[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28060-28063]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11761]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-ES-2010-N173; 20124-1112-0000-F2]
Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, Hays County, TX
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final environmental impact statement,
final Hays County regional habitat conservation plan, and draft record
of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), make
available the final environmental impact statement (EIS), the final
Hays County regional habitat conservation plan (RHCP) under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and our draft record
of decision (ROD). Our intended action is the issuance of a 30-year
incidental take permit (ITP) for the Preferred Alternative (described
below) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), to
Hays County, Texas (the County), to incidentally take golden-cheeked
warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and black-capped vireo (Vireo
atricapilla). Under the RHCP, the County will mitigate for take by
establishing a preserve system of 10,000-15,000 acres to mitigate for
incidental take of covered species. Each preserve acquisition will be
subject to Service approval and will generate mitigation credits based
on the number of acres and quality of potential occupied habitat for
the covered species.
DATES: We will issue a ROD and make a final permit decision no sooner
than 30 days after publication of this notice. Comments on the final
EIS and RHCP will be accepted for 30 days after publication of this
notice.
ADDRESSES: For where to review documents and submit comments see
Reviewing Documents and Submitting Comments in SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor,
Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200,
Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512/490-0057.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), announce the availability of the Hays County final
environmental impact statement; final regional habitat conservation
plan, which we developed in compliance with the agency decision-making
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
as amended; and our record of decision. We intend to implement the
preferred alternative, which is implementation of the RHCP. We have
described all alternatives in detail, and evaluated and analyzed them
in our May 2010 final EIS and the final RHCP.
Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental
consequences as described in our final EIS, we intend to implement the
preferred alternative (the proposed action). The selected proposed
action is the issuance of a section 10(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit
(ITP) to Hays County, Texas (the County), for incidental take of
golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and black-capped vireo
(Vireo atricapilla). We refer to both species collectively as ``the
covered species.''
The term of the permit is 30 years (2011-2041). The County will
implement mitigation and minimization measures according to the
schedule in the RHCP. Under the RHCP, the County will mitigate for take
by establishing a preserve system of 10,000-15,000 acres to mitigate
for incidental take of covered species. Each preserve acquisition will
be subject to Service approval and will generate mitigation credits
based on the number of acres, and quality, of potential occupied
habitat for the covered species. The number of mitigation credits
allowed for each
[[Page 28061]]
preserve will be based on, and commensurate with, Service policy and
guidelines regarding mitigation (such as, but not limited to, the
Guidance for the Establishment, Use, and Operation of Conservation
Banks) in order to ensure that the quality of the mitigation is equal
to or greater than the quality of the habitat impacted.
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 would allow the
County to take the covered species resulting from proposed
construction, use, or maintenance of public or private land development
projects; construction, maintenance, or improvement of transportation
infrastructure; installation or maintenance of utility infrastructure;
construction, use, or maintenance of institutional projects or public
infrastructure; and management activities within Hays County, Texas,
during the 30-year ITP term.
The Secretary of the Interior has delegated the authority to the
Service 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 our 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 November 2, 2009, we issued a draft EIS and requested public
comment on our evaluation of the potential impacts associated with
issuance of an ITP for implementation of the RHCP and to evaluate
alternatives, along with the draft RHCP (74 FR 56655). We included
public comments and responses associated with the Draft EIS and Draft
RHCP in an appendix to the final EIS.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the section 10(a)(l)(B) permit is to authorize
incidental take associated with the otherwise legal 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;
Biological Advisory Team; and comments from the public. These issues
included the need for: (1) Development to continue in the County; (2)
minimization of impacts on covered species; and (3) mitigation of
impacts on covered 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 described in the final EIS. 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; to satisfy the habitat and
species needs; and meet issuance criteria of section 10 of the ESA.
For golden-cheeked warblers, the take associated with direct and
indirect impacts to 9,000 acres of habitat are authorized over the life
of the permit. These impacts shall be mitigated by a combination of
purchasing mitigation credits in nearby conservation banks and by
purchasing high quality habitat within Hays County for designated
golden-cheeked warbler preserves. For black-capped vireos, the take
associated with direct and indirect impacts to 1,300 acres of habitat
are authorized over the life of the permit. Impacts will be mitigated
primarily through habitat restoration, habitat management, enhancement
of existing protected black-capped vireo habitat, or an alternate,
Service-approved mitigation program.
We considered three additional alternatives in the final EIS:
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 10(a) permits could cause delays in permit issuance,
because we often take 1 to 2 years to process an individual permit.
Alternative C (Moderate Preserve System with a Take Limit):
Compared with that under Alternative B, this alternative features the
acquisition of a modestly sized, pre-determined preserve system and
limits the amount of incidental take that would be authorized by the
ITP. This alternative illustrates a conservation program that could be
relatively easy for the County to afford, but (due to relatively
smaller size of the preserve system compared to the proposed RHCP)
might not satisfy the anticipated need for incidental take
authorization over the duration of the plan.
Alternative D (Large-scale Preserve System): Compared with that
under Alternative B, this alternative involves a conservation program
that utilizes a pre-determined preserve approach. Under this
alternative, the preserve system would be large enough to authorize the
incidental take of any remaining golden-cheeked warbler or black-capped
vireo habitat in the County, outside of the target acquisition area of
the preserve system, during the duration of the plan.
Decision
We intend to issue an ITP allowing the County to implement the
preferred alternative (Alternative B), as it is described in the final
EIS. This intention 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 monitoring and adaptive management measures.
Rationale for Decision
We intend to select 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
construction, use, or maintenance of public or private land
[[Page 28062]]
development projects; construction, maintenance, or improvement of
transportation infrastructure; installation or maintenance of utility
infrastructure; construction, use, or maintenance of institutional
projects or public infrastructure; and management activities. 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 environmentally preferable
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 and
management of golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo, mitigation
lands in perpetuity, enforcement of conservation easements, and
monitoring of species populations and habitat. In addition, the County
has committed to implement adaptive management measures that: identify
areas of uncertainty and questions that need to be addressed to resolve
such 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
$182.6 million. The County will fund the actual costs of implementing
the RHCP by application and mitigation fees, the County General
maintenance and operations fund contributions, and the County
Conservation Investments.
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 golden cheeked warbler and
black capped vireo in the wild. No critical habitat has been designated
for either of the covered species, 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 have determined 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 Hays County. Considerations used in this
decision include: (1) Mitigation will benefit the golden cheeked
warbler and black capped vireo, mitigation lands will be managed for
the species in perpetuity, and other conservation measures will protect
and enhance habitat; (2) mitigation measures for the covered species
will fully offset anticipated impacts of development to the species and
provide recovery opportunities; and (3) the RHCP is consistent with the
golden cheeked warbler and black capped vireo recovery plans.
Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the
``taking'' of threatened or endangered species. However, under limited
circumstances, we may issue permits to take listed wildlife species
incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.
Reviewing Documents and Submitting Comments
Please refer to TE-220793-0 when requesting documents or submitting
comments. You may obtain copies of the final EIS and final RHCP by
going to the Hays County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Web site at
http://hayscountyhcp.com/documents. Alternatively, you may obtain
compact disks with electronic copies of these documents, as well as the
draft ROD, by writing to Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, 10711
Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; telephone 512-490-0057;
facsimile 512-490-0974. The application, final RHCP, final EIS, and
draft ROD will also be available for public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Austin
office. During the public comment period (see DATES), submit your
written comments or data to the Field Supervisor at the Austin address.
Public comments submitted are available for public review at the
Austin address listed above. This generally means that any personal
information you provide us will be available to anyone reviewing the
public comments (see the Public Availability of Comments section below
for more information).
A limited number of printed copies of the final EIS and final RHCP
are also available for public inspection and review at the following
locations (by appointment only at government offices):
Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library,
1849 C. St., NW., Washington, DC 20240;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue, SW., Room
4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102;
San Marcos Public Library, 625 E. Hopkins Street, San
Marcos, TX, 78666-6313;
[[Page 28063]]
Hays County Precinct 3 Office, 14306 Ranch Rd 12,
Wimberley, TX; 78676, and
Hays County Precinct 4 Office, 101 Old Fitzhugh Rd,
Dripping Springs, TX, 78620.
Persons wishing to review the application or draft ROD may obtain a
copy by writing to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, P.O. Box 1306, Room 4012, Albuquerque, NM 87103.
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become part of the public record
associated with this action. Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that the entire comment--including
your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available
at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your
personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Authority
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR
1506.6).
December 7, 2010.
Joy E. Nicholopoulos,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2011-11761 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P