Southern Edwards Plateau Environmental Impact Statement and Habitat Conservation Plan; City of San Antonio and Bexar County; Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, 75830-75832 [2014-29525]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
75830
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Notices
public access denied and no alternative
method to gain access w/out compromising
national security.
Reasons: Floodway; Secured Area
Tennessee
Wears Valley Quarters/
Ranger Station
3443 Wears Valley Road
Sevierville TN 37862
Landholding Agency: Interior
Property Number: 61201440014
Status: Unutilized
Comments: Documented deficiencies
structurally unsound; extensive
deterioration; severe mold infestation;
represents a clear threat to personal
physical safety.
Reasons: Extensive deterioration
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability and
announcement of public hearings.
Bexar County and the City of
San Antonio (applicants) have applied
to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) for an incidental take permit
(ITP, TE–48571B–0) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The requested permit
would authorize incidental take of nine
federally listed species in Bexar County
and the City of San Antonio. The
applicants have completed a draft
Habitat Conservation Plan, referred to as
the Southern Edwards Plateau (SEP
dHCP), as part of the application
package. The Service also announces
the availability of a draft Environmental
Impact Statement (dEIS), which has
been prepared to evaluate the permit
application in accordance with the
requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We
are making the permit application
package, including the SEP dHCP and
dEIS, available for public review and
comment.
SUMMARY:
Land
Indiana
Bryant Creek Access Site
State Road 156
Patriot IN 47038
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201440009
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 1–D–IN–608
Directions: Disposal Agency: GSA;
Landholding Agency: COE
Comments: Entire property located within
floodway which has not been corrected or
contained.
Reasons: Floodway
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[FR Doc. 2014–29458 Filed 12–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
[FWS–R2–ES–2014–0053; 20124–1112–
0000–F2]
AGENCY:
87
Air Force Plant 4
Ft. Worth TX
Landholding Agency: Air Force
Property Number: 18201440026
Status: Underutilized
Comments: Public access denied and no
alternative method to gain access w/out
compromising national security.
Reasons: Secured Area
127
Air Force Plant 4
Ft. Worth TX
Landholding Agency: Air Force
Property Number: 18201440027
Status: Unutilized
Comments: Public access denied and no
alternative method to gain access w/out
compromising national security.
Reasons: Secured Area
Photovoltaic (PV) Building
Site 45
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune NC
Landholding Agency: Navy
Property Number: 77201440024
Status: Unutilized
Comments: Public access denied and no
alternative method to gain access w/out
compromising Nat’l Security.
Reasons: Secured Area
Fish and Wildlife Service
Southern Edwards Plateau
Environmental Impact Statement and
Habitat Conservation Plan; City of San
Antonio and Bexar County; Regional
Habitat Conservation Plan
Texas
North Carolina
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Submission of Comments: We
will accept comments received or
postmarked on or before March 19,
2015. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date. Any comments that we receive
after the closing date may not be
considered in the final decision on these
actions.
Public Meetings: The Service will
hold public meetings during the public
comment period. The dates, times, and
locations of these meetings will be
noticed in local newspapers at least 2
weeks before each meeting and will also
be posted on the Web sites https://
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
AustinTexas/ and https://
www.sephcp.com.
DATES:
Obtaining SEP dHCP and
dEIS for Review: You may obtain copies
of the dEIS and dHCP by going to the
Service’s Web site at https://
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
AustinTexas/, the SEP’s Web site at
https://www.sephcp.com, or at the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov (Docket Number
FWS–R2–ES–2014–0053). Alternatively,
you may obtain compact disks with
electronic copies of these documents by
writing to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet
Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758;
calling (512) 490–0057; or faxing (512)
490–0974. A limited number of printed
copies of the SEP dHCP and dEIS are
also available, by request, from the Field
Supervisor. Copies of the SEP dHCP and
dEIS are also available for public
inspection and review at the following
locations, by appointment only:
• Department of the Interior, Natural
Resources Library, 1849 C St. NW.,
Washington, DC 20240.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500
Gold Avenue SW., Room 4012,
Albuquerque, NM 87102.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711
Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX
78758.
Obtaining Incidental Take Permit
Application for Review
Persons wishing to review the
application may obtain a copy by
writing to the Regional Director, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
1306, Room 4012, Albuquerque, NM
87103.
Submitting Comments
To submit written comments, please
use one of the following methods, and
note that your comment is in reference
to the SEP dHCP and dEIS:
• Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2014–0053.
• U.S. Mail: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2014–
0053; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike;
Falls Church, VA 22041–3803.
• Public Meetings: We will also
accept written or oral comments at the
public meetings (see DATES).
We request that you submit comments
by only the methods described above.
We will post all information received on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Public Availability of
Comments section below for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Adam Zerrener, Field Supervisor, U.S.
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Notices
Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet
Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758;
(512) 490–0057 (telephone).
Bexar
County and the City of San Antonio
(applicants) have applied to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
an incidental take permit (ITP, TE–
48571B–0) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act).
The requested permit, which would be
in effect for a period of 30 years, if
granted, would authorize incidental take
of the following federally listed species:
Golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga
[=Dendroica] chrysoparia) (GCWA),
black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla)
(BCVI), Government Canyon Bat Cave
spider (Neoleptoneta microps), Madla
Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla),
Braken Cave meshweaver (Cicurina
venii), Government Canyon Bat Cave
meshweaver (Cicurina vespera),
Rhadine exilis (no common name),
Rhadine infernalis (no common name),
and Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes
venyivi) (collectively, covered species).
Incidental take would be covered in
Bexar County and the City of San
Antonio, including current and future
portions of the City’s extra-territorial
jurisdiction (ETJ), which currently
extends outside of Bexar County into
Comal, Medina, and Kendall Counties.
However, the City is projected to
expand into Bandera County in the
future. Therefore, the permit area—i.e.,
where incidental take will be
permitted—includes Bexar County and
those portions of the City’s ETJ that do/
will expand into Medina, Kendall, and
Bandera Counties over the life of the
permit. While the ETJ currently extends
into Comal County, incidental take will
not be covered other than on preserves,
since Comal County has its own habitat
conservation plan (HCP).
Covered activities include
construction, use, and/or maintenance
of land development projects; farm and
ranch improvements; commercial or
industrial projects; construction,
maintenance, or improvement of public
infrastructure; installation and/or
maintenance of utility infrastructure;
construction, use, maintenance and/or
expansion of quarries, gravel mining, or
other similar extraction projects; and
any activities necessary to manage
habitat for the covered species that
could temporarily result in incidental
take. The applicants have completed a
draft Habitat Conservation Plan, referred
to as the Southern Edwards Plateau
(SEP dHCP), as part of the application
package.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:37 Dec 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
The Service also announces the
availability of a draft Environmental
Impact Statement (dEIS), which has
been prepared to evaluate the permit
application in accordance with the
requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.; NEPA). We are making the
permit application package, including
the dHCP and dEA, available for public
review and comment.
Background
We initially prepared a notice of
intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS, which
was published in the Federal Register
on April 27, 2011 (76 FR 23619). We
also held public scoping meetings in
connection with the applicants’
requested permit. A summary of
comments provided during the 2011
scoping period, which included public
meetings held June 6, 2011, in Bandera,
Texas; June 7, 2011, Boerne, Texas; June
9, 2011, Blanco, Texas; June 13, 2011,
Kerrville, Texas; and June 14, 2011,
Helotes, Texas, are available on the
Service’s Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
AustinTexas/ and on the applicants’
Web site at https://www.sephcp.com
(Appendix F of the dEIS).
Proposed Action
The proposed action, involves the
issuance of an ITP by the Service for the
covered activities in the permit area,
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act. The ITP would cover ‘‘take’’ of the
covered species associated with public
and private projects occurring within
the permit area.
The requested term of the ITP is 30
years. To meet the requirements of a
section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP, the applicants
developed and propose to implement
the SEP dHCP, which describes the
conservation measures the applicants
have agreed to undertake to minimize
and mitigate for the impacts of the
proposed incidental take of the covered
species to the maximum extent
practicable, and ensure that incidental
take will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of the survival and recovery
of these species in the wild.
Section 9 of the Act and its
implementing regulations prohibit
‘‘take’’ of fish and wildlife species listed
as threatened or endangered under
section 4 of the Act. However, section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to
issue permits to take listed wildlife
species where such take is incidental to,
and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful
activities and where the applicant meets
certain statutory requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
75831
Alternatives
Four alternatives to the proposed
action we are considering as part of this
process are:
1. No Action Alternative. Under the
No Action Alternative, Bexar County
and the City of San Antonio would not
seek, and the Service would not issue,
an ITP. Under this alternative,
compliance with the Act would
continue to occur only on an individual
basis through project-specific
consultations with the Service. Local
governments, business entities, private
landowners, and others would
independently determine whether or
not ESA compliance is necessary for a
particular project and, if needed, would
work with the Service to obtain
authorization for incidental take. Each
independent consultation would require
an analysis of the incidental take and
impacts to listed species, the
identification and implementation of
appropriate and practicable mitigation
measures, and the preparation of
appropriate documentation to support
the permitting action.
Mitigation requirements would be
individually negotiated with the Service
on the basis of the level of impact to
listed species and the conservation
value of the mitigation options and
opportunities available to the individual
applicant. Possible forms of mitigation
could include on-site preservation of
habitat, acquisition of off-site preserve
lands, or purchase of conservation
credits from an independent
conservation bank. With the exception
of conservation bank credit purchases, it
is likely that many preserve lands
offered as mitigation for individual
projects would be relatively small,
isolated, and/or widely distributed
across the region.
2. Ten-Percent Participation
Alternative. The 10-Percent
Participation Alternative would be a
regional HCP that is sized to address
only 10 percent of the anticipated future
habitat losses for the covered species
over the next 30 years within the permit
area. Therefore, this alternative would
request substantially less incidental take
authorization for the covered species
and would (at full implementation)
result in proportionately less
conservation within the plan area. With
a smaller plan, the overall estimated
costs for implementation would be less
than one-half of the estimated cost to
implement the proposed SEP dHCP.
However, since there would be fewer
participants paying fees to use the plan,
a larger portion of the revenue needed
for implementation of this alternative
would require more public funding.
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
75832
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Notices
3. Single-County Alternative. The
Single-County Alternative would
essentially be limited to the extent of
the permittees’ jurisdictions. This
would include both incidental take
coverage and mitigation. It is assumed
that the plan area for the Single-County
Alternative would include Bexar County
and the area within 10 miles outside of
Bexar County (which would be
generally sufficient to accommodate the
City of San Antonio’s current extraterritorial jurisdiction and possible
future expansions). As habitat for the
covered species within Bexar County
only occurs in the northwest half of the
county, the plan area for this alternative
is still roughly equivalent to the
geographic area of a single central Texas
county.
Since all mitigation would occur in
the vicinity of San Antonio, the price of
land is substantially higher compared to
more rural parts of the plan area. This
alternative assumes that approximately
75 percent of the GCWA and BCVI
preserve lands would be acquired in
relatively ‘‘suburban’’ areas, and
approximately 25 percent of the land
would be acquired in relatively rural
areas. This distribution of preserve
lands would have a significant impact
on the method of acquisition (fee simple
vs. easement), the anticipated cost for
acquisition, and the costs to manage
suburban preserves compared to rural
preserves. This alternative could cost
nearly twice as much overall to
implement over 30 years compared to
the proposed alternative.
4. Increased Mitigation Alternative.
The Increased Mitigation Alternative
would implement recommendations
passed by the SEP HCP’s Biological
Advisory Team (BAT) pertaining to
mitigation for the GCWA and the karst
invertebrates (BCVI mitigation would be
the same as the Proposed Alternative).
These recommendations were also
strongly favored by many members of
the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC).
The BAT passed a recommendation
calling for impacts to GCWA habitat
within Bexar County to be mitigated at
a 3:1 ratio (i.e., 3 acres of habitat
protected for each acre of direct habitat
loss) and that at least 60 percent of that
mitigation be placed within Bexar
County or within 5 miles outside of
Bexar County. The BAT also passed a
recommendation that the karst preserve
system be sized to achieve roughly
twice the level of conservation specified
by the Service’s downlisting criteria for
the karst invertebrates. For the purpose
of modeling this alternative, it is
assumed that all of the incidental take
of the GCWA requested by the
Permittees would be mitigated at a 3:1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:37 Dec 18, 2014
Jkt 235001
ratio and that 60 percent of the GCWA
preserve system would be acquired in
relatively suburban parts of the Plan
Area, with the remaining preserve lands
acquired in rural areas. This
recommendation is modeled as a
requirement to acquire approximately
2,000 acres of recovery-quality karst
preserves over 30 years, with at least
two high-quality (100 acres each) and
four medium-quality preserves (50 acres
each) created in each of the five regions
where the karst invertebrates occur.
Similar to the Single-County
Alternative, this Increased Mitigation
Alternative requires the acquisition of a
large portion of the preserve system in
relatively high-cost suburban or (for the
karst preserves) urban areas, which
would disproportionately increase the
expected preserve acquisition and
management costs. This alternative
would achieve a higher level of
conservation for the GCWA and karst
invertebrates, but at a financial cost that
would be approximately 275 percent
higher than the proposed SEP HCP.
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become
part of the public record associated with
this action. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can request in your comment that
we withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
made available for public disclosure in
their entirety.
Authority
We provide this notice under section
10(c) of the Act and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32)
and NEPA and its implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Joy E. Nicholopoulos,
Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2014–29525 Filed 12–18–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R5–ES–2014–0051;
FXES111205000000–156–FF05E00000]
Receipt of an Application for an
Incidental Take Permit for Piping
Plover, From the Town of Orleans, MA,
and Availability of Proposed Habitat
Conservation Plan
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service or ‘‘we’’),
announce the availability of an
application for an Incidental Take
Permit (ITP) and a proposed Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) from the Town
of Orleans (Town) for public review and
comment. We received the permit
application from the Town for
incidental take of the threatened piping
plover (Charadrius melodus) resulting
from the Town’s authorization and
management of over-sand vehicle (OSV)
activities over the next 3 years. Our
preliminary determination is that the
proposed HCP qualifies as low-effect
under our final Handbook for Habitat
Conservation Planning and Incidental
Take Permitting Process. To make this
determination, we used our Low-Effect
HCP Screening Form/Environmental
Action Statement (EAS), the preliminary
version of which is also available for
review.
We provide this notice to (1) seek
public comments on the proposed HCP
and application; (2) seek public
comments on our preliminary
determination that the HCP qualifies as
low-effect and is therefore eligible for a
categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and
(3) advise other Federal and State
agencies, affected Tribes, and the public
of our intent to issue an ITP.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we
must receive your written comments by
January 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
submitted electronically by any one of
the following methods:
Electronically: www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on Docket No. FWS–R5–ES–
2014–0051.
U.S. mail: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2014–
0051; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike;
Falls Church, Virginia 22041–3803.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susi
vonOettingen, by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75830-75832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29525]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-ES-2014-0053; 20124-1112-0000-F2]
Southern Edwards Plateau Environmental Impact Statement and
Habitat Conservation Plan; City of San Antonio and Bexar County;
Regional Habitat Conservation Plan
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability and announcement of public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Bexar County and the City of San Antonio (applicants) have
applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an
incidental take permit (ITP, TE-48571B-0) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The requested permit would authorize
incidental take of nine federally listed species in Bexar County and
the City of San Antonio. The applicants have completed a draft Habitat
Conservation Plan, referred to as the Southern Edwards Plateau (SEP
dHCP), as part of the application package. The Service also announces
the availability of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS),
which has been prepared to evaluate the permit application in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). We are making the permit application package, including the
SEP dHCP and dEIS, available for public review and comment.
DATES: Submission of Comments: We will accept comments received or
postmarked on or before March 19, 2015. Comments submitted
electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES
section below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the
closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may
not be considered in the final decision on these actions.
Public Meetings: The Service will hold public meetings during the
public comment period. The dates, times, and locations of these
meetings will be noticed in local newspapers at least 2 weeks before
each meeting and will also be posted on the Web sites https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ and https://www.sephcp.com.
ADDRESSES: Obtaining SEP dHCP and dEIS for Review: You may obtain
copies of the dEIS and dHCP by going to the Service's Web site at
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/, the SEP's Web site at
https://www.sephcp.com, or at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2014-0053). Alternatively,
you may obtain compact disks with electronic copies of these documents
by writing to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711
Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; calling (512) 490-0057; or
faxing (512) 490-0974. A limited number of printed copies of the SEP
dHCP and dEIS are also available, by request, from the Field
Supervisor. Copies of the SEP dHCP and dEIS are also available for
public inspection and review at the following locations, by appointment
only:
Department of the Interior, Natural Resources Library, 1849 C
St. NW., Washington, DC 20240.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Avenue SW., Room
4012, Albuquerque, NM 87102.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200,
Austin, TX 78758.
Obtaining Incidental Take Permit Application for Review
Persons wishing to review the application may obtain a copy by
writing to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O.
Box 1306, Room 4012, Albuquerque, NM 87103.
Submitting Comments
To submit written comments, please use one of the following
methods, and note that your comment is in reference to the SEP dHCP and
dEIS:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments on Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2014-0053.
U.S. Mail: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-
2014-0053; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls Church, VA 22041-
3803.
Public Meetings: We will also accept written or oral
comments at the public meetings (see DATES).
We request that you submit comments by only the methods described
above. We will post all information received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Availability of
Comments section below for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Zerrener, Field Supervisor, U.S.
[[Page 75831]]
Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX
78758; (512) 490-0057 (telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bexar County and the City of San Antonio
(applicants) have applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) for an incidental take permit (ITP, TE-48571B-0) under
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act). The requested permit, which would be in
effect for a period of 30 years, if granted, would authorize incidental
take of the following federally listed species: Golden-cheeked warbler
(Setophaga [=Dendroica] chrysoparia) (GCWA), black-capped vireo (Vireo
atricapilla) (BCVI), Government Canyon Bat Cave spider (Neoleptoneta
microps), Madla Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla), Braken Cave
meshweaver (Cicurina venii), Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver
(Cicurina vespera), Rhadine exilis (no common name), Rhadine infernalis
(no common name), and Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes venyivi)
(collectively, covered species).
Incidental take would be covered in Bexar County and the City of
San Antonio, including current and future portions of the City's extra-
territorial jurisdiction (ETJ), which currently extends outside of
Bexar County into Comal, Medina, and Kendall Counties. However, the
City is projected to expand into Bandera County in the future.
Therefore, the permit area--i.e., where incidental take will be
permitted--includes Bexar County and those portions of the City's ETJ
that do/will expand into Medina, Kendall, and Bandera Counties over the
life of the permit. While the ETJ currently extends into Comal County,
incidental take will not be covered other than on preserves, since
Comal County has its own habitat conservation plan (HCP).
Covered activities include construction, use, and/or maintenance of
land development projects; farm and ranch improvements; commercial or
industrial projects; construction, maintenance, or improvement of
public infrastructure; installation and/or maintenance of utility
infrastructure; construction, use, maintenance and/or expansion of
quarries, gravel mining, or other similar extraction projects; and any
activities necessary to manage habitat for the covered species that
could temporarily result in incidental take. The applicants have
completed a draft Habitat Conservation Plan, referred to as the
Southern Edwards Plateau (SEP dHCP), as part of the application
package.
The Service also announces the availability of a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (dEIS), which has been prepared to
evaluate the permit application in accordance with the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA).
We are making the permit application package, including the dHCP and
dEA, available for public review and comment.
Background
We initially prepared a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS,
which was published in the Federal Register on April 27, 2011 (76 FR
23619). We also held public scoping meetings in connection with the
applicants' requested permit. A summary of comments provided during the
2011 scoping period, which included public meetings held June 6, 2011,
in Bandera, Texas; June 7, 2011, Boerne, Texas; June 9, 2011, Blanco,
Texas; June 13, 2011, Kerrville, Texas; and June 14, 2011, Helotes,
Texas, are available on the Service's Web site at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ and on the applicants' Web site at https://www.sephcp.com (Appendix F of the dEIS).
Proposed Action
The proposed action, involves the issuance of an ITP by the Service
for the covered activities in the permit area, pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. The ITP would cover ``take'' of the covered
species associated with public and private projects occurring within
the permit area.
The requested term of the ITP is 30 years. To meet the requirements
of a section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP, the applicants developed and propose to
implement the SEP dHCP, which describes the conservation measures the
applicants have agreed to undertake to minimize and mitigate for the
impacts of the proposed incidental take of the covered species to the
maximum extent practicable, and ensure that incidental take will not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of these
species in the wild.
Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit
``take'' of fish and wildlife species listed as threatened or
endangered under section 4 of the Act. However, section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Act authorizes us to issue permits to take listed wildlife species
where such take is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise
lawful activities and where the applicant meets certain statutory
requirements.
Alternatives
Four alternatives to the proposed action we are considering as part
of this process are:
1. No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, Bexar
County and the City of San Antonio would not seek, and the Service
would not issue, an ITP. Under this alternative, compliance with the
Act would continue to occur only on an individual basis through
project-specific consultations with the Service. Local governments,
business entities, private landowners, and others would independently
determine whether or not ESA compliance is necessary for a particular
project and, if needed, would work with the Service to obtain
authorization for incidental take. Each independent consultation would
require an analysis of the incidental take and impacts to listed
species, the identification and implementation of appropriate and
practicable mitigation measures, and the preparation of appropriate
documentation to support the permitting action.
Mitigation requirements would be individually negotiated with the
Service on the basis of the level of impact to listed species and the
conservation value of the mitigation options and opportunities
available to the individual applicant. Possible forms of mitigation
could include on-site preservation of habitat, acquisition of off-site
preserve lands, or purchase of conservation credits from an independent
conservation bank. With the exception of conservation bank credit
purchases, it is likely that many preserve lands offered as mitigation
for individual projects would be relatively small, isolated, and/or
widely distributed across the region.
2. Ten-Percent Participation Alternative. The 10-Percent
Participation Alternative would be a regional HCP that is sized to
address only 10 percent of the anticipated future habitat losses for
the covered species over the next 30 years within the permit area.
Therefore, this alternative would request substantially less incidental
take authorization for the covered species and would (at full
implementation) result in proportionately less conservation within the
plan area. With a smaller plan, the overall estimated costs for
implementation would be less than one-half of the estimated cost to
implement the proposed SEP dHCP. However, since there would be fewer
participants paying fees to use the plan, a larger portion of the
revenue needed for implementation of this alternative would require
more public funding.
[[Page 75832]]
3. Single-County Alternative. The Single-County Alternative would
essentially be limited to the extent of the permittees' jurisdictions.
This would include both incidental take coverage and mitigation. It is
assumed that the plan area for the Single-County Alternative would
include Bexar County and the area within 10 miles outside of Bexar
County (which would be generally sufficient to accommodate the City of
San Antonio's current extra-territorial jurisdiction and possible
future expansions). As habitat for the covered species within Bexar
County only occurs in the northwest half of the county, the plan area
for this alternative is still roughly equivalent to the geographic area
of a single central Texas county.
Since all mitigation would occur in the vicinity of San Antonio,
the price of land is substantially higher compared to more rural parts
of the plan area. This alternative assumes that approximately 75
percent of the GCWA and BCVI preserve lands would be acquired in
relatively ``suburban'' areas, and approximately 25 percent of the land
would be acquired in relatively rural areas. This distribution of
preserve lands would have a significant impact on the method of
acquisition (fee simple vs. easement), the anticipated cost for
acquisition, and the costs to manage suburban preserves compared to
rural preserves. This alternative could cost nearly twice as much
overall to implement over 30 years compared to the proposed
alternative.
4. Increased Mitigation Alternative. The Increased Mitigation
Alternative would implement recommendations passed by the SEP HCP's
Biological Advisory Team (BAT) pertaining to mitigation for the GCWA
and the karst invertebrates (BCVI mitigation would be the same as the
Proposed Alternative). These recommendations were also strongly favored
by many members of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC).
The BAT passed a recommendation calling for impacts to GCWA habitat
within Bexar County to be mitigated at a 3:1 ratio (i.e., 3 acres of
habitat protected for each acre of direct habitat loss) and that at
least 60 percent of that mitigation be placed within Bexar County or
within 5 miles outside of Bexar County. The BAT also passed a
recommendation that the karst preserve system be sized to achieve
roughly twice the level of conservation specified by the Service's
downlisting criteria for the karst invertebrates. For the purpose of
modeling this alternative, it is assumed that all of the incidental
take of the GCWA requested by the Permittees would be mitigated at a
3:1 ratio and that 60 percent of the GCWA preserve system would be
acquired in relatively suburban parts of the Plan Area, with the
remaining preserve lands acquired in rural areas. This recommendation
is modeled as a requirement to acquire approximately 2,000 acres of
recovery-quality karst preserves over 30 years, with at least two high-
quality (100 acres each) and four medium-quality preserves (50 acres
each) created in each of the five regions where the karst invertebrates
occur.
Similar to the Single-County Alternative, this Increased Mitigation
Alternative requires the acquisition of a large portion of the preserve
system in relatively high-cost suburban or (for the karst preserves)
urban areas, which would disproportionately increase the expected
preserve acquisition and management costs. This alternative would
achieve a higher level of conservation for the GCWA and karst
invertebrates, but at a financial cost that would be approximately 275
percent higher than the proposed SEP HCP.
Public Availability of Comments
Written comments we receive become part of the public record
associated with this action. Before including your address, phone
number, email address, or other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including
your personal identifying information--may be made publicly available
at any time. While you can request in your comment that we withhold
your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their
entirety.
Authority
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Act and its
implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) and NEPA and its
implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
Joy E. Nicholopoulos,
Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2014-29525 Filed 12-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
