75830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Notices 

public access denied and no alternative 

method to gain access w/out compromising 

national security. 

Reasons: Floodway; Secured Area 

Tennessee 

Wears Valley Quarters/

Ranger Station 

3443 Wears Valley Road 

Sevierville TN 37862 

Landholding Agency: Interior 

Property Number: 61201440014 

Status: Unutilized 

Comments: Documented deficiencies 

structurally unsound; extensive 

deterioration; severe mold infestation; 

represents a clear threat to personal 

physical safety. 

Reasons: Extensive deterioration 

Texas 

87 

Air Force Plant 4 

Ft. Worth TX 

Landholding Agency: Air Force 

Property Number: 18201440026 

Status: Underutilized 

Comments: Public access denied and no 

alternative method to gain access w/out 

compromising national security. 

Reasons: Secured Area 

127 

Air Force Plant 4 

Ft. Worth TX 

Landholding Agency: Air Force 

Property Number: 18201440027 

Status: Unutilized 

Comments: Public access denied and no 

alternative method to gain access w/out 

compromising national security. 

Reasons: Secured Area 

Land 

Indiana 

Bryant Creek Access Site 

State Road 156 

Patriot IN 47038 

Landholding Agency: GSA 

Property Number: 54201440009 

Status: Excess 

GSA Number: 1–D–IN–608 

Directions: Disposal Agency: GSA; 

Landholding Agency: COE 

Comments: Entire property located within 

floodway which has not been corrected or 

contained. 

Reasons: Floodway 

North Carolina 

Photovoltaic (PV) Building 

Site 45 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune 

Camp Lejeune NC 

Landholding Agency: Navy 

Property Number: 77201440024 

Status: Unutilized 

Comments: Public access denied and no 

alternative method to gain access w/out 

compromising Nat’l Security. 

Reasons: Secured Area 

[FR Doc. 2014–29458 Filed 12–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R2–ES–2014–0053; 20124–1112– 

0000–F2] 

Southern Edwards Plateau 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Habitat Conservation Plan; City of San 

Antonio and Bexar County; Regional 

Habitat Conservation Plan 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

announcement of public hearings. 

SUMMARY: Bexar County and the City of 

San Antonio (applicants) have applied 

to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) for an incidental take permit 

(ITP, TE–48571B–0) under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The requested permit 

would authorize incidental take of nine 

federally listed species in Bexar County 

and the City of San Antonio. The 

applicants have completed a draft 

Habitat Conservation Plan, referred to as 

the Southern Edwards Plateau (SEP 

dHCP), as part of the application 

package. The Service also announces 

the availability of a draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (dEIS), which has 

been prepared to evaluate the permit 

application in accordance with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We 

are making the permit application 

package, including the SEP dHCP and 

dEIS, available for public review and 

comment. 

DATES: Submission of Comments: We 

will accept comments received or 

postmarked on or before March 19, 

2015. Comments submitted 

electronically using the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES

section below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing 

date. Any comments that we receive 

after the closing date may not be 

considered in the final decision on these 

actions. 

Public Meetings: The Service will 

hold public meetings during the public 

comment period. The dates, times, and 

locations of these meetings will be 

noticed in local newspapers at least 2 

weeks before each meeting and will also 

be posted on the Web sites http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

AustinTexas/ and http://

www.sephcp.com. 

ADDRESSES: Obtaining SEP dHCP and 

dEIS for Review: You may obtain copies 

of the dEIS and dHCP by going to the 

Service’s Web site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

AustinTexas/, the SEP’s Web site at 

http://www.sephcp.com, or at the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov (Docket Number 

FWS–R2–ES–2014–0053). Alternatively, 

you may obtain compact disks with 

electronic copies of these documents by 

writing to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet 

Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; 

calling (512) 490–0057; or faxing (512) 

490–0974. A limited number of printed 

copies of the SEP dHCP and dEIS are 

also available, by request, from the Field 

Supervisor. Copies of the SEP dHCP and 

dEIS are also available for public 

inspection and review at the following 

locations, by appointment only: 

• Department of the Interior, Natural 

Resources Library, 1849 C St. NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500 

Gold Avenue SW., Room 4012, 

Albuquerque, NM 87102. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 

Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 

78758. 

Obtaining Incidental Take Permit 

Application for Review 

Persons wishing to review the 

application may obtain a copy by 

writing to the Regional Director, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 

1306, Room 4012, Albuquerque, NM 

87103. 

Submitting Comments 

To submit written comments, please 

use one of the following methods, and 

note that your comment is in reference 

to the SEP dHCP and dEIS: 

• Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2014–0053. 

• U.S. Mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2014– 

0053; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; 

Falls Church, VA 22041–3803. 

• Public Meetings: We will also 

accept written or oral comments at the 

public meetings (see DATES). 

We request that you submit comments 

by only the methods described above. 

We will post all information received on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Public Availability of 

Comments section below for more 

information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adam Zerrener, Field Supervisor, U.S. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Notices 75831 

Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet 

Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758; 

(512) 490–0057 (telephone). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Bexar 

County and the City of San Antonio 

(applicants) have applied to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for 

an incidental take permit (ITP, TE– 

48571B–0) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

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

The requested permit, which would be 

in effect for a period of 30 years, if 

granted, would authorize incidental take 

of the following federally listed species: 

Golden-cheeked warbler (Setophaga 

[=Dendroica] chrysoparia) (GCWA), 

black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapilla) 

(BCVI), Government Canyon Bat Cave 

spider (Neoleptoneta microps), Madla 

Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla), 

Braken Cave meshweaver (Cicurina 

venii), Government Canyon Bat Cave 

meshweaver (Cicurina vespera), 

Rhadine exilis (no common name), 

Rhadine infernalis (no common name), 

and Helotes mold beetle (Batrisodes 

venyivi) (collectively, covered species). 

Incidental take would be covered in 

Bexar County and the City of San 

Antonio, including current and future 

portions of the City’s extra-territorial 

jurisdiction (ETJ), which currently 

extends outside of Bexar County into 

Comal, Medina, and Kendall Counties. 

However, the City is projected to 

expand into Bandera County in the 

future. Therefore, the permit area—i.e., 

where incidental take will be 

permitted—includes Bexar County and 

those portions of the City’s ETJ that do/ 

will expand into Medina, Kendall, and 

Bandera Counties over the life of the 

permit. While the ETJ currently extends 

into Comal County, incidental take will 

not be covered other than on preserves, 

since Comal County has its own habitat 

conservation plan (HCP). 

Covered activities include 

construction, use, and/or maintenance 

of land development projects; farm and 

ranch improvements; commercial or 

industrial projects; construction, 

maintenance, or improvement of public 

infrastructure; installation and/or 

maintenance of utility infrastructure; 

construction, use, maintenance and/or 

expansion of quarries, gravel mining, or 

other similar extraction projects; and 

any activities necessary to manage 

habitat for the covered species that 

could temporarily result in incidental 

take. The applicants have completed a 

draft Habitat Conservation Plan, referred 

to as the Southern Edwards Plateau 

(SEP dHCP), as part of the application 

package. 

The Service also announces the 

availability of a draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (dEIS), which has 

been prepared to evaluate the permit 

application in accordance with the 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.; NEPA). We are making the 

permit application package, including 

the dHCP and dEA, available for public 

review and comment. 

Background 

We initially prepared a notice of 

intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS, which 

was published in the Federal Register 

on April 27, 2011 (76 FR 23619). We 

also held public scoping meetings in 

connection with the applicants’ 

requested permit. A summary of 

comments provided during the 2011 

scoping period, which included public 

meetings held June 6, 2011, in Bandera, 

Texas; June 7, 2011, Boerne, Texas; June 

9, 2011, Blanco, Texas; June 13, 2011, 

Kerrville, Texas; and June 14, 2011, 

Helotes, Texas, are available on the 

Service’s Web site at http://

www.fws.gov/southwest/es/

AustinTexas/ and on the applicants’ 

Web site at http://www.sephcp.com 

(Appendix F of the dEIS). 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action, involves the 

issuance of an ITP by the Service for the 

covered activities in the permit area, 

pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the 

Act. The ITP would cover ‘‘take’’ of the 

covered species associated with public 

and private projects occurring within 

the permit area. 

The requested term of the ITP is 30 

years. To meet the requirements of a 

section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP, the applicants 

developed and propose to implement 

the SEP dHCP, which describes the 

conservation measures the applicants 

have agreed to undertake to minimize 

and mitigate for the impacts of the 

proposed incidental take of the covered 

species to the maximum extent 

practicable, and ensure that incidental 

take will not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival and recovery 

of these species in the wild. 

Section 9 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations prohibit 

‘‘take’’ of fish and wildlife species listed 

as threatened or endangered under 

section 4 of the Act. However, section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to 

issue permits to take listed wildlife 

species where such take is incidental to, 

and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful 

activities and where the applicant meets 

certain statutory requirements. 

Alternatives 

Four alternatives to the proposed 

action we are considering as part of this 

process are: 

1. No Action Alternative. Under the 

No Action Alternative, Bexar County 

and the City of San Antonio would not 

seek, and the Service would not issue, 

an ITP. Under this alternative, 

compliance with the Act would 

continue to occur only on an individual 

basis through project-specific 

consultations with the Service. Local 

governments, business entities, private 

landowners, and others would 

independently determine whether or 

not ESA compliance is necessary for a 

particular project and, if needed, would 

work with the Service to obtain 

authorization for incidental take. Each 

independent consultation would require 

an analysis of the incidental take and 

impacts to listed species, the 

identification and implementation of 

appropriate and practicable mitigation 

measures, and the preparation of 

appropriate documentation to support 

the permitting action. 

Mitigation requirements would be 

individually negotiated with the Service 

on the basis of the level of impact to 

listed species and the conservation 

value of the mitigation options and 

opportunities available to the individual 

applicant. Possible forms of mitigation 

could include on-site preservation of 

habitat, acquisition of off-site preserve 

lands, or purchase of conservation 

credits from an independent 

conservation bank. With the exception 

of conservation bank credit purchases, it 

is likely that many preserve lands 

offered as mitigation for individual 

projects would be relatively small, 

isolated, and/or widely distributed 

across the region. 

2. Ten-Percent Participation 

Alternative. The 10-Percent 

Participation Alternative would be a 

regional HCP that is sized to address 

only 10 percent of the anticipated future 

habitat losses for the covered species 

over the next 30 years within the permit 

area. Therefore, this alternative would 

request substantially less incidental take 

authorization for the covered species 

and would (at full implementation) 

result in proportionately less 

conservation within the plan area. With 

a smaller plan, the overall estimated 

costs for implementation would be less 

than one-half of the estimated cost to 

implement the proposed SEP dHCP. 

However, since there would be fewer 

participants paying fees to use the plan, 

a larger portion of the revenue needed 

for implementation of this alternative 

would require more public funding. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

75832 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 244 / Friday, December 19, 2014 / Notices 

3. Single-County Alternative. The 

Single-County Alternative would 

essentially be limited to the extent of 

the permittees’ jurisdictions. This 

would include both incidental take 

coverage and mitigation. It is assumed 

that the plan area for the Single-County 

Alternative would include Bexar County 

and the area within 10 miles outside of 

Bexar County (which would be 

generally sufficient to accommodate the 

City of San Antonio’s current extraterritorial jurisdiction and possible 

future expansions). As habitat for the 

covered species within Bexar County 

only occurs in the northwest half of the 

county, the plan area for this alternative 

is still roughly equivalent to the 

geographic area of a single central Texas 

county. 

Since all mitigation would occur in 

the vicinity of San Antonio, the price of 

land is substantially higher compared to 

more rural parts of the plan area. This 

alternative assumes that approximately 

75 percent of the GCWA and BCVI 

preserve lands would be acquired in 

relatively ‘‘suburban’’ areas, and 

approximately 25 percent of the land 

would be acquired in relatively rural 

areas. This distribution of preserve 

lands would have a significant impact 

on the method of acquisition (fee simple 

vs. easement), the anticipated cost for 

acquisition, and the costs to manage 

suburban preserves compared to rural 

preserves. This alternative could cost 

nearly twice as much overall to 

implement over 30 years compared to 

the proposed alternative. 

4. Increased Mitigation Alternative. 

The Increased Mitigation Alternative 

would implement recommendations 

passed by the SEP HCP’s Biological 

Advisory Team (BAT) pertaining to 

mitigation for the GCWA and the karst 

invertebrates (BCVI mitigation would be 

the same as the Proposed Alternative). 

These recommendations were also 

strongly favored by many members of 

the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). 

The BAT passed a recommendation 

calling for impacts to GCWA habitat 

within Bexar County to be mitigated at 

a 3:1 ratio (i.e., 3 acres of habitat 

protected for each acre of direct habitat 

loss) and that at least 60 percent of that 

mitigation be placed within Bexar 

County or within 5 miles outside of 

Bexar County. The BAT also passed a 

recommendation that the karst preserve 

system be sized to achieve roughly 

twice the level of conservation specified 

by the Service’s downlisting criteria for 

the karst invertebrates. For the purpose 

of modeling this alternative, it is 

assumed that all of the incidental take 

of the GCWA requested by the 

Permittees would be mitigated at a 3:1 

ratio and that 60 percent of the GCWA 

preserve system would be acquired in 

relatively suburban parts of the Plan 

Area, with the remaining preserve lands 

acquired in rural areas. This 

recommendation is modeled as a 

requirement to acquire approximately 

2,000 acres of recovery-quality karst 

preserves over 30 years, with at least 

two high-quality (100 acres each) and 

four medium-quality preserves (50 acres 

each) created in each of the five regions 

where the karst invertebrates occur. 

Similar to the Single-County 

Alternative, this Increased Mitigation 

Alternative requires the acquisition of a 

large portion of the preserve system in 

relatively high-cost suburban or (for the 

karst preserves) urban areas, which 

would disproportionately increase the 

expected preserve acquisition and 

management costs. This alternative 

would achieve a higher level of 

conservation for the GCWA and karst 

invertebrates, but at a financial cost that 

would be approximately 275 percent 

higher than the proposed SEP HCP. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Written comments we receive become 

part of the public record associated with 

this action. Before including your 

address, phone number, email address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, you 

should be aware that your entire 

comment—including your personal 

identifying information—may be made 

publicly available at any time. While 

you can request in your comment that 

we withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public disclosure in 

their entirety. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under section 

10(c) of the Act and its implementing 

regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32) 

and NEPA and its implementing 

regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). 

Joy E. Nicholopoulos, 

Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29525 Filed 12–18–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–ES–2014–0051; 

FXES111205000000–156–FF05E00000] 

Receipt of an Application for an 

Incidental Take Permit for Piping 

Plover, From the Town of Orleans, MA, 

and Availability of Proposed Habitat 

Conservation Plan 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service or ‘‘we’’), 

announce the availability of an 

application for an Incidental Take 

Permit (ITP) and a proposed Habitat 

Conservation Plan (HCP) from the Town 

of Orleans (Town) for public review and 

comment. We received the permit 

application from the Town for 

incidental take of the threatened piping 

plover (Charadrius melodus) resulting 

from the Town’s authorization and 

management of over-sand vehicle (OSV) 

activities over the next 3 years. Our 

preliminary determination is that the 

proposed HCP qualifies as low-effect 

under our final Handbook for Habitat 

Conservation Planning and Incidental 

Take Permitting Process. To make this 

determination, we used our Low-Effect 

HCP Screening Form/Environmental 

Action Statement (EAS), the preliminary 

version of which is also available for 

review. 

We provide this notice to (1) seek 

public comments on the proposed HCP 

and application; (2) seek public 

comments on our preliminary 

determination that the HCP qualifies as 

low-effect and is therefore eligible for a 

categorical exclusion under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); and 

(3) advise other Federal and State 

agencies, affected Tribes, and the public 

of our intent to issue an ITP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

January 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted electronically by any one of 

the following methods: 

Electronically: www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments on Docket No. FWS–R5–ES– 

2014–0051. 

U.S. mail: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R5–ES–2014– 

0051; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; MS: BPHC; 5275 Leesburg Pike; 

Falls Church, Virginia 22041–3803. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susi 

vonOettingen, by U.S. mail at U.S. Fish 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES