Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Associated Documents for Development in Bexar County and the City of San Antonio, TX, 23619-23621 [2011-10143]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices
of our refuges. Depending on the
activity requested and the differing
management needs of refuges, there may
be instances where an applicant has to
submit more or less information for the
same activity. These instances should be
minimal, and, in no case, can a refuge
manager ask for information that is not
on the application. Rather than
following a ‘‘one form fits all approach,’’
we believe that allowing refuge
managers the discretion to determine
the level of information necessary to
issue the permit will result in reducing
the burden for applicants. If OMB
approves the three proposed forms, we
will issue guidance to Regional Offices
and refuge managers that: (1) they must
collect only the minimum information
necessary to determine whether or not
to issue a permit, and (2) they cannot
collect any information that is not on
the approved forms.
Comment 11: Grazing is never
beneficial to wildlife, and no
agricultural activity should be allowed
on national wildlife refuges. Guides
should not be allowed on national
wildlife refuges. Taking people out to
kill wildlife should not happen.
Response: The Administration Act
authorizes us to permit public
accommodations, including commercial
visitor services, on lands of the System
when we find that the activity is
compatible and appropriate with the
purpose for which the refuge was
established. While we appreciate the
views of the respondent, the comment
did not address the information
collection requirements. We did not
make any changes to our information
collection request based on this
comment.
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, e-mail 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:36 Apr 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Dated: April 21, 2011.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–10167 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R2–ES–2010–N282; 20124–1112–
0000–F2]
Intent To Prepare a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement and
Associated Documents for
Development in Bexar County and the
City of San Antonio, TX
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent; announcement
of public scoping meetings; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), advise the
public that we intend to prepare a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to evaluate the impacts of, and
alternatives to, the proposed issuance of
an incidental take permit (ITP)under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), to Bexar County, Texas,
and the City of San Antonio, Texas
(applicants). The ITP would authorize
incidental take of five Federally listed
species resulting from residential,
commercial, and other development
activities associated with the proposed
Southern Edwards Plateau (SEP)
Regional Habitat Conservation Plan
(RHCP), which includes Bexar and
surrounding counties. We also
announce plans for a series of public
scoping meetings throughout the
proposed plan area and the opening of
a public comment period.
DATES: Written comments on
alternatives and issues to be addressed
in the draft EIS must be received by July
26, 2011. Public scoping meetings will
be held at various locations throughout
the proposed seven-county plan area.
Public scoping meetings will be held
between May1, 2011 and June 15, 2011.
Exact meeting locations and times will
be announced in local newspapers and
on the Service’s Austin Ecological
Services Office Web site, https://
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
AustinTexas/, at least 2 weeks prior to
each meeting.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00084
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23619
To request further
information or submit written
comments, use one of the following
methods, and note that your information
request or comment is in reference to
the SEP RHCP/EIS:
• E-mail: Allison Arnold@fws.gov;
• U.S. Mail: Field Supervisor, Austin
Ecological Services Field Office, 10711
Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX
78758–4460;
• Telephone: 512/490–0057; or
• Fax: 512/490–0974.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice is published in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), and its implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6), and section
10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The Service intends to gather the
information necessary to determine
impacts and alternatives to support a
decision regarding the potential
issuance of an ITPto the applicants
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and
the implementation of the supporting
draft RHCP.
The applicants propose to develop an
RHCP as part of their application for an
ITP. The proposed RHCP will include
measures necessary to minimize and
mitigate the impacts, to the maximum
extent practicable, of potential proposed
taking of Federally listed species and
the habitats upon which they depend,
resulting from residential, commercial,
and other development activities within
the proposed plan area, to include Bexar
and surrounding counties.
ADDRESSES:
Background
Section 9 of the Act prohibits taking
of fish and wildlife species listed as
endangered or threatened under section
4 of the Act. Under the Act, the term
‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. The term ‘‘harm’’ is
defined in the regulations as significant
habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed
species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR
17.3). The term ‘‘harass’’ is defined in
the regulations as to carry out actions
that create the likelihood of injury to
listed species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavioral
patterns, which include, but are not
limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However, the
Service may, under specified
circumstances, issue permits that allow
the take of Federally listed species,
provided that the take that occurs is
incidental to, but not as the purpose of,
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
23620
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
an otherwise lawful activity.
Regulations governing permits for
endangered and threatened species are
at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains
provisions for issuing such incidental
take permits to non-Federal entities for
the take of endangered and threatened
species, provided the following criteria
are met: (1) The taking will be
incidental; (2) the applicants will, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimize
and mitigate the impact of such taking;
(3) the applicants will develop a draft
RHCP and ensure that adequate funding
for the plan will be provided; (4) the
taking will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival and recovery
of the species in the wild; and (5) the
applicants will carry out any other
measures that the Service may require
as being necessary or appropriate for the
purposes of the RHCP.
Thus, the purpose of issuing a
programmatic ITP is to allow the
applicants, under their respective City
or County authority, to authorize
development while conserving the
covered species and their habitats.
Implementation of a programmatic
multispecies habitat conservation plan,
rather than a species-by-species/projectby-project approach, will maximize the
benefits of conservation measures for
covered species and eliminate
expensive and time-consuming efforts
associated with processing individual
ITPs for each project within the
applicants’ proposed seven-county plan
area. The Service expects that the
applicants will request ITP coverage for
a period of 30 years.
Scoping Meetings
The purpose of scoping meetings is to
provide the public with a general
understanding of the background of the
proposed RHCP and activities that
would be covered by the draft RHCP,
alternative proposals under
consideration for the draft EIS, and the
Service’s role and steps to be taken to
develop the draft EIS for the draft RHCP.
The meeting format will consist of a
1-hour open house prior to the formal
scoping meeting. The open house format
will provide an opportunity to learn
about the proposed action, permit area,
and species covered. The open house
will be followed by a formal
presentation of the proposed action,
summary of the NEPA process, and
presentation of oral comments from the
public. A court reporter will be present
at each meeting, and an interpreter will
be present when deemed necessary. The
primary purpose of these meetings and
public comment period is to solicit
suggestions and information on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:36 Apr 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
scope of issues and alternatives for the
Service to consider when drafting the
EIS. Oral and written comments will be
accepted at the meetings. Comments can
also be submitted to persons listed in
the ADDRESSES section. Once the draft
EIS and draft RHCP are completed and
made available for review, there will be
additional opportunity for public
comment on the content of these
documents through an additional public
hearing and comment period.
Alternatives
The proposed action presented in the
draft EIS will be compared to the NoAction alternative. The No-Action
alternative represents estimated future
conditions to which the proposed
action’s estimated future conditions can
be compared. Other alternatives
considered, including impacts
associated with each alternative
evaluated, will also be addressed in the
draft EIS.
No-Action Alternative
Because the proposed covered
activities (development activities) are
vital in providing services to
accommodate future population growth,
energy, and infrastructure demand,
these activities would continue
regardless of whether a 10(a)(1)(B)
permit is requested or issued. The
applicants would continue to avoid and
minimize impacts to protected species’
habitat. Where potential impacts to
Federally protected species within the
proposed permit area could not be
avoided, they would be minimized and
mitigated through individual formal or
informal consultation with the Service,
when applicable, or applicants would
potentially seek an individual section
10(a)(1)(B) ITP on a project-by-project
basis. Although future activities by the
applicants would be similar to those
covered by the RHCP, not all activities
would necessitate an incidental take
permit or consultation with the Service.
Thus, under this alternative, numerous
individual section 10(a)(1)(B) permit
applications would likely be filed over
the 30-year project period. This projectby-project approach would be more
time-consuming and less efficient; and
could result in an isolated independent
mitigation approach.
Proposed Alternative
The proposed action is the issuance of
an ITP for the covered species for
development activities within the
proposed permit area for a period of 30
years. The proposed RHCP, which must
meet the requirements of section
10(a)(2)(A) of the Act by providing
measures to minimize and mitigate the
PO 00000
Frm 00085
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
effects of the potential incidental take of
covered species to the maximum extent
practicable, would be developed and
implemented by the applicants. This
alternative could allow for a
comprehensive mitigation approach for
unavoidable impacts and reduce the
permit processing effort for the Service.
Activities proposed for coverage
under the proposed permit will be
otherwise lawful activities that would
occur consistent with the RHCP and
include, but are not limited to:
(1) Construction, use, and/or
maintenance of public or private land
development projects, (e.g., single- and
multi-family homes, residential
subdivisions, farm and ranch
improvements, commercial or industrial
projects, government offices, and park
infrastructure); (2) construction,
maintenance, and/or improvement of
roads, bridges, and other transportation
infrastructure; (3) installation and/or
maintenance of utility infrastructure
(e.g. transmission or distribution lines
and facilities related to electric,
telecommunication, water, wastewater,
petroleum or natural gas, and other
utility products or services); (4) the
construction, use, maintenance, and/or
expansion of schools, hospitals,
corrections or justice facilities, and
community service development or
improvement projects; (5) construction,
use, or maintenance of other public
infrastructure and improvement projects
(e.g., projects by municipalities,
counties, school districts); (6) any
management activities that are
necessary to manage potential habitat
for the covered species within the RHCP
system that could temporarily result in
incidental take; and (7) the construction,
use, maintenance and/or expansion of
quarries, gravel mining, or other similar
extraction projects.
It is anticipated that the following
species will be included as covered
species in the RHCP: The goldencheeked warbler (Dendroica
chrysoparia), black-capped vireo (Vireo
atricapilla), Madla Cave meshweaver
(Cicurina madla), and two ground beetle
species, each of which has no common
name (Rhadine exilis and Rhadine
infernalis). For these covered species,
the applicants would seek incidental
take authorization. Six Federally listed
endangered species have been
recommended for inclusion as covered
species: Robber Baron Cave meshweaver
(Cicurina baronia), Bracken Bat Cave
meshweaver (Cicurina venii),
Government Canyon Bat
Cavemeshweaver (Cicurina vespera),
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider
(Neoleptoneta microps), Cokendolpher
Cave harvestman (Texella
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2011 / Notices
cokendolpheri), and Helotes mold beetle
(Batrisodes venyivi). Seven additional
species have been identified as
potentially affected by the proposed
covered activities and maybe considered
for inclusion in the RHCP: Whooping
crane (Grus americana), big red sage
(Salvia penstemonoides), to busch
fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus
brevihamatus ssp tobuschii), bracted
twistflower (Streptanthus bracteatus),
golden orb (Quadrula aurea), Texas
pimpleback (Quadrula petrina), and
Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata).
Incidental take authorization for these
additional species may be necessary
during the term of the ITP. Inclusion of
these species will be determined during
the RHCP planning and development
process. The RHCP may include
conservation measures to benefit these
species, where practicable, and support
research to help fill data gaps regarding
the biology, habitat, distribution, and/or
management of these species, even if
incidental take coverage is not requested
under the ITP.
Candidate and Federally listed
species not likely to be taken by the
covered activities, and therefore not
covered by the proposed ITP, may also
be addressed in the draft RHCP to
explain why the applicants believe
these species will not be taken.
Counties included in the proposed
permit area are Bexar, Medina, Bandera,
Kerr, Kendall, Blanco, and Comal
Counties.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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.
Environmental Review
The Service will conduct an
environmental review to analyze the
proposed action, as well as other
alternatives evaluated and the
associated impacts of each. The draft
EIS will be the basis for the impact
evaluation for each species covered and
the range of alternatives to be addressed.
The draft EIS is expected to provide
biological descriptions of the affected
species and habitats, as well as the
effects of the alternatives on other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:36 Apr 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
resources, such as vegetation, wetlands,
wildlife, geology and soils, air quality,
water resources, water quality, cultural
resources, land use, recreation, water
use, local economy, and environmental
justice.
Following completion of the
environmental review, the Service will
publish a notice of availability and a
request for comment on the draft EIS
and the applicants’ permit application,
which will include the draft RHCP. The
draft EIS and draft RHCP are expected
to be completed and available to the
public in late 2011.
Joy E. Nicholopoulos,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2011–10143 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R8–FHC–2011–N083; 81331–1334–
8TWG–W4]
Trinity Adaptive Management Working
Group
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
The Trinity Adaptive
Management Working Group (TAMWG)
affords stakeholders the opportunity to
give policy, management, and technical
input concerning Trinity River
(California) restoration efforts to the
Trinity Management Council (TMC).
The TMC interprets and recommends
policy, coordinates and reviews
management actions, and provides
organizational budget oversight. This
notice announces a TAMWG meeting,
which is open to the public.
DATES: TAMWG will meet from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17, 2011.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Weaverville Victorian Inn, 1709
Main Street, Weaverville, CA 96093.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Meeting Information: Randy A. Brown,
TAMWG Designated Federal Officer,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655
Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521;
telephone: (707) 822–7201. Trinity River
Restoration Program
(TRRP)Information: Jennifer Faler,
Acting Executive Director, Trinity River
Restoration Program, P.O. Box 1300,
1313 South Main Street, Weaverville,
CA 96093; telephone: (530) 623–1800;
e-mail: jfaler@usbr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under
section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00086
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23621
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.), this
notice announces a meeting of the
TAMWG.The meeting will include
discussion of the following topics:
• TRRP FY 2012 budget and work
plan,
• Temperature and reservoir
management and recent CVO letter,
• Acting Executive Director’s Report,
• Policies for work in tributary
watersheds,
• Initial report on peak releases,
• Channel rehabilitation phase II
planning update,
• TMC chair report,
• TAMWG bylaws, and
• Designated Federal Officer topics.
Completion of the agenda is dependent
on the amount of time each item takes.
The meeting could end early if the
agenda has been completed.
Dated: April 21, 2011.
Joseph Polos,
Supervisory Fishery Biologist, Arcata Fish
and Wildlife Office, Arcata, CA.
[FR Doc. 2011–10141 Filed 4–26–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Final Determination Against Federal
Acknowledgment of the Choctaw
Nation of Florida
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Final Determination.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the Department of the Interior
(Department) declines to acknowledge
that the group known as the ‘‘Choctaw
Nation of Florida’’ (CNF, formerly
known as the Hunter Tsalagi-Choctaw
Tribe), Petitioner #288, c/o Mr. Alfonso
James, Jr., Post Office Box 6322,
Marianna, Florida 32447, is an
American Indian group that exists as an
Indian tribe under Department
procedures. This notice is based on a
determination that the petitioner does
not meet one of the seven mandatory
criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7,
specifically criterion 83.7(e), descent
from a historical Indian tribe, and
therefore, the Department may not
acknowledge the petitioner under 25
CFR part 83. Based on the limited
nature and extent of comment and
consistent with previous practices, the
Department did not produce a detailed
report or other summary under the
criteria pertaining to this FD. This
notice is the Final Determination (FD).
DATES: This determination is final and
will become effective 90 days from
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27APN1.SGM
27APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23619-23621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10143]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-ES-2010-N282; 20124-1112-0000-F2]
Intent To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Associated Documents for Development in Bexar County and the City of
San Antonio, TX
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent; announcement of public scoping meetings;
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), advise the
public that we intend to prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed
issuance of an incidental take permit (ITP)under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to Bexar County, Texas, and the City of
San Antonio, Texas (applicants). The ITP would authorize incidental
take of five Federally listed species resulting from residential,
commercial, and other development activities associated with the
proposed Southern Edwards Plateau (SEP) Regional Habitat Conservation
Plan (RHCP), which includes Bexar and surrounding counties. We also
announce plans for a series of public scoping meetings throughout the
proposed plan area and the opening of a public comment period.
DATES: Written comments on alternatives and issues to be addressed in
the draft EIS must be received by July 26, 2011. Public scoping
meetings will be held at various locations throughout the proposed
seven-county plan area. Public scoping meetings will be held between
May1, 2011 and June 15, 2011. Exact meeting locations and times will be
announced in local newspapers and on the Service's Austin Ecological
Services Office Web site, https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/,
at least 2 weeks prior to each meeting.
ADDRESSES: To request further information or submit written comments,
use one of the following methods, and note that your information
request or comment is in reference to the SEP RHCP/EIS:
E-mail: Allison Arnold@fws.gov;
U.S. Mail: Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services
Field Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758-4460;
Telephone: 512/490-0057; or
Fax: 512/490-0974.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6),
and section 10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Service
intends to gather the information necessary to determine impacts and
alternatives to support a decision regarding the potential issuance of
an ITPto the applicants under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, and the
implementation of the supporting draft RHCP.
The applicants propose to develop an RHCP as part of their
application for an ITP. The proposed RHCP will include measures
necessary to minimize and mitigate the impacts, to the maximum extent
practicable, of potential proposed taking of Federally listed species
and the habitats upon which they depend, resulting from residential,
commercial, and other development activities within the proposed plan
area, to include Bexar and surrounding counties.
Background
Section 9 of the Act prohibits taking of fish and wildlife species
listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act. Under
the Act, the term ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. The term ``harm'' is defined in the regulations as
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death
or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR
17.3). The term ``harass'' is defined in the regulations as to carry
out actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to
such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns,
which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering
(50 CFR 17.3). However, the Service may, under specified circumstances,
issue permits that allow the take of Federally listed species, provided
that the take that occurs is incidental to, but not as the purpose of,
[[Page 23620]]
an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for
endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32,
respectively.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing such
incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the take of
endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are
met: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) the applicants will, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such
taking; (3) the applicants will develop a draft RHCP and ensure that
adequate funding for the plan will be provided; (4) the taking will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the
species in the wild; and (5) the applicants will carry out any other
measures that the Service may require as being necessary or appropriate
for the purposes of the RHCP.
Thus, the purpose of issuing a programmatic ITP is to allow the
applicants, under their respective City or County authority, to
authorize development while conserving the covered species and their
habitats. Implementation of a programmatic multispecies habitat
conservation plan, rather than a species-by-species/project-by-project
approach, will maximize the benefits of conservation measures for
covered species and eliminate expensive and time-consuming efforts
associated with processing individual ITPs for each project within the
applicants' proposed seven-county plan area. The Service expects that
the applicants will request ITP coverage for a period of 30 years.
Scoping Meetings
The purpose of scoping meetings is to provide the public with a
general understanding of the background of the proposed RHCP and
activities that would be covered by the draft RHCP, alternative
proposals under consideration for the draft EIS, and the Service's role
and steps to be taken to develop the draft EIS for the draft RHCP.
The meeting format will consist of a 1-hour open house prior to the
formal scoping meeting. The open house format will provide an
opportunity to learn about the proposed action, permit area, and
species covered. The open house will be followed by a formal
presentation of the proposed action, summary of the NEPA process, and
presentation of oral comments from the public. A court reporter will be
present at each meeting, and an interpreter will be present when deemed
necessary. The primary purpose of these meetings and public comment
period is to solicit suggestions and information on the scope of issues
and alternatives for the Service to consider when drafting the EIS.
Oral and written comments will be accepted at the meetings. Comments
can also be submitted to persons listed in the ADDRESSES section. Once
the draft EIS and draft RHCP are completed and made available for
review, there will be additional opportunity for public comment on the
content of these documents through an additional public hearing and
comment period.
Alternatives
The proposed action presented in the draft EIS will be compared to
the No-Action alternative. The No-Action alternative represents
estimated future conditions to which the proposed action's estimated
future conditions can be compared. Other alternatives considered,
including impacts associated with each alternative evaluated, will also
be addressed in the draft EIS.
No-Action Alternative
Because the proposed covered activities (development activities)
are vital in providing services to accommodate future population
growth, energy, and infrastructure demand, these activities would
continue regardless of whether a 10(a)(1)(B) permit is requested or
issued. The applicants would continue to avoid and minimize impacts to
protected species' habitat. Where potential impacts to Federally
protected species within the proposed permit area could not be avoided,
they would be minimized and mitigated through individual formal or
informal consultation with the Service, when applicable, or applicants
would potentially seek an individual section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP on a
project-by-project basis. Although future activities by the applicants
would be similar to those covered by the RHCP, not all activities would
necessitate an incidental take permit or consultation with the Service.
Thus, under this alternative, numerous individual section 10(a)(1)(B)
permit applications would likely be filed over the 30-year project
period. This project-by-project approach would be more time-consuming
and less efficient; and could result in an isolated independent
mitigation approach.
Proposed Alternative
The proposed action is the issuance of an ITP for the covered
species for development activities within the proposed permit area for
a period of 30 years. The proposed RHCP, which must meet the
requirements of section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act by providing measures to
minimize and mitigate the effects of the potential incidental take of
covered species to the maximum extent practicable, would be developed
and implemented by the applicants. This alternative could allow for a
comprehensive mitigation approach for unavoidable impacts and reduce
the permit processing effort for the Service.
Activities proposed for coverage under the proposed permit will be
otherwise lawful activities that would occur consistent with the RHCP
and include, but are not limited to: (1) Construction, use, and/or
maintenance of public or private land development projects, (e.g.,
single- and multi-family homes, residential subdivisions, farm and
ranch improvements, commercial or industrial projects, government
offices, and park infrastructure); (2) construction, maintenance, and/
or improvement of roads, bridges, and other transportation
infrastructure; (3) installation and/or maintenance of utility
infrastructure (e.g. transmission or distribution lines and facilities
related to electric, telecommunication, water, wastewater, petroleum or
natural gas, and other utility products or services); (4) the
construction, use, maintenance, and/or expansion of schools, hospitals,
corrections or justice facilities, and community service development or
improvement projects; (5) construction, use, or maintenance of other
public infrastructure and improvement projects (e.g., projects by
municipalities, counties, school districts); (6) any management
activities that are necessary to manage potential habitat for the
covered species within the RHCP system that could temporarily result in
incidental take; and (7) the construction, use, maintenance and/or
expansion of quarries, gravel mining, or other similar extraction
projects.
It is anticipated that the following species will be included as
covered species in the RHCP: The golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica
chrysoparia), black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), Madla Cave
meshweaver (Cicurina madla), and two ground beetle species, each of
which has no common name (Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis). For
these covered species, the applicants would seek incidental take
authorization. Six Federally listed endangered species have been
recommended for inclusion as covered species: Robber Baron Cave
meshweaver (Cicurina baronia), Bracken Bat Cave meshweaver (Cicurina
venii), Government Canyon Bat Cavemeshweaver (Cicurina vespera),
Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta microps), Cokendolpher
Cave harvestman (Texella
[[Page 23621]]
cokendolpheri), and Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi). Seven
additional species have been identified as potentially affected by the
proposed covered activities and maybe considered for inclusion in the
RHCP: Whooping crane (Grus americana), big red sage (Salvia
penstemonoides), to busch fishhook cactus (Sclerocactus brevihamatus
ssp tobuschii), bracted twistflower (Streptanthus bracteatus), golden
orb (Quadrula aurea), Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina), and Texas
fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata). Incidental take authorization for
these additional species may be necessary during the term of the ITP.
Inclusion of these species will be determined during the RHCP planning
and development process. The RHCP may include conservation measures to
benefit these species, where practicable, and support research to help
fill data gaps regarding the biology, habitat, distribution, and/or
management of these species, even if incidental take coverage is not
requested under the ITP.
Candidate and Federally listed species not likely to be taken by
the covered activities, and therefore not covered by the proposed ITP,
may also be addressed in the draft RHCP to explain why the applicants
believe these species will not be taken.
Counties included in the proposed permit area are Bexar, Medina,
Bandera, Kerr, Kendall, Blanco, and Comal Counties.
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.
Environmental Review
The Service will conduct an environmental review to analyze the
proposed action, as well as other alternatives evaluated and the
associated impacts of each. The draft EIS will be the basis for the
impact evaluation for each species covered and the range of
alternatives to be addressed. The draft EIS is expected to provide
biological descriptions of the affected species and habitats, as well
as the effects of the alternatives on other resources, such as
vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, geology and soils, air quality, water
resources, water quality, cultural resources, land use, recreation,
water use, local economy, and environmental justice.
Following completion of the environmental review, the Service will
publish a notice of availability and a request for comment on the draft
EIS and the applicants' permit application, which will include the
draft RHCP. The draft EIS and draft RHCP are expected to be completed
and available to the public in late 2011.
Joy E. Nicholopoulos,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2011-10143 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-55-P
