[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61522-61523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30198]
[[Page 61522]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact, and Receipt of an Application for an Incidental
Take Permit for a Residential Development Proposal Called Phoenix VIII,
in the City of Orange Beach, Baldwin County, AL
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Real Estate, Robinson Development Company, Inc. (Applicant),
seeks an incidental take permit (ITP) from the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), as amended (Act). The ITP
would authorize for a period of 30 years the incidental take of an
endangered species, the Alabama beach mouse, Peromyscus polionotus
ammobates (ABM). The Applicant made the decision to assume ABM are
present based on surveys on adjacent property. The project would be
called Phoenix VIII and consists of a single fourteen-story condominium
tower with 81 residential units, parking areas, and a swimming pool on
5.06 acres. Associated landscaped grounds and a dune walkover structure
would also be constructed. A more detailed description of the
mitigation and minimization measures to address the effects of the
Project to the protected species are outlined in the Applicant's
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and in the Supplementary Information
section below.
The Service also announces the availability of an environmental
assessment (EA) and HCP for the incidental take application. Copies of
the EA and/or HCP may be obtained by making a request to the Regional
Office (see ADDRESSES). Requests must be in writing to be processed.
This notice also advises the public that the Service has made a
preliminary determination that issuing the ITP is not a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). The Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) is based on information contained in the EA and HCP. The
final determination will be made no sooner than 30 days from the date
of this notice. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10 of the
Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). The Service specifically
requests comment on the appropriateness of the ``No Surprises''
assurances should the Service determine that an ITP will be granted and
based upon the submitted HCP. Although not explicitly stated in the
HCP, the Service has, since August 1994, announced its intention to
honor a ``No Surprises'' Policy for applicants seeking ITPs. Copies of
the Service's ``No Surprises'' Policy may be obtained by making a
written request to the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). The Service is
soliciting public comments and review of the applicability of the ``No
Surprises'' Policy to this application and HCP.
DATES: Written comments on the ITP application, EA, and HCP should be
sent to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) and should be
received on or before December 18, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application, HCP, and EA may
obtain a copy by writing the Service's Southeast Regional Office,
Atlanta, Georgia. Documents will also be available for public
inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Regional
Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345
(Attn: Endangered Species Permits), or Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Post Office Drawer 1190, Daphne, Alabama 36526.
Written data or comments concerning the application, EA, or HCP should
be submitted to the Regional Office. Requests for the documentation
must be in writing to be processed. Comments must be submitted in
writing to be processed. Please reference permit number PRT-834795 in
such comments, or in requests of the documents discussed herein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Rick G. Gooch, Regional Permit
Coordinator, (see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 404/679-7110; or Ms.
Celeste South, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Daphne, Alabama, Field
Office (see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 334/441-5181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Alabama beach mouse (ABM), Peromyscus
polionotus ammobates, is a subspecies of the common oldfield mouse,
Peromyscus polionotus, and is restricted to the dune systems of the
Gulf Coast of Alabama. The known current range of ABM extends from Fort
Morgan eastward to the western terminus of Alabama Highway 182,
including the Perdue Unit on the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge.
The sand dune systems inhabited by this species are not uniform;
several habitat types are distinguishable. The species inhabits primary
dunes, interdune areas, secondary dunes, and scrub dunes. The depth and
area of these habitats from the beach inland varies. Population surveys
indicate that this subspecies is usually more abundant in primary dunes
than in secondary dunes, and usually more abundant in secondary dunes
than in scrub dunes. Optimal habitat consists of dune systems with all
dune types. Though fewer ABM inhabit scrub dunes, these high dunes can
serve as refugia during devastating hurricanes that overwash, flood,
and destroy or alter secondary and frontal dunes. ABM surveys on the
Applicant's property did not reveal habitat occupied by ABM; however,
the Applicant is seeking compliance with the Act in an abundance of
caution. The Applicant's property does not contain designated critical
habitat for the ABM. Construction of the Project may result in the
death of, or injury to, ABM. Habitat alterations due to condominium
placement and subsequent human habitation of the Project may reduce
available habitat for food, shelter, and reproduction.
The EA considers the environmental consequences of several
alternatives. One action proposed is the issuance of the ITP based upon
submittal of the HCP as proposed. This alternative provides for
restrictions that include conserving almost 86 percent of the Project's
best ABM habitat conserved (essentially primary and secondary dunes),
establishment of one walkover structure across primary and secondary
dune features, a prohibition against housing or keeping pet cats, ABM
competitor control and monitoring measures, scavenger-proof garbage
containers, restoration of dune systems, the creation of educational
and information brochures on ABM conservation, and the minimization and
control of outdoor lighting. Further, the HCP proposes to provide an
endowment of $20,865 to acquire ABM habitat offsite or otherwise
perform some other conservation measure for the ABM. The HCP provides a
funding source for these mitigation measures, as well as monitoring of
the HCP, should an ITP be issued by the Service. Another alternative is
consideration of a different project design that might result in more
impacts to the ABM and its habitat. A third alternative is no-action,
or deny the request for authorization to incidentally take the ABM.
As stated above, the Service has made a preliminary determination
that the issuance of the ITP is not a major
[[Page 61523]]
Federal action significantly effecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. This
preliminary information may be revised due to public comment received
in response to this notice and is based on information contained in the
EA and HCP. An appropriate excerpt from the FONSI reflecting the
Service's finding on the application is provided below:
Based on the analysis conducted by the Service, it has been
determined that:
Issuance of the ITP will not appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival and recovery of the effected species in the
wild.
The HCP contains provisions which sufficiently minimize
and/or mitigate the impacts of issuing the ITP.
Issuance of the ITP would not have significant effects on
the human environment in the project area.
The proposed take is incidental to an otherwise lawful
activity.
Adequate funding will be provided to implement the
measures proposed in the submitted HCP and authorizing ITP.
The Service will also evaluate whether the issuance of a Section
10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with Section 7 of the Act by conducting an
intra-Service Section 7 consultation. The results of the biological
opinion, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the
final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP.
Dated: November 4, 1997.
H. Dale Hall,
Deputy Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 97-30198 Filed 11-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
