Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17211 

endangered species and/or marine 

mammals. Both the Endangered Species 

Act and the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act require that we invite public 

comment on these permit applications. 

DATES: Written data, comments or 

requests must be received by May 14, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: Documents and other 

information submitted with these 

applications are available for review, 

subject to the requirements of the 

Privacy Act and Freedom of Information 

Act, by any party who submits a written 

request for a copy of such documents 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Division of Management 

Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, 

Room 212, Arlington, Virginia 22203; 

fax 703/358–2281. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Division of Management Authority, 

telephone 703/358–2104. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Endangered Species 

The public is invited to comment on 

the following applications for a permit 

to conduct certain activities with 

endangered species. This notice is 

provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Written data, comments, or requests for 

copies of these complete applications 

should be submitted to the Director 

(address above). 

Applicant: Richard E. McFalls, 

Alabaster, AL, PRT–209358. 

The applicant requests a permit to 

import the sport-hunted trophy of one 

male bontebok (Damaliscus pygargus 

pygargus) culled from a captive herd 

maintained under the management 

program of the Republic of South Africa, 

for the purpose of enhancement of the 

survival of the species. 

Marine Mammals 

The public is invited to comment on 

the following application for a permit to 

conduct certain activities with marine 

mammals. The application was 

submitted to satisfy requirements of the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and 

the regulations governing marine 

mammals (50 CFR part 18). Written 

data, comments, or requests for copies 

of the complete applications or requests 

for a public hearing on these 

applications should be submitted to the 

Director (address above). Anyone 

requesting a hearing should give 

specific reasons why a hearing would be 

appropriate. The holding of such a 

hearing is at the discretion of the 

Director. 

Applicant: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, 

AK, PRT–690038. 

The applicant requests an amendment 

to the permit to take polar bears (Ursus 

maritimus) by using internal 

temperature data-loggers, collecting 

muscle biopsies, and using glue-on or 

ear tag radio transmitters for the 

purpose of scientific research. This 

notification covers activities to be 

conducted by the applicant over the 

remainder of the 5-year permit. 

Concurrent with the publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register, the 

Division of Management Authority is 

forwarding copies of the above 

applications to the Marine Mammal 

Commission and the Committee of 

Scientific Advisors for their review. 

Dated: April 3, 2009. 

Lisa J. Lierheimer, 

Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, 

Division of Management Authority. 

[FR Doc. E9–8390 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R2–ES–2008–N0224; 21450–1112– 

0000–F2] 

Regional Habitat Conservation Plan, 

Williamson County, TX 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of record 

of decision. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), make 

available a record of decision (ROD) 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This ROD 

documents our decision to select an 

alternative including implementation of 

the Williamson County Regional Habitat 

Conservation Plan (RHCP). Our selected 

action (Alternative B, described below 

and in the ROD) entails the issuance of 

a 30-year incidental take permit (ITP) to 

Williamson County, Texas (the County), 

to incidentally take golden-cheeked 

warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), blackcapped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), Bone 

Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi), and 

Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes 

texanus). The RHCP will mitigate for 

take by purchasing mitigation credits in 

an existing conservation bank and by 

acquiring and managing replacement 

habitats and additional conservation 

measures as specifically described in 

the RHCP. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Bill Seawell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, 

Austin, TX 78758; (512) 490–0057. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

announce the availability of a ROD, 

which we developed in compliance 

with the agency decision-making 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 

1969, as amended. The ROD documents 

our decision to select the alternative 

including implementation of the 

Williamson County Regional Habitat 

Conservation Plan (RHCP). We have 

described in detail all alternatives, and 

evaluated and analyzed them, in our 

August 2008 final environmental impact 

statement (FEIS) and also in our 

regional habitat conservation plan 

(RHCP). The ROD is designed to: (1) 

State our decision, present the rationale 

for its selection, and discuss its 

implementation; (2) identify the 

alternatives we considered in reaching 

the decision; and (3) state whether we 

have adopted all means to avoid or 

minimize environmental harm from 

implementation of the selected 

alternative in accordance with NEPA. 

Based on our review of the 

alternatives and their environmental 

consequences described in our FEIS, we 

have decided to implement Alternative 

B, the Proposed RHCP (the proposed 

action). The selected action entails the 

issuance of a Section 10(a)(1)(B) 

incidental take permit (ITP) to 

Williamson County, Texas (the County), 

to incidentally take golden-cheeked 

warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia), blackcapped vireo (Vireo atricapilla), Bone 

Cave harvestman (Texella reyesi), and 

Coffin Cave mold beetle (Batrisodes 

texanus). We refer to all four species 

collectively as ‘‘the covered species.’’ 

The RHCP will mitigate for take of these 

species by purchasing mitigation credits 

in an existing conservation bank and by 

acquiring and managing, in perpetuity, 

replacement habitats and additional 

conservation measures as described 

specifically in the RHCP. While the 

County will hold the Permit, the entity 

that will manage the Permit will be the 

Williamson County Conservation 

Foundation (Foundation). 

The term of the permit is 30 years 

(2008–2038). The Foundation will 

implement mitigation and minimization 

measures according to the schedule in 

the RHCP. By year 4 of the RHCP, the 

Foundation will acquire 1,000 acres of 

mitigation credits for golden-cheeked 

warbler (GCWA) in an existing 

conservation bank. In addition, the 

County will purchase GCWA habitat 

17212 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 

that will be an additional source of 

mitigation. The Foundation will 

mitigate take of black-capped vireo 

(BCVI) by restoring and enhancing BCVI 

habitat in perpetually preserved 

Service-approved conservation areas. 

The Foundation will mitigate take of 

the Bone Cave harvestman and Coffin 

Cave mold beetle by acquiring and 

managing from 9 to as many as 15 

protected karst faunal areas (KFAs) in 

the County. The County will acquire, 

through direct purchase or acquisition 

of perpetual conservation easements, a 

minimum of nine protected KFAs 

(totaling approximately 700 acres of 

cave preserves) by year 17 of the RHCP. 

In addition, the Foundation will 

consolidate the management of up to 10 

of 22 existing conservation areas 

(totaling an estimated 400 to 800 acres) 

to enhance their viability as KFAs, 

control their availability for scientific 

research, and ensure their long-term 

contribution to recovery. 

Background 

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 allows 

the County to take the covered species 

that would result from proposed road 

construction, maintenance, and 

improvement projects; utility 

construction and maintenance; school 

development and construction; public 

or private construction and 

development; and land clearing within 

western Williamson County during the 

30-year ITP period. 

The Secretary of the Interior has 

delegated to us the authority 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 Federal 

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 September 16, 2008, we issued a 

final environmental impact statement 

(FEIS) to evaluate the potential impacts 

associated with issuance of an ITP for 

implementation of the RHCP and to 

evaluate alternatives, along with the 

final RHCP (73 FR 53440). We included 

public comments and responses 

associated with the Draft EIS and Draft 

RHCP in an appendix to the FEIS. 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the Section 10(a)(l)(B) 

permit is to authorize incidental take 

associated with the 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; a Scientific 

Advisory Team; other agencies and 

groups; and comments from the public. 

These issues included the needs for: (1) 

Development to continue in the County; 

(2) mitigation of impacts on covered 

species; and (3) mitigation of impacts on 

listed species. We thoroughly examined 

these issues in the draft and final EIS 

and RHCP. No new significant issues 

arose following publication of the draft 

documents. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

Our selected alternative is the 

Proposed RHCP, the preferred 

alternative (Alternative B) as we 

described in the FEIS. This alternative 

provides for the issuance of an ITP to 

the County for take that would occur as 

a result of projects described above. 

This alternative includes 

implementation of RHCP measures to 

minimize and mitigate the potential take 

of Federally listed species to the 

maximum extent practicable. The intent 

of this alternative is to allow continued 

development in the County; to minimize 

the biological, environmental, and 

socioeconomic impacts; and to satisfy 

the habitat, species, and issuance 

criteria of section 10 of the ESA. 

To mitigate for the loss of 6,000 acres 

of GCWA habitat, the County will 

purchase habitat at a 1:1 ratio. For the 

loss of 4,267 acres of BCVI, the 

Foundation will mitigate impacts 

primarily through habitat restoration, 

habitat management, enhancement of 

existing protected BCVI habitat, or an 

alternate, Service-approved mitigation 

program. For the impact of up to 210 

caves occupied by the Bone Cave 

harvestman and Coffin Cave mold 

beetle, mitigation will be to acquire and 

manage 9 to 12 KFAs, a minimum of 3 

KFAs in each of the karst faunal regions 

occupied by the covered species. 

We considered two additional 

alternatives in the FEIS: 

• Alternative A (No Action): The No 

Action alternative assumed that we 

would not issue a regional permit for 

the County. Although development 

could occur on lands not occupied by 

endangered species, development 

activities that would cause take of listed 

species would require individual 

authorizations through section 7 or 

section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. 

Individual entities could also elect to 

avoid take on properties containing 

endangered species by avoiding direct 

and indirect impacts on the species (i.e., 

take-avoidance). Processing individual 

section 7 consultations and section 10(a) 

permits could cause delays in permit 

issuance by the agency or approval of a 

proposed project, because we often take 

1 to 2 years to process an individual 

permit. 

• Alternative C (Modified (Reduced 

Take and Mitigation) Williamson 

County RHCP): Alternative C would be 

similar to our Selected Alternative, 

except: 

1. The ITP would cover fewer species; 

2. The amount of permitted take, and 

the mitigation required for the take, 

would be smaller; 

3. Section 6 funds would not be 

sought to acquire additional KFAs over 

and above mitigation efforts; and 

4. The anticipated participation rate 

would be lower because fewer species 

would be covered, less take would be 

authorized, and less mitigation 

provided. 

Compared with that under Alternative 

B, allowable take for the GCWA would 

be reduced from 6,000 acres to 1,000 

acres. Under Alternative C, mitigation 

for impacts to GCWA habitat would be 

limited to the 1,000 acres of credits from 

the Hickory Pass Ranch Conservation 

Bank and 115.52 acres of credits from 

the Whitney Tract. Once those credits 

were exhausted, no additional take or 

mitigation would be authorized for the 

GCWA under the plan without an 

amendment; thus, no efforts would be 

made to establish additional preserves 

for GCWA in the County or to seek 

additional mitigation credits outside of 

the County. No take or mitigation would 

be authorized under the plan for BCVI. 

However, the conservation measures for 

the Georgetown salamander and the 

public outreach and research program 

identified in the Proposed Action would 

remain the same, with less allotted 

funding. 

Decision 

Our decision is to issue an ITP 

allowing the County to implement the 

preferred alternative (Alternative B), as 

it is described in the Final EIS. Our 

decision is based on a thorough review 

of the alternatives and their 

environmental consequences. 

Implementation of this decision entails 

the issuance of the ITP, including all 

terms and conditions governing the 

permit. Implementation of this decision 

requires adherence to all of the 

minimization and mitigation measures 

specified in the RHCP, as well as 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 70 / Tuesday, April 14, 2009 / Notices 17213 

monitoring and adaptive management 

measures. 

Rationale for Decision 

We have selected the preferred 

alternative (Alternative B) for 

implementation based on multiple 

environmental and social factors, 

including potential impacts and benefits 

to covered species and their habitat, the 

extent and effectiveness of minimization 

and mitigation measures, and social and 

economic considerations. 

In order for us to be able to issue an 

ITP, we must ascertain that the RHCP 

meets the criteria set forth in 16 U.S.C. 

1539(a)(2)(A) and (B). We have made 

that determination. These criteria, and 

how the RHCP satisfies these criteria, 

are summarized below: 

1. The taking will be incidental. We 

find that the take will be incidental to 

otherwise lawful activities, including 

the proposed road construction, 

maintenance, and improvement 

projects; utility construction and 

maintenance; school development and 

construction; public or private 

construction and development; and land 

clearing. The take of individuals of 

covered species will be primarily due to 

habitat destruction and/or alteration. 

2. The applicant will, to the 

maximum extent practicable, minimize 

and mitigate the impacts of such 

takings. The County has committed to a 

wide variety of conservation measures, 

land acquisition, management activities, 

monitoring, adaptive management, and 

other strategies designed to avoid and 

minimize harm to the covered species 

and mitigate for any unavoidable loss. 

Impacts to the covered species will be 

minimized and mitigated as described 

in the selected alternative section above. 

3. The applicant will develop an HCP 

and ensure that adequate funding for the 

HCP will be provided. The County has 

developed the RHCP and committed to 

fully funding all of the obligations 

necessary for its implementation. These 

obligations include the cost for purchase 

of GCWA, BCVI, Bone Cave harvestman, 

and Coffin Cave mold beetle habitat, 

management of mitigation lands in 

perpetuity, enforcement of conservation 

easements, and monitoring of species 

populations and habitat. In addition, the 

County has committed to adaptive 

management measures that identify 

areas of uncertainty and questions that 

need to be addressed to resolve this 

uncertainty; developed alternative 

management strategies and determine 

which experimental strategies to 

implement; integrate a monitoring 

program that is able to acquire the 

necessary information for effective 

strategy evaluation; and incorporate 

feedback loops that link implementation 

and monitoring to the decision-making 

process that result in appropriate 

changes in management. To accomplish 

RHCP implementation, the County 

estimated that costs could total up to 

$80.8 million. The County will fund the 

actual costs of implementing the RHCP 

by advance funding from participation 

fees, endowment investment income, 

road improvement mitigation funds, and 

tax benefit financing. 

The Service’s No Surprises 

Assurances are discussed in the RHCP, 

and measures to address changed and 

unforeseen circumstances have been 

identified. Adaptive management in the 

form of conservation, mitigation, or 

management measures and monitoring 

will be implemented to address changed 

circumstances over the life of the permit 

that were able to be anticipated at the 

time of RHCP development. Unforeseen 

circumstances would be addressed 

through the Service’s close coordination 

with the County in the implementation 

of the RHCP. The County has committed 

to a coordination process to address 

such circumstances. 

We have, therefore, determined that 

the County’s financial commitment and 

plan, along with the County’s 

willingness to address changed and 

unforeseen circumstances in a 

cooperative fashion, is sufficient to meet 

this criterion. 

4. The taking will not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of the survival 

and recovery of the species in the wild. 

As the Federal action agency 

considering whether to issue an ITP to 

the County, we have reviewed the 

issuance of the ITP under section 7 of 

the ESA. Our biological opinion 

concluded that issuance of the ITP will 

not jeopardize the continued existence 

of the GCWA, BCVI, Bone Cave 

harvestman, and Coffin Cave mold 

beetle in the wild. No critical habitat 

has been designated for any of the 

covered species in the action area, and 

thus none will be affected. 

5. The applicant agrees to implement 

other measures that the Service requires 

as being necessary or appropriate for the 

purposes of the HCP. We have 

cooperated with the County in the 

development of the RHCP. We 

commented on draft documents, 

participated in advisory group meetings, 

and worked closely with the County in 

every step of plan and document 

preparation, so that conservation of the 

covered species would be assured and 

recovery would not be jeopardized. The 

RHCP incorporates our 

recommendations for minimization and 

mitigation of impacts, as well as steps 

to monitor the effects of the RHCP and 

ensure success. Annual monitoring, as 

well as coordination and reporting 

mechanisms, have been designed to 

ensure that changes in conservation 

measures can be implemented if 

measures prove ineffective or impacts 

exceed estimates. It is our position that 

no additional measures are required to 

implement the intent and purpose of the 

RHCP to those detailed in the RHCP and 

its associated ITP. 

We determine that the preferred 

alternative best balances the protection 

and management of suitable habitat for 

covered species, while allowing and 

providing a streamlined process for ESA 

compliance for continued development 

in the County. Considerations used in 

this decision include: (1) Mitigation will 

benefit GCWA, BCVI, Bone Cave 

harvestman, and Coffin Cave mold 

beetle, managed for the species in 

perpetuity, as well as other conservation 

measures to protect and enhance 

habitat; (2) mitigation measures species 

will fully offset anticipated impacts of 

development to the species and provide 

recovery opportunities; and (3) the 

RHCP is consistent with the GCWA, 

BCVI, Bone Cave harvestman, and 

Coffin Cave mold beetle recovery plans. 

Thomas L. Bauer, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. E9–8388 Filed 4–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[NV–930–1430–ET; NVN–83210; 9–08807; 

TAS:14x1109] 

Public Land Order No. 7731; 

Withdrawal of Public Lands for Gold 

Point and Ione Townsites; Nevada 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Public Land Order No. 7731, 

Withdrawal of Public Lands for Gold 

Point and Ione Townsites; Nevada. 

SUMMARY: This order withdraws 

approximately 672 acres of public lands 

from location and entry under the 

United States mining laws for a period 

of 5 years to protect historic and 

cultural resources within the Gold Point 

and Ione Townsites pending special 

legislation that would resolve land 

ownership conflicts. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 10, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Gratton, Bureau of Land 

Management, Nevada State Office, P.O. 

Box 12000, 1340 Financial Boulevard, 

Reno, Nevada 89520, 775–861–6532.