DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Impact Staterment for LCRA Transmission

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Impact Staterment for LCRA Transmission FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AUTHORIZATION OF INCIDENTAL TAKE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LCRA TRANSMISSION SERVICES CORPORATION HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78757 July 2019 Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EIS $289,722 LCRA TSC HCP fEIS CONTENTS Chapter 1. Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Federal Action ........................................................................... 9 1.2 Decision to Be Made ........................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Public Involvement and Tribal Outreach .......................................................................................... 10 1.3.1 Scoping ...................................................................................................................................... 10 1.3.2 Draft EIS Comment Period ........................................................................................................ 10 1.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act and Tribal Consultation ..................................................... 10 Chapter 2. Proposed Federal Action and Alternatives .......................................................................... 13 2.1 ALTERNATIVE A – Issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit (Proposed Federal Action) .............. 13 2.1.1 New Construction ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.1.2 Upgrading and Decommissioning .............................................................................................. 13 2.1.3 Operations and Maintenance ...................................................................................................... 14 2.1.4 Emergency Responses ............................................................................................................... 14 2.1.5 Covered Activities ..................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.6 Geographic Extent and Distribution of Covered Activities ....................................................... 14 2.1.7 Plan Area .................................................................................................................................... 15 2.1.8 Conservation Program ............................................................................................................... 15 2.1.8.1 Minimization Measures ...................................................................................................... 16 2.1.8.2 Mitigation Measures ........................................................................................................... 17 2.1.9 Plan Administration ................................................................................................................... 19 2.1.10 Funding .................................................................................................................................... 19 2.1.11 Changed Circumstances ........................................................................................................... 20 2.2 ALTERNATIVE B – Reduced Permit Duration .............................................................................. 20 2.3 ALTERNATIVE C – No Action Alternative .................................................................................... 21 2.4 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Analysis ................................................................................ 21 2.4.1 Reduced Plan Area ..................................................................................................................... 21 2.4.2 Fewer Covered Activities .......................................................................................................... 22 2.4.3 Additional Covered Species ....................................................................................................... 22 2.4.4 Reduced Incidental Take Alternative ......................................................................................... 22 Chapter 3. Affected Environment ........................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.1 Regional Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 24 3.1.2 Resources Analyzed ................................................................................................................... 24 3.1.3 Resources Not Considered for Detailed Analysis ...................................................................... 24 3.2 Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................................... 29 3.3 Aquatic Resources ............................................................................................................................. 30 3.4 Covered Species ................................................................................................................................ 31 3.5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................ 31 3.5.1 Cultural Resources Setting ......................................................................................................... 32 3.5.1.1 National Register of Historic Places ................................................................................... 33 3.5.1.2 National Historic Landmarks and Trails ............................................................................. 33 3.5.1.3 Archaeological sites ............................................................................................................ 34 3.6 Federally Listed Plant Species .......................................................................................................... 34 3.7 Other Non-Federally Listed Wildlife Species ................................................................................... 36 3.7.1 General Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 36 3.7.2 Migratory Birds .......................................................................................................................... 37 3.7.3 Bald and Golden Eagles ............................................................................................................. 38 3.7.4 State-Listed Species ................................................................................................................... 39 3.8 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ..................................................................................... 41 3.9 Vegetation ......................................................................................................................................... 41 i LCRA TSC HCP fEIS Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 45 4.1 Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... 45 4.2 Impact Estimation Approach ............................................................................................................ 45 4.2.1 Quantification of Impacts .......................................................................................................... 45 4.2.2 Impact Framework ..................................................................................................................... 45 4.3 Reasonably Foreseeable Projects ...................................................................................................... 46 4.4 Effects Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 47 4.4.1 Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................... 48 4.4.1.1 Alternative A – Issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit ..................................................... 48 4.4.1.2 Alternative B – Reduced Permit Duration .......................................................................... 49 4.4.1.3 Alternative C – No Action .................................................................................................. 49 4.4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................ 49 4.4.2 Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................................................... 50 4.4.2.1 Alternative A – Issuance of Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit ..................................................... 50 4.4.2.2 Alternative B – reduced permit duration ............................................................................. 51 4.4.2.3 Alternative C – No Action .................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Proposed Fastrill Reservoir in East Texas: a Study Using
    THE PROPOSED FASTRILL RESERVOIR IN EAST TEXAS: A STUDY USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS Michael Ray Wilson, B.S. Thesis Prepared for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS December 2009 APPROVED: Paul Hudak, Major Professor and Chair of the Department of Geography Samuel F. Atkinson, Minor Professor Pinliang Dong, Committee Member Michael Monticino, Dean of the Robert B. Toulouse School of Graduate Studies Wilson, Michael Ray. The Proposed Fastrill Reservoir in East Texas: A Study Using Geographic Information Systems. Master of Science (Applied Geography), December 2009, 116 pp., 26 tables, 14 illustrations, references, 34 titles. Geographic information systems and remote sensing software were used to analyze data to determine the area and volume of the proposed Fastrill Reservoir, and to examine seven alternatives. The controversial reservoir site is in the same location as a nascent wildlife refuge. Six general land cover types impacted by the reservoir were also quantified using Landsat imagery. The study found that water consumption in Dallas is high, but if consumption rates are reduced to that of similar Texas cities, the reservoir is likely unnecessary. The reservoir and its alternatives were modeled in a GIS by selecting sites and intersecting horizontal water surfaces with terrain data to create a series of reservoir footprints and volumetric measurements. These were then compared with a classified satellite imagery to quantify land cover types. The reservoir impacted the most ecologically sensitive land cover type the most. Only one alternative site appeared slightly less environmentally damaging. Copyright 2009 by Michael Ray Wilson ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge my thesis committee members, Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Phytologia (June 2006) 88(1) the GENUS SENEGALIA
    .. Phytologia (June 2006) 88(1) 38 THE GENUS SENEGALIA (FABACEAE: MIMOSOIDEAE) FROM THE NEW WORLD 1 2 3 David S. Seigler , John E. Ebinger , and Joseph T. Miller 1 Department of Plant Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] 2 Emeritus Professor of Botany, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois 61920, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] 3 Joseph T. Miller, Roy J. Carver Center for Comparative Genomics, Department of Biological Sciences, 232 BB, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, U.S.A. E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT Morphological and genetic differences separating the subgenera of Acacia s.l. and molecular evidence that the genus Acacia s.l. is polyphyletic necessitate transfer of the following New World taxa from Acacia subgenus Aculeiferum Vassal to Senegalia, resulting in fifty-one new combinations in the genus Senegalia: Senegalia alemquerensis (Huber) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia altiscandens (Ducke) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia amazonica (Benth.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia bahiensis (Benth.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia bonariensis (Gillies ex Hook. & Arn.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia catharinensis (Burkart) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia emilioana (Fortunato & Cialdella) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia etilis (Speg.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia feddeana (Harms) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia fiebrigii (Hassl.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia gilliesii (Steud.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia grandistipula (Benth.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia huberi (Ducke) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia kallunkiae (Grimes & Barneby) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia klugii (Standl. ex J. F. Macbr.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia kuhlmannii (Ducke) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia lacerans (Benth.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia langsdorfii (Benth.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia lasophylla (Benth.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia loretensis (J. F. Macbr.) Seigler & Ebinger, Senegalia macbridei (Britton & Rose ex J.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Oklahoma Odonata
    Libellula comanche Calvert, 1907 - Comanche Skimmer Useful regional references: Libellula composita (Hagen, 1873) - Bleached Skimmer A Checklist of Libellula croceipennis Sélys, 1868 - Neon Skimmer —Dragonflies and damselflies of the West by Dennis Paulson (2009) Libellula cyanea Fabricius, 1775 - Spangled Skimmer and Dragonflies and damselflies of the East by Dennis Paulson (2011) Oklahoma Odonata Libellula flavida Rambur, 1842 - Yellow-sided Skimmer Princeton University Press. Libellula incesta Hagen, 1861 - Slaty Skimmer —Damselflies of Texas: A Field Guide by John C. Abbott (2011) and (Dragonflies and Damselflies) Libellula luctuosa Burmeister, 1839 - Widow Skimmer Dragonflies of Texas: A Field Guide by John C. Abbott (2015) University of Texas Press. Libellula nodisticta Hagen, 1861 - Hoary Skimmer Libellula pulchella Drury, 1773 - Twelve-spotted Skimmer —Oklahoma Odonata Project: https://biosurvey.ou.edu/smith/Oklahoma_Odonata.html Libellula saturata Uhler, 1857 - Flame Skimmer Compiled by Brenda D. Smith — Smith BD, Patten MA (2020) Dragonflies at a Biogeographical Libellula semifasciata Burmeister, 1839 - Painted Skimmer Crossroads: The Odonata of Oklahoma and Complexities Beyond its & Michael A. Patten Libellula vibrans Fabricius, 1793 - Great Blue Skimmer Borders. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Macrodiplax balteata (Hagen, 1861) - Marl Pennant Miathyria marcella (Sélys, 1856) - Hyacinth Glider Oklahoma Biological Survey, Micrathyria hagenii Kirby, 1890 - Thornbush Dasher Oklahoma
    [Show full text]
  • US EPA-Pesticides; Dodine
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDESDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 044301 DP Barcode: D338148 Date: January 22, 2008 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Ecological Risk Assessment for the Dodine Section 3 New Use on Peanuts and Bananas TO: Robert Westin, Product Manager Mary Waller, Team Leader Registration Division (7505P) FROM: Christopher J. Salice, P.h.D, Biologist Marietta Echeverria, Envronmental Scientist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) REVIEWED BY: Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Biologist R. David Jones, Ph.D., Senior Agronomist Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) APPROVED BY: Elizabeth Behl, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch IV Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has reviewed the proposed label for the use of dodine (n-dodecylguanidine monoacetate; CAS 2439-10-3) and its end-use product SYLLIT® FL (39.6% dodine) fungicide on peanuts and bananas. The results of this screening-level risk assessment indicate that the proposed new uses of dodine on peanuts and bananas have the potential for direct adverse effects on listed and non-listed freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates, listed and non-listed vascular and non-vascular plants, and listed and non-listed birds and mammals. Major data gaps are listed below. Without these data potential risk to the associated taxa can not be precluded: • Aquatic vascular plant toxicity data (850.4400) There is uncertainty regarding the potential chronic effects of dodine to saltwater invertebrates and fish since there are no toxicity data. Using acute-to-chronic ratios (ACR) from freshwater species to calculate chronic endpoints for the saltwater species, however, suggests that risks may be low.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 3/Monday, January 6, 2014
    Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2014 / Notices 661 Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing utility, and clarity of the information to through applications, semi-annual and Urban Development, 451 7th Street be collected and (4) Minimize the reports, and close out reports. The SW., Washington, DC 20410; email burden of collection of information on information that is collected is used to Colette Pollard at Colette.Pollard@ those who are to respond; including the assess performance. Grantees are units hud.gov or telephone 202–402–3400. use of appropriate automated collection of state and local government, This is not a toll-free number. Persons techniques or other forms of technology, nonprofits and Indian tribes. with hearing or speech impairments e.g., permitting electronic submission of Respondents are initially identified by may access this number through TTY by responses. congress and generally fall into two calling the toll-free Federal Relay This Notice also lists the following categories: Economic Development Service at (800) 877–8339. information: Initiative—Special Project (EDI–SP) Copies of available documents A. Overview of Information Collection grantees and Neighborhood Initiative submitted to OMB may be obtained (NI) grantees. The agency has used the from Ms. Pollard. Title of Information Collection: application, semi-annual reports and Congressional Earmark Grants. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This close out reports to track grantee OMB Approval Number: 2506–0179. performance in the implementation of notice informs the public that HUD is Type of Request (i.e. new, revision or approved projects. seeking approval from OMB for the extension of currently approved information collection described in collection): extension of a currently Respondents (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 AMENDED BIOLOGICAL OPINION United States Department of the Interior
    2003 AMENDED BIOLOGICAL OPINION United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICE Ecological Services do TAMU-CC, Campus Box 338 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 May23, 2003 Ms. Sylvia A, Waggoner Division Engineer Environmental Management Division International Boundary and Water Commission The Commons, Building C, Suite 310 4171 N. Mesa Street El Paso, TX 79902 Consultation No. 2-11-91-F-144 Dear Ms. Waggoner: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) reinitiated Final Biological Opinion based on our review of the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission's (USIBWC) ongoing implementation of vegetation management practices for the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project (LRGFCP) in Cameron, Hidalgo, and Willacy Counties, Texas. We have analyzed the proposed action and its effects on the endangered ocelot Leopardus (Felis) pardalis, listed throughout its entire range that includes Texas, Arizona, Mexico to Central and South America, and the Gulf Coast jaguarundi Hemailurus yagouaroundi cacomitli that ranges from Texas to Mexico, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). USffiWC's request and information provided for reinitiation of the 1993 formal consultation and Biological Opinion was considered complete by the Corpus Christi, Texas Ecological Services Field Office (CCESFO) on December 11, 2002. This biological opinion is based on information provided in the April 2002 "Threatened and Endangered Species Report in Support of the Environmental Impact Statement f~r the Maintenance Program of the Lower Rio Grande Flood Control Project", Volume III of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement {PDEIS) entitled Alternative Vegetation Management Practices for the LRGFCP Cameron, Hildago, and Willacy Counties, Texas, as well as telephone conversations, field investigations, and other relevant sources of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Cynoglossum Officinale L
    United States Department of Agriculture NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Invasive Species Technical Note No. MT-8 January 2007 Ecology and Management of Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale L.) by Jim Jacobs, NRCS Invasive Species Specialist, Bozeman, Montana Sharlene Sing, Assistant Research Professor, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana Abstract Houndstongue, Cynoglossum officinale (Boraginaceae), is a biennial or short-lived perennial originating from montane zones in western Asia and Eastern Europe. Houndstongue reproduces by seed only, and was probably introduced to North America as a grain seed contaminant. This species was first reported in Montana from Sweet Grass County near Big Timber, Montana in 1900. As of 2006, houndstongue has been reported in 35 of Montana’s 56 counties (http://invader.dbs.umt.edu). Houndstongue invades grasslands, pastures, shrublands, forestlands, croplands and riparian areas, and is an effective competitor that readily displaces desirable species, establishing monocultures and further degrading forage quality in disturbed habitats. This species is particularly well adapted to invading and dominating forest openings created through logging activities. Houndstongue has a number of biological characteristics that contribute to its invasiveness. Houndstongue seeds are covered with barbed prickles that have been referred to as ‘nature’s Velcro®. These facilitate the effective, widespread dispersal of seeds on the fur, wool or hides of passing wildlife and livestock, and on the cloths of humans. The seeds are also relatively large; this provision of stored energy confers a significant competitive advantage due to high germination rates and seedling establishment. The large taproot developed in the first year of growth enables houndstongue to tolerate environmental stress and produce many seeds in the second year of growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Detection of High Levels of Pyrrolizidinenoxides in the Endangered Plant Cryptantha Crassipes
    Research Article Received: 12 November 2010; Revised: 10 December 2010; Accepted: 10 December 2010 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 24 March 2011 (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/pca.1314 Detection of High Levels of Pyrrolizidine‐N‐oxides in the Endangered Plant Cryptantha crassipes (Terlingua Creek Cat’s‐eye) Using HPLC‐ESI‐MS Maria T. Williams,a Bonnie J. Warnock,a Joseph M. Betz,b John J. Beck,c Dale R. Gardner,d Stephen T. Lee,d Russell J. Molyneuxe and Steven M. Colegated* ABSTRACT: Introduction – A previous investigation of pyrrolizidine alkaloids produced by nine species of Cryptantha identified at least two chemotypes within the genus. Other research has postulated that pyrrolizidine‐N‐oxide concentrations increase as the growing conditions become harsher, particularly with respect to water availability. Cryptantha crassipes is an endangered plant with a very limited distribution range within a dry, harsh Texan ecosystem. Objective – To determine the pyrrolizidine alkaloid (and their N‐oxides) profile and concentrations in Cryptantha crassipes. Methodology – Methanolic extracts of Cryptantha crassipes were partitioned into dilute sulphuric acid and the alkaloids concentrated using strong cation exchange, solid‐phase extraction columns. Extracts were analysed using reversed‐phase high‐pressure liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray ionisation ion trap mass spectrometry. Results – The N‐oxides of lycopsamine and intermedine were the major pyrrolizidine alkaloids detected in Cryptantha crassipes. Smaller to trace amounts of other pyrrolizidine alkaloids observed were: the 7‐ and 3′‐acetylated derivatives and the 1,2‐dihydro analogs of lycopsamine‐N‐oxide and/or intermedine‐N‐oxide; a pair of unidentified N‐oxides, isobaric with lycopsamine‐N‐oxide; and the N‐oxides of leptanthine, echimiplatine, amabiline, echiumine and dihydroechiumine.
    [Show full text]
  • SPECIFICATION Txdot Travel Information Division Judge Roy
    2018 TRV Specifications No statewide standard use or special specification exists for this planned work Rev 003-05/24/18 Rice, Andy FC/PM SPECIFICATION TxDOT Travel Information Division Judge Roy Bean Museum and Visitors Center Langtry, Texas Historical and Native Garden Site Signage Maintenance 1.0 SITE FAMILIARIZATION AND SPECIAL WORK CONDITIONS A. FACILITY PROFILE OVERVIEW. 1. The Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT)-Travel Information Division operates twelve (12) Travel Information Centers (TICs) across the State of Texas. 2. The TICs serve the travelling public at entry points into Texas. The TICs are “highly visible” to the public and are the “Face of TXDOT” to the travelling public. 3. During times of natural disaster and state emergencies, the TICs serve as emergency call and response centers supporting Drive Texas and other emergency response efforts as needed and directed by the TxDOT Executive Director and Communications Director. B. LOCATION(s). Work site and delivery locations for these specifications are the Texas Department of Transportation-Travel Information Center located at: 1. US 90 W/State Loop 25 at Torres Ave., Langtry, TX 78871 C. HOURS OF OPERATION. 1. Normal hours of Operation for the TIC are 0800-1700 hours Monday thru Sunday. 2. Facilities are open three hundred sixty (360) days a year and are open on weekends and most federal and state holidays. D. FACILITY AND CONSTRUCTION RESTRICTIONS. 1. TIC Facilities cannot be shut down in entirety during construction regardless of level of construction. Operations to support travelling public must continue and construction must be planned and phased to ensure continuity of operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form
    INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FORM Originating Person: Boyd Blihovde, Refuge Manager Telephone Number: 956-245-7823 Date: January 19, 2020 I. Region: Southwest II. Service Activity (Program): Proposed expansion of Hunt Program at Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge (LANWR) to include Bahia Grande, LANWR Subunit 4, LANWR Subunit 7, and La Selva Verde Unit. Proposed approval of new Refuge Hunt Plan: “Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge White-tailed Deer, Exotic Ungulate, and American Alligator Hunt Plan” III. Pertinent Species and Habitat: A. Listed species and/or their critical habitat within the action area: Laguna Atascosa NWR–Cameron County, TX Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), no Designated Critical Habitat – Dense brush habitat on lomas/uplands. Jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi cacomitli), no Designated Critical Habitat – Dense brush habitat and cordgrass habitats. Northern Aplomado Falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis), no Designated Critical Habitat – Coastal “prairie” /savannah grassland. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus), Designated Critical Habitat – Shoreline: coastal beaches, sandflats, and mudflats. Red Knot (Calidris canutus), no Designated Critical Habitat – Shoreline: sandy beaches, saltmarshes, lagoons, mudflats, salt ponds, and mangrove swamps. B. Proposed species and/or proposed critical habitat within the action area: Eastern Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis jamaicensis), no proposed Designated Critical Habitat – Coastal wetlands and marshes. C. Candidate species within the action area: None. D. The ocelot, jaguarundi, Northern Aplomado Falcon, Piping Plover, Red Knot, and Eastern Black Rail may occur within suitable habitat within Laguna Atascosa NWR. See attached map. IV. Geographic area or station name and action: Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge. V. Location: See attached map. A. County and state: Cameron, Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment (2) of Ross Melinchuk on Behalf of Texas Parks and Wildlife
    HULY'VjVLCIVES ~7r~ ~~/2 November 5, 2010 ~NOV~F I Ac 'N- 8:5 3 UEAPAKU Life's better outside.: Ms. Cindy K. Bladey Chief, Rulemaking and Directives Branch R .HF\Ac:D Commissioners Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWB-05-BOIM Peter M.Holt Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Antonio Washington, DC 20555-0001 T. Dan Friedkin Vice-Chairman Houston RE: Proposed Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plants Units 3 and 4 Combined Mark E. Bivins Amarillo License Application Review, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Ralph H. Duggins (DEIS), Somervell and Hood Counties Fort Worth Antonio Falcon, M.D. Rio Grande City Dear Ms. Bladey: Karen J. Hixon San Antonio Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) received the August 6, 2010 Dan Allen Hughes, Jr. notification for issuance of and request for comment on the above-referenced Beeville DEIS. The notification was submitted in accordance with the National Margaret Martin Boerne Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Fish and S. Reed Morian Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934, as amended. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Houston (NRC) prepared the DEIS as part of its review of Luminant Generation Company Lee M. Bass Chairman-Emeritus LLC (Luminant) application for combined licenses for construction and operation Fort Worth of two new nuclear units at its existing Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) site near Glen Rose, Texas. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Fort Worth Carter R Smith District (USACE) is a cooperating agency in the DEIS so that the EIS can be used Executive Director to decide on issuance of permits pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
    [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]