Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, Williamson County, TX, 17211-17213 [E9-8388]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17211-17213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8388]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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