[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11218-11220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03431]
[[Page 11218]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-ES-2012-N294; FXES11120200000F2-134-FF02ENEH00]
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision on
the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat
Conservation Plan for Incidental Take of 11 Species (8 Federally
Listed) in 8 Texas Counties
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, make available the final
environmental impact statement (EIS) and record of decision analyzing
the impacts of the issuance of an incidental take permit for
implementation of the final Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation
Program (EARIP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Our decision is to
issue a 15-year incidental take permit to the EARIP for implementation
of the preferred alternative (described below), which authorizes
incidental take of animal species and impacts to plant species listed
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The EARIP has
agreed to implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to
offset impacts to these species, as described in their HCP.
DATES: We are issuing the Record of Decision (ROD) with this notice,
and a final permit will not become effective sooner than 30 days after
publication of this notice. We must receive any comments on the final
EIS and HCP by March 18, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain copies of the final documents by going to
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/. Alternatively, you may
obtain a compact disk with electronic copies of these documents by
writing to Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; by calling
(512) 490-0057; or by faxing (512) 490-0974. Written comments may be
submitted to Mr. Adam Zerrenner (see address above). For additional
information about where to review documents, see ``Reviewing
Documents'' under 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, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service), announce the availability of the final environmental impact
statement (EIS) and record of decision (ROD), which we developed in
compliance with the agency decision-making requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), as well as the
final Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP) Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) as submitted by the applicants. All
alternatives have been described in detail, evaluated, and analyzed in
our December 2012 final EIS and the EARIP HCP. The ROD documents the
rationale for our decision.
Based on our review of the alternatives and their environmental
consequences as described in our final EIS, we have selected
Alternative 2, the proposed HCP. The proposed action is to issue to the
EARIP applicants an incidental take permit (ITP) under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), that authorizes incidental take of animal species
and impacts to plant species. The term of the permit is 15 years (2013-
2028), and would include the following endangered, threatened, and non-
listed species (also referred to as ``covered species''):
Endangered
Texas wild rice (Zizania texana)
Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis)
Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis)
Peck's Cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki)
Fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola)
Texas blind salamander (Eurycea [=Typhlomolge] rathbuni)
San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia georgei)
Threatened
San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana)
Non-listed Species
Texas cave diving beetle (Haideoporus texanus)
Texas troglobitic water slater (Lirceolus smithii)
Comal Springs salamander (Eurycea sp.)
Take of listed plant species is not defined in the Act, although
the Act does identify several prohibitions. However, because covered
species in the EARIP HCP include both plants and animals, in the
following discussion we use the term ``incidental take'' when
discussing impacts to covered plants, as well as actual incidental take
of covered animals.
The EARIP will implement avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures to offset impacts to the covered species according to their
HCP. The minimization and mitigation measures include spring flow and
habitat protection. Spring flow protection measures will ensure that no
interruption of flow at springs will occur during wet, normal, or
drought conditions. Habitat protection measures will restore and
enhance aquatic and riparian habitat in the Comal and San Marcos River
systems.
Background
The EARIP has applied for an incidental take permit (TE63663A-0,
ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), that
would authorize incidental take of animal species and impacts to plant
species (covered species) in all, or portions, of eight Texas counties.
The requested ITP, which will be in effect for a period of 15 years,
will authorize incidental take of seven federally listed animal species
and impacts to one listed plant species, and would cover three non-
listed species. The proposed incidental take could occur within Bexar,
Medina, and Uvalde Counties, and portions of Atascosa, Caldwell, Comal,
Guadalupe, and Hays Counties in Texas (permit area), and would result
from activities associated with otherwise lawful activities, including
the regulation and use of groundwater for irrigation, industrial,
municipal, domestic, and livestock purposes; the use of instream flows
in the Comal River and San Marcos River for recreational uses; and
other operational and maintenance activities that could affect Comal
Springs, San Marcos Springs, and their associated river systems
(covered activities). The final EIS considers the direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of implementation of the HCP, including the measures
that will be implemented to minimize and mitigate such impacts to the
maximum extent practicable. Incidental take coverage is also provided
for any take of covered species that may occur during species
management and habitat restoration and management activities related to
the minimization and mitigation proposed within the HCP.
On July 20, 2012, 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 HCP and to evaluate
alternatives, along with the draft HCP (77 FR 42756). We included
public comments and responses associated with the draft EIS and draft
HCP in the final EIS.
[[Page 11219]]
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit is to authorize
incidental take associated with the covered activities described above.
We identified key issues and relevant factors through conducting public
scoping and public meetings, working with other agencies and groups,
and reviewing comments from the public. In response to the publication
of the draft EIS and draft HCP, we received responses from 3 Federal
agencies, 2 State agencies, and 25 other organizations and individuals.
The Environmental Protection Agency had ``no objections'' to the
implementation of the preferred alternative. The National Resources
Conservation Service agreed with the selection of Alternative 2 as the
preferred alternative. The National Park Service stated that they had
no comments. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality supported
the selection of the HCP as the preferred alternative. The Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department stated that they support the HCP and the DEIS,
and provided minor edits and specific clarifying comments intended to
improve the documents. Comments from individuals and non-profit
organizations provided support for the HCP and the EIS selection of the
preferred alternative. Aside from minor edits or suggested
clarifications, no substantive comments were received on the draft HCP
or the draft EIS.
Alternatives
We considered four alternatives in the EIS.
Alternative 1--No action Alternative: Under the No Action
Alternative, the Service would not issue an incidental take permit for
the EARIP HCP.
Alternative 2--Preferred Alternative: Our selected alternative is
the proposed HCP with a 15-year term, and the preferred alternative as
described in the final EIS, which provides for the issuance of an ITP
to the EARIP Applicants for incidental take of covered species that may
occur as a result of covered activities. This alternative includes a
number of measures to maintain or manage springflow, including Critical
Period Management (CPM) pumping restrictions, management of an Aquifer
Storage and Recharge (ASR) facility to meet water demand that offsets
reduced pumping from the Edwards Aquifer near the springs during
drought, a Voluntary Irrigation Suspension Program that provides
economic incentives to reduce pumping for irrigated agriculture during
drought conditions, and a Regional Water Conservation Program. The HCP
also provides for habitat restoration and management measures that
minimize and mitigate impacts from the potential incidental take to the
maximum extent practicable.
Alternative 3--Expanded ASR Program: This alternative would result
in the construction of new infrastructure to inject water stored in an
expanded ASR into the aquifer to maintain springflow. It includes
issuance of an ITP and implementation of an HCP incorporating expanded
aquifer storage and recharge actions and CPM pumping restrictions to
achieve springflow and covered species protections.
Alternative 4--Highest Pumping Restriction: Alternative 4 would
implement the most restrictive pumping regulations to maintain spring
flows protective of the covered species.
Decision
We intend to issue an ITP to the EARIP applicants for
implementation of the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) as it is
described in the HCP. Our decision is based on a thorough review of the
alternatives and their environmental consequences. Implementation of
this decision entails issuance of the ITP by the Service and full
implementation of the HCP by the EARIP, including minimization and
mitigation measures, monitoring and adaptive management, and complying
with all terms and conditions in the ITP.
Rationale for Decision
We have selected the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) for
implementation based on multiple environmental and social factors,
including potential impacts and benefits to covered species and their
habitats; the extent and effectiveness of avoidance, minimization, and
mitigation measures; and social and economic considerations. We did not
choose the No Action Alternative, because, as compared with the
preferred alternative, it does not protect listed species from
potential take from covered activities. We did not choose the Expanded
ASR Program (Alternative 3) because of the uncertainties related to the
effectiveness of the Expanded ASR Program regarding effects to listed
species and the economic impacts to water users throughout the region
are greater than those anticipated under Alternative 2. Alternative 4
would curtail pumping more than the preferred alternative, causing the
greatest economic impact on water users of any of the alternatives, and
was therefore not selected.
In order to issue an ITP we must ascertain that the HCP 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 take will be
incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including the applicants'
regulation of groundwater, use of surface water for recreational
activities, and the operation and maintenance of facilities to withdraw
and convey groundwater.
2. The applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize
and mitigate the impacts of such takings. The EARIP has developed and
is committed to implementing a program that includes a variety of
habitat and springflow protection measures. These measures will ensure
that water continues to flow from springs to protect species that rely
on the flow of water for their survival.
3. The applicants will develop an HCP and ensure that adequate
funding for the HCP will be provided. The applicants have developed an
HCP, which includes a detailed estimate of the costs of implementing
the HCP (see Chapter 7 of the HCP). The funding necessary to pay for
implementing the HCP will come from water user fees and from other
sources, including several municipalities that benefit from HCP
implementation, but are not assessed water user fees.
4. The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of
survival and recovery of any listed species in the wild. As the Federal
action agency considering whether to issue an ITP to the EARIP, we have
reviewed the proposed action under section 7 of the Act. Our biological
opinion, dated January 3, 2013, concluded that issuance of the ITP will
not jeopardize the continued existence of the covered species in the
wild. No areas designated as critical habitat will be adversely
modified. The biological opinion also analyzes other listed species
within the planning area and concludes that the direct and indirect
effects from implementation of the HCP will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of other listed species or
adversely modify any designated critical habitat within the permit
area.
5. The applicants agree to implement other measures that the
Service requires as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes of
the HCP. We have assisted the EARIP in the development of the HCP. We
commented on draft documents, participated in numerous meetings, and
worked closely with the
[[Page 11220]]
EARIP throughout the development of the HCP so conservation of covered
species would be assured and recovery would not be precluded by the
covered activities. The HCP incorporates our recommendations for
minimization and mitigation of impacts, as well as steps to monitor the
effects of the HCP and ensure success. Annual monitoring, as well as
coordination and reporting mechanisms, have been designed to ensure
that changes in the conservation measures can be implemented if
proposed measures prove ineffective (adaptive management).
We have determined that the preferred alternative best balances the
protection and management of habitat for covered species, while
providing compliance with the Act for withdrawal and use of Edwards
Aquifer water in the permit area. Considerations used in this decision
include whether (1) mitigation will benefit the covered species, (2)
adaptive management of the conservation measures will ensure that the
goals and objectives of the HCP are realized, (3) conservation measures
will protect and enhance habitat, (4) mitigation measures for the
covered species will fully offset anticipated impacts to species and
provide recovery opportunities, and (5) the HCP is consistent with the
covered species' recovery plans.
A final permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after
the publication of this notice of availability.
Reviewing Documents
You may obtain copies of the final EIS, ROD, and final HCP by going
to http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/. Alternatively, you may
obtain a compact disk with electronic copies of these documents by
writing to Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 10711 Burnet Road Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; by calling
(512) 490-0057; or by 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. 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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room
6034, Albuquerque, NM 87102.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road Suite
200, Austin, TX 78758.
Persons wishing to review the application 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 publically 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 Act
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR
17.22 and 17.32), and the National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR part
1506.6).
Joy E. Nicholopoulos,
Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2013-03431 Filed 2-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P