DOCSLIB.ORG

Hays County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hays County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan FINAL REPORT As Required by THE ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM TEXAS Grant No. E – 75H -2 Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance for Hays County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Prepared by: Craig Farquhar Carter Smith Executive Director Clayton Wolf Division Director, Wildlife 9 July, 2010 FINAL REPORT STATE: ____Texas_______________ GRANT NUMBER: ___E – 75H - 2_________ GRANT TITLE: Habitat Conservation Planning Assistance for Hays County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan – Segment 2 REPORTING PERIOD: _1 May 2009 – 30 Apr 2010_ OBJECTIVE(S): To satisfy issuance criteria and complete documentation initiated in Segment 1 of the Hays County RHCP for the conservation of covered terrestrial species in Hays County. Summary Of Progress: Please see Attachment A. Significant Deviations: None. Location: Hays County, Texas Cost: ___A final financial performance report will be submitted separately_________ Prepared by: _Craig Farquhar_ Date: 9 July 2010 Approved by: ______________________________ Date:___9 July 2010________ C. Craig Farquhar, Ph. D. ATTACHMENT A MEMORANDUM DATE: July 8, 2010 TO: Jeff Hauff Hays County Grants Administrator FROM: Clifton Ladd and Amanda Aurora SUBJECT: Final grant report on Hays County HCP Accomplishments Task 1. Revise the submitted March 4, 2009 Draft Hays County RHCP based on post-submittal USFWS comments and work with the USFWS to complete a final draft RHCP. The USFWS provided comments on the Fourth Draft RHCP on April 21, 2009. Representatives of the County and USFWS worked from May 1 through September 25, 2009 through numerous meetings and by email and telephone to resolve all outstanding issues. The Sept. 28, 2009 Final Draft RHCP was accepted by the USFWS on October 8, 2009. Task 2. Assist the USFWS as requested to revise the draft EIS supporting the Hays County RHCP in preparation for further review and processing by the USFWS. The County submitted a Preliminary Draft EIS to USFWS with the Fourth Draft RHCP on March 31, 2009. Representatives of the County and USFWS worked through numerous meetings and by email and telephone through October 2009. The USFWS accepted the document as the Draft EIS on October 14, 2009. Task 3. Assist the USFWS as requested with preparation of notices, materials, and public meetings related to the ESA, NEPA, and relevant state law regarding the development of regional habitat conservation plans. The Notice of Availability and Public Hearing were published in the Federal Register on November 2, 2009. A Public Hearing on the draft RHCP and Draft EIS was held on November 18, 2009 at the San Marcos Activity Center (San Marcos, TX), which also met the requirements for a public hearing under state law. Task 4. Revise the final draft RHCP as needed based on comments received during the NEPA process to prepare a Final Hays County RHCP. County representatives submitted a summary of the comments received on the final draft RHCP the responses to those comments to the USFWS on March 15, 2010. Task 5. Assist the USFWS as requested to revise the draft EIS based on comments received during the NEPA process to prepare a Final EIS supporting the Hays County RHCP. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Dallas regional office requested an extension of the comment period until February 11, 2010, and the USFWS agreed to the extension. The EPA sent a letter dated February 8, 2010 indicating “Lack of Objection” on the Draft EIS. Three public comments were received during the comment period. County representatives submitted a summary of the comments received on the Draft EIS and the responses to those comments to the USFWS on March 15, 2010. Task 6. Assist the USFWS as requested with the preparation of other documents needed to complete issuance of the requested incidental take permit. Representatives of the County requested instructions from the USFWS regarding preparation of other documents (December 1, 2009). The USFWS indicated it would not need any assistance preparing other documents. Task 7. Provide the final report to TPWD 90 days after USFWS issuance of the incidental take permit to the County. The County is currently (June 30, 2010) awaiting final action by the USFWS, anticipating issuance of the permit by the end of July 2010. H:\Enviro_Projects\Hays_Co_HCP_(051001)\_Project_Mngmt\TPWD_Interim_Reports\Hays_Co_RHCP_final_report_20100708_D RAFT.doc Billing Code: 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS–R2–ES–2010-N173] [20124-1112-0000-F2] Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, Hays County, Texas 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 1 2 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; 3 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 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 4 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 5 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan
    Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan March 2008 Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan BEXAR COUNTY KARST INVERTEBRATES DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico March 2008 Approved: ___DRAFT_______________________________________ Regional Director, Southwest Region Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concur: __DRAFT____________________________________________ Executive Director Date Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ii Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that the best available science indicates are necessary to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only. Identification of an action to be implemented by any private or public party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Pervasive Gene Flow Across Critical Habitat for Four Narrowly Endemic
    Freshwater Biology (2016) doi:10.1111/fwb.12758 Pervasive gene flow across critical habitat for four narrowly endemic, sympatric taxa † † ‡ LAUREN K. LUCAS* , ZACHARIAH GOMPERT ,J.RANDYGIBSON , KATHERINE L. BELL*, § C. ALEX BUERKLE AND CHRIS C. NICE* *Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, U.S.A. † Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, U.S.A. ‡ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, San Marcos Aquatic Resources Center, San Marcos, TX, U.S.A. § Department of Botany, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, U.S.A. SUMMARY 1. We studied genetic variation in four endangered animal taxa in the largest freshwater spring complex in the southwestern U.S.A., Comal Springs (TX): Eurycea salamanders, Heterelmis riffle beetles, Stygobromus amphipods and Stygoparnus dryopid beetles. They inhabit a spring complex with nearly stable conditions, which is threatened by climate change and aquifer withdrawals. The four taxa vary in their habitat affinities and body sizes. 2. We used genotyping-by-sequencing to obtain hundreds to thousands of genetic markers to accurately infer the demographic history of the taxa. We used approximate Bayesian computation to test models of gene flow and compare the results among taxa. We also looked for evidence that would suggest local adaptation within the spring complex. 3. An island model (equal gene flow among all subpopulations) was the most probable of the five models tested, and all four taxa had high migration rate estimates. 4. Small numbers of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in each taxon tested were associated with environmental conditions and provide some evidence for potential local adaptation to slightly variable conditions across habitat patches within Comal Springs.
    [Show full text]
  • Edwards Aquifer Authority Study No. 14-14-697-Hcp
    ATTACHMENT 3 DETERMINATION OF LIMITATIONS OF COMAL SPRINGS RIFFLE BEETLE PLASTRON USE DURING LOW-FLOW STUDY EDWARDS AQUIFER AUTHORITY STUDY NO. 14-14-697-HCP FINAL REPORT Prepared by Weston H. Nowlin 601 University Drive Department of Biology Aquatic Station Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 (512) 245-8794 [email protected] Benjamin Schwartz 601 University Drive Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center and Department of Biology Aquatic Station Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 (512) 245-7608 [email protected] Thom Hardy 601 University Drive The Meadows Center for Water and the Environment Texas State University San Marcos, TX 78666 (512) 245-6729 [email protected] and Randy Gibson United States Fish and Wildlife Service San Marcos Aquatic Resources Center 500 East McCarty Lane San Marcos, TX 78666 (512) 353-0011, ext. 226 [email protected] Riffle Beetle Plastron Study - 1 ATTACHMENT 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE………………………………………………………………………………….……1 TABLE OF CONTENTS…...................................................................................................................................2 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES……………………………………………………………….……3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………….…4 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE…………………………………………………………….….5 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………….…6 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION, EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN, AND METHODS…………………….…….7 Collection and Housing of Beetles……………………………………………….………….…..7 Conceptual Foundation for Experiments………………………………. ………………………8 Short-Term
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0082]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 10/19/2012 and available online at http://federalregister.gov/a/2012-25578, and on FDsys.gov 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0082] [4500030114] RIN 1018-AY20 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Revision of Critical Habitat for the Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle, Comal Springs Riffle Beetle, and Peck’s Cave Amphipod AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to revise 2 designation of critical habitat for the Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus comalensis), Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), and Peck’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 169 acres (68 hectares) are being proposed for revised critical habitat. The proposed revision of critical habitat is located in Comal and Hays Counties, Texas. DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before [INSERT DATE 60 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. 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. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods: (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    [Show full text]
  • Revision of Karst Species Zones for the Austin, Texas, Area
    FINAL REPORT As Required by THE ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM TEXAS Grant No. E - 52 Endangered and Threatened Species Conservation REVISION OF KARST SPECIES ZONES FOR THE AUSTIN, TEXAS, AREA Prepared by: George Veni Robert Cook Executive Director Matt Wagner Mike Berger Program Director, Wildlife Diversity Division Director, Wildlife 3 October 2006 FINAL REPORT STATE: ____Texas_______________ GRANT NUMBER: ___E - 52____________ GRANT TITLE: Revision of Karst Species Zones for the Austin, Texas Area REPORTING PERIOD: ____1 September 2004 to 31 August 2006 OBJECTIVE: To re-evaluate and redraw, as necessary and in a GIS, all four karst zones within the twenty-two 7.5’ topographic quadrangle area as defined by Veni and Associates (1992). SEGMENT OBJECTIVE: 1. Re-evaluate and re-draw, as necessary and into a Geographic Information System (GIS), all four karzt zones within the twenty-two 7.5’ topographic quadrangle area as defined by Veni and Associates (1992) within six (6) months of contract award date. SIGNIFICANT DEVIATION: None. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS: Please see Attachment A. LOCATION: Austin Area, Texas. PREPARED BY: ___Craig Farquhar______ DATE: October 3, 2006 APPROVED BY: _____________________ DATE: October 10, 2006 Neil (Nick) E. Carter Federal Aid Coordinator 2 George Veni & Associates Hydrogeologists and Biologists Environmental Management Consulting Cave and Karst Specialists REVISION OF KARST SPECIES ZONES FOR THE AUSTIN, TEXAS, AREA by George Veni, Ph.D., and Cecilio Martinez prepared for: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200
    [Show full text]
  • Habitat and Phenology of the Endangered Riffle Eetle, Heterelmis
    Arch. Hydrobiol. 156 3 361-383 Stuttgart, February 2003 Habitat and phenology of the endangered riffle beetle Heterelmis comalensis and a coexisting species, Microcylloepus pusillus, (Coleoptera: Elmidae) at Comal Springs, Texas, USA David E. Bowles1 *, Cheryl B. Barr2 and Ruth Stanford3 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, University of California, Berkeley, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service With 5 figures and 4 tables Ab tract: Habitat characteristics and seasonal distribution of the riffle beetles Herere/­ mis comalensis and Microcylloepu pusillus were studied at Comal Springs, Texas, during 1993-1994, to aid in developing sound reconunendations for sustaining their natural popu1atioas. Comal Springs consists of four major spring cutlers and spring­ runs. The four spring-runs are dissimilar in size, appearance, canopy and riparian cover, substrate composition, and aquatic macrophyte composition. Habitat conditions associated with the respective popuJatioos of riffle beetles, including physical-chemi­ cal measurements, water depth, and currenc velocity, were relatively unifom1 and var­ ied lHUe among sampling dates and spring-runs. However, the locations of the beetles in the respective spri ng-runs were not well correlated to current velocity, water depth, or distance from primary spring orifices. Factors such as substrate size and availability and competition are proposed as possibly influencing lheir respective distributions. Maintaining high-quality spring-flows and protection of Lhe physical habitat of Here· re/mis comalensis presently are the only means by which to ensure the survival of this endemic species. Key words: Conservation, habitat conditions, substrate availability, competition. 1 Authors' addresses: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement
    Draft Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for: Comal County, Texas Comal County Commissioners Court Prepared by: SWCA Environmental Consultants Smith, Robertson, Elliott, Glen, Klein & Bell, L.L.P. Prime Strategies, Inc. Texas Perspectives, Inc. Capital Market Research, Inc. April 2010 SWCA Project Number 12659-139-AUS DRAFT COMAL COUNTY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT April 2010 Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas For Information: Bill Seawell Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tele: 512-490-0057 Abstract: Comal County, Texas, is applying for an incidental take permit (Permit) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. (ESA), to authorize the incidental take of two endangered species, the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), referred to collectively as the “Covered Species.” In support of the Permit application, the County has prepared a regional habitat conservation plan (Proposed RHCP), covering a 30-year period from 2010 to 2040. The Permit Area for the Proposed RHCP and the area of potential effect for this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is Comal County in central Texas. The requested Permit would authorize the following incidental take and mitigation for the golden-cheeked warbler: Take: As conservation credits are created through habitat preservation, authorize up to 5,238 acres (2,120 hectares) of golden-cheeked warbler habitat to be impacted over the 30-year life of the Proposed RHCP.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Comal County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan
    FINAL COMAL COUNTY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Prepared for Comal County, Texas Comal County Commissioners Court Danny Scheel, County Judge Donna Eccleston, County Commissioner, Precinct 1 Jay Millikin, County Commissioner, Precinct 2 Gregory Parker, County Commissioner, Precinct 3 Jan Kennady, County Commissioner, Precinct 4 Prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants 4407 Monterey Oaks Boulevard Building 1, Suite 110 Austin, Texas 78749 www.swca.com Smith, Robertson, Elliott, Glen, Klein & Bell, L.L.P. 221 West 6th Street, Suite 1100 Austin, Texas 78701 Prime Strategies, Inc. 1508 South Lamar Boulevard Austin, Texas 78704 Texas Perspectives, Inc. 1310 South 1st Street, Suite 105 Austin, Texas 78704 Capital Market Research, Inc. 605 Brazos Street #300 Austin, Texas 78701 SWCA Project Number 12659-139-AUS August 1, 2013 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ v CHAPTER 1 — BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND NEED .................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1.1 Species Included in the RHCP ......................................................................... 1-4 1.1.1.2 Other Listed and Rare Species That May Occur in Comal County
    [Show full text]
  • Petition to Delist the Bone Cave Harvestman (Texella Reyesi) in Accordance with Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
    Petition to delist the Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) in accordance with Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 PETITION TO DELIST THE BONE CAVE HARVESTMAN (TEXELLA REYESI) IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 4 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 Petitioned By: John F. Yearwood Kathryn Heidemann Charles & Cheryl Shell Walter Sidney Shell Management Trust American Stewards of Liberty Steven W. Carothers June 02, 2014 This page intentionally left blank. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The federally endangered Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi) is a terrestrial karst invertebrate that occurs in caves and voids north of the Colorado River in Travis and Williamson counties, Texas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed T. reyesi as endangered in 1988 on the basis of only five to six known localities that occurred in a rapidly developing area. Little was known about the species at the time, but the USFWS deemed listing was warranted to respond to immediate development threats. The current body of information on T. reyesi documents a much broader range of known localities than known at the time of listing and resilience to the human activities that USFWS deemed to be threats to the species. Status of the Species • An increase in known localities from five or six at the time of listing to 172 today. • Significant conservation is in place with at least 94 known localities (55 percent of the total known localities) currently protected in preserves, parks, or other open spaces. • Regulatory protections are afforded to most caves in Travis and Williamson counties via state laws and regulations and local ordinances.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    DES #12-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service June 2012 DES #12-29 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Habitat Conservation Plan U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 2012 DES #12-29 Cover Sheet COVER SHEET Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Authorization of Incidental Take and Implementation of the Habitat Conservation Plan Developed by the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior United States Fish and Wildlife Service Type of Statement: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tel: 512-490-0057 For Information: Tanya Sommer Branch Chief U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas Tel: 512-490-0057 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) received an application from the Edwards Aquifer Authority (EAA), San Antonio Water System, City of New Braunfels, City of San Marcos, and Texas State University for a permit to take certain federally protected species incidental to otherwise lawful activities pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) addresses the potential environmental consequences that may occur if the application is approved and the HCP is implemented. The Service is the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • Karst Invertebrates Taxonomy
    Endangered Karst Invertebrate Taxonomy of Central Texas U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Rd. Suite #200 Austin, TX 78758 Original date: July 28, 2011 Revised on: April 4, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 ENDANGERED KARST INVERTEBRATE TAXONOMY ................................................. 1 2.1 Batrisodes texanus (Coffin Cave mold beetle) ......................................................................... 2 2.2 Batrisodes venyivi (Helotes mold beetle) .................................................................................. 3 2.3 Cicurina baronia (Robber Baron Cave meshweaver) ............................................................... 4 2.4 Cicurina madla (Madla Cave meshweaver) .............................................................................. 5 2.5 Cicurina venii (Braken Bat Cave meshweaver) ........................................................................ 6 2.6 Cicurina vespera (Government Canyon Bat Cave meshweaver) ............................................. 7 2.7 Neoleptoneta microps (Government Canyon Bat Cave spider) ................................................ 8 2.8 Neoleptoneta myopica (Tooth Cave spider) .............................................................................. 9 2.9 Rhadine exilis (no common name) .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]