Golden Software Mapviewer

[Rosella Brain]

The Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan (BCCP) provides a streamlined way for landowners to comply with the Endangered Species Act, while protecting high-quality habitat in the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP). Developing endangered species habitat is illegal without a permit. The process to apply for a permit from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) can be lengthy, but landowners in much of western Travis County can obtain permits from Travis County to mitigate for the removal of habitat in a few weeks for a one-time fee. This fee goes towards buying and managing land in the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve.

The BCCP comprises a 10(a)(1)(b) permit issued jointly to Travis County and the City of Austin (also known as "incidental take permit") and a Habitat Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement approved by USFWS in 1996. Links to these and other foundational BCCP documents can be found below. The permit was issued jointly to Travis County and the City of Austin. More information on Habitat Conservation Plans 10(a)(1)(b) permits, and how they relate to the Endangered Species Act can be found on the USFWS website.

Travis County issues development permits (also known as BCCP Incidental Take Permits) for landowners who choose to mitigate through the BCCP rather than directly with USFWS. The City of Austin administers the infrastructure permitting process for the BCCP. Mitigation through the BCCP provides regulatory certainty to individual landowners, developers, and infrastructure providers.

In the 25+ years since the BCCP was created, more than 1,200 private landowners and developers have applied for BCCP permits, resulting in the development of over 17,100 acres and the authorization of more than 300 public infrastructure projects.

The black-capped vireo was one of the eight endangered species that the Balcones Canyonlands Conservation Plan and Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP) were created to protect. In May 2018, the vireo was removed from the federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The delisting does not affect the preserve - the land will continue to be preserved in perpetuity. However, landowners who wish to remove black-capped vireo habitat from their properties are no longer required to mitigate for the removal of that habitat. Before beginning a construction or clearing project, however, please check the habitat map to see if there may be endangered golden-cheeked warbler or karst invertebrate habitat on your property.

About 80 percent of the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve is managed by Travis County and the City of Austin. The other 20% of the 33,000+ acre preserve is managed by public and private partners, sometimes in conjunction with the City or County including:

To supplement the habitat in the Balcones Canyonlands Preserve (BCP), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created the Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge, which currently protects 27,000 acres northwest of the BCP. Approximately 1,000 acres of the refuge are open to the public.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 31 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plo...@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: -guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at _medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

b) If consent was verbal, please explain i) why written consent was not obtained, ii) how you documented participant consent, and iii) whether the ethics committees/IRB approved this consent procedure.

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: -and-copyright.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: -information.

8. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see -availability.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: -availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

Both reviewers did an extensive revision of your manuscript with useful comments to improve it. Pay attention to their suggestions, especially to the organization of the article. Provide with answers of the questions raised by them.

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

The study addresses important topics for wolf and large carnivore conservation and human-wildlife relationships, but I found the structure of the manuscript somewhat difficult to follow. I therefore think more attention toward the organization of the text and the description of the problem statement and aims would greatly improve the manuscript, also considering the journal's wide audience. This includes the order of presentation for certain topics, and the inclusion of additional factors that are noted only briefly or not mentioned. I also recommend reading the revised manuscript carefully with attention to English grammar.

The study is centered on analyses of body mass, and you provide important information in L51-68, including reference to earlier analyses such as Ciucci et al. 2020 on the possible influence of anthropogenic resources. However, it may not be immediately clear to all readers why you are investigating dimorphism in wolves; you note this aspect in L136-140 but provide explanations first in L156 onwards. I also think the addition of broader considerations in evolutionary ecology and behaviour would provide helpful context, including a brief note of the possible influence of wolf-dog hybridization for the ecological role of wolves in your study area and beyond (e.g., Bassi et al. 2017, cited in the study, Galaveri et al. 2017, doi:10.1093/molbev/msx169, Salvatori et al. 2019, -019-1313-3, and Pilot et al. 2021, doi:10.1111/EVA.13257). You mention wolf-dog hybridization in L101, but a brief note on how wolf-dog hybridization may influence selective pressures, also in relation to carbohydrate digestion (L252-255), would add useful context.