[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:
    <bullet> Issuance of the ITP will not appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of survival and recovery of the effected species in the 
wild.
    <bullet> The HCP contains provisions which sufficiently minimize 
and/or mitigate the impacts of issuing the ITP.
    <bullet> Issuance of the ITP would not have significant effects on 
the human environment in the project area.
    <bullet> The proposed take is incidental to an otherwise lawful 
activity.
    <bullet> 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