Federal Register: Part II [50 CFR Part 17]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AT90

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Critical Habitat for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, and St. Andrew Beach Mouse

DATES: We will accept comments from all interested parties until February 13, 2006. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by January 30, 2006.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to revise critical habitat for the endangered Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus trissyllepsis) and Choctawhatchee beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus allophrys), and designate critical habitat for the endangered St. Andrew beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus peninsularis) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are proposing 5 units of critical habitat totaling approximately 1,264 acres (ac) (511 hectares (ha)) for the Perdido Key beach mouse, 5 units totaling approximately 2,334 ac (944 ha) for the Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and 3 units totaling approximately 2,610 ac (1,056 ha) for the St. Andrew beach mouse. In total, approximately 6,208 ac (2,511 ha) fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. The proposed critical habitat is located in Baldwin County, Alabama, and Escambia, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, and Gulf Counties, Florida.

SUMMARY: Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the species due to designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and St. Andrew beach mouse habitat, and what areas should be included in the designations that were occupied at the time of listing that contain the features that are essential for the conservation of the species and why and what areas that were not occupied at the listing are essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat; (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities;
(5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments; and
(6) Information from the Department of Defense to assist the Secretary of the Interior in evaluating critical habitat on lands administered by or under the control of the Department of Defense based on any benefit provided by an Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) to the conservation of the Choctawhatchee beach mouse and St. Andrew beach mouse; and information regarding impacts to national security associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat. (7) Whether we should split Unit 5 into two units, since part of the unit is occupied and part of the unit is not occupied by the species. This unit is all within the St. Andrew State Park.

If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). Please submit comments electronically to flbeachmice@fws.gov in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: Beach mouse critical habitat'' in your email subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your electronic message, contact us directly by calling the Panama City U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office at phone number 8507690552. Please note that the Internet address flbeachmice@fws.gov will be closed out at the termination of the public comment period.

Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
[[Page 74427]]
Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection to Species

In 30 years of implementing the Act, the Service has found that the designation of statutory critical habitat provides little additional protection to most listed species, while consuming significant amounts of available conservation resources. The Service's present system for designating critical habitat has evolved since its original statutory prescription into a process that provides little real conservation benefit, is driven by litigation and the courts rather than biology, limits our ability to fully evaluate the science involved, consumes enormous agency resources, and imposes huge social and economic costs. The Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection.
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and Implementing the Act

While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 470 species or 37.5 percent of the 1,253 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the Service have designated critical habitat.

We address the habitat needs of all 1,253 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, and the section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes that it is these measures that may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.

We note, however, that the August 6, 2004 Ninth Circuit judicial opinion (Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service) found our definition of adverse modification was invalid. In response to the decision, the Director has provided guidance to the Service based on the statutory language. In this rule, our analysis of the consequences and relative costs and benefits of the critical habitat designation is based on application of the statute consistent with the Ninth Circuit's ruling and the Director's guidance. Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected the Service to an everincreasing series of court orders and courtapproved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.

The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed.

The accelerated schedules of court ordered designations have left the Service with almost no ability to provide for adequate public participation or to ensure a defectfree rulemaking process before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judiciallyimposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, is very expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little additional protection to listed species.

The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None of these costs result in any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions. Background

We intend to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more information on the Perdido Key beach mouse and Choctawhatchee beach mouse, please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on June 6, 1985 (50 FR 23872), and for the St. Andrew beach mouse, please refer to the final listing rule published on December 18, 1998 (63 FR 70053).

The Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and St. Andrew beach mouse are three of five subspecies of the oldfield mouse that inhabit coastal dune communities along the Gulf coast of Florida and Alabama. Historically, Perdido Key beach mice were thought to occur in coastal dune habitat on Perdido Key between Perdido Bay, Alabama, to the west and Pensacola Bay, Florida, to the east (Bowen 1968). The effects of Hurricane Frederic (1979) coupled with increased habitat fragmentation due to human development led to the extirpation of all but one population of Perdido Key beach mice. Fewer than 30 individuals at Gulf State Park (at the westernmost end of Perdido Key) were once the only known existing population of Perdido Key beach mice (Holler et al. 1989). Beach mice from this site were used to reestablish mice at Gulf Islands National Seashore (GINS) (19861988; Holler et al. 1989). In 2000, ten Perdido Key beach mice (five pairs) were relocated from GINSPerdido Key Area to Perdido Key State Park. In February of 2001, this relocation was supplemented with an additional 32 mice (16 pairs). Perdido Key beach mice were released on both north and south sides of Highway 292 in suitable habitat. Two years of quarterly survey trapping (standard protocol for determining presence or absence of beach mice) indicated that the relocations of mice to Perdido Key State Park were successful and this is now considered an established population (Service 2004a). Presently, beach mouse habitat exists on public lands in areas along 8.4 miles (mi) (13.5 kilometers (km)) of coastline on Perdido Key at GINS and Perdido Key State Park. Perdido Key beach mice were trapped on private lands between GINS and Perdido Key State Park in 2004, increasing documentation of current occurrences of the mouse. Perdido Key beach mice are believed to be extirpated at Gulf State Park since 1998 (Auburn University 1999), though two years of
[[Page 74428]]
quarterly trapping to determine absence of beach mice has not been conducted.

Choctawhatchee beach mice were once present along the coastal dunes between Choctawhatchee Bay and St. Andrew Bay, Florida (Bowen 1968). Based on trapping data, four general areas of occupancy currently exist: (1) Topsail Hill Preserve State Park (and adjacent eastern and western private lands), (2) Shell Island (includes St. Andrew State Park mainland, Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), and private land inholdings), (3) Grayton Beach State Park (and adjacent eastern private lands), and (4) West Crooked Island (Tyndall AFB) and adjacent private lands. Approximately 96 percent of the lands known to be occupied by Choctawhatchee beach mice are public lands. Translocations to establish mice on private lands at Camp Creek/WaterSound in Walton County, Florida, began in March 2003, and the population was supplemented in March 2005 (Service 2003a, 2005). Topsail Hill Preserve State Park served as the source for the translocations (total of 36 mice, 18 pairs). Furthermore, as the viability of beach mouse populations on the St. Andrew State Park mainland and Henderson Beach State Park is uncertain, these sites may be considered for future translocation projects.

The geographical range of St. Andrew beach mice is identified as St. Joseph spit in Gulf County, Florida, to the east entrance of St. Andrew Bay, including Cape Sand Blas and Money Bayou in Bay County, Florida (Bowen 1968). The St. Andrew beach mouse currently consists of two core populations, East Crooked Island (Tyndall AFB) and adjacent private lands, and St. Joseph Peninsula State Park and adjacent private lands. Specific areas of private lands between the two core populations have been trapped since listing and presence has recently been established in one area (Moyers and Shea 2002; S.S. Shea, St. Joe Timberland Co., personal communication (pers. comm.), 2005). The current population at East Crooked Island is a result of translocations of beach mice from St. Joseph Peninsula State Park to Crooked Island (19971998). The persistence of St. Andrew beach mice on other public lands, such as Eglin AFB lands at Cape San Blas and Rish Park, is uncertain at this time. As there are currently only two core populations of this subspecies, and limited viable opportunities exist on public lands, a reestablishment project on private lands may be considered for this subspecies. Preliminary discussions have had favorable support.

Since the listing of these subspecies, research has refined previous knowledge of beach mouse habitat requirements and factors that influence their use of habitat. The findings most pertinent to this revision of critical habitat and prudency determination involve the role of scrub dune habitat. Coastal dune habitat is generally categorized as: primary dunes (characterized by sea oats (Uniola paniculata) and other grasses), secondary dunes (similar to primary dunes but also frequently include such plants as woody goldenrod (Chrysoma pauciflosculosa), false rosemary (Conradina canescens)), and interior or scrub dunes (often dominated by scrub oaks (Quercus geminata) and yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria)). Contrary to the early belief that beach mice were restricted to (Howell 1909, 1921; Ivey 1949) or preferred the frontal dunes (Blair 1951; Pournelle and Barrington 1953; Bowen 1968), more recent research has shown that scrub habitat serves an invaluable role in the persistence of beach mouse populations (Swilling et al. 1998; Sneckenberger 2001). Beach mice occupy scrub dunes on a permanent basis and studies have found no detectable differences in beach mouse body mass, home range size, dispersal, reproduction, survival, food quality, and burrow site availability between scrub and frontal dunes (Swilling et al. 1998; Swilling 2000; Sneckenberger 2001). The transition from scrub habitat to maritime forest, which is characterized by large trees (pines and oaks), thick leaf litter, and dense understory, frequently serves to delineate the northern or landward extent of suitable beach mouse habitat.

While seasonally abundant, the availability of food resources in the primary and secondary dunes fluctuates (Sneckenberger 2001). In contrast, the scrub habitat provides a more stable level of food resources which becomes crucial when food is scarce or nonexistent in the primary and secondary dunes. This suggests that access to primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat is essential to beach mice at the individual level.

In addition to providing burrow sites, food resources, and cover, scrub dune habitat also serves as a highelevation refuge during storm events and as a population source as the primary and secondary dunes recover (Swilling et al. 1998; Sneckenberger 2001). Hurricanes can severely affect beach mice and their habitat, as tidal surge and wave action overwash habitat, leaving a flat sand surface denuded of vegetation; sand is deposited inland, completely or partially covering vegetation; blowouts between the Gulf of Mexico and bays and lagoons leave patchy landscapes of bare sand; primary dunes are sheared or eroded; and habitat is completely breached, creating channels from the Gulf of Mexico to bays and lagoons. Until frontal (primary and secondary) dune topography and vegetation redevelop, scrub habitat maintains beach mouse populations and provides the majority of food resources and potential burrow sites (Lynn 2000; Sneckenberger 2001). While storms temporarily reduce population densities (often severely), this disturbance regime maintains open habitat and retards succession, yielding a habitat more suitable for beach mice than one lacking disturbance. The lownutrient soil of the coastal dune ecosystem often receives a pulse of nutrients from the deposition of vegetative debris along the coastline (Lomascolo and Aide 2001). Therefore, as the primary and secondary dunes recover, beach mice recolonize this habitat readily as food plants develop to take advantage of the newly available nutrients. Recovery times vary depending upon factors such as hurricane characteristics (that is, severity, amount of associated rain, directional movement of the storm eye, storm speed), successional stage of habitat prior to hurricane, elevation, and restorative actions post hurricane. Depending on these factors, recovery of habitat may take from one year to more than 40 years (TraylorHolzer et al. 2005).

Species that are protected across their ranges have lower probabilities of extinction (Soule and Wilcox 1980). Despite local extirpations due to storm events or the harsh, stochastic nature of coastal ecosystems, beach mouse populations naturally recover and persist. Historically, extirpated areas would be recolonized as population densities increase and dispersal occurs from adjacent populated areas. In addition, from a genetic perspective, beach mice recover well from population size reductions (Wooten 1994), provided sufficient habitat is available for population expansion after the bottleneck occurs. As human development has fragmented the coastal dune landscape, beach mice can no longer recolonize along these areas as they did in the past (Holliman 1983). As a continuous presence of beach mice or suitable habitat along the coastline is no longer possible and any hurricane can impact the entire range of a subspecies, the probability of beach mice persisting would be enhanced by the presence of contiguous tracts of suitable habitat occupied by multiple independent populations (Danielson 2005). The history of the Perdido Key beach mouse
[[Page 74429]]
clearly illustrates the need for multiple populations (a now extirpated population was the source of the two remaining populations of the subspecies (Holler et al. 1989; Service 2004a)). While maintaining multiple populations of beach mouse subspecies provides protection from total loss (extinction) (Oli et al. 2001), conservation of a subspecies necessitates protection of genetic variability throughout its range (Ehrlich 1988). Conservation of a species over a range of habitat types where it is known to occur reduces the chance of losing disjunct populations, which represent an important conservation value for their adaptation to local environmental conditions and their genetic uniqueness (Fahrig and Merriam 1994). This includes ``peripheral'' populations (populations on the fringes of the natural range of the species/subspecies), which in many cases are thought to be highly desirable because of their distinct genetic characters or adaptations due to divergent natural selection (Lesica and Allendorf 1995). Preservation of natural populations is therefore crucial, as the loss of a population of beach mice can result in a permanent loss of alleles (Wooten and Holler 1999). This loss of genetic variability cannot be regained through translocations or other efforts.

Previous Federal Actions

The Perdido Key beach mouse and Choctawhatchee beach mouse were listed as endangered on June 6, 1985 (50 FR 23872). Critical habitat was designated for the Perdido Key beach mouse and the Choctawhatchee beach mouse at the time of listing, consisting primarily of primary and secondary dunes and did not include highelevation (scrub dune) habitat. A recovery plan for these beach mice was completed in 1987. On November 5, 1991, the Service received a petition from the Alabama Conservancy to revise critical habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse through an emergency rule. A notice announcing our finding that the petitioned action was warranted, but would be delayed until higher priority actions had been completed, was published on June 18, 1993 (58 FR 33606). On February 2, 1999, the Service was petitioned by the Sierra Club and Biodiversity Legal Foundation to revise critical habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and the Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). The Service published a 90day finding on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63004). The 12month finding, published September 26, 2000 (65 FR 57800), found that revision of critical habitat for the three subspecies of beach mice was warranted. Since that time, critical habitat revision has been precluded due to other higher priority listing and critical habitat actions. On June 17, 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton et al., 1:03CV00377CB) alleging that the Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to revise critical habitat for the Perdido Key, Choctawhatchee, and Alabama beach mice and that the revision was withheld or unreasonably delayed under the Administrative Procedure Act. In a December 2004 declaration, we stated we would submit a proposed revision for the Perdido Key beach mouse and the Choctawhatchee beach mouse by November 15, 2005, and a final revision by September 30, 2006. The proposed revision of critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse will be published in a separate determination.

The St. Andrew beach mouse was listed as endangered on December 18, 1998 (63 FR 70053). The designation of critical habitat was found to be not prudent at the time of listing. In 2003, a lawsuit was filed against the Service in 2003 by the Center for Biological Diversity (Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 4:03CV315WS/WCS), challenging the ``not prudent'' determination. On July 27, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted the Service's motion for voluntary remand and ordered the Service to publish a new final decision with respect to the designation of critical habitat for the St. Andrew beach mouse on or before September 30, 2006. A recovery plan for this subspecies is currently under development.

For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the Perdido Key beach mouse and Choctawhatchee beach mouse, please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on June 6, 1985 (50 FR 23872). For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the St. Andrew beach mouse, please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1998 (63 FR 70053).

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.

Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public access to private lands.

To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within the area occupied by the species at the time of listing must first have features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below, such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when the best available scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An area currently occupied by the species but was not known to be occupied at the time of listing will likely be essential to the conservation of the species and, therefore, included in the critical habitat designation.

The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and
[[Page 74430]]
General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific and commercial data available. They require Service biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, one primary source of information is generally the listing package for the species. Additional information sources include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peerreviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 106554 and the associated Information Quality Guidelines.

Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.

Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome. Prudency Determination

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time a species is listed as endangered or threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In our December 18, 1998, final rule (63 FR 70053), we determined that the designation of critical habitat was not prudent for the St. Andrew beach mouse due to the lack of additional conservation benefit from such designation. However, several of our determinations that the designation of critical habitat would not be prudent have been overturned by court decisions. For example, Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, (2 F. Supp. 2d 1280 [D. Hawaii 1998]), Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, (13 F. 3d 1121, 1125 [9th Cir. 1997]).

We are already working with Federal and State agencies, private individuals, and organizations in carrying out conservation activities for the St. Andrew beach mouse and in conducting surveys for additional occurrences of the species and to assess habitat conditions. However, the designation may provide additional information to individuals, local and State governments, and other entities engaged in longrange planning, since areas with features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined and, to the extent currently feasible, the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the survival of the subspecies are specifically identified. Moreover, although the low numbers and restricted range of these mice make it unlikely that their populations could withstand even moderate collecting pressure or vandalism, we do not have specific evidence for taking, collection, vandalism, trade, or unauthorized human disturbance.

Accordingly, we withdraw our previous determination that the designation of critical habitat will not benefit the St. Andrew beach mouse and now determine that the designation of critical habitat is prudent for this subspecies. At this time, we have sufficient information necessary to identify specific areas that meet the definition of critical habitat and are, therefore, proposing critical habitat for the St. Andrew beach mouse (see ``Methods'' section below for a discussion of information used in our reevaluation).

Methods

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best scientific data available in determining areas that contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and St. Andrew beach mouse. We have reviewed the overall approach to conservation of the three subspecies of beach mice undertaken by the local, State, and Federal agencies operating within the species' range since their listing, and the recovery plan for Perdido Key and Choctawhatchee beach mice (1987).

We reviewed the available information pertaining to the historic and current distributions, previously designated critical habitat, life histories, habitats of, and threats to the beach mice. We reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of these subspecies, including material received since completion of the 1987 recovery plan. This material includes data in reports submitted during section 7 consultations and by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research published in peerreviewed articles and presented in academic theses and agency reports; regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages; and beach mouse habitat maps developed by the Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), as well as our own sitespecific species and habitat information, recent biological surveys, reports and communication with other qualified biologists or experts, and unpublished species occurrence data contained within our files.

Four steps were conducted to identify critical habitat units. First, based on a compilation of information listed above on the known occurrences of the three subspecies of beach mice, we created maps indicating the areas and habitat features associated with these occurrences. The habitat units were delineated using ArcView (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS program, to evaluate GIS and locality data derived from a variety of Federal, State, and local agencies, and from private organizations and individuals. Our mapping process was based on the need
[[Page 74431]]
to exclude areas that lack essential habitat features, while simultaneously accounting for the dynamic nature of coastal habitat. We depicted the mapped shoreline according to the mean high water line (MHWL), though the land configurations of these coastal areas change dramatically through time. Landward boundaries of the units, which frequently consist of urban areas or maritime forest are more stable and provide easily discernable landmarks when visiting a proposed critical habitat unit. Habitat delineation included current and historic species occurrence locations. The Service has developed a trapping protocol for establishing absence of beach mice (see ADDRESSES to request a copy). In summary, this protocol requires two years of quarterly trapping with no beach mice captured to document absence. Presence of beach mice, however, can be successfully documented by the capture of one beach mouse, or the observation of beach mouse tracks or beach mouse burrows by a beach mouse expert or similarly qualified biologist.

Second, we identified, in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, the physical and biological habitat features (also called primary constituent elements, or PCEs) at those sites that are essential to the conservation of the species. We mapped critical habitat unit boundaries at each site based on the extent of habitat containing sufficient PCEs to support biological function. The mapping itself was the third step. The fourth and final step was to determine and identify any areas that do not meet the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, and to identify other areas that may be subject to an approved INRMP that provides a benefit to the species and may be exempted under section 4(a)(3), and to identify units that may be considered for exclusion based on section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Application of Sections 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, below, for a detailed description).

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the best scientific data available and to consider those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements (PCEs)) that are essential to the conservation of the species, and that may require special management considerations and protection. These include, but are not limited to: space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.

The specific PCEs essential for the Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and St. Andrew beach mouse are derived from their biological needs as described in the Background section of this proposal and in additional detail below.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior

Longterm trapping data have shown that beach mouse densities are cyclic and fluctuate by magnitudes on a seasonal and annual basis. These fluctuations can be a result of reproduction rates, food availability, habitat quality and quantity, catastrophic events, disease, and predation (Blair 1951; Bowen 1968; Smith 1971; Hill 1989; Rave and Holler 1992; Swilling et al. 1998; Swilling 2000; Sneckenberger 2001). Without suitable habitat sufficient in size to support the natural cyclic nature of beach mouse populations as they expand, subspecies are at risk from local extirpation and extinction, and may not attain the densities necessary to persist through storm events and seasonal fluctuations of resources. The conservation of multiple large, contiguous tracts of habitat is a key to the persistence of beach mice.

At present, such large parcels exist mainly on public lands. Protection, management, and conservation of beach mice on public areas have been complicated by increased recreational use by humans as public lands are rapidly becoming the only natural areas left on the coast. Where protection of large contiguous tracts of beach mouse habitat along the coast is not possible, establishing multiple independent populations is the best defense against local and complete extinctions due to storms and other stochastic events (Danielson 2005). Protecting multiple populations increases the chance of at least one population within the range of a subspecies surviving episodic storm events and persisting while vegetation and dune structure recover.

Habitat Connectivity

Habitat loss and fragmentation associated with residential and commercial real estate development is the primary threat contributing to the endangered status of beach mice (Holler 1992a; Humphrey 1992). Coastal development has fragmented all the subspecies into disjunct populations. Isolation of habitats by imposing barriers to species movement is an effect of fragmentation that equates to reduction in total habitat (Noss and Csuti 1997). Furthermore, isolation of small populations of beach mice reduces or precludes gene flow between populations and can result in the loss of genetic diversity. Selander et al. (1971) found that allozyme variation in beach mouse populations (Perdido Key beach mice, Choctawhatchee beach mice, and Alabama beach mice) was significantly lower than the variation detected in adjacent inland populations. Correlations between genetic variation (heterozygosity) and other factors have been wellresearched with oldfield mice. Lower levels of heterozygosity have been linked to less efficient feeding, fewer demonstrations of social dominance and exploratory behavior, and smaller body size (Garten 1976, Teska et al. 1990). Research focused on inbreeding depression in oldfield mice (including one beach mouse subspecies) determined that the effects of inbreeding negatively influenced factors such as litter size, number of litters, and juvenile survivorship (Lacy et al. 1995). Demographic factors, such as predation (especially by domestic cats), diseases, and competition with house mice, are intensified in small, isolated populations which may be rapidly extirpated by these pressures. Especially when coupled with events such as storms, reduced food availability, and reduced reproductive success, isolated populations may experience severe declines or extirpation (Caughley and Gunn 1996). The strength of influence these factors have on populations or individuals is largely dependent on the degree of isolation.

Connectivity becomes essential where mice occupy fragmented areas lacking one or more habitat types. If scrub habitat is lacking from a particular tract, adjacent or connected tracts with scrub habitat are necessary for food and burrow sites when resources are scarce in the frontal dunes, and are essential to beach mouse populations during and immediately after hurricanes. Trapping data suggest that beach mice occupying the scrub following hurricanes recolonize the frontal dunes once vegetation and some dune structure have recovered (Swilling et al. 1998; Sneckenberger 2001). Similarly, when frontal dune habitat is lacking from a tract and a functional pathway to frontal dune habitat does not exist, beach mice may not be able to obtain the resources [[Page 74432]]
necessary to expand the population and reach the densities necessary to persist through the harsh summer season or the next storm. Functional pathways may allow for natural behavior such as dispersal and exploratory movements, as well as gene flow to maintain genetic variability of the population within fragmented or isolated areas. To that end, contiguous tracts or functionally connected patches of suitable habitat are features that are essential to the longterm conservation of beach mice.

Food Resources and Vegetative Cover

Beach mice feed primarily upon seeds and fruits, but have been shown to prey on insects. Beach mice appear to forage on food items based on availability and have shown no preferences for particular seeds or fruits (Moyers 1996). Research suggests that the availability of food resources fluctuates seasonally in Gulf Coast coastal dune habitat; specifically, food resources may be limited during winter and spring in the scrub habitat and limited in the frontal dunes in the summer and fall (Sneckenberger 2001). Nutritional analysis of foods available in each habitat revealed that seeds of plant species in both habitats provide a similar range of nutritional quality. The frontal dunes appear to have more species of highquality foods, but these sources are primarily grasses and annuals that produce large quantities of small seeds in a short period of time. Foods available in the scrub consist of larger seeds and fruits that are produced throughout a greater length of time and linger in the landscape. Consequently, large, contiguous tracts containing both frontal dune and scrub habitat types are necessary to provide both: (1) A large quantity of food resources coinciding with the reproductive season, and (2) a relatively stable source of food resources when availability is reduced.

Foraging activities and other natural behaviors of beach mice are influenced by many factors. Artificial lighting alters behavior patterns causing beach mice to avoid otherwise suitable habitat and decreases the amount of time they are active in those areas (Bird et al. 2004). Within the relatively sparsely vegetated frontal dune and scrub dune habitat occupied by beach mice, the presence of vegetative cover reduces predation risk and perceived predation risk of foraging beach mice, and allows for normal movements, activity, and foraging patterns. Foraging in sites with vegetative cover is greater and more efficient than in sites without cover (Bird 2002). Beach mice have also been found to prefer coastal dune habitat (that is, not maritime forest) with increased percent cover of vegetation, and decreased distance between vegetated patches (Smith 2003). Behavioral modification or increased predation in response to these factors can result in population decreases and restricted use of available habitat. Burrow Sites

Beach mice use burrows to avoid predators, protect young, store food, and serve as refugia between foraging bouts and during periods of rest. Beach mice have been shown to select burrow sites based on a suite of abiotic and biotic factors. A limitation in one or more factors may result in a shortage of suitable sites, and the availability of potential burrow sites in each habitat may vary seasonally. Beach mice tend to construct burrows in areas with greater plant cover, less soil compaction, steep slopes, and higher elevations above sea level (Lynn 2000; Sneckenberger 2001). These factors are likely important in minimizing energy costs of burrow construction and maintenance while maximizing the benefits of burrow use by making a safe and physiologically efficient refuge. Similar to food resources, this fluctuation in availability of burrow sites suggests that a combination of large, contiguous tracts of habitat with burrow sites in primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat is essential to beach mice at the individual level.

Habitats Protected From Anthropogenic Disturbance

Artificial lighting, nonnative species, and refuse can directly and indirectly increase predation pressure on beach mice beyond their natural levels. Freeroaming and feral pets are believed to have a devastating effect on beach mouse persistence (Bowen 1968; Linzey 1978) and are considered to be the main cause of the loss of at least one population of beach mice (Holliman 1983). Cat tracks have been observed in areas of low trapping success for beach mice (Auburn University 1999). The population and habitat viability analysis for the Alabama beach mouse indicated that if each population had as few as one feral cat that ate one mouse a day, rapid extinction of the species occurred in over 99 percent of all iterations (TraylorHolzer et al. 2005). Refuse may attract competitors (house mice (Mus musculus)) and predators (such as coyotes (Canis latrans) and red foxes (Vulpes vulpes)), unsettling the natural predator/prey balance and competing with beach mice for resources. This issue is of particular importance and has the most impact when beach mouse populations are at low densities. This influx of developmentrelated predators and competitors is believed to be the final cause of the extinction of the pallid beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus decoloratus) (Humphrey 1992).

Beyond the direct effects of mortality due to predation, beach mouse habitat use and foraging patterns are influenced by these anthropogenic disturbances. Artificial lighting, for example, influences beach mouse foraging patterns and natural movements (for example, avoidance of an otherwise suitable area) due to an increased risk of predation in the lighted areas. Beach mice avoid areas with artificial lighting or reduce the time spent foraging in lighted areas (Bird et al. 2004). Consequently, because of these anthropogenic factors, mice may be unable to gather necessary food resources or fail to utilize otherwise suitable habitat.
PCEs for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, and St. Andrew Beach Mouse

PCEs previously determined for the Perdido Key beach mouse and Choctawhatchee beach mouse included ``dunes and interdunal areas, and associated grasses and shrubs that provide food and cover'' (50 FR 23872). These elements did not address many of the requirements that we now know are crucial for longterm persistence of beach mice, including the need for scrub dune habitat. Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined that the Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and St. Andrew beach mouse's primary constituent elements include:

1. A contiguous mosaic of primary, secondary, and scrub vegetation and dune structure, with a balanced level of competition and predation and few or no competitive or predaceous nonnative species present, that collectively provide foraging opportunities, cover, and burrow sites.

2. Primary and secondary dunes, generally dominated by sea oats (Uniola paniculata), that, despite occasional temporary impacts and reconfiguration from tropical storms and hurricanes, provide abundant food resources, burrow sites, and protection from predators.

3. Scrub dunes, generally dominated by scrub oaks (Quercus spp.), that provide food resources and burrow sites, and provide elevated refugia during and after intense flooding due to
[[Page 74433]]

rainfall and/or hurricaneinduced storm surge.

4. Functional, unobstructed habitat connections that facilitate genetic exchange, dispersal, natural exploratory movements, and recolonization of locally extirpated areas.

5. A natural light regime within the coastal dune ecosystem, compatible with the nocturnal activity of beach mice, necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

Stabilization of the Perdido Key, Choctawhatchee, and St. Andrew beach mice at their present populations and distributions will not achieve conservation of these subspecies. Protection and enhancement of existing populations and their habitat, plus reestablishment of populations in suitable areas within their historic ranges, are necessary for the subspecies survival and recovery. Core beach mouse populations (that is, populations that have been either relatively persistent in the recent past, or have recently maintained healthy densities) remain isolated and are vulnerable to natural and anthropogenic factors that may further reduce or degrade habitat or directly reduce beach mouse population sizes. Maximizing the number of independent populations is critical to species survival. Protection of a single, isolated, minimally viable population risks the extirpation or extinction of a species as a result of harsh environmental conditions, catastrophic events, or genetic deterioration over several generations (Kautz and Cox 2001). To reduce the risk of extinction through these processes, it is important to establish multiple protected populations across the landscape (Soul[eacute] and Simberloff 1986; Wiens 1996). To reduce overall risk to the subspecies, we aimed to propose units for each subspecies spaced throughout their respective historic ranges, depending on relative fragmentation, size, and health of habitat, as well as availability of areas with beach mouse PCEs.

Based on these considerations, an area was considered for designation where it possesses one or more of the PCEs and one of the following characteristics: (1) Supports a core population of beach mice; (2) was occupied by Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, or St. Andrew beach mouse at the time of listing; or (3) is currently occupied by the beach mouse and is an area essential to the conservation of the species because it represents an existing population needed for conservation.

Following the strategy outlined above, we began by mapping coastal dune communities within the historic range of each subspecies of beach mouse. These areas were refined by using aerial map coverages to eliminate features such as housing developments and other areas that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of beach mice. We then focused on areas supporting beach mice as well as areas that contain the PCEs for the subspecies. Because both the Perdido Key beach mouse and the St. Andrew beach mouse have been reduced to one location in the past, with additional populations reestablished by biologists since, and translocations are currently underway for the Choctawhatchee beach mice, we believe that limiting the proposed designation to occupied areas would not yield sufficient habitat for the persistence of beach mice. As previously discussed, the fragmentation of the species' historic habitat coupled with the stochasticity of the landscape due to tropical storms makes multiple populations necessary for species conservation. Consequently, we are proposing units which were not occupied at the time of listing. These areas, however, are currently occupied by the species, have one or more of the PCEs, are within the historic range of the species, and are essential to their conservation. See below for a more explicit discussion of why these areas are essential to the conservation of the beach mice.

The combined extent of these mapped areas is defined as the habitat that contains features that are essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Although these areas proposed for designation represent only a small proportion of each subspecies' historic range, they include a significant proportion of the remaining intact coastal communities and reflect the habitat types historically occupied by beach mice. Areas not containing the PCEs, such as wetlands and maritime forests, were not included within the proposed designation. Field reconnaissance was done in a few areas for groundtruthing. We eliminated highly degraded tracts, and small, isolated, or highly fragmented tracts that provide no longterm conservation value. The remaining areas are proposed as five distinct units for the Perdido Key beach mouse, five distinct units for the Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and three distinct units for the St. Andrew beach mouse.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. An incidental take permit application must be supported by a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate the impacts of the requested incidental take. We often exclude non Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing operative HCP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated critical habitat because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As discussed in further detail below (see ``Application of Sections 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act''), we are proposing two areas for exclusion that are currently protected through Habitat Conservation Plans that provide protection and habitat management for Choctawhatchee beach mice.

When determining the boundaries of proposed critical habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and the St. Andrew beach mouse, we made every effort to avoid including within the boundaries of the map contained within this proposed rule developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack PCEs. The scale of the maps prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed areas. Any such structures and the land under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat. It is important to note that the maps provided in this proposed rule (see ``Proposed Regulation Promulgation'' section) are for illustrative purposes. For the precise legal definition of critical habitat, please refer to the narrative unit descriptions in the ``Proposed Regulation Promulgation'' section of this rule.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas are determined to be occupied at the time of listing and contain the PCEs which may require special management considerations or protections. As discussed in more detail in the unit descriptions below, we find that all of the PCEs in the areas we are proposing for designation may require
[[Page 74434]]
special management considerations or protections due to threats to the subspecies and/or its habitat. Such management considerations and protections include: management of nonnative predators and competitors, management of nonnative plants, protection of beach mice and their habitat from threats by road construction, urban and commercial development, heavy machinery, and recreational activities. Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

Critical habitat for the Perdido Key, Choctawhatchee, and St. Andrew beach mice includes habitat throughout the subspecies' ranges in Baldwin County, Alabama, and Escambia, Okaloosa, Walton, Bay, and Gulf Counties, Florida. Lands proposed for critical habitat designation are under private, local agency, county, State, and Federal ownership. For each of the three subspecies, a brief description of each unit, and reasons why it is essential for the conservation of the beach mouse, are presented below. Some units were not known to be occupied at the time of listing. However, these areas are essential to the conservation of each beach mouse subspecies for two main reasons. First, at the time of listing, beach mice were thought to be restricted to the frontal dune habitat and researchers did not focus on scrub habitat. Consequently, occurrence information of beach mice in scrub habitat was sparse even in the relatively recent past. However, scrub habitat is now known to be invaluable to beach mice and inclusion of this habitat in critical habitat is a main stimulus of this redesignation. Second, as the coastal dune environment changes dramatically through time, so do beach mouse populations. As dunes erode or build and habitat and food resources fluctuate, beach mouse populations respond accordingly, either through short or longterm movements, or through local extinctions. As habitat improves in the future, densities increase or beach mice recolonize the recovering areas. Because of this aspect of their biology, and the fact that so few natural areas remain, these areas containing PCEs where beach mice had not been detected at the time of listing are important to the subspecies' persistence. We have proposed only those areas that we believe to be essential to the conservation of the subspecies. For these reasons listed above, we propose areas that were not known to be occupied at the time of listing but contain one or more of the PCEs and are essential to the conservation of the beach mice.

Perdido Key Beach Mouse

We are proposing five units as critical habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse: (1) Gulf State Park Unit, (2) West Perdido Key Unit, (3) Perdido Key State Park Unit, (4) Gulf Beach Unit, and (5) Gulf Islands National Seashore Unit. Table 1 provides, by County, the approximate area (acres/hectares) determined to meet the definition of critical habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse.
TABLE 1.Areas Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse and the Area Proposed for Exclusion From the Final Critical Habitat Designation, if Applicable Area proposed for exclusion Areas meeting from the final the definition critical County, state of critical habitat habitat (acres/ designation hectares) (acres/ hectares) Escambia, Florida....................... 1116/452 NA Baldwin, Alabama........................ 148/59 NA

Total............................... 1264/511 NA

The approximate area encompassed within each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 2.
TABLE 2.Critical Habitat Units Proposed for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse. (Area estimates reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries. Effort was taken to remove areas without PCEs.) Local and Critical habitat unit Federal acres/ State acres/ private acres/ Total acres/ hectares hectares hectares hectares 1. Gulf State Park Unit......................... 0 115/46 0 115/46 2. West Perdido Key Unit........................ 0 0 147/59 147/59 3. Perdido Key State Park Unit.................. 0 238/96 0 238/96 4. Gulf Beach Unit.............................. 0 0 162/66 162/66 5. Gulf Islands National Seashore Unit.......... 602/244 0 0 602/244

Total....................................... 602/244 353/142 309/125 1264/511

As the Perdido Key beach mouse would be extinct without the aid of reestablishment programs (Holler et al. 1989; Service 2004a), the unoccupied habitat is considered essential for its persistence and all of the habitat being designated contains features essential to the subspecies. We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse, below.
[[Page 74435]]

PKBM1: Gulf State Park Unit

Unit 1 consists of 115 ac (46 ha) in southern Baldwin County, Alabama, on the westernmost region of Perdido Key. This unit encompasses essential features of beach mouse habitat within the boundary of Gulf State Park from the west tip of Perdido Key at Perdido Pass east to approximately 1.0 mi (1.6 km) west of where the Alabama Florida State line bisects Perdido Key and the area from the mean high water line (MHWL) north to the seaward extent of the maritime forest. This unit was occupied by the species at the time of listing. Perdido Key beach mice were known to inhabit this unit during surveys in 1979 and 1982, and by 1986 this was the only known existing population of the subspecies (Humphrey and Barbour 1981; Holler et al. 1989). This population was a core population and was the donor site for the reestablishment of Perdido Key beach mice into Gulf Islands National Seashore in 1986. This project ultimately saved Perdido Key beach mice from extinction as the population at Gulf State Park was considered extirpated in 1998 due to tropical storms and predators (Auburn University 1999).

Beach mouse habitat in this unit consists of primary, secondary, and scrub dune habitat. Because scrub habitat is separated from the frontal dunes by a highway in some areas, the population inhabiting this unit can be especially vulnerable to hurricane impacts, and therefore further linkage to scrub habitat and/or habitat management would improve connectivity. This unit is managed by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and provides PCEs 2, 3, 4, and 5. While a management plan exists for this Park, it does not adequately address the threats to beach mice. Threats specific to this unit that may require special management considerations include presence of feral cats as well as other predators at unnatural levels and high recreational use that may result in soil compaction, damage to dunes, and/or a decrease in habitat quality. This unit, which contains interior scrub habitat as well as primary and secondary dunes, serves as an expansion of the original critical habitat designation (50 FR 23872).

PKBM2: West Perdido Key Unit

Unit 2 consists of 114 ac (46 ha) i

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida 32405, (telephone 8507690552; facsimile 8507632177).