. Seller or donor. The Conservation Agreement currently in effect "involves no change of title or loss of ownership rights by TMPA" although, while EPA or FWS are not obligated to purchase, TMPA "agrees to sell the TMPA Property of the FWS and/or EPA" at appraised value when mining operations end. If, at the end of the mining period, EPA or FWS are unable to purchase the land or TMPA is constrained by law from selling, then "TMPA may sell the TMPA Property at its discretion."
 
  41111. Texas Municipal Power Agency. Of the five sites currently protected under the Conservation Agreement, three are owned by TMPA. These are C1 (site 34/35, 20 acres), C2 [site 42, 44 acres], and the newly established C5 (site 36-38, 9 acres of know orchid habitat, 75-100 acres to be "set aside". A survey conducted in 1991 (Parker, 1992) produced 85 flowering S. parksii at these two sites.
 
 

41122. Private Owners. Two of the five 'protected' sites are controlled by TMPA under lease from private owners. The current Conservation Agreement states that "with respect to the inholdings, TMPA may have rights in that property pursuant to various agreements and/or leases" and that TMPA is not required to "keep those leases or agreements in force longer than is necessary for surface coal mining and reclamation operations." The two sites comprise 106 acres which supported 422 observed flowering S. parksii in 1991 (Parker, 1992).
 
 

 4112. Assess potential receivers. Organizations listed below are unlikely to purchase the TMPA 'protected' sites. Thus, the putative land transfer would involve a donation, in mitigation, with one of the organizations listed below assuming lead responsibility for ownership and conservation stewardship.
  41121. Texas A&M University.
 
 

41122. The Nature Conservancy.
 
 

41123. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
 
 

41124. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

412. Examine other options. The plight of S. parksii, local extinction via habitat destruction, is shared by many other native species of the Post Oak Savannah. Criteria for selection of long-term S. parksii safe sites in the eastern portion of its range could include broader conservation objectives. Selection could focus on sites that support populations of S. parksii and also other taxa or communities that are threatened by habitat destruction.
 
  4121. Old growth forest - Grimes County. As indicated by photos of the "Aggie Bonfire" over the past several years, TMPA mining activities in Grimes County have destroyed large stands of old growth oak forest in the area. This process is on-going, on a less massive scale, via agricultural and industrial development, throughout the Navasota Valley. Given the rarity of mature forests at the national level, and global concern about continuing international destruction of old growth forests, linkage between preservation of S. parksii and protection of rare, mature stands of forest surviving in Grimes County would be a reasonable conservation objective.
 
 

4122. Upper Navasota Drainage. Efforts to find S. parksii sites along the northern Navasota drainage (Robertson and Leon Counties) during a 'good' flowering year (1986) produced a single population in western Robertson County. Extensive "Long-Term Range Surveys" by TMPA and its contractors (TMPA, 1991, p. 18) have resulted in the discovery of few, scattered populations along the northern drainage (see Tab. 1). These, however, are located near unusual habitats that support rare, threatened, and endangered plant species. Multipurpose criteria for the selection of S. parksii 'safe sites' could be applied in this area.
 
 

41221. Sarracenia bogs. Slow seepage from deep sands characteristic of this area produce unusual 'hanging bogs' in valleys of tributaries to the Navasota River. These areas feature a sharp floristic transition between the hydric vegetation of sphagnum bogs, dominated by Pitcher Plant (Sarracenia alata) and Wax-Myrtle (Myricacerifera), and the xeric flora of adjacent oak woodlands and sandy openings. Since these valleys carry both vegetation types, each rich in endemic and rare peripheral plant taxa, they represent primary local centers of biological diversity in eastern Texas. The only documented S. parksii site from eastern Robertson County, near Camp Creek Lake, is less than two miles from what may be the last extant hanging bog in Robertson County, Mill Creek or 'McClean' Bog.
 
 

41222. Abronia macrocarpa. The only documented and confirmed record for S. parksii in Leon County was recorded from near one of three known populations of another endangered species, Abronia macrocarpa. More detailed information regarding possible association between these two species could result in the creation of a multipurpose 'safe site' for both listed taxa as well as associated endemics of the deep sand zone of the northern Navasota drainage.
 
 

 5. Consider broader conservation function for preserves. As indicated above, the Navasota Valley carries a suite of habitats and taxa that constitute an important component of Texas biodiversity. This area, traversed by the Jackson-Yegua Near Surface Lignite Deposit (TMPA, 1991), is also a state center of economic/industrial development and population expansion. It also includes a major national research university, Texas A&M. This part of the state does not, however, include land dedicated to natural resource conservation, i.e., either state or federal biodiversity preserves. Selection, establishment, and development of safe sites, as defined in this plan, should reflect a long term perspective that includes multipurpose function of S. parksii preserves, i.e., conservation operations that extend beyond insured survival of a single species.
 
  51. Sanctuary. Current 'protected' sites insure short-term integrity of S. parksii populations and their habitat. This allows use of the current sites for other, critical conservation activities that would not be possible if the sites were not present. Selection, development, and management of the permanent sites proposed here should maximize this aspect of a long-term sanctuary. Current sites function to provide critical information for on-going environmental impact assessment activities, as target sites for transplantation associated with mitigation, as potential source sites for reintroductions, and as sources of successional data needed for management activities.
 
  511. Navasota Ladies' Tresses. Recent work with S. parksii transplantation from areas to be mined by the TMPA in Grimes County (Parker, 1992) demonstrates the value of long term safe sites that are located within the core area of this species distribution. Transplantation to 'remote' safe sites in two State parks located beyond the core range of distribution (McCain Creek/Big Creek - Lake Somerville) produced negative results from 17 transplant quads and predictable problems. Similar efforts involving 'local' sites in Grimes County, while problematic with regard to plant relocation, did result in the observation of flowering S. parksii within transplant quads. The potential value of permanent safe sites is demonstrated by environmental impact assessment work associated with construction of a new sewage treatment plant at Texas A&M University (Sullivan, 1992). Mitigation options for impacts associated with this important project would have been minimal if a local safe site (Lick Creek Park) had not been available as a target site for transplants. Lick Creek Park provided this unique resource and thereby played a fundamental role in efforts deal with potential biological impacts and also insure that the project proceeded under planned schedules (Wilson, 1992).
 
 

512. Other threatened/rare plant and animal species. Lick Creek Park contains one of two known extant populations of the Houston Meadow Rue, Thalictrum texanum (G2Q S2). Environmental impact surveys for this small, inconspicuous plant must be accomplished after leaf development begins and before full vegetative development of the spring flora, which essentially hides the Meadow Rue. This relatively narrow temporal window varies from year to year. The population at Lick Creek park provides the only source of information regarding annual developmental response for this species and the only certain target site (known to support populations of the species) for future transplants. Lick Creek Park is also within the narrow range of distribution of Liatris cymosa, a listed Texas endemic (G2 S2). As indicated above, other potential S. parksii preserves are within the range of distribution of other listed and endemic species. Establishment and management of these sites could be based on conservation objectives, such as mitigation and monitoring, that extend beyond preservation simple preservation of S. parksii populations.
 
 

 52. Professional Training - Conservation Biology. Permanent S. parksii sanctuaries could be established, developed, and maintained as part of the academic program at Texas A&M University. In terms of both curriculum and faculty research, permanent preserves could stand as a unique resource for courses and research projects that relate to biodiversity in general, specific topics in conservation biology, as well as 'hands on' experience for students with a professional interest in the management of natural areas. Given the increasing role of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in State conservation issues, and the increasing importance of Texas State parks as biodiversity preserves, the presence of functional biodiversity preserves near Texas A&M would strengthen the position of natural resource conservation in the educational background of students training for important environmental positions in State government. This aspect would be enhanced if operations of the S. parksii preserves involved public recreational usage (see 33. below).
 
 

53. Public Education. As a municipal park, Lick Creek Park is comparable to Texas State parks in that the area serves two public functions, i.e., natural resource conservation and general visitor usage for recreational activities. Numerous conflicts between these two functions creates and difficult interface. Creation and management of a functional balance between conservation and public recreation stands as a central challenge for those responsible for these 'dual function' natural areas and, given increasing concern for biodiversity issues at the national level, future development and management. Proximity of the proposed permanent safe sites to a major population center in central Texas provides an opportunity to design natural areas with natural history recreation as a central theme, and also develop management procedures that maximize this function and minimize its impact on the sites as natural areas. Creative and innovative efforts in this area could position these sites as promotive elements for natural resource conservation in Texas.
 
 

 6. Develop a post-recovery monitoring/operating plan for preserve populations. While this plan is formally designated as a "Recovery Plan", the "safe site" concept proposed here, and in the original Recovery Plan, constitutes a formula for insured survival of S. parksii. Given the nature of current and projected environmental impacts within this taxon's range of distribution, a goal of 'recovery' to prior range and population strength is not a realistic conservation objective. Many populations of S. parksii have been extirpated by lignite mining, municipal development, and highway construction since the species was listed as endangered in 1983. While those responsible for eliminating these populations have invested heavily in various 'conservation' activities, and those responsible for implementing endangered species legislation at both the State and Federal levels have forced a wide range of impact assessments and consultations, mitigation for these extirpations has not produced long term protection for a single population. This suggests that protection for this endangered species through the establishment of long term 'safe sites' - a primary recommendation of the initial Recovery Plan - is not a realistic conservation objective. With this in mind, the Recovery Plan proposed here differs from the initial plan in two respects:
 
  l Establishment of long term preserves is firmly linked to removal of this species from endangered status, i.e., if shelter for this taxon can be achieved in perpetuity, then future extirpations beyond the protected areas are acceptable.
 
 

l Selection, development, and management of the preserves is based on multipurpose conservation usage, i.e., aspects of biodiversity preservation in the Post Oak Savannah area of Texas that extend well beyond refuge for a single species (item 5 above).
 
 

 The first item is based on an economic rationale; long term costs to both private developers and public regulators (environmental regulations associated with a listed species) are minimized by an initial, short term, investment. The second item, if properly employed, increases the long term value of investments associated with sites selected as S. parksii preserves. The potential for multipurpose conservation function also evokes a maximal range of responsibility in terms of institutional interest, collaboration, investment, and operations.
 
 

Both elements are essential. Eventual downlisting of this species requires a firm indication that the biological integrity of sites selected as S. parksii preserves will be intact over the long term. This, in turn, will require focused development of management plans that can be implemented and adjusted over the long term. If multipurpose conservation functions are part of this plan, and these functions serve the needs of several institutions or agencies, then critical plans for management and operation will evolve as work with these areas proceeds. Collaborative institutional involvement will insure long term stability and operational flexibility.

References Cited

Anderson, E. 1991. Letter from Elise Anderson, Protection Assistant, The Nature Conservancy, San Antonio, Texas to Hugh Wilson, 13 June 1991.

Beachy, S. C. 1991. Letter from Stephen C. Beachy, Director, College Station Parks and Recreation Department to Andrew Sansom, Executive Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 8 March 1991.

Beachy, S. C. 1992. Letter from Stephen C. Beachy, Director, College Station Parks and Recreation Department to Hugh Wilson, 20 October 1992.

Bridges, E. L. and S. L. and Orzell. 1989. Additions and noteworthy vascular plant collections from Texas and Louisiana, with historical, ecological and geographic notes. Phytologia 66:12-69.

Catling, P. M. and K. L. McIntosh. 1979. Rediscovery of Spiranthesparksii Correll. Sida 8: 188-193.

College Station. 1990. City of College Station, Texas. Comprehensive Planning Program, Mapped "Land Use Concepts of Developed and Developing Areas.

Correll, D. S. 1947. Am. Orch. Soc. Bull. 16: 400

Marietta, K. L. and E. S. and Nixon. 1983. Vegetational analysis of a post oak-black hickory community in eastern Texas. Texas J. Sci. 35:198-203.

Parker, K. 1992. A Report on the 1991-1992 Survey/Monitor/Transplant Program for Navasota Ladies Tresses on the Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine, Grimes County, Texas. Prepared for the Texas Municipal Power Agency by Tejas Ecological Services 14 July 1992.

Orzell, S. and J. Poole. 1986. Letter from Steve Orzell and Jackie Poole (Texas Natural Heritage Program) to Stephen Beachy, Director, College Station Parks and Recreation Department, 19 May 1986.

Poole, J. L. and D. H. Riskind. 1987. Endangered, Threatened, or Protected Native Plants of Texas. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Sansom, A. 1991. Letter from Andrew Sansom, Executive Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to Stephen Beachy, Director, College Station Parks and Recreation Department, 28 February 1991.

Sheviak, C. J. 1982. Biosystematic study of the Spiranthescernua complex. New York State Museum Bulletin 448. 73 pp.

Sheviak, C. J. 1986. Letter to Hugh Wilson - 13 Nov 1986.

Short, R. W. 1991. Letter to N. Thomas (U.S. EPA-Dallas); "Formal Section 7 Consultation of Texas Municipal Agency's Gibbons Creek Lignite Mine, Grimes County, Texas". 16 Oct 91.

Sullivan, D. 1992. Letter to T. Winn (KSA Engineers, Inc) from Dorinda Sullivan (Information System Manager, Texas Natural Heritage Program) regarding sensitive species and construction of the Texas A&M Sewage Treatment Plant (TAMU Project 1-2700). 3 June 1992

TMPA, 1991. Amended Navasota Ladies' Tresses Management Plan. 22 pp., 6 appendices, 6 exhibits. December, 1991.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Navasota Ladies'-Tresses Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. iii + 61 pp.

Wells, T. C. E. 1967. Changes in a population of Spiranthesspiralis (L.) Chevall, at Knocking Hoe National Nature Preserve, Bedfordshire, 1962-65. J. Ecol. 55: 83-99.

Wells, T. C. E. 1981. Population ecology of terrestrial orchids. In, H. Synge (ed.), The Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, New York.

Wilson, H. D. 1988. Progress Report, DOI-FWS Cooperative Agreement 14-16-0002-86-903, "Population Biology/Distribution of Spiranthesparksii, Sundew Creek Population, Lick Creek Park, College Station, Texas". September , 1988.

Wilson, H. D. 1991a. Letter (Peach Creek site survey report) from Hugh Wilson (Biology, TAMU) to Robert Short, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, Texas, 5 February 1991.

Wilson, H. D. 1991b. Letter from Hugh Wilson (Biology, TAMU) to Larry McKinney, Director, Resource Protection Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, 19 April 1991.

Wilson, H. D. 1992. Letter from Hugh Wilson (Biology, TAMU) to David Diamond (Program Leader, Texas Natural Heritage) regarding sensitive species and TAMU Project 1-2700). 21 August 1992.

Abbreviations Used

DOT - Texas State and County Highway Department

FWS - USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

ES - Ecological Services

LE - Law Enforcement

LCP - Lick Creek Park

PVT - Private Landowners

TAMU - Texas A&M University

TMPA - Texas Municipal Power Agency

TNC - The Nature Conservancy

TPWD - Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

CCS - City of College Station, Texas
Prologue
Contents
Part I
Epilogue