[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3221-3223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00593]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-ES-2012-N208; FXES11120200000F2-145-FF02ENEH00]
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on
Comal County's Regional Habitat Conservation Plan for Comal County,
Texas
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, make available the
final environmental impact statement (FEIS), draft record of decision
(ROD), and final Comal County regional habitat conservation plan (RHCP)
under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). Our
decision is to issue a 30-year incidental take permit to Comal County,
Texas, for implementation of the Preferred Alternative (described
below), which authorizes incidental take of the endangered golden-
cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo, both of which are listed under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). Comal County has
agreed to implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to
offset impacts to these species, as described in their RHCP.
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, draft ROD, and RHCP will be accepted until February 18, 2014.
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,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin,
TX 78758 or (512) 490-0057.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We announce the availability of the Comal
County final Environmental Impact Statement, final regional habitat
conservation plan, and draft record of decision, which we developed in
compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of the NEPA, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). All alternatives have been described
in detail, evaluated, and analyzed in our August 2013 final EIS and
Comal County's RHCP.
Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental
consequences as described in our final EIS, we have selected
Alternative B, the proposed RHCP. The proposed action is the issuance
to Comal County of a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit (ITP)
(under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)), which authorizes incidental
take of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia;
GCWA) and black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla; BCVI) (collectively,
covered species). The term of the permit is 30 years (2013-2043).
Comal County will implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures to offset impacts to Covered Species according to their RHCP.
Impacts will be mitigated through the purchase of preserves by Comal
County, which would generate credits; purchasing credits from a
Service-approved conservation bank; or working with willing landowners
or private entities to create preserves, which would generate credits.
Each preserve acquisition will be subject to Service approval and will
generate mitigation credits based on number of acres, and quality of
potential occupied habitat for covered species. All preserves and
credits will be approved by the Service and will generate mitigation
credits based on, and commensurate with, Service policy and guidelines
regarding mitigation (such as, but not limited to, the guidance found
in Establishment, Use, and Operation of Conservation Banks [68 FR
24753]) in order to ensure that the quality of the mitigation is equal
to or greater than the quality of the habitat impacted.
Background
Comal County applied to the Service for an ITP. As part of the
permit application, Comal County developed the RHCP to meet the
requirements of an ITP. Our issuance of an ITP and implementation of
the RHCP would allow Comal County to take the covered species
incidentally, during 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 (covered activities) within Comal County, Texas
(plan area), during the 30-year term of the ITP.
The Secretary of the Interior has delegated to the Service the
authority to approve or deny an ITP in accordance with the ESA. To act
on Comal County's permit application, we must determine that the RHCP
meets the issuance
[[Page 3222]]
criteria specified in the ESA and 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 NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508).
On June 3, 2010, 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 (75 FR 31463). We included public comments
and responses associated with the draft EIS and draft HCP in an
appendix to the final EIS.
Purpose and Need of Permit
The purpose of the section 10(a)(l)(B) permit is to authorize
incidental take associated with the covered activities described above.
We identified key issues and relevant factors through public scoping,
working with other agencies and groups, and comments from the public.
We received a response from one Federal agency, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, who had ``no objections'' to implementation of the
Preferred Alternative. Most of the comments received from the public
focused on: (1) The process of the RHCP and how it may expedite certain
projects (e.g., roads and quarry operations) that impact GCWA habitat,
(2) the difficulties and decisions involved with modeling and
quantifying GCWA habitat, (3) the potential occurrence of listed
invertebrates in the plan area, and (4) the alleged lack of
documentation ensuring impacts to the Covered Species will be minimized
and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. One comment letter
supported the RHCP as proposed. We believe these comments are addressed
and reasonably accommodated in the final documents. No new significant
issues arose following publication of the draft documents.
Alternatives
Alternative A (No Action): Under the No Action alternative, Comal
County would not request and the Service would not issue an ITP.
Instead, development activities in Comal County that would cause take
of listed species would require individual authorizations through
section 10(a)(1)(B) or section 7 consultation where a Federal nexus
(authorized by a Federal agency [e.g., section 404 permit under the
Clean Water Act]) exists, on a project-by-project basis over the next
30 years.
Alternative B (Preferred Alternative): Our selected alternative is
the proposed RHCP, the preferred alternative, as described in the final
EIS, which provides for the issuance of an ITP to Comal County for
incidental take that is anticipated to occur as a result of covered
activities. This alternative includes implementation of measures to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate for the potential incidental take of
federally listed species to the maximum extent practicable. This
alternative also provides conservation measures for Covered Species and
the mechanism for streamlined compliance with the Act.
Alternative C (Reduced Take RHCP): Compared to Alternative B, this
alternative (1) eliminates the BCVI as a Covered Species, (2) reduces
the areal extent of covered take for GCWA, and (3) reduces funding for
the research and public awareness programs, the endowment, and the
preserve system.
Decision
We intend to issue an ITP allowing Comal 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 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. We did not choose the
No Action Alternative, because a project-by-project approach for
complying with the Act would be more time-consuming and less efficient,
and would result in piecemeal mitigation for covered species, incapable
of providing comprehensive or comparable net benefits with respect to
the preferred alternative. We did not choose the Reduced Take
Alternative, because we do not believe that the amount of take
requested is sufficient for the permit duration.
In order for us to issue an ITP, we must ascertain that the RHCP
meets the issuance criteria set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(2)(A) and
(B). We have made that determination based on the criteria 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 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 indirect impacts of 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 take of the covered species and mitigate
for any unavoidable loss. Mitigation will be commensurate with the
actual level of take. Comal County will ensure compliance with the
avoidance, minimization, and conservation measures through on-the-
ground habitat assessments, making available to the public maps of
potential habitat; requiring RHCP participants to abide by the seasonal
clearing restrictions to avoid immediate impacts to GCWAs and BCVIs
during their breeding seasons; and developing a public education and
outreach program to educate landowners and residents about GCWAs,
BCVIs, and the RHCP.
3. The applicant will develop an HCP and ensure that adequate
funding for the HCP will be provided. Comal County has developed and
will implement the RHCP. These obligations include the cost for
purchase and management of 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; identify
alternative management strategies and how to 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. The County will fund the
cost of
[[Page 3223]]
implementing the RHCP with application and mitigation fees, County
General Maintenance and Operations fund contributions, and County
Conservation Investments.
The Service's no surprises assurances, changed circumstances, and
unforeseen circumstances are discussed in Chapter 8 of the RHCP.
Unforeseen circumstances would be addressed through the Service's close
coordination with Comal County in the implementation of the RHCP, and
the County has committed to a coordination process to address such
circumstances. Adaptive management, Chapter 6 of the RHCP, will be used
to direct changes to conservation, mitigation, or management measures
and monitoring when needed. We have, therefore, determined that Comal
County's financial commitment and plan, along with their 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 any listed species in the wild. As the Federal
action agency considering whether to issue an ITP to Comal County, we
have reviewed the proposed action under section 7 of the Act. Our
biological opinion, dated August 1, 2013, concluded that issuance of
the ITP will not jeopardize the continued existence of the covered
species in the wild. No critical habitat has been designated for either
of the covered species, and thus none will be affected. The biological
opinion also analyzes other listed species within the planning area and
concludes that the direct and indirect effect of the issuance of the
ITP will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery
of other listed species and will not cause adverse modification of any
designated critical habitat within the permit area.
5. The applicant agrees to implement other measures that the
Service requires as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of
the HCP. We assisted Comal County in the development of their RHCP. We
commented on draft documents, participated in numerous meetings and
conference calls, and worked closely with Comal County during every
step of plan and document preparation, so that conservation of the
covered species would be assured and recovery would not be precluded by
the covered activities. 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 proposed
measures prove ineffective (adaptive management) or impacts exceed
estimates (changed circumstances). 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 habitat for covered species, while
allowing and providing a streamlined process for compliance with the
Act for the covered activities. Considerations used in this decision
include whether: (1) Mitigation will benefit the covered species, (2)
mitigation lands will be managed for the species in perpetuity, (3)
other conservation measures will protect and enhance habitat, (4)
mitigation measures for the covered species will fully offset
anticipated impacts to the species and provide recovery opportunities,
and (5) the RHCP is consistent with the covered species' 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-223267-0 when requesting documents or submitting
comments. You may obtain copies of the final EIS and final HCP by going
to http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/. Alternatively, you may
obtain CD-ROMs with electronic copies of these documents, as well as
the draft ROD, by writing to Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX
78758; calling (512) 490-0057; or faxing (512) 490-0974. A limited
number of printed copies of the final EIS and final HCP are also
available, by request, from Mr. Zerrenner. The application, final
RHCIP, 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 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 HCP
are also available for public inspection and review at the following
locations by appointment only:
Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library,
1849 C St. NW., Washington, DC 20240, (202) 208-5814.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room
6034, Albuquerque, NM 87102, (505) 248-6920.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite
200, Austin, TX 78758, (512) 490-00574.
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 6034, 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, email address, or other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including
your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available
at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold
your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will not consider anonymous
comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be made available for public
disclosure in their entirety.
Authority
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22) and NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR
1506.6).
Dated: November 22, 2013.
Benjamin N. Tuggle,
Regional Director, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2014-00593 Filed 1-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P