[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 183 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49338-49339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23987]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Notice of Receipt of an Application, and Availability of an
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for an
Incidental Take Permit by Collins-Miller Development, Inc., for
Construction of a Residential Project on the Fort Morgan Peninsula, AL
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Collins-Miller Development, 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.), (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 a 11.2-acre tract of land owned by the Applicant on the
Fort Morgan Peninsula, Baldwin County, Alabama. The project would be
called Bay-to-Breakers, which will include a 28-dwelling-unit
residential development, their associated landscaped grounds and
parking areas, recreational amenities, and a dune walkover structure.
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 in writing to the Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). This
notice also advises the public that the Service has made a preliminary
determination that issuing an ITP to the Applicant 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 Findings 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 application, EA and HCP should be sent
to the Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES) and should be received
on or before October 21, 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, Alabama, Field
Office, 2001 Highway 98, Daphne East Office Plaza, Suite A, 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(s) under
PRT-81819363 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. Rick G. Gooch, Regional Permit
Coordinator, Atlanta, Georgia (see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 404/
679-7110; or Ms. Celeste South at the 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 ABM habitat is currently considered 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 Applicants' properties reveal habitat occupied by
ABM. The Applicants' properties 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
[[Page 49339]]
available habitat for food, shelter, and reproduction.
The EA consider the environmental consequences of several
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 ABM critical habitat,
establishment of walkover structures across designated critical
habitat, a prohibition against housing or keeping pet cats, ABM
competitor control and monitoring measures, scavenger-proof garbage
containers, creation of educational and information brochures on ABM
conservation, and the minimization and control of outdoor lighting. The
HCP provides funding sources for these mitigation measures. Another
alternative is consideration of different project designs that further
minimize permanent loss of ABM habitat. A third alternative is no-
action, or the request for authorization to incidentally take the ABM.
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 and will result in a FONSI. 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 Applicants have ensured that adequate funding will be
provided to implement the measures proposed in the submitted HCP.
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 ITPs are contingent upon the
Applicants' compliance with the terms of their permits 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 either
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 either
ITP.
Dated: September 10, 1996.
Jerome M. Butler,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 96-23987 Filed 9-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
