DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Draft EA/HCP November 20, 2007 DRAFT Environmental Assessment/Habitat Conservation Plan for Issuance of an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit for Incidental Take of Golden-cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), Tooth Cave Pseudoscorpion (Tartarocreagris texana), Kretschmarr Cave Mold Beetle (Texamaurops reddelli), Bone Cave Harvestman (Texella reyesi), Tooth Cave Spider (Neoleptoneta myopica), and Tooth Cave Ground Beetle (Rhadine persephone) During the Construction and Operation of a Residential, Commercial, and/or Retail Development on Portions of the Approximately 70-acre GDF Realty, et al., Property, Austin, Travis County, Texas U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 November 20, 2007 - i - Draft EA/HCP November 20, 2007 COVER SHEET Title for Proposed Action: Issuance of an Endangered Species Act Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit for incidental take of the endangered golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion (Tartarocreagris texana), Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle (Texamaurops reddelli), Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi), Tooth Cave spider (Neoleptoneta myopica), and Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone) during the construction and operation of a residential, commercial, and/or retail development with associated streets and utilities on portions of the approximately 70-acre property in Austin, Travis County, Texas. Unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Proposing the Action: Regional Director, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Legal Mandate for Proposed Action: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.), as amended, section 10(a)(1)(B), as implemented by 50 CFR 17.22. Applicants: GDF Realty Investments, Inc., Parke Properties I, L.P., and Parke Properties II, L.P. Permit Number: TE-171255 Duration: 30 years Mitigation/Funding Plan: To ensure adequate funding is provided, a preserve operation, maintenance, and management budget with the receiving Managing Partner shall be drafted and agreed to by the Preserve Manager and the Applicants. Documentation of this agreement must be provided to the Service prior to issuance of the permit. The funds as agreed upon by the Preserve Manager and Applicants shall be delivered upon finalizing the transfer of the on-site and, if necessary, off-site mitigation lands, all of which must be completed prior to any vegetation clearing or construction activities. Documentation of the transfer of the mitigation lands and delivery of the agreed upon funds for operation and management must be provided to the Service within 30 days of its completion to ensure compliance with the permit. In the event these funds are not transferred, the Service may revoke the permit. Document Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758. - ii - Draft EA/HCP November 20, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION...................................................................................3 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...............................................................3 3.1 VEGETATION.............................................................................................................3 3.2 WILDLIFE....................................................................................................................4 3.3 LISTED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES...............................................5 3.3.1 Golden-cheeked Warbler ...............................................................................5 3.3.2 Karst Invertebrates.......................................................................................10 3.4 WETLANDS...............................................................................................................17 3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...........................................................................................17 3.6 LAND USE.................................................................................................................18 3.7 WATER RESOURCES ..............................................................................................18 3.8 AIR QUALITY...........................................................................................................18 3.9 WATER QUALITY....................................................................................................18 3.10 CULTURAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................18 3.11 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT...................................................................19 4.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .............................19 4.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................20 4.2 PAST DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED...................................22 4.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................22 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .............................................................................23 5.1 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, OPTIONS ONE, TWO AND THREE ..................23 5.1.1 Direct Impacts ............................................................................................23 5.1.1.1 Vegetation.....................................................................................23 5.1.1.2 Wildlife .........................................................................................23 5.1.1.3 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species .....................................24 Assessment of Take .......................................................................24 5.1.1.4 Wetlands .......................................................................................26 5.1.1.5 Geologic Features and Soils..........................................................26 5.1.1.6 Land Use .......................................................................................26 5.1.1.7 Water Resources ...........................................................................26 5.1.1.8 Air Quality ....................................................................................26 5.1.1.9 Water Quality................................................................................28 5.1.1.10 Cultural Resources......................................................................27 5.1.1.11 Socioeconomic Environment......................................................27 5.1.2 Indirect Impacts.........................................................................................27 5.1.2.1 Vegetation.....................................................................................27 5.1.2.2 Wildlife .........................................................................................27 5.1.2.3 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species .....................................28 5.1.2.4 Wetlands .......................................................................................30 - iii - Draft EA/HCP November 20, 2007 5.1.2.5 Geologic Features and Soils..........................................................30 5.1.2.6 Land Use .......................................................................................30 5.1.2.7 Water Resources ...........................................................................31 5.1.2.8 Air Quality ....................................................................................31 5.1.2.9 Water Quality................................................................................31 5.1.2.10 Cultural Resources......................................................................31 5.1.2.11 Socioeconomic Environment......................................................31 5.1.3 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................31 5.1.3.1 Vegetation.....................................................................................31 5.1.3.2 Wildlife .........................................................................................32 5.1.3.3 Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species .....................................32 5.1.3.4 Wetlands .......................................................................................34 5.1.3.5 Geologic Features and Soils..........................................................34 5.1.3.6 Land Use .......................................................................................34 5.1.3.7 Water Resources ...........................................................................34 5.1.3.8 Air Quality ....................................................................................34 5.1.3.9 Water Quality................................................................................34 5.1.3.10 Cultural Resources......................................................................34 5.1.3.11 Socioeconomic Environment......................................................35 5.2 PAST DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED...................................35 5.3 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................35 6.0 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ...................................................................................35 6.1 BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................36
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Reprint Covers
    TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM Speleological Monographs, Number 7 Studies on the CAVE AND ENDOGEAN FAUNA of North America Part V Edited by James C. Cokendolpher and James R. Reddell TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM SPELEOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS, NUMBER 7 STUDIES ON THE CAVE AND ENDOGEAN FAUNA OF NORTH AMERICA, PART V Edited by James C. Cokendolpher Invertebrate Zoology, Natural Science Research Laboratory Museum of Texas Tech University, 3301 4th Street Lubbock, Texas 79409 U.S.A. Email: [email protected] and James R. Reddell Texas Natural Science Center The University of Texas at Austin, PRC 176, 10100 Burnet Austin, Texas 78758 U.S.A. Email: [email protected] March 2009 TEXAS MEMORIAL MUSEUM and the TEXAS NATURAL SCIENCE CENTER THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78705 Copyright 2009 by the Texas Natural Science Center The University of Texas at Austin All rights rereserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including electronic storage and retrival systems, except by explict, prior written permission of the publisher Printed in the United States of America Cover, The first troglobitic weevil in North America, Lymantes Illustration by Nadine Dupérré Layout and design by James C. Cokendolpher Printed by the Texas Natural Science Center, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas PREFACE This is the fifth volume in a series devoted to the cavernicole and endogean fauna of the Americas. Previous volumes have been limited to North and Central America. Most of the species described herein are from Texas and Mexico, but one new troglophilic spider is from Colorado (U.S.A.) and a remarkable new eyeless endogean scorpion is described from Colombia, South America.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered, Extinct (Or Extirpated), and Exotic Species of Texas
    B Division Triple E’s: Endangered, Extinct (or Extirpated), and Exotic Species of Texas DESCRIPTION: Students will be asked questions about Texas endangered, and extinct species (Refer to State Taxa List), including probable reasons for their status on the Texas list. Some of these organisms on the Texas List may also appear on the National List of Endangered Species. Students will also be asked questions about Texas exotic (non-native) species (refer to State Taxa List), including their probable mode of introduction and their impact on biodiversity. EVENT PARAMETERS: No published reference materials (books, pamphlets, maps, field guides, etc.), in whole or in part, may be carried into the testing room during this competition. Handwritten competitor-made notes on front and back of as many as twenty-five (25) 3”x5” index cards, all of which are to be held together by a single ring, will be permitted during testing. The competitor-made notes may not include any typewritten material, clippings, pictures or photocopies from published materials. TEAM OF UP TO: 2 APPROXIMATE TIME: 50 minutes THE COMPETITION: 1. The event may be run as stations, using names, photos, specimens or drawings of selected organisms listed as endangered in Texas. Students are expected to know if the selected Texas organisms also appear on the national endangered list and will be expected to identify probable causes of population decline. 2. Students will be expected to identify the organisms by common name and recognize genus and species (see Taxa List). 3. Students may be asked to identify laws and regulations which apply to endangered species on the National level, including but not limited to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Karst Invertebrates Recovery
    ENDANGERED KARST INVERTEBRATES (TRAVIS AND WILLIAMSON COUNTIES, TEXAS) -h I I RECOVERY PLA .S. Fish and Wildlife Service RECOVERY PLAN FOR ENDANGERED KARST INVERTEBRATES IN TRAVIS AND WILLIAMSON COUNTIES, TEXAS Prepared by: Lisa O’Donnell U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 611 E. 6th Street, Room 407 Austin, Texas 78701 William R. Elliott, Ph.D. 12102 Grimsley Drive Austin, Texas 78750 and Ruth A. Stanford U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 611 E. 6th Street, Room 407 Austin, Texas 78701 Edited by: Alisa Shull U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 611 E. 6th Street, Room 407 Austin, Texas 78701 For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 2 Approved: Date: N DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Because the potential for complete recovery and delisting is uncertain, the goal of this plan is downlisting. Thus, the estimated costs and date of recovery presented in this plan are for downlisting, not delisting. Plans are published by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 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 do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Evidence That Invasive Species Are a Significant Contributor to the Decline Or Loss of Threatened Species? Philip D
    Invasive Species Systematic Review, March 2015 What is the evidence that invasive species are a significant contributor to the decline or loss of threatened species? Philip D. Roberts, Hilda Diaz-Soltero, David J. Hemming, Martin J. Parr, Richard H. Shaw, Nicola Wakefield, Holly J. Wright, Arne B.R. Witt www.cabi.org KNOWLEDGE FOR LIFE Contents Contents .................................................................................................................................. 1 Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 3 Keywords ................................................................................................................................. 4 Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 4 Background .............................................................................................................................. 5 Objective of the review ............................................................................................................ 7 The primary review question: ....................................................................................... 7 Secondary question 1: ................................................................................................. 7 Secondary question 2: ................................................................................................. 7 Methods
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Karst Site Assessment, Camp Bullis, Texas: Maneuver Areas 8, 9, 10, and 11, and Southern Cantonment 144
    MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION OF RARE AND ENDANGERED KARST SPECIES, CAMP BULLIS, BEXAR AND COMAL COUNTIES, TEXAS by George Veni Ph.D., James R. Reddell, and James C. Cokendolpher Executive Summary Camp Bullis is a 113.3-km2 military training facility under the Fort Sam Houston Command. It is located in north-central Bexar County and southwestern Comal County. Camp Bullis’ mission is to provide field training and support for military activities in south Texas, including weapons training, field training and maneuvers, map and compass courses, parachute operations training, combat assault landing training, and field medical training. Soon after the now-listed species were petitioned for endangered listing, Camp Bullis initiated a series of cave and karst investigations that continue to the present in order to pro-actively evaluate the installation’s potential to contain the species and manage those species according to the best available scientific information (Veni and Elliott, 1994; Veni et al., 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2000, 2002a, 2002b). To date, three of the species have been found on the installation, Cicurina (Cicurella) madla, Rhadine exilis, Rhadine infernalis. Additionally, one species on the State of Texas list of threatened species has been found, Eurycea tridentifera, plus 15 new or possibly new species known only from Camp Bullis. The presence of these listed and rare species of concern suggests that Camp Bullis has effectively managed its impact to the environment and these animals. This includes the potential impacts from the installation’s live fire ranges where one of the listed species is known to occur in five caves despite several decades of firearm use.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping Potential Golden-Cheeked Warbler Breeding Habitat Using Remotely Sensed Forest Canopy Cover Data Loomis Partners, Inc
    APPENDIX A Mapping Potential Golden-cheeked Warbler Breeding Habitat Using Remotely Sensed Forest Canopy Cover Data Loomis Partners, Inc. (2008) Hays County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan Mapping Potential Golden-cheeked Warbler Breeding Habitat Using Remotely Sensed Forest Canopy Cover Data Prepared for: County of Hays 111 E. San Antonio Street San Marcos, Texas 78666 Prepared by: ENGINEERING, LAND SURVEYING & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 3101 Bee Cave Road, Suite 100 Austin, TX 78746 512/327-1180 FAX: 512/327-4062 LAI Proj. No. 051001 August 12, 2008 Mapping Potential GCW Habitat LAI Proj. No. 051001 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................1 1.2 GOLDEN-CHEEKED WARBLER...................................................................................................................1 1.3 NATIONAL LAND COVER DATABASE 2001 ...............................................................................................3 2.0 METHODS .............................................................................................................................................3 2.1 HABITAT MAPPING ...................................................................................................................................3 2.2 PROBABILITY OF OCCUPANCY ANALYSIS .................................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Documentation
    Tier I Site Assessment Main CSJ: 0015-10-062 Form Prepared By: Melissa Cross (CP&Y, Inc.) Date of Evaluation: January 26, 2021 Proposed Letting Date: March 2022 Project not assigned to TxDOT under the NEPA Assignment MOU District(s): Austin County(ies): Travis, Williamson Roadway Name: I-35 Limits From: SH 45N Limits To: US 290E Project Description: The project would add one non-tolled managed lane in each direction, and improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations along the frontage roads and at east/west crossings. The environmental review, consultation, and other actions required by applicable Federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried-out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 9, 2019, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT. 1. No Is the project limited to a maintenance activity exempt from coordination? http://txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/environmental/maintenance-program.html 2. No Has the project previously completed coordination with TPWD? 3. Yes Is the project within range of a state threatened or endangered species or SGCN and suitable habitat is present? *Explain: Suitable habitat for three state listed mussel species, the false spike (Fusconaia mitchelli), Texas fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata), and Texas fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon), occurs within the project area. A presence/ absence survey for mussels was conducted in 2015 with no recorded observations of these species within the project area. Therefore, impacts to these species are not anticipated. The following 7 SGCN species have suitable habitat within the project area and may be impacted by the proposed project: cave myotis bat (Myotis velifer), eastern spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), Mexican free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), Woodhouse's toad (Anaxyrus woodhousii), Texas shiner (Notropis amabilis), tree dodder (Cuscuts axaltata), and Correll's false dragonhead (Physostegia correllii).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Evaluation Form
    Start approx. 1 mi north of RM 620/SH 45 345 feet West of Deerbrook Trail n so am lli is Wi av Tr RD GS RIN 620 SP ³ ± D O O W £183 E ¤ IC SP 2222 ³ ± UV1 2222 ³ ± ¤£183 End @ RM 2222 Project Location Project Location Miles County Boundary ¯ 0 2.5 5 Basemap Source: ESRI Topo, ESRI Streets 620 ³ ± ¤£183 UV360 UV1 ¨¦§35 2222 ³ ± Aerial Map US 183N Existing ROW: 715.99 acres Proposed ROW (for Retention Ponds): 41.61 acres Miles Proposed Easements: 2.37 acres 0 0.5 1 1.5 ¯ Basemap Source: ESRI: Microsoft, 2011 US 183 Photo Log Photos Taken in January, October and December 2014 Photo 1: Typical view of US 183 in the project area, facing south. Photo 2: Typical view of Mopac in the project area, facing north. Page 1 US 183 Photo Log Photos Taken in January, October and December 2014 Photo 3: Lake Creek is intermittent and has been highly disturbed in the project area. Facing west at US 183. Photo 4: Shoal Creek and its riparian area, facing west from the Mopac ROW. Page 2 US 183 Photo Log Photos Taken in January, October and December 2014 Photo 5: Riparian area surrounding Shoal Creek within the US 183 ROW, facing east. Photo 6: Potential wetland located in proposed water retention pond, facing north. Page 3 Occurrence List for Quads Surrounding Request Area Occurrence State Federal Scientific Name: Common Name: Number: Status: Status: Eo Id: Argythamnia aphoroides Hill Country wild-mercury 14 1107 Bat Roost 7 3394 Bat Roost 44 3195 Batrisodes texanus Coffin Cave Mold Beetle 2 LE 2441 Batrisodes texanus Coffin Cave Mold Beetle 5 LE 8759 Berberis swaseyi Texas Barberry 6 8715 Berberis swaseyi Texas Barberry 11 11296 Berberis swaseyi Texas Barberry 18 11306 Berberis swaseyi Texas Barberry 24 11304 Berberis swaseyi Texas Barberry 29 11352 Brickellia dentata Leafy Brickellbush 7 8712 Brickellia eupatorioides var.
    [Show full text]
  • WTCPUA Habitat Conservation Plan
    HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE WEST TRAVIS COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN Travis County, Texas February 2018 Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 On Behalf of: West Travis County Public Utility Agency 12117 Bee Cave Road, Bldg. 3, Ste. 120 Bee Cave, Texas 78738 By: aci consulting 1001 Mopac Circle Austin, Texas 78746 aci Project No.: 27-14-081 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Proposed Project, Plan Area, Permit Area, and Covered Activities ......................... 2 2.1 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Plan Area ........................................................................................................................ 4 2.3 Permit Area .................................................................................................................... 4 2.4 Description of Covered Activities ............................................................................... 7 3.0 Species Addressed by the Habitat Conservation Plan ............................................... 9 3.1 Covered Species - Golden-cheeked Warbler ........................................................... 13 3.2 Other Federally Listed Species in Travis County ..................................................
    [Show full text]