[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