[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 244 (Friday, December 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75830-75832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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 http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ and http://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
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/, the SEP's Web site at
http://www.sephcp.com, or at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://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
http://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 http://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 http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/ and on the applicants' Web site at http://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