[Federal Register: April 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 17211-17213]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14ap09-88]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-ES-2008-N0224; 21450-1112-0000-F2]
Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, Williamson County, TX
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), make
available a record of decision (ROD) under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This ROD documents our decision to select an
alternative including implementation of the Williamson County Regional
Habitat Conservation Plan (RHCP). Our selected action (Alternative B,
described below and in the ROD) entails the issuance of a 30-year
incidental take permit (ITP) to Williamson County, Texas (the County),
to incidentally take golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia),
black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), Bone Cave harvestman (Texella
reyesi), and Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus). The RHCP
will mitigate for take by purchasing mitigation credits in an existing
conservation bank and by acquiring and managing replacement habitats
and additional conservation measures as specifically described in the
RHCP.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Bill Seawell, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; (512)
490-0057.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), announce the availability of a ROD, which we developed in
compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended. The ROD documents
our decision to select the alternative including implementation of the
Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (RHCP). We have
described in detail all alternatives, and evaluated and analyzed them,
in our August 2008 final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and also
in our regional habitat conservation plan (RHCP). The ROD is designed
to: (1) State our decision, present the rationale for its selection,
and discuss its implementation; (2) identify the alternatives we
considered in reaching the decision; and (3) state whether we have
adopted all means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from
implementation of the selected alternative in accordance with NEPA.
Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental
consequences described in our FEIS, we have decided to implement
Alternative B, the Proposed RHCP (the proposed action). The selected
action entails the issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take
permit (ITP) to Williamson County, Texas (the County), to incidentally
take golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), black-capped vireo
(Vireo atricapilla), Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi), and Coffin
Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus). We refer to all four species
collectively as ``the covered species.'' The RHCP will mitigate for
take of these species by purchasing mitigation credits in an existing
conservation bank and by acquiring and managing, in perpetuity,
replacement habitats and additional conservation measures as described
specifically in the RHCP. While the County will hold the Permit, the
entity that will manage the Permit will be the Williamson County
Conservation Foundation (Foundation).
The term of the permit is 30 years (2008-2038). The Foundation will
implement mitigation and minimization measures according to the
schedule in the RHCP. By year 4 of the RHCP, the Foundation will
acquire 1,000 acres of mitigation credits for golden-cheeked warbler
(GCWA) in an existing conservation bank. In addition, the County will
purchase GCWA habitat
[[Page 17212]]
that will be an additional source of mitigation. The Foundation will
mitigate take of black-capped vireo (BCVI) by restoring and enhancing
BCVI habitat in perpetually preserved Service-approved conservation
areas.
The Foundation will mitigate take of the Bone Cave harvestman and
Coffin Cave mold beetle by acquiring and managing from 9 to as many as
15 protected karst faunal areas (KFAs) in the County. The County will
acquire, through direct purchase or acquisition of perpetual
conservation easements, a minimum of nine protected KFAs (totaling
approximately 700 acres of cave preserves) by year 17 of the RHCP. In
addition, the Foundation will consolidate the management of up to 10 of
22 existing conservation areas (totaling an estimated 400 to 800 acres)
to enhance their viability as KFAs, control their availability for
scientific research, and ensure their long-term contribution to
recovery.
Background
The County applied to us for an ITP. As part of the permit
application, the County developed and will implement the RHCP to meet
the requirements of an ITP. Our issuance of an ITP allows the County to
take the covered species that would result from proposed road
construction, maintenance, and improvement projects; utility
construction and maintenance; school development and construction;
public or private construction and development; and land clearing
within western Williamson County during the 30-year ITP period.
The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to us the authority to
approve or deny an ITP in accordance with the ESA. To act on the
County's permit application, we must determine that the RHCP meets the
approval criteria specified in the ESA, including Federal regulations
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32. The
issuance of an ITP is a Federal action subject to NEPA compliance,
including the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).
On September 16, 2008, we issued a final environmental impact
statement (FEIS) to evaluate the potential impacts associated with
issuance of an ITP for implementation of the RHCP and to evaluate
alternatives, along with the final RHCP (73 FR 53440). We included
public comments and responses associated with the Draft EIS and Draft
RHCP in an appendix to the FEIS.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Section 10(a)(l)(B) permit is to authorize
incidental take associated with the activities listed in the background
section.
We identified key issues and relevant factors through public
scoping and also through working with a Citizens' Advisory Committee; a
Scientific Advisory Team; other agencies and groups; and comments from
the public. These issues included the needs for: (1) Development to
continue in the County; (2) mitigation of impacts on covered species;
and (3) mitigation of impacts on listed species. We thoroughly examined
these issues in the draft and final EIS and RHCP. No new significant
issues arose following publication of the draft documents.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
Our selected alternative is the Proposed RHCP, the preferred
alternative (Alternative B) as we described in the FEIS. This
alternative provides for the issuance of an ITP to the County for take
that would occur as a result of projects described above. This
alternative includes implementation of RHCP measures to minimize and
mitigate the potential take of Federally listed species to the maximum
extent practicable. The intent of this alternative is to allow
continued development in the County; to minimize the biological,
environmental, and socioeconomic impacts; and to satisfy the habitat,
species, and issuance criteria of section 10 of the ESA.
To mitigate for the loss of 6,000 acres of GCWA habitat, the County
will purchase habitat at a 1:1 ratio. For the loss of 4,267 acres of
BCVI, the Foundation will mitigate impacts primarily through habitat
restoration, habitat management, enhancement of existing protected BCVI
habitat, or an alternate, Service-approved mitigation program. For the
impact of up to 210 caves occupied by the Bone Cave harvestman and
Coffin Cave mold beetle, mitigation will be to acquire and manage 9 to
12 KFAs, a minimum of 3 KFAs in each of the karst faunal regions
occupied by the covered species.
We considered two additional alternatives in the FEIS:
Alternative A (No Action): The No Action alternative
assumed that we would not issue a regional permit for the County.
Although development could occur on lands not occupied by endangered
species, development activities that would cause take of listed species
would require individual authorizations through section 7 or section
10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. Individual entities could also elect to avoid
take on properties containing endangered species by avoiding direct and
indirect impacts on the species (i.e., take-avoidance). Processing
individual section 7 consultations and section 10(a) permits could
cause delays in permit issuance by the agency or approval of a proposed
project, because we often take 1 to 2 years to process an individual
permit.
Alternative C (Modified (Reduced Take and Mitigation)
Williamson County RHCP): Alternative C would be similar to our Selected
Alternative, except:
1. The ITP would cover fewer species;
2. The amount of permitted take, and the mitigation required for
the take, would be smaller;
3. Section 6 funds would not be sought to acquire additional KFAs
over and above mitigation efforts; and
4. The anticipated participation rate would be lower because fewer
species would be covered, less take would be authorized, and less
mitigation provided.
Compared with that under Alternative B, allowable take for the GCWA
would be reduced from 6,000 acres to 1,000 acres. Under Alternative C,
mitigation for impacts to GCWA habitat would be limited to the 1,000
acres of credits from the Hickory Pass Ranch Conservation Bank and
115.52 acres of credits from the Whitney Tract. Once those credits were
exhausted, no additional take or mitigation would be authorized for the
GCWA under the plan without an amendment; thus, no efforts would be
made to establish additional preserves for GCWA in the County or to
seek additional mitigation credits outside of the County. No take or
mitigation would be authorized under the plan for BCVI. However, the
conservation measures for the Georgetown salamander and the public
outreach and research program identified in the Proposed Action would
remain the same, with less allotted funding.
Decision
Our decision is to issue an ITP allowing the County to implement
the preferred alternative (Alternative B), as it is described in the
Final EIS. Our decision is based on a thorough review of the
alternatives and their environmental consequences. Implementation of
this decision entails the issuance of the ITP, including all terms and
conditions governing the permit. Implementation of this decision
requires adherence to all of the minimization and mitigation measures
specified in the RHCP, as well as
[[Page 17213]]
monitoring and adaptive management measures.
Rationale for Decision
We have selected the preferred alternative (Alternative B) for
implementation based on multiple environmental and social factors,
including potential impacts and benefits to covered species and their
habitat, the extent and effectiveness of minimization and mitigation
measures, and social and economic considerations.
In order for us to be able to issue an ITP, we must ascertain that
the RHCP meets the criteria set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(A) and
(B). We have made that determination. These criteria, and how the RHCP
satisfies these criteria, are summarized below:
1. The taking will be incidental. We find that the take will be
incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including the proposed road
construction, maintenance, and improvement projects; utility
construction and maintenance; school development and construction;
public or private construction and development; and land clearing. The
take of individuals of covered species will be primarily due to habitat
destruction and/or alteration.
2. The applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize
and mitigate the impacts of such takings. The County has committed to a
wide variety of conservation measures, land acquisition, management
activities, monitoring, adaptive management, and other strategies
designed to avoid and minimize harm to the covered species and mitigate
for any unavoidable loss. Impacts to the covered species will be
minimized and mitigated as described in the selected alternative
section above.
3. The applicant will develop an HCP and ensure that adequate
funding for the HCP will be provided. The County has developed the RHCP
and committed to fully funding all of the obligations necessary for its
implementation. These obligations include the cost for purchase of
GCWA, BCVI, Bone Cave harvestman, and Coffin Cave mold beetle habitat,
management of mitigation lands in perpetuity, enforcement of
conservation easements, and monitoring of species populations and
habitat. In addition, the County has committed to adaptive management
measures that identify areas of uncertainty and questions that need to
be addressed to resolve this uncertainty; developed alternative
management strategies and determine which experimental strategies to
implement; integrate a monitoring program that is able to acquire the
necessary information for effective strategy evaluation; and
incorporate feedback loops that link implementation and monitoring to
the decision-making process that result in appropriate changes in
management. To accomplish RHCP implementation, the County estimated
that costs could total up to $80.8 million. The County will fund the
actual costs of implementing the RHCP by advance funding from
participation fees, endowment investment income, road improvement
mitigation funds, and tax benefit financing.
The Service's No Surprises Assurances are discussed in the RHCP,
and measures to address changed and unforeseen circumstances have been
identified. Adaptive management in the form of conservation,
mitigation, or management measures and monitoring will be implemented
to address changed circumstances over the life of the permit that were
able to be anticipated at the time of RHCP development. Unforeseen
circumstances would be addressed through the Service's close
coordination with the County in the implementation of the RHCP. The
County has committed to a coordination process to address such
circumstances.
We have, therefore, determined that the County's financial
commitment and plan, along with the County's willingness to address
changed and unforeseen circumstances in a cooperative fashion, is
sufficient to meet this criterion.
4. The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of the species in the wild. As the Federal action
agency considering whether to issue an ITP to the County, we have
reviewed the issuance of the ITP under section 7 of the ESA. Our
biological opinion concluded that issuance of the ITP will not
jeopardize the continued existence of the GCWA, BCVI, Bone Cave
harvestman, and Coffin Cave mold beetle in the wild. No critical
habitat has been designated for any of the covered species in the
action area, and thus none will be affected.
5. The applicant agrees to implement other measures that the
Service requires as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of
the HCP. We have cooperated with the County in the development of the
RHCP. We commented on draft documents, participated in advisory group
meetings, and worked closely with the County in every step of plan and
document preparation, so that conservation of the covered species would
be assured and recovery would not be jeopardized. The RHCP incorporates
our recommendations for minimization and mitigation of impacts, as well
as steps to monitor the effects of the RHCP and ensure success. Annual
monitoring, as well as coordination and reporting mechanisms, have been
designed to ensure that changes in conservation measures can be
implemented if measures prove ineffective or impacts exceed estimates.
It is our position that no additional measures are required to
implement the intent and purpose of the RHCP to those detailed in the
RHCP and its associated ITP.
We determine that the preferred alternative best balances the
protection and management of suitable habitat for covered species,
while allowing and providing a streamlined process for ESA compliance
for continued development in the County. Considerations used in this
decision include: (1) Mitigation will benefit GCWA, BCVI, Bone Cave
harvestman, and Coffin Cave mold beetle, managed for the species in
perpetuity, as well as other conservation measures to protect and
enhance habitat; (2) mitigation measures species will fully offset
anticipated impacts of development to the species and provide recovery
opportunities; and (3) the RHCP is consistent with the GCWA, BCVI, Bone
Cave harvestman, and Coffin Cave mold beetle recovery plans.
Thomas L. Bauer,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E9-8388 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P