Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, Hays County, TX, 28060-28063 [2011-11761]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
28060
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices
a unitization revision ($831).
Respondents are also required to pay for
court reporter and transcripts
§ 250.1304(d), if seeking compulsory
unitization ($500). We have not
identified any other non-hour cost
burdens associated with this collection
of information.
Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Until OMB approves a
collection of information, you are not
obligated to respond.
Comments: Before submitting an ICR
to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A)
requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide
notice * * * and otherwise consult
with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information * * *’’.
Agencies must specifically solicit
comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the agency to perform its
duties, including whether the
information is useful; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
minimize the burden on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
Agencies must also estimate the nonhour cost burdens to respondents or
recordkeepers resulting from the
collection of information. Therefore, if
you have costs to generate, maintain,
and disclose this information, you
should comment and provide your total
capital and startup cost components or
annual operation, maintenance, and
purchase of service components. You
should describe the methods you use to
estimate major cost factors, including
system and technology acquisition,
expected useful life of capital
equipment, discount rate(s), and the
period over which you incur costs.
Capital and startup costs include,
among other items, computers and
software you purchase to prepare for
collecting information, monitoring, and
record storage facilities. You should not
include estimates for equipment or
services purchased: (i) Before October 1,
1995; (ii) to comply with requirements
not associated with the information
collection; (iii) for reasons other than to
provide information or keep records for
the Government; or (iv) as part of
customary and usual business or private
practices.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
We will summarize written responses
to this notice and address them in our
submission for OMB approval. As a
result of your comments, we will make
any necessary adjustments to the burden
in our submission to OMB.
Public Comment Procedures: 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 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.
BOEMRE Information Collection
Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (703)
787–1025.
Dated: May 4, 2011.
Doug Slitor,
Acting Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011–11837 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R2–ES–2010–N173; 20124–1112–
0000–F2]
Regional Habitat Conservation Plan,
Hays County, TX
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.
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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.
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.
DATES:
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 decisionmaking 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
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices
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.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28061
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 predetermined preserve approach. Under
this alternative, the preserve system
would be large enough to authorize the
incidental take of any remaining goldencheeked 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
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
28062
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 https://
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;
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices
• 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
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLWY922000–L13200000–EL0000;
WYW161248]
Notice of Competitive Coal Lease Sale,
Wyoming
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
certain coal resources in the Belle Ayr
North Coal Tract described below in
Campbell County, Wyoming, will be
offered for competitive lease by sealed
bid in accordance with the provisions of
the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as
amended.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
The lease sale will be held at 10
a.m., on Wednesday, July 13, 2011.
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
Sealed bids must be submitted on or
before 4 p.m., on Tuesday, July 12,
2011.
ADDRESSES: The lease sale will be held
in the First Floor Conference Room
(Room 107), of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) Wyoming State
Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O.
Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003.
Sealed bids must be submitted to the
Cashier, BLM Wyoming State Office, at
the address given above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mavis Love, Land Law Examiner, or
Tyson Sackett, Acting Coal Coordinator,
at 307–775–6258, and 307–775–6487,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This coal
lease sale is being held in response to
a lease by application (LBA) filed by
Alpha Coal West, Inc. (formerly RAG
Coal West, Inc.), Gillette, Wyoming. The
coal resource to be offered consists of all
reserves recoverable by surface mining
methods in the following described
lands located approximately 10 miles
south-southeast of Gillette, Wyoming
and east of State Highway 59.
T. 48 N., R. 71 W., 6th Principal Meridian
Sec. 17, lots 13 and 14;
Sec. 18, lots 17 through 19 inclusive;
Sec. 19, lots 5 through 19 inclusive;
Sec. 20, lots 3 through 7 inclusive and lots
9 through 16 inclusive;
Sec. 21, lots 13 and 14;
Sec. 28, lots 3 through 6 inclusive; and
Sec. 29, lots 1 and 6.
Containing 1,671.03 acres, more or less, in
Campbell County, Wyoming.
The tract is adjacent to Federal and
private leases along the northern lease
boundary of the Belle Ayr mine, and to
Federal leases along the southwestern
lease boundary of the Caballo mine, and
to the Caballo West LBA along the
north. It is also adjacent to additional
unleased Federal coal to the west and
north. The tract is crossed by Bishop
Road along its northeastern boundary.
All of the acreage offered has been
determined to be suitable for mining.
Features such as Bishop Road, utilities,
and pipelines can be moved to permit
coal recovery. In addition, numerous
producing coal bed natural gas wells
have been drilled on the tract. The
estimate of the bonus value of the coal
lease will include consideration of the
future production from these wells. An
economic analysis of the future income
stream from the coal lease will consider
reasonable compensation to the gas
lessee for lost production of natural gas
when the wells are bought out but by
the coal lessee. The surface estate of the
tract is owned by Alpha Coal West, Inc.
The tract contains surface mineable
coal reserves in the Wyodak-Anderson
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28063
coal zone currently being recovered in
the adjacent, existing mines. On the
LBA tract, there is one recoverable
seam, the Wyodak, which ranges from
about 72 to 78 feet thick. The Wyodak
seam is continuous over the entire tract
with no outcrops or subcrops.
Overburden depths to this seam range
from 278 to 317 feet thick on the LBA
tract. The tract contains an estimated
221,734,800 tons of mineable coal. This
estimate of mineable reserves includes
the main seam mentioned above but
does not include any tonnage from
localized seams or splits containing coal
less than 5 feet thick. Also, it does not
include the adjacent private leases
although these are expected to be mined
in conjunction with the LBA tract. The
total mineable stripping ratio of the coal
in bank cubic yards per ton is about
4.2:1. Potential bidders for the LBA tract
should consider the recovery rate
expected from thick seam mining.
The Belle Ayr North LBA coal is
ranked as subbituminous C. The overall
average quality on an as-received basis
is 8,542 British Thermal Units per
pound containing about 0.34 percent
sulfur. These quality averages place the
coal reserves in the lower part of the
range of coal quality currently being
mined in the Wyoming portion of the
Powder River Basin.
The tract will be leased to the
qualified bidder of the highest cash
amount provided that the high bid
meets or exceeds the BLM’s estimate of
the fair market value of the tract. The
minimum bid for the tract is $100 per
acre or fraction thereof. No bid that is
less than $100 per acre, or fraction
thereof, will be considered. The bids
should be sent by certified mail, return
receipt requested, or be hand delivered.
The BLM Wyoming State Office Cashier
will issue a receipt for each handdelivered bid. Bids received after 4 p.m.
local time, on Tuesday, July 12, 2011,
will not be considered. The minimum
bid is not intended to represent fair
market value. The fair market value of
the tract will be determined by the
Authorized Officer after the sale. The
lease that may be issued as a result of
this coal lease sale will provide for
payment of an annual rental of $3 per
acre, or fraction thereof, and a royalty
payment to the United States of 12.5
percent of the value of coal produced by
surface mining methods and 8 percent
of the value of the coal produced by
underground mining methods. The
value of the coal will be determined in
accordance with 30 CFR 206.250.
Bidding instructions for the tract
offered and the terms and conditions of
the proposed coal lease are available
from the BLM Wyoming State Office at
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
]]>Agencies
[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
https://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
