1
Public Comment of USFWS Draft SEP-HCP and
Environmental Impact Statement
From: Land Committee and Board of Directors from Bexar Land Trust, dba Green
Spaces Alliance of South Texas
To be received no later than:
March 19, 2015
Dear Sir or Ma’am,
This review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Services’ (USFWS) Draft Southern Edwards
Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan (SEP-HCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being written
on behalf of Green Spaces Alliances of South Texas (GSA) by the Land Committee and Board of Directors.
Our mission is to sustain the natural environment and enhance urban spaces through land conservation,
community engagement, and education.
It is the understanding of this board, through public information provided by the USFWS, that a
Biological Advisory Team (BAT) and a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) were appointed to help develop
the multiple aspects of the SEP-HCP. These two groups represented a wide cross-section of parties of
interest from conservation groups to developers. We are concerned that instead of using these cumulative
decisions in the primary SEP-HCP, the advice of the BAT and CAC are rather being presented as an
alternative. This is very discouraging in the eyes of the public to see over 2 years of work and 2.3 million
dollars spent on obtaining expert advice not be used if the current SEP-HCP is placed into action. We are
strongly advocating for the Increased Mitigation Alternative, #4 in the EIS rather than the currently proposed
action.
The following portion of comment will be broken into sections for better focus on particular issues:
Habitat Locations
The BAT and CAC were in agreement that a portion of the habitat conservation or mitigation should
occur within Bexar County or within five miles of that boundary. The proposed action takes away that
requirement and allows all preservation to be done in other counties, on land can be up to approximately 60
miles, as the crow flies, from agreed upon needs, an expansion of 500% from the BAT and CAC
recommendation. The current recommendation is to use any protected land within the seven counties
included in the plan. This is a rather large amount of area, approximately 4,125,000 acres. Bexar County is
only about 804,000 acres, which accounts for only about 20% of that area.This is an obvious barrier to
conservation of endangered species due to their already small regional habitat needs. Instead of helping to
Bexar Land Trust, Inc. DBA Green Spaces Alliance of South Texas is a 501(c)(3) Corporation
P.O. Box 6250, San Antonio, TX 78209
210.222.8430 ▪ www.greensatx.org
Our mission is to sustain the natural environment and enhance urban spaces through land
conservation, community engagement, and education.
2
conserve these species habitats, the proposed plan will only concentrate their location to the fringes of their
natural range. Also, this proposed plan replaces habitat that is under imminent threat of development with
habitat that has not threat of development in the next 30 years, for a much cheaper price than what the land
they are taking actually cost. There is no way to justify the expansion of the mitigation area from 60% within
Bexar County, which is what the Increased Mitigation Alternative #4 proposes, to 0% within Bexar County,
which is what the current SEP-HCP will likely generate, since land value is much less expensive outside of
Bexar County. Bexar County has stated that they would like to have some of the mitigation land with-in or
surrounding Bexar County, they can do this by supporting Alternative #4
It is not only detrimental to the endangered species in question, but it is detrimental to the education of
the public. Most would agree that if preserves are too far away from the larger concentrations of human
population, it is a barrier to education as well as building a sense of responsibility in the public. Instead there
will be even more disconnect from inner city populations to those species that need protection from
becoming extinct. We hope that the USFWS sees the importance of conserving habitat close the human
population concentrations. We also believe many would agree that the success of other county wide HCPs
has much to do with the proximity of the habitat preserves to major population centres. With the loss of this
proximity, there is a larger possibility of failure for this HCP.
Karsts Species
As to the ITP of Karst species, it is our understanding that when a listed species is found at a site, its
habitat is automatically protected. Why then would we replace habitat potentially containing Karst species
with habitat that already contains known occupied karst features? These features are already protected and
do not need further protection. It makes much more sense to protect land that is not protected and could
potentially be beneficial to those karst species. When wetlands are taken or linear feet of streams are
impacted, they are replaced as value in turn due to the beneficial nature of a wetland or stream and its
specialized habitat. We cannot replace or rebuild karst features like we can wetlands and streams in
mitigation banks. Once destroyed everything the karst features contain is lost forever, and the intricate
nature of the underground connections is disrupted.
The karst features zones are ranked on a scale from one to five in order of most likely to contain one of
the endangered species to least likely to contain the endangered species with the top three zones requiring a
survey by a qualified biologist or geologist to discover karst features. Under the proposed SEP-HCP, once a
parcel containing karst features is identified, that acreage is replaced essentially at ratio of 20-1, or for every
20 acres taken of potential habitat, one acre of known occupied karst features will be protected. Not only is
this a contradiction as to how an ITP usually works, because usually more acreage needs to be replaced
than what is being taken, but it also is protecting something that is already protected by federal law. These
karst permits are not necessary if we are only protecting what is already protected under the Endangered
Bexar Land Trust, Inc. DBA Green Spaces Alliance of South Texas is a 501(c)(3) Corporation
P.O. Box 6250, San Antonio, TX 78209
210.222.8430 ▪ www.greensatx.org
Our mission is to sustain the natural environment and enhance urban spaces through land
conservation, community engagement, and education.
3
Species Act, and should not be used as mitigation. This same plan would never be implemented for the
Golden Cheek Warbler, to take 20 acres of potential habitat and replace with one acre of known habitat. This
may be how the system works but what we understood was a habitat ratio had to at the least be 1:1.
Biological Surveys
Currently the USFWS requires a 3-year survey for the song birds in question (GCW and BCV) and a 15 day
biological survey for karst species. The plan under comment actually reduces both of these time periods by
66% to 1 year for song birds and 5 days for karst species. This is incredibly unreasonable due to variations in
seasons and local weather patterns, which have a great effect on occurrence of said species in biological
surveys. If there is to be a reduction in the time requirements for species surveys then there should be some
justification for these reductions. We cannot find any such justification. Reducing the time for these surveys
does place those endangered species at risk, and therefore, increases the risk of species take. Again, with
no justification for a shorter time period, how can there be a change in recommendation? This is not a
recommendation from the BAT or CAC and therefore should not be considered. Instead we should continue
with current methods outlined by USFWS.
Monitoring
This section is included in our comments but details are not included in the SEP-HCP. As a land trust,
we understand financial and time resources necessary to ensure proper stewardship of land. Of the two
groups applying for the ITP, which will be in charge of ensuring the protection of the mitigated lands? This
upkeep and monitoring is perpetual and therefore needs a perpetual income source. Where will this funding
come from if the fees associated with the land are a one-time event? A management plan is fundamental to
the maintenance of conserved lands, yet this SEP-HCP is lacking one.
Costs and Funding
With a charge of $4,000 per acre, how can the City of San Antonio, Bexar County, or USFWS afford to
buy any property outright? Land outside of Bexar County is usually about $4,000 per acre, but current
mitigation credit costs are above $10,000 per credit. A plan to account for adjustments of that cost 30 years
from now, after inflation and land value increases due to urban sprawl, need to be accounted for in the SEPHCP.
These $4,000/acre fees are just the cost of actual value of land on the mitigation properties. There are
costs in appraisals, environmental due diligence, biological surveys, maintenance and monitoring, and city or
county employees to run the program. It is of concern that $4,000/acre fee will not pay for this, not to mention
in perpetuity. This low per acre fee could actually encourage the development of fragile habitat due to its low
costs in comparison to the developer paying for mitigation themselves. We understand that the SEP-HCP is
implemented to speed up the ITP process, which in itself will save developers a very large amount
Bexar Land Trust, Inc. DBA Green Spaces Alliance of South Texas is a 501(c)(3) Corporation
P.O. Box 6250, San Antonio, TX 78209
210.222.8430 ▪ www.greensatx.org
Our mission is to sustain the natural environment and enhance urban spaces through land
conservation, community engagement, and education.
4
of money, but it is not to be implemented to reduce costs for developers on every level. Also, the BAT
recommendation was a $10,000/acre fee, why was this cut by 60%? Again, where is the justification?
$10,000/acre might be enough for land outside of Bexar County, but we believe that it would be very hard to
find 500 acres suitable and adjacent within Bexar County for only $10,000/acre.
Even If the fee was raised to $10,000/acre, there also needs to be a plan to possibly adjust the per acre
fee in the future, possibly determined by the future market value of the property. We are asking that an
adequate model for future funding and monitoring be brought forward for approval along with the SEP-HCP.
Conclusion
There are still many logistical questions about how this HCP will be implemented such as property
appraisals for mitigation, specific funding sources for property acquisition and plan implementation, and the
specific roles of the city and county. We should all also consider what the process might be when dealing
with unforeseen circumstances. This leads to the question of what roles the city and county will play in
reporting to USFWS as well as monitoring future mitigation sites.
The county and city have already paid for two different committees dedicated to the construction of this
SEP-HCP, and it is the opinion of our Land Committee and Board of Directors that their recommendations
should be the heart of the SEP-HCP. If there is cause for diverting from their advice than let the justification
become public. There is no expectation for the SEP-HCP to be a cheap remedy for urban sprawl. Instead the
SEP-HCP should be a measure of the impact development is having on the environment around San
Antonio. That measure is expensive, so let us not shortchange a program that will be in place for at least 30
years, with its effects having the potential to change the landscape of South Texas for centuries to come. We
agree with the large team of experts, citizens, and the development community in the form of the BAT and
CAC, which are much more closely related to the Increased Mitigation Alternative #4 than the current
proposal, so it is the Increased Mitigation Alternative #4 that we at GSA also recommend.
It is understood that development will continue, and a plan that helps conserve and replace vulnerable
habitats is needed. It is our role as citizens of this city, county, and country to ensure the responsible
development of that plan.
Graph Summary of what we think should change from the proposed action:
Subject
Proposed
Our Comment
GCW Mitigation Ratio
2:1
Agree, 2:1
GCW Mitigation Location
Anywhere in the 7 counties
50% mandatory in Bexar County
Determining Presence/absence
1/3 USFWS recommendations
Keep USFWS recommendations
Cost Per Credit GCW/BCV
$4,000
$10,000
Model for public cost funding
Future tax on new development
Agree
Bexar Land Trust, Inc. DBA Green Spaces Alliance of South Texas is a 501(c)(3) Corporation
P.O. Box 6250, San Antonio, TX 78209
210.222.8430 ▪ www.greensatx.org
Our mission is to sustain the natural environment and enhance urban spaces through land
conservation, community engagement, and education.