FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE HAYS COUNTY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN PREPARED BY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758-4460 CONTRIBUTORS: Loomis Partners, Inc. Smith, Robertson, Elliott, Glen, Klein, & Bell, LLP URS Corporation Zara Environmental, LLC Joe Lessard Texas Perspectives, LLC Capitol Market Research FINAL HAYS COUNTY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MAY 1, 2010 Type of Action: Administrative Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Responsible Official: Adam Zerrenner Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 For Information: Luela Roberts Chief, Consultations and Habitat Conservation Plans U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 Abstract: Hays County, Texas, is applying for an incidental take permit (Permit) under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, to authorize incidental take of two endangered bird species: the golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) and the black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), collectively referred to as the “covered species.” In support of the Permit application, the County has prepared a regional habitat conservation plan (RHCP) covering a 30-year period from 2010 to 2040. The permit area for the RHCP is Hays County, Texas. While the entire county would be covered by the proposed Permit, potential habitat for the covered species only occurs on the Edwards Plateau ecoregion located across the western approximately two-thirds of the county (generally west of Interstate Highway 35). The area of potential effect for this Environmental Impact Statement varies with the resource being considered, but typically includes the full extent of Hays County. The requested Permit would authorize incidental take for the covered species associated with up to 9,000 acres of impact to potential golden-cheeked warbler habitat and up to 1,300 acres of impact to potential black-capped vireo habitat within Hays County over the 30-year duration of the plan. Mitigation for the impacts of authorized take would be provided by the conservation program of the RHCP. The RHCP conservation program could also benefit 56 Hays County RHCP Page i Environmental Impact Statement other potentially rare or sensitive species in Hays County (i.e., the RHCP “evaluation” and “additional” species). The RHCP conservation program uses a phased conservation banking approach with a goal of assembling between 10,000 and 15,000 acres of preserve land over the 30-year duration of the RHCP. The preserve system will be assembled on a phased basis as needed to create mitigation credits for the conservation bank and as potential preserve parcels become available from willing partners; there is no pre-determined preserve size, location, or configuration. Habitat for the covered species protected within the preserve system will create mitigation credits for the conservation bank. Banking mitigation credits would allow an equivalent amount of take authorization to be accessed. Therefore, mitigation would always be provided before an equivalent amount of take authorization could be used by the County or issued to RHCP participants. Defined processes for habitat determinations and mitigation assessments, as well as defined mitigation ratios, provide the basis for ensuring that mitigation is commensurate with impacts. Hays County will manage and monitor the preserve system for the benefit of the covered species in perpetuity, in accordance with the RHCP and terms of the Permit. As part of the RHCP conservation program, the County will implement various other measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the covered species, including disseminating maps of potential habitat for the covered species, requesting subdivision or development applicants to provide information about endangered species within their project areas, requiring RHCP participants to implement measures that help prevent the spread of oak wilt and to observe seasonal restrictions on clearing and construction in or near habitat for the covered species, and implementing a public education and outreach program. The County will also dedicate funds for research or studies of one or more of the RHCP evaluation species. The RHCP includes a funding plan that estimates the cost of implementing the conservation program and identifies three types of resources to provide revenue for RHCP implementation: 1) participation fees charged to RHCP participants; 2) annual contributions from County tax revenues; and 3) conservation investments from the County or other sources. Other funding sources, such as grants or debt financing may also be available, but are not modeled in the funding plan. The natural resource and socioeconomic impacts associated with implementing the proposed RHCP have been described and assessed in this EIS. In developing the RHCP, a number of alternatives were considered, including the No Action alternative, a Moderate Preserve/Limited Take alternative, and a Large-scale Preserve alternative. Hays County RHCP Page ii Environmental Impact Statement May 1, 2010 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction, Purpose, and Need ...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction and Background .......................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 Hays County Background ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 Hays County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan ................................................................... 4 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................................... 6 1.3 Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................... 7 1.3.1 Endangered Species Act ............................................................................................................ 7 1.3.1.1 Concepts and Benefits of Regional HCPs .......................................................................... 9 1.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act .........................................................................................10 1.3.3 Texas State Law Relevant to Regional HCPs ..........................................................................11 1.4 Decision Needed..............................................................................................................................12 2.0 Scoping and Public Participation ....................................................................................................13 2.1 Public Scoping ................................................................................................................................13 2.1.1 Formal Scoping Process ...........................................................................................................13 2.1.2 Public Scoping Comments and Responses ...............................................................................14 2.2 Other Public and Stakeholder Involvement .....................................................................................17 2.2.1 Stakeholder and Technical Advisory Committees ...................................................................17 2.2.1.1 Citizens Advisory Committee ...........................................................................................17 2.2.1.2 Biological Advisory Team ................................................................................................20 2.2.2 Hays County RHCP Website ...................................................................................................22 2.3 Alternatives Development ...............................................................................................................22 2.3.1 Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study .............................................................................23 2.3.2 Alternatives Not Considered for Detailed Study ......................................................................24 2.3.2.1 Regulatory Alternative ......................................................................................................24 2.3.2.2 County-only Regional HCP ..............................................................................................25 3.0 Alternatives Considered for Study ..................................................................................................26 3.1 Description of Alternatives Considered for Study ...........................................................................26 3.1.1 Alternative A – No Action .......................................................................................................27 3.1.2 Alternative B – Hays County RHCP (Proposed Alternative) ..................................................28 3.1.3 Alternative C – Moderate Preserve System with a Take Limit ................................................29 3.1.4 Alternative D – Large-scale Preserve System ..........................................................................30 3.2 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................................................31