Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation Plan

1
Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation
Plan
2
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROVISIONS Section 9
prohibits take of listed wildlife species

• Section 10(a) permits authorize take for
  non-federal actions
• 10(a) Permit Process
• Preparation of habitat conservation plan (HCP)
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
• Citizen Advisory Committee
• Biological Advisory Team
• Public comment
• Required elements of an HCP
• Identification of impacts
• Steps applicant will take to minimize and
  mitigate the impacts
• Funding sources
• Biological goals and objectives
• Monitoring
• Adaptive management

3

• WILLIAMSON COUNTY RHCP
• County is permittee
• Williamson County Conservation Foundation will
  administer the RHCP
• Covers take of Golden-cheeked warbler,
  Black-capped vireo,
• Coffin Cave mold beetle, and Bone Cave
  harvestman
• Permit duration of 30 years
• Participation is completely voluntary

4
WHO CAN BENEFIT FROM THE RHCP? Governmental
entities Cities and towns School
districts Political subdivisions (MUDs,
PIDs)? State Developers Landowners Citizens
5

• PERMIT AREA
• All of Williamson County
• Primary focus is the Karst Zone, which provides
  habitat for the karst invertebrates included in
  the RHCP
• Most habitat for the karst invertebrates and
  endangered birds is west of I-35

6

• SPECIES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY
  REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
• Two federally endangered karst invertebrates
• Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes texanus)?
• Bone Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi)?
• Two federally endangered birds
• Golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia)?
• Black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla)?
• Nineteen additional rare karst invertebrates and
  several rare salamanders, including Georgetown
  salamander, will not be covered but may receive
  additional study.

7
Coffin Cave mold beetle Photo by Kemble White
Bone Cave harvestman Photo by William R. Elliott
8
Karst Participation

• Karst participation based on impacts to 3 zones
• Karst Zone - 100/acre
• Zone A (50-345 feet from cave footprint) -
  10,000/acre
• Zone B (within 50-feet of cave footprint)
  -400,000/cave

9
Golden-cheeked Warbler
Photo by Steve Maslowski

• Mitigation through purchase of credits from
  existing conservation bank and establishing
  preserves within the County
• Participants pay a per-acre fee to be authorized
  for take

10
Golden-cheeked Warbler Participation

• Participation fees based on direct and indirect
  impacts
• Participation fee 7,000 acre
• Donating land in lieu of participation fees to
  be evaluated on a case-by-case basis

11
BLACK-CAPPED VIREO
Photo by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

• Mitigation to be determined annually and may
  include habitat creation, restoration,
  enhancement, or habitat acquisition
• Participants pay per-acre fee to be authorized
  for take

12
GEORGETOWN SALAMANDER
Photo by Justyn Miller

• Objective Preclude need to list

• No take under the RHCP

• Commit funding for a five year study to gather
  additional information on the species.
• At the end of year 2 begin preparation of
  appropriate conservation strategy.

13

• HOW THE RHCP PROCESS WORKS
• Stakeholder determines that Endangered Species
  which authorization may be required for a
  proposed project.
• Stakeholder chooses to participate in the RHCP in
  order to comply with the Endangered Species Act.
• Stakeholder submits RHCP participation
  application and supporting documents to the
  Williamson County Conservation Foundation
• Williamson County Conservation Foundation reviews
  application and determines the participation fee.
  
• If stakeholder chooses to participate,
  stakeholder pays mitigation fee and enters into a
  Participation Agreement with the Foundation.
• Likely a 30-60 day process
• WITHOUT THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY RHCP
• Stakeholder works individually with the U.S.
  Fish and Wildlife Service to obtain an individual
  10(a) permit
• Likely a one- to two-year process

14

• RHCP FUNDING SOURCES
• Participation fees for karst and bird mitigation
• Tax Benefit Financing
• RHCP endowment investment income
• Foundation will pursue state and federal grants,
  land grants, and donations

15
ADVANTAGES OF THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY RHCP

• Streamlined approvals for public and private
  projects,
• Reduces time and cost associated with Endangered
  Species Act compliance
• May contribute to and facilitate the down-listing
  and recovery of federally listed species in the
  County
• May help preclude the need to list rare karst and
  salamander species in the County
• Ensures preservation of open space and the
  natural character of the County

16

• MILESTONES
• Public Scoping for EIS - April 2007
• Alternatives Development - March-June 2007
• Draft EIS - December 2007
• Public Review May 16July 15, 2008
• Final EIS September 2008
• Anticipated Permit Issuance - October 2008

17
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Gary
Boyd Environmental Project Manager Williamson
County Conservation Foundation 512.260.4226 gboyd_at_
wilco.org www.wilcogov.org/wccf
18
Williamson County Regional Habitat Conservation
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Statement
19
Purpose and Need

• Purpose of the Action
• Efficient Alternative for Endangered Species Act
  (ESA) compliance
• Facilitate recovery of the Bone Cave harvestman
  and Coffin Cave mold beetle
• Collateral benefits for other rare and sensitive
  species

20
Purpose and Need

• Need for the Action
• Population expected to more than triple over the
  next 30 years.
• Development activities could result in the take
  of listed species

21
Alternatives

• No Action
• Proposed RHCP (Preferred Alternative)
• RHCP with reduced take

22
No Action Alternative

• Service would not issue a regional permit
• Individual authorizations required from the
  Service
• Individual project authorizations could result in
  projects being delayed 1 to 2 years

23
Proposed Williamson County RHCP

• RHCP to cover take of warbler, vireo, and two
  listed karst species
• 30 year term
• Completely voluntary participation
• Mitigation for take would include
• 700 acres of karst preserves
• 1,000 acres of mitigation credits from Hickory
  Pass Ranch
• Additional warbler preservation in the County
• Restoration and/or enhancement of Black-capped
  vireo habitat on a rolling basis
• 5-year study for the Georgetown salamander
• Public outreach and endowment fund
• Participating properties enrolled in tax benefit
  financing program.

24
RHCP With Reduced Take

• RHCP to cover take of Bone Cave harvestman and
  warbler.
• 30 year term
• Take and mitigation reduced from Preferred
  Alternative
• Study and public outreach same as Preferred
  Alternative

25
Resources Identified for Detailed Analysis

• Surface Water Resources
• Ground Water Resources
• Vegetation
• Wildlife
• Special Status Species
• Socioeconomic Resources

26
Impacts to Water Resources

• Moderate adverse impacts from development to
  surface and groundwater resources
• Mitigation for bird preserves and karst preserves
  would result in negligible-to-minor beneficial
  impacts

27
Impacts to Vegetation

• Moderate adverse impact from increased
  development
• Mitigation would result in moderate beneficial
  impacts to vegetation

28
Impacts to Wildlife

• Increased development would result in minor
  adverse impacts to most wildlife. Beneficial
  impacts to species that thrive with human
  habitation
• Mitigation may result in moderate beneficial
  impacts to wildlife

29
Impacts to Covered and Additional Species

• Covered activities would result in moderate
  adverse effects on endangered karst
  invertebrates, warbler, and salamander minor
  adverse impacts on vireo
• Mitigation would result in minor to moderate
  beneficial impacts to warbler negligible-to-minor
  beneficial impacts to vireo
• Recovery objectives accomplished for covered
  karst invertebrates
• Minor to moderate collateral benefits to
  additional species

30
Impacts to Socioeconomic Resources

• Moderate beneficial impact to RHCP participants
• Minor beneficial impact to tax base
• Moderate beneficial impact to County revenues
  over the life of the plan

31
Cumulative Impacts

• The incremental impacts of the action when added
  to the other past, present, and reasonable
  foreseeable future actions

32
Cumulative Impacts on Water Resources,
Vegetation, and General Wildlife

• Potential beneficial cumulative impacts on water
  quality and quantity and on wildlife that thrives
  in human habitation
• Potential adverse cumulative impacts on
  vegetation and wildlife in general
• Cumulative adverse impacts of Proposed RHCP less
  than No Action

33
Cumulative Impacts on Covered and Additional
Species

• Beneficial cumulative effect to karst
  invertebrates and Georgetown salamander
• No appreciable beneficial cumulative impacts to
  warbler or vireo

34
Cumulative Impacts on Socioeconomics

• No significant cumulative impacts to local or
  regional population and economy

35
Summary of Proposed RHCP

• Efficient option for ESA compliance
• Preservation of character of the County and its
  natural resources
• Increase environmental awareness in County

36
Texas Parks and Wildlife CodeChapter 83

• Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
• Must include landowner members
• One member appointed by TPWD
• Biological Advisory Team (BAT)
• At least one member must be appointed by CAC
  landowner members
• Chair appointed by TPWD
• Open Meetings and Open Records Compliance
• Public hearing, including when any portion of
  RHCP based on recovery

37
Environmental Impact Statement Comments

• RHCP and EIS available for review at public
  libraries or online at http//wilcogov.org/wccf/re
  port.htm
• Comments may be submitted until July 15, 2008
• Comments should be addressed to
• Bill Seawell
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200
• Austin, Texas 78758
• Email Bill_Seawell_at_fws.gov