Res 2011-127 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN the purposes of education, scientific research, and preservation of flora and fauna of scientific or educational value. (TPW Code § 81.501). TPWD may make rules and regulations necessary for the management and protection of scientific areas. (TPW Code § 81.502). On March 29, 2012, the TPWD adopted a rule creating the San Marcos River State Scientific Area. (31 TAC § 57.901). (See Section 5.6.1). 1.5.5 National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 4371 et seq., is one of the primary laws governing the environmental protection process. It is a decision-making requirement that applies to proposals for major federal actions. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations federal potentially subject to federal or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by federal (40 C.F.R. § 1508.17). NEPA requires any federal federal ikely to to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) possible alternatives, and measures to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed actions. (42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)). While NEPA does not mandate any particular result, it requires the federal agency to follow particular procedures in its decision-making process. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure that the agency has the best possible information to make an sed of any environmental risks that may be associated with the preferred action. Issuance of an ITP under Section 10(a)(1)(B) is a federal action subject to NEPA compliance. Although ESA and NEPA requirements overlap considerably, the scope of NEPA goes beyond that of the ESA by considering the impacts of a federal action not only on fish and wildlife resources, but also on other resources such as water quality, socioeconomics, air quality, and cultural resources. The EIS process culminates in issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD). (40 C.F.R. § 1505.2). The ROD documents the alternative selected for implementation as well as any conditions that may be required and summarizes the impacts expected to result from the action. 1.6 Alternatives Considered during the Development of the HCP Under the ESA Section 10(a)(2)(A)(iii), the HCP must specify the alternative actions to such [incidental] taking the applicant considered and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized. (16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(A); 50 C.F.R. §§ 17.22(b)(1) and 17.32(b)(1)). USFWS explained that two alternatives commonly included were: would reduce such take below take levels anticipated for the project proposal; and (2) a no action alternative, which means that no permit would be issued and take would be avoided or that the project would not be constructed or implemented. (USFWS 1996(c)). 1-15