[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60111-60112]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-30097]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Receipt of an Application, and Availability of an
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for an
Incidental Take Permit by Mr. Glenn Michalski for Construction of a
Residential Project on the Fort Morgan Peninsula, AL
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Mr. Glenn Michalski (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.), (Act) as amended. The ITP would authorize for a period
of 30 years the incidental take of an endangered species, the Alabama
beach mouse, Peromyscus polionotus ammobates, known to occupy the 0.43-
acre tract of land owned by the Applicant on the Fort Morgan Peninsula,
Baldwin County, Alabama. The project is a single family home, which
includes a driveway, parking pad and dune walkover.
The Service also announces the availability of an environmental
assessment (EA) and habitat conservation plan (HCP) for this incidental
take application. Copies of the EA and/or HCP may be obtained by making
a request to the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). This notice also
advises the public that the Service has made a preliminary
determination that issuing this 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, (NEPA) as amended. 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
National Environmental Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
DATES: Written comments on the applications, EAs and HCPs should be
sent to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) and should be
received on or before December 26, 1996.
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 at the Daphne Field Office, PO
Drawer 1190, Daphne East Office Plaza, Suite A, 2001 Highway 98,
Daphne, Alabama 36526. Written data or comments concerning the
application, EA, or HCP should be submitted to the Regional Office.
Comments must be submitted in writing to be processed. Please reference
permit number PRT-821992 in such comments, or in requests for the
documents discussed herein. Requests for the documents must be in
writing to be adequately processed.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David A. Dell, Regional Permit
Biologist, Atlanta, Georgia (see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 404/679-
7313; or Ms. Celeste South at the Daphne, Alabama, Field Office (see
ADDRESSES above), telephone: 334/441-5181, extension 32.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Alabama beach mouse, 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 the Alabama beach mouse
extends from Fort Morgan eastward to the western terminus of Alabama
Highway 182, including the Perdue Unit of 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 Alabama
beach mice inhabit scrub dunes, these
[[Page 60112]]
high dunes can serve as refugia during devastating hurricanes that
overwash, flood, and destroy or alter secondary and frontal dunes.
Alabama beach mouse tracking surveys on the Applicant's property reveal
habitat occupied by Alabama beach mice. The Applicant's property
contains designated critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse.
Construction of the project may result in the death of, or injury to,
Alabama beach mice. Habitat alterations due to house construction and
subsequent human habitation of the project may reduce available habitat
for food, shelter, and reproduction.
The EA considers the environmental consequences of alternatives for
each project. One action proposed for each project is the issuance of
the ITP based upon submittal of the HCP as proposed. This alternative
provides for restrictions that include placing no habitable structures
seaward of the designated Alabama beach mouse critical habitat,
establishment of walkover structures across designated critical
habitat, a prohibition against housing or keeping pet cats, Alabama
beach mouse competitor control and monitoring measures, scavenger-proof
garbage containers, and the minimization and control of outdoor
lighting. The HCP provides adequate funding for these mitigation
measures. Another alternative is no-action, or deny the request for
authorization to incidentally take the Alabama beach mouse.
As stated above, the Service has made a preliminary determination
that the issuance of this ITP is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting 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:
1. Issuance of an ITP would not have significant effects on the
human environment in the project area.
2. The proposed take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.
3. The Applicant has ensured that adequate funding will be provided
to implement the measures proposed in the submitted HCPs.
4. Other than impacts to endangered and threatened species as
outlined in the documentation of this decision, the indirect impacts
which may result from issuance of the ITPs are addressed by other
regulations and statutes under the jurisdiction of other government
entities. The validity of the Service's ITP is contingent upon the
Applicant's compliance with the terms of his permit and all other laws
and regulations under the control of State, local, and other Federal
governmental entities.
The Service will also evaluate whether the issuance of the 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 15, 1996.
Jerome M. Butler,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 96-30097 Filed 11-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
