Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
United States Sentencing Commission
CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17
RIN ID: RIN 1018-AU46
NOTICE: Part II
DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Alabama Beach Mouse
DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 1, 2007.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are revising critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The revised designation encompasses approximately 1,211 acres (ac) (490 hectares (ha)) of coastal dune and scrub habitat in Baldwin County, Alabama.
SUMMARY: Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and Implementing the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of exclusions under the Act's section 4(b)(2), there are significant limitations on the regulatory effect of designation under the Act's section 7(a)(2). In brief, (1) Designation provides additional protection to habitat only where there is a Federal nexus; (2) the protection is relevant only when, in the absence of designation, destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would take place (in other words, other statutory or regulatory protections, policies, or other factors relevant to agency decisionmaking would not prevent the destruction or adverse modification); and (3) designation of critical habitat triggers the prohibition of destruction or adverse modification of that habitat, but it does not require specific actions to restore or improve habitat.
Currently, only 476 species, or 36 percent of the 1,311 listed species in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Service, have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,311 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, the section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative, nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. The Service believes that it is these measures that may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.
In considering exclusions of areas originally proposed for designation, we evaluated the benefits of designation in light of Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot). In that case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Service's regulation defining ``destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.'' In response, on December 9, 2004, the Director issued guidance to be considered in making section 7 adverse modification determinations. This critical habitat designation does not use the invalidated regulation in our consideration of the benefits of including areas in this final designation. The Service will carefully manage future consultations that analyze impacts to designated critical habitat, particularly those that appear to be resulting in an adverse modification determination. Such consultations will be reviewed by the Regional Office prior to finalizing to ensure that an adequate analysis has been conducted that is informed by the Director's guidance.
On the other hand, to the extent that designation of critical habitat provides protection, that protection can come at significant social and economic cost. In addition, the mere administrative process of designation of critical habitat is expensive, timeconsuming, and controversial. The current statutory framework of critical habitat, combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result, critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts rather than biology, and made at a time and under a time frame that limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other information required to make the designation most meaningful.
In light of these circumstances, 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.
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 courtordered designations have left the Service with limited ability to provide for 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 judicially imposed 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, and is very expensive, thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may provide relatively more benefit to imperiled 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
[[Page 4331]]
requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the
costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA;
42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). These costs, which are not required for many
other conservation actions, directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this rule. For information on the Alabama beach mouse (ABM), please refer to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2006 (71 FR 5516) or the final listing determination (June 6, 1985, 50 FR 23872). Previous Federal Actions
Information about previous Federal actions for the ABM can be found in our proposal for critical habitat for the ABM published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2006 (71 FR 5516). On August 8, 2006, we announced the availability of our draft economic analysis (DEA), and we reopened the public comment period on the proposed rule and provided the time, date, and location of our public hearing, as well as updated acreage for the critical habitat units (71 FR 44976). The reopened public comment period ended on September 7, 2006.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed critical habitat revision in the proposed rule published on February 1, 2006 (71 FR 5516) and in our August 8, 2006, Federal Register document (71 FR 44976). We also contacted appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested parties, and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. We also issued press releases and published legal notices in the PressRegister and Islander newspapers. Based on 12 requests received during the public comment period, we held a public hearing and information meeting on August 24, 2006, at the Adult Activity Center in Gulf Shores, Alabama.
During the comment period that opened on February 1, 2006, and closed on April 3, 2006, we received 13 comments from organizations or individuals directly addressing the proposed revised critical habitat designation. During the comment period that opened on August 8, 2006, and closed on September 7, 2006, we received 45 comments from organizations and individuals directly addressing the proposed revised critical habitat designation and the DEA. Between February 1, 2006, and September 7, 2006, we also received 4 comments from peer reviewers. Collectively, 36 commenters supported the proposed revised designation, and 16 opposed the revised designation. Six letters were either neutral or expressed both support of and opposition to certain portions of the proposal. Comments received were grouped into eight general issues specifically relating to the proposed revised critical habitat designation and are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and current Departmental guidance, we solicited expert opinions from six knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and/or conservation biology principles. We received responses from four of the peer reviewers. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
The peer reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat rule. Three of the four peer reviewers specifically stated that redesignation of critical habitat to include interior scrub habitat is warranted. Information provided by peer reviewers included suggestions for sampling techniques and population viability analyses that would better inform future ABM conservation efforts, as well as comments on how to best determine recovery following hurricanes. Suggestions were also made and language was provided to clarify biological information or make the proposed rule easier to follow and review.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers and the
public for substantive issues and new information regarding ABM
critical habitat, and addressed them in the following summary. Several
of the peer reviewers provided editorial comments that are addressed in
the body of this rule. Minor editorial comments on the Background
section of the proposed rule (not found in final rules) have been incorporated into the administrative record.
Specific Peer Reviewer Comments
(1) Comment: Two peer reviewers suggested that the ABM may persist
in areas outside of its present known range, including open, sandy
portions of Gulf State Park north of the scrub dunes and east of Lake
Shelby; additional scrub habitat within central and northern portions
of Little Point Clear; and sand dunes along the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge's (Refuge) Sand Bayou Unit.
Our Response: Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate
critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. We
agree that the ABM may exist in areas outside of its current known
range. However, we do not have trapping data indicating ABM presence in
these areas at this time. Both Little Point Clear and the referenced
portions of Gulf State Park have been trapped on occasion, or subjected
to qualitative tracking and habitat surveys (Sneckenberger 2001, p. 13;
Service 2003, p. 2; Falcy 2006, p. 1). ABM were documented in the
southern portion of Little Point Clear earlier this summer (Falcy 2006,
p. 1) but not in more interior areas. We are aware of one qualitative
survey in the Sand Bayou Unit where no evidence of beach mice was
encountered (Sneckenberger 2001, p. 14). Much of the referenced areas
are thickly vegetated, contain compacted sand, are isolated from
existing known ABM habitat, do not possess the requisite primary
constituent elements (PCEs) identified in the proposed rule, and are
therefore not found to be essential to the conservation of the species
at this time. 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 this reason, critical
habitat designations do not imply that habitat outside the designation is unimportant.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that it was inadequate to
limit ABM critical habitat to those areas known to be occupied at the
time of listing since much information has been learned about ABM distribution since then.
Our Response: 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 [[Page 4332]]
it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species. For the purposes of this designation,
we considered all frontal dunes within the proposed units to be
occupied at the time of listing. Since the ABM was listed, we have
learned that scrub habitat is also occupied by the subspecies and is
especially important to beach mouse conservation during and after
hurricane events (Swilling et al. 1998, pp. 294296; Sneckenberger
2001, p. 18). Scrub habitats were included in the designation if they
are presently occupied, support a core population of beach mice, and
are now found to be essential to the conservation of the subspecies
(contain PCEs 3 or 4 or both and are not highly fragmented, degraded,
or isolated). Areas where mice may exist, but are undocumented, or
areas where mice have been captured but that do not possess one or more
of the PCEs or that we have determined not to be essential to the
conservation of the species, were not included in the designation.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether there were
references indicating the PCEs are an appropriate and adequate means to evaluate essential requirements for species.
Our Response: PCEs are those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species, and within areas occupied by the species at the time of listing, that may require special management considerations and protection. Such requirements include: (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination, or seed dispersal; and (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species. Our knowledge of these requirements for the ABM is not absolute, but research and practical experience do provide us with information on physical and biological needs of the subspecies.
Frontal dunes have been recognized as being essential to the
conservation of the species since the earliest beach mouse research
(Bangs 1898, pp. 195200; Howell 1921, p. 239; Howell 1909, p. 61;
Blair 1951, p. 21; Pournelle and Barrington 1953, pp. 133134; Bowen
1968, p. 4), and were the main habitat type represented in the original
critical habitat designation (June 6, 1985, 50 FR 23872). Trapping data
continue to illustrate the importance of frontal dunes to ABM (Rave &
Holler 1992, p. 248; Service 2003, pp. 13; Service 2004, p. 16), and
therefore they are included in our PCEs (PCEs 1 and 2). Recent
research, however, has illustrated that beach mice use interior scrub
habitat on a permanent basis, and that this habitat serves an
invaluable role in the persistence of beach mouse populations during and after storm events (Swilling et al. 1998, pp. 294296;
Sneckenberger 2001, p. 18). The importance of highelevation scrub
habitat to ABM is reinforced by our observations of suitable ABM
habitat distribution and trapping records following hurricanes Ivan
(2004) and Katrina (2005) (Service 2004, pp. 910; Service 2005a, pp.
1013). Therefore, we incorporated highelevation scrub habitat into
the PCEs (PCEs 1 and 3). General research supports the effectiveness of
biological corridors (Beier and Noss 1998, p. 1241), and recent
population viability analysis work (TraylorHolzer et al. 2005;
TraylorHolzer 2005, pp. 5157; 2005b, pp. 2930; Reed & TraylorHolzer
2006, pp. 2122), general observations (for example, extirpation of
various ABM populations in Gulf State Park (Holliman 1983, pp. 125126;
Service 2005, pp. 69), and the City of Orange Beach (Endangered
Species Consulting Services 2001, pp. 13) suggest the importance of
functional pathways for ABM. Based on this information, habitat
connectivity was prominently featured in the PCEs (PCEs 1 and 4).
Anthropogenic disturbances in the form of artificial lighting (Bird et
al. 2004, p. 1435) and the support of nonnative predator populations
(such as feral cats) (Linzey 1978, p. 20; Holliman 1983, p. 128) are
known to adversely affect beach mice. We incorporated these issues into
PCEs 1, 2, and 5. Please refer to the ``Primary Constituent Elements'' section for full description of PCEs.
In summary, we based the PCEs on the best available information of
the physical and biological needs of the subspecies. Using the PCEs, we
have identified lands containing all beach mouse habitat types, lands
that provide only frontal dunes, lands that provide only scrub dune
habitat, lands that serve to preserve functional connections between
these habitat types, and lands, within the coastal dune ecosystem, that
maintain a natural light regime. We believe that these PCEs are based
upon the best available science, capture those physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species, and represent a
substantial improvement over PCEs from the original designation. We
believe these PCEs are an appropriate and adequate means to evaluate essential ABM habitat requirements.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer suggests that we should better
describe the effects of disturbance along the utility line corridor within the S.R. 180 (Fort Morgan Road) rightofway (Unit 2
description, 71 FR 5516, February 1, 2006, p. 5526) to avoid the
misinterpretation that all disturbance is beneficial to ABM.
Our Response: We agree and have addressed this in the discussion of Unit 2 below (see Unit Descriptions section).
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer suggests that feral cats should be
listed as threats requiring special management consideration or attention in all units.
Our Response: Feral cats were originally listed as threats in Units
2 and 5. Although we agree that the potential for feral cat problems
exists throughout the known range of the ABM, the special management
required under critical habitat addresses threats to habitat.
Therefore, control of feral cats is not specifically mentioned in this
designation as a threat requiring special management consideration or
attention. Currently, control of cats is required in all incidental
take permits involving ABM, and feral cats will continue to be managed as part of our efforts towards conservation of the ABM.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer suggests that the proposal may
underemphasize the importance of noncontiguous habitat because
dispersal likely occurs through inhabitable as well as uninhabitable habitat.
Our Response: The Act requires us to designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. ABM have been trapped
in a variety of habitat types including primary and secondary dunes,
scrub habitat, immediately adjacent to ephemeral wetlands, and along
sparsely vegetated sand flats associated with roadway rightsofway
(Service 2003, p. 2; Farris 2003). With our designation, we have
included all of these habitat types, and attempted to maintain
connectivity between them. Neither information in our files nor
published literature supports other habitat types as being essential to
the conservation of the ABM. ABM may use uninhabitable habitat such as
lawns, maritime forest, and permanent wetlands for dispersal, but we do
not have evidence of this at this time. These habitat types therefore
do not meet the requirements needed to be included in the critical
habitat designation. We recognize that designation of critical habitat
may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be [[Page 4333]]
determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. Critical
habitat designations therefore do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
(7) Comment: One peer reviewer stated (in reference to a comment in
the proposed rule, 71 FR 5516; February 1, 2006; p. 5521) that Oli et
al. (2001) did not provide any data supporting the value of multiple populations.
Our Response: Oli et al. (2001) performed a population viability
analysis for four distinct populations of beach mice, two of which were
ABM populations (Fort Morgan and Perdue Units of the Refuge). Their
results indicated that even the Perdue Unit population (the most
robust) was susceptible to extirpation when impacts from catastrophic
events, such as hurricanes, are considered (p. 114). Later in the
document, they addressed the importance of multiple populations for
beach mouse conservation and warned against additional fragmentation of
habitat (pp. 116117). While this work was a population viability
analysis that must be viewed with the appropriate caveats (for example,
Reed et al. 1998), we believe that it emphasizes the importance of multiple core populations and habitat continuity.
(8) Comment: One peer reviewer, referring to the proposed rule (71
FR 5516; February 1; p. 5517), stated that Rave and Holler (1992) did
not address time of activity, burrow location, or feeding habits of
ABM. This reviewer suggested Bowen (1968) or Garten (1976) as better references.
Our Response: We concur with this comment. Bowen (1968, pp. 24), Sneckenberger (2001, pp. 5152), Lynn (2000, pp. 3033), and Moyers (1996, pp. 2, 2526, 29) all serve as better references and collectively describe time of activity, burrow location, and feeding habits of beach mice. We have corrected our references. On the other hand, Garten (1976), addresses aggressive behavior in inland subspecies of Peromyscus polionotus and is, therefore, not applicable. (9) Comment: Three peer reviewers and several commenters expressed concerns over the exclusion of areas under ABM habitat conservation plans (HCPs) from the proposal. Many suggested that HCPs are often inadequate, are subject to frequent violations, and/or are less protective than critical habitat.
Our Response: Private lands may be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act if the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. In our view, legally operative HCPs covering the species, or draft HCPs that cover the species and have undergone public review and comment (pending HCPs), meet this criterion. The HCPs provide assurances that the conservation measures they outline will be implemented and effective, and the designation of critical habitat provides no additional benefits in these areas (species and their habitat are protected by the conditions of the incidental take permit (ITP) and section 9 of the Act).
There are 51 areas currently under HCP ITPs collectively containing
261 ac (105 ha) of habitat we have identified as essential to ABM
conservation (see Table 2). During HCP development, we worked with all
property owners to ensure that ABM impacts were avoided, minimized, or
mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Property owners with HCPs
have indicated that they intend to abide by their plan and those with
Serviceissued ITPs based on the HCP are required to comply with the
ITP. All permits and plans require controlling of cats and refuse,
planting with native vegetation, minimizing developed footprints, and
protecting habitat outside of approved footprints. In addition, many of
the ITPs require seasonal ABM monitoring, the development of ABM
interpretive materials, and the establishment of endowments for habitat
restoration. The conditions of the ITPs are legally enforceable, and,
therefore, ABM and their habitat are protected by section 9 of the Act.
Critical habitat has no additive value in this situation. In fact,
critical habitat, often incorrectly perceived to preclude development,
can adversely affect existing conservation relationships. We,
therefore, have found that the benefit of excluding areas covered by
HCPs on 51 properties outweighs the benefit of including these
properties in the final designation. Please see the ``Application of
Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act'' section for a more thorough discussion of HCP sites and critical habitat.
(10) Comment: One commenter, referring to information presented in
the background section of the proposed rule (71 FR 5516, 5518, and
elsewhere), stated that there are no known benchmarks for monitoring
ABM recovery because the habitat is always in a state of flux due to
hurricane impacts. The commenter suggested using preIvan ABM populations to gauge ABM recovery.
Our Response: ABM habitat is continually changing as a result of
coastal processes and impacts from tropical cyclones. The Service
conducted extensive livetrapping throughout the suspected range of the
subspecies in 2003 (the year prior to Hurricane Ivan) and found ABM in
areas where they had never been recorded (Service 2003, pp. 13; Farris
2003, pp. 15). These trapping data led us to produce the ABM habitat
maps (discussed in detail in Comment 13) and will be useful in our ongoing review of the recovery needs of the subspecies.
(11) Comment: One commenter, referring to the information presented
in the background section of the proposed rule (71 FR 5516; February 1,
2006; p. 5522), stated that they were not aware of data supporting the
formal definition of ABM population cycles beyond the seasonal variation that occurs on an annual basis.
Our Response: We concur with this statement, and it was our intent
to provide evidence for the existence of seasonal population cycles in
the proposed rule. Rave and Holler (1992, pp. 351352) describe the
seasonal variation in ABM populations at the Perdue and Fort Morgan
Units of the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, and Sneckenberger
(2001, pp. 4851) describes the seasonal availability of ABM food
sources in the primary and secondary dunes. ABM populations likely
fluctuate over a longer temporal period in response to tropical storms
and hurricanes, but this has never been described in the literature to our knowledge.
General Comments
Comments Related to Regulatory Burden and Private Property Concerns
(12) Comment: Several commenters feel that the proposed critical
habitat designation is a violation of their property rights. One
commenter mentioned that critical habitat represents ``condemnation
without compensation'' and believes that if land is designated, it cannot be developed.
Our Response: Critical habitat does not mean that private lands
would be taken by the Federal government or that reasonable uses would
be restricted. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land
ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. A critical habitat designation has no effect
on situations where a Federal agency is not involvedfor example, a
landowner undertaking a project on private land that involves no
Federal funding or permit. The Act only requires a consultation if
there is a Federal nexusthat is, any activity a Federal agency funds,
authorizes, or carries out that may jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. The
[[Page 4334]]
designation is a reminder to Federal agencies that they must make
special efforts to protect the important characteristics of these
areas. It does not allow government or public access to private lands.
We evaluated this rule in accordance with Executive Order 12630, and we
believe that this critical habitat designation for the ABM will not
have significant takings implications. We do not anticipate that
property values, rights, or ownership will be significantly affected by
the critical habitat designation. We determined that the designation
would result in little additional regulatory burden above that
currently in place, as the subspecies is already federally listed and
the areas designated are already occupied by the subspecies. Examples
of projects that have received permits within critical habitat include
two singlefamily homes in the Cabana Beach subdivision and the
proposed Gulf State Park hotel and convention center. We have also
conducted consultations on beach nourishment projects and boardwalk
construction within designated critical habitat. In all of these
instances, we were able to work with applicants and Federal agencies to
ensure that projects are completed while still conserving critical habitat and the ABM.
(13) Comment: Several commenters expressed confusion between the
ABM habitat maps (also known as blue maps) and critical habitat.
Our Response: In November 2003, after habitat assessments and an extensive review of trapping data and aerial photography, the Service completed ABM habitat maps. These maps, which currently depict 2,544 ac (1,030 ha) of potential ABM habitat, were used to show the public and local, State, and Federal agencies those areas that may be occupied by ABM, and therefore, to indicate where consultation may be required for Federal actions or incidental take permits may be recommended for private interests. These maps were made available to the general public and are on display at the City of Gulf Shores Public Works Department, the headquarters of the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, and the Daphne Field Office. They show areas with ABM habitat (where incidental take may occur) and were generated by the Service at our own discretion.
The maps associated with this designation are part of a separate
action. When the ABM was listed, we designated approximately 1,034 ac
(418 ha) of critical habitat, spread into three zones: (1) Areas south
of State Road (SR) 180 in the Fort Morgan State Historic Site and some
adjacent private land, (2) areas 500 feet (ft) (150 meters (m)) inland
from mean high tide from Kiva Dunes east to Laguna Key, including
portions of the Bon Secour NWR, and (3) areas south of S.R. 182 in Gulf
State Park. We are now revising critical habitat as a result of a
December 2004 declaration filed with the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama (see ``Previous Federal Actions'' above).
The revised critical habitat designation identifies the subset of ABM
habitat as depicted in the 2003 habitat maps that has those features
that, according to the best available science, we have found to be essential to the conservation of the species.
(14) Comment: Several commenters asked what additional requirements
designated critical habitat placed on individuals seeking ITPs under the Act.
Our Response: ABM are protected from take (by section 9 of the Act) and by consultation with Federal agencies on Federal actions (under section 7 of the Act), regardless of whether critical habitat is designated. When critical habitat is designated, Federal agencies, through the section 7 consultation process, must also consult with the Service on actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. For each section 7 consultation, we already review the direct and indirect effects of the proposed projects on the beach mice and currently designated habitat, and will continue to do so for revised critical habitat. A critical habitat designation does not create a separate process, and timelines do not change.
Our assessment of impacts to habitat is nothing new. In fact, we track the take of ABM through the loss of habitat and have always done this, even in areas outside of the original critical habitat designation, through the use of our ABM habitat maps (see Comment 13). (15) Comment: One commenter asked if designation of critical habitat would preclude an individual from reconstructing or repairing a house following hurricanes.
Our Response: Just as with previous storms, homeowners can rebuild their structures within their previous footprints without the need for consultation, permits, or mitigation. If a homeowner wishes to expand the footprint of the structure during the rebuild and this will impact previously undeveloped ABM habitat, we recommend that the homeowner apply for an ITP (regardless of whether the ABM habitat is designated critical). Please contact the Daphne Field Office (see ADDRESSES or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) for more information on ITPs and HCPs. (16) Comment: One commenter asked what would happen if a lot owner had received a ``clearance'' letter from the Service stating that no ITP was required but then has his or her property designated as critical habitat.
Our Response: Landowners requesting technical assistance from the
Service may receive such a letter if review of their project by Service
personnel (either through onsite or inhouse investigation) determines
that the parcel falls outside the boundaries of potential ABM habitat
(see Comment 13 for more discussion on ABM habitat mapping). When areas
are investigated and found to not contain ABM habitat, they are removed
from our ABM habitat maps. Because the proposed critical habitat was
based on these ABM habitat maps, it is not likely (though not
impossible) that lots with clearance letters appeared in the proposed
designation. If a lot with a clearance letter does appear, it may have
been an error, and we recommend that the homeowner contact the Daphne Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
(17) Comment: One commenter questioned why the Service is
designating critical habitat when we admit that we have found it to be of little value.
Our Response: While attention to and protection of habitat are
paramount to successful conservation actions, the role that designation
of critical habitat plays in protecting the habitat of listed species
is often misunderstood. A designation of critical habitat does not
create a preserve or refuge. It does not mandate funding for habitat
protection or restoration. It simply requires that Federal agencies
consult with the Service on actions that could adversely modify or
destroy designated critical habitat. Federal agencies are already
required to consult with the Service on proposed actions that may
adversely affect or jeopardize threatened and endangered species,
regardless of whether or not there is critical habitat. Furthermore, we
monitor the health of ABM populations through the loss of habitat,
regardless of whether or not that habitat is designated as critical.
Critical habitat does provide some nonregulatory benefits to the
species by informing the public of areas that are important for species
recovery and where conservation actions would be most effective.
However, because of the enormous time, cost, complexity, and potential
for controversy associated with critical habitat, we have found that
there is much more value to directing limited conservation monies to
listing new species under the Act, and developing cooperative agreements to
[[Page 4335]]
protect them. We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to
designate critical habitat and face a growing number of lawsuits
challenging our designations. This revision of critical habitat was
brought about by a petition to revise critical habitat and subsequent
legal action. This cycle appears endless and keeps us from focusing
scarce conservation resources where they are most needed. Nonetheless,
under section 4(a) of the Act, we are required to designate critical
habitat concurrently with listing a species as endangered or threatened to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.
(18) Comment: One commenter said that the Service was wrong in
saying that a clear ``Federal nexus'' (71 FR 5516, 5530) exists on HCP/
ITP sites. The commenter maintains that the only Federal involvement
that remains is the Service's ability to enforce ITP conditions.
Our Response: We used the term nexus (a synonym for connection or
link) to demonstrate that once ITPs are issued, the Service is still
involved in monitoring permittee compliance with permit terms and
conditions on sites and retains the ability to enforce ITP conditions.
We have rewritten this text and omitted the term nexus, which is
frequently used in section 7 consultations, to avoid any further confusion.
(19) Comment: One commenter stated that the habitat for this
species is under such pressure that, unless regulations protect habitat, it is likely that the subspecies will decline.
Our Response: We acknowledge that loss and fragmentation of habitat
is one of the main threats to ABM (71 FR 5516; February 1, 2006; p.
5518). Please refer to our response to Comment 17 for more information on the regulatory value of critical habitat.
Specific Comments Related to Suggested Alternatives to Designating Critical Habitat
(20) Comment: Several commenters believe that the Federal
government presently owns sufficient habitat for ABM survival and recovery.
Our Response: We have determined that 2,281 ac (923 ha) of land are essential to ABM conservation. Roughly 50 percent of this is public land owned by the Federal government. The majority of this (47 percent) is owned by the Service and located on the Perdue Unit of Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, but lesser amounts include approximately 30 ac (12 ha) of Refuge land within Fort Morgan State Historic Site and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) properties spread throughout the middle of the Fort Morgan Peninsula. ABM habitat in the Perdue Unit does not meet the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act because it is protected under the Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan (see ``Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section for more details). The remainder of the Federal lands identified as essential to the conservation of the species are included as critical habitat.
Of the various federally owned parcels on the Fort Morgan Peninsula, the Perdue Unit is the only Federal land containing all of the PCEs. It likewise sustains an ABM population. However, the Perdue Unit is just one of several ABM populations, and many studies indicate the importance of multiple populations to species recovery. 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 important conservation value for their adaptation to local environmental conditions and their genetic uniqueness (Fahrig and Merriam 1994, p. 50). Preservation of natural populations throughout the range of each subspecies is therefore crucial, as the loss of a population of beach mice can result in a permanent loss of alleles (Wooten & Holler 1999, p. 17). This loss of genetic variability cannot be regained through translocations or other efforts.
We believe that private lands are essential to the conservation of
multiple populations and therefore essential to conservation of the
subspecies. Two population viability analyses conducted on the ABM
support this theory. Oli et al. (2001, pp. 113114) suggest that when
hurricanes are considered, even the stable ABM population at the Perdue
Unit is at ``substantial risk.'' A Population Viability Analysis (PVA)
conducted by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (Vortex model)
likewise shows the importance of both total overall habitat, and
habitat continuity. Without dispersal among public lands through
private lands, the PVA results project the ABM to have a 41.2 percent
(21) Comment: Several commenters suggested that the ITPs issued to
Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands developments (but currently held in
abeyance) should have been excluded either because they do not meet the
definition of critical habitat in 3(5)(A) or they are eligible for exclusion under 4(b)(2).
Our Response: These developments have been excluded from the final
designation of critical habitat under section 4(b)(2) of the Act based
on their conservation efforts (including the habitat conservation
plan). Please see the ``Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section for more information.
(22) Comment: One commenter questioned why the areas south
(seaward) of ADEM's Coastal Construction Control line (CCCL) were not excluded because of the baseline protections.
Our Response: While it is true areas seaward of the CCCL receive
protection from the State, they do not qualify for exclusion under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act. There is no speciesspecific management
plan addressing ABM issues (see Comment 2 or ``Application of
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section for more
information on these criteria). Furthermore, many threats to beach
mouse conservation, including artificial lighting and extensive
recreational pressure, still persist there. Therefore, these areas have been included as critical habitat.
(23) Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Service should
designate only the conservation areas of sites with a Serviceapproved HCP.
Our Response: If an area meets our criteria for designating ABM
critical habitat (see Comment 2), then it is eligible for inclusion in
critical habitat. If the area is covered by a Serviceapproved HCP,
then it may be removed from the designation under section 4(b)(2) of
the Act if we determine that the benefits of excluding HCPs outweigh
the benefits of inclusion (see Comment 2 and ``Application of
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section). Developed areas
(for example, building footprints and parking areas) associated with
the HCP do not possess natural ABM habitat and are, therefore, not even
considered for designation. As such, it is specifically the
conservation areas associated with HCPs that are excluded under section 4(b)(2).
[[Page 4336]]
(24) Comment: Several commenters noted that the French Caribbean
development was not mentioned as critical habitat and maintain that it is eligible for exclusion under 4(b)(2) of the Act.
Our Response: The Service completed a formal consultation under
section 7 of the Act on January 20, 2000, with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACOE) for the French Caribbean resort. We issued an
incidental take exemption for all ABM within a 3.7 acre project impact
area. The wetland fill permit issued for this project expired in 2005.
However, the developers of Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands have
agreed not to pursue this project, and the French Caribbean site will
now be part of the conservation area in their HCP. It is being excluded
under section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see ``Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section for more details).
(25) Comment: One commenter suggested that conservation efforts
should be voluntary and involve partnerships instead of designating lands as critical habitat.
Our Response: The Service encourages voluntary conservation efforts
and partnerships that would provide management or enhancement of
habitat for threatened and endangered species. However, designation of
critical habitat does not influence the extent of conservation efforts
recommended for endangered species habitat on public lands. One benefit
of the critical habitat designation process is the increased awareness
to the public of the importance that public lands have for the species.
This often leads to constructive interagency discussions, creative
solutions to public use and habitat management issues, and strengthened partnerships.
(26) Comment: One commenter suggested that the proposed rangewide
HCP with the City of Gulf Shores should be excluded from critical
habitat under section 4(b)(2) to promote regulatory certainty and cooperative conservation.
Our Response: The State of Alabama was awarded monies under our Habitat Conservation Planning grants program to develop, in conjunction with the Service, a rangewide HCP for singlefamily home and duplex developments. The funds were provided to the City of Gulf Shores. This HCP is still in draft form and has not yet undergone public review. The draft HCP could potentially cover all future singlefamily and duplex projects on the Fort Morgan Peninsula (approximately 700 lots), and would substantially streamline the HCPITP process for this class of development. Existing landowners, and those wishing to add to their houses, would also be eligible for inclusion. Upon signing a certificate of inclusion into the rangewide program, landowners would be required to pay a onetime conservation fee that would apply towards ABM conservation projects such as cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) removal or the construction of boardwalks. The rangewide HCP would, therefore, provide more mitigation funding and options than traditional, individual ITPs.
While we acknowledge the City of Gulf Shores' efforts in developing this draft plan, we are unable to exclude it from critical habitat at this time for two reasons: (1) The plan has not yet been completed or undergone public review and (2) enrollment in the plan is voluntary, and there is, therefore, no way to know which landowners will choose to enroll (this is further complicated by areas having the potential to be rezoned to higher density development). The designation of critical habitat should not jeopardize the development of the rangewide HCP. The Service, in conducting its biological review of the rangewide HCP, will simply have to determine if the proposed project will adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat. We already have to determine whether or not the project will adversely affect or jeopardize the ABM, an action informed by analyzing impacts to ABM habitat, regardless of whether or not critical habitat is designated. We look forward to continuing our conservation relationship (and HCPITP streamlining efforts) with the City of Gulf Shores and working with it to ensure that the rangewide HCP does not adversely modify critical habitat. (27) Comment: One commenter suggested that the Service develop a procedure for exempting (excluding) future HCPs from designated critical habitat.
Our Response: Critical habitat is a rulemaking process, and any
future changes to critical habitat would involve additional rulemaking.
Because this is expensive and consumes large amounts of already limited
staff time, it is not practical to exclude every future approved HCP
case by case. We can only exclude those properties that meet our
standards for either exemption or exclusion under 3(5)(A) or 4(b)(2) of the Act before the publication date of this final rule.
(28) Comment: One commenter stated that the failure to exclude
areas from critical habitat will result in a more onerous (and far less
effective) Act by damaging relationships between the Service and the public and imposing unnecessary regulation.
Our Response: We agree that critical habitat is often misunderstood
and results in controversy (see our response to Comment 17). However,
we will continue to work with the general public and affected agencies
to recover the ABM and assist landowners with the environmental review
of their projects to the best of our ability. We are excluding 51 areas
covered by HCPsITPs from this designation (see response to comment 9
and the ``Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section).
Comments Related to Criteria and Methods Used To Designate Critical Habitat
(29) Comment: One commenter stated that the designation appears
arbitrary and questions how areas were selected for designation.
Our Response: We began our designation by determining those areas
known to be occupied by the species at the time of listing and those
found to be occupied since listing. This was determined by consulting
livetrapping data, published literature, the original listing rule,
and our ABM habitat map (see response to Comment 13). Within these
areas, we then determined the subset of acreage that possessed one or
more of the PCEs. This was determined through site visits, the review
of 2001 and 2005 aerial photography, LIDAR topographic data, and
hurricane storm surge models. We then removed any areas that were
highly isolated, fragmented, or degraded. After this, we were left with
2,281 ac (923 ha) of ABM habitat considered to be essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. After removing areas that do not meet
the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act
because special management is not needed, or that are eligible for
exclusion under section 4(b)(2), we arrive at the current designation
of 1,211 ac (490 ha) of critical habitat. Please see the ``Criteria
Used To Identify Critical Habitat'' section for more information.
Please note that not all ABM habitat meets these criteria. Many areas
that are small and isolated (for example, along S.R. 180 north of the
Perdue Unit), degraded by anthropogenic disturbances such as gravel
contamination, are highly fragmented or have light pollution (for
example, areas in the Little Point Clear Unit between the S.R. 180
corridor and the CCCL line) may contain mice, but may be population
sinks and therefore, do not have the features that are essential to the
conservation of the species. We are identifying the subset of [[Page 4337]]
ABM habitat that is truly essential to the continued survival and conservation of the subspecies.
(30) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed critical
habitat seems to be based on the Vortex population viability analysis
conducted for the subspecies, which has problems, including an unrealistically high estimated probability of persistence.
Our Response: Our criteria for deciding what areas would be
included in the designation did not involve the Vortex model directly,
but rather an analysis of trapping records in conjunction with mapping
tools (please see previous comment). However, the results from Vortex,
coupled with other PVAs (Oli et al. 2001) and published literature, led us to incorporate habitat continuity into the designation.
(31) Comment: Two commenters questioned how the exclusion of
habitat on the Refuge will not result in the extinction of the subspecies.
Our Response: In the proposed rule, we stated that approximately 1,063 (420 ha) of ABM habitat on the Perdue Unit of the Refuge was essential to ABM conservation, but did not meet the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act (71 FR 5516, 5529). We have reduced this area to 807 ac (327 ha) based on new tracking (Leblanc D., Service, Personal Communication 2006) and trapping (Falcy 2006) data, detailed review of 2005 aerial photography, and subsequent site visits. Much of the northwestern Perdue Unit is densely vegetated and highly fragmented by wetlands and cannot be considered essential to ABM conservation at this time. The 807 acres (327 ha) that we identified as essential to the conservation of the species simply do not meet the definition of critical habitat under 3(5)(A) of the Act. These areas are part of a National Wildlife Refuge that manages specifically for ABM conservation, and therefore do not require special management considerations or protection. They are available for ABM conservation in perpetuity, and their exemption from critical habitat has no bearing on the continued survival and recovery of the species. (32) Comment: Several commenters maintained that more habitat needs to be included, or that conservation is not just described in the Act as protecting the status quo but as eventually removing the subspecies from the list (recovery).
Our Response: Through this critical habitat revision, we have
identified all of the areas that we believe, according to the best
available science at this time, have the features that are essential to
the conservation of the species or, for areas not occupied at the time
of listing, that are essential to the conservation of the species.
These areas total 2,281 acres. Of this acreage, we are designating
those areas that meet the definition of critical habitat (see Comment
2) and that are not protected by secure habitat conservation plans.
Some areas that are occupied by ABM are not included in the
designation. These areas do not meet the criteria for inclusion and,
therefore, do not have the features that are essential to the
conservation of the species. The designation, when combined with ABM
habitat on the Perdue Unit of the Refuge and the areas excluded because
of conservation plans, represents the best remaining coastal dune and
scrub habitat in coastal Alabama, and those areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
(33) Comment: Several commenters requested that we remove our
statement that ``a benefit of excluding HCPs is to promote additional
conservation agreements and actions that we would not be able to achieve without our partners.''
Our Response: We believe this statement to be true. There is no
need to designate areas that are included in an HCP that provides
conservation benefit to the species. The designation of critical
habitat serves no additive value and can damage existing relationships between the permittee and our agency.
(34) Comment: One commenter questioned why only a small subset of
the acreage identified as ABM habitat is being designated as critical habitat.
Our Response: Not all areas where ABM have been captured meet our
criteria for inclusion into the designation. Please refer to Comments 13 and 29 for more information.
(35) Comment: One commenter maintains that critical habitat was
designated south of the CCCL and along the S.R. 180 corridor because it
was convenient. Several commenters questioned the value of the habitat south of the CCCL.
Our Response: Habitat was designated between S.R. 180 and the CCCL
within Unit 2 because it provides natural connectivity between two core
ABM populations: Fort Morgan and the Gulf HighlandsPerdue Unit. These
stretches of frontal dunes, scrub habitat, and open sand flats contain
less gravel debris, human structures, and artificial light than the
neighborhoods between the two eastwest pathways. Unit 2 was designated
primarily on the basis of PCE 4, while some areas also contain PCEs 2
and 3. Areas south of the CCCL, while overwashed and flattened by
multiple storms in 2004 and 2005, are recovering natural topography and
vegetation and provide both ABM habitat and eastwest habitat
continuity (PCEs 2 and 4). See ``Primary Constituent Elements'' discussion.
(36) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposal does not
explain PCEs in sufficient detail to allow their protection during the consultation process.
Our Response: The original PCEs for the ABM were defined as ``dunes and interdunal areas, and associated grasses and shrubs that provide food and cover (June 6, 1985, 50 FR 23884).'' We believe that the new PCEs contain greater detail, are more comprehensive, and represent a significant improvement over the PCEs from the original designation. They also incorporate disturbances from storms, allowing PCEs to be readily identified even following damage from tropical cyclones and freshwater flooding. We therefore believe the PCEs to be easily identified (under all conditions) during the consultation process. (37) Comment: Several commenters suggested removing PCE 5 on the basis that a natural light regime could be found in any location that is not developed.
Our Response: Excessive artificial light has been shown to be
detrimental to beach mice, and, therefore, a natural light regime is a
physical feature essential to ABM conservation. An area was considered
for designation where it possesses one or more of the PCEs and at least
one of the following characteristics: (1) Supports a core population of
beach mice; (2) was occupied by ABM at the time of listing; (3) or is
currently occupied by ABM and has been determined to be essential to
the conservation of the species. Therefore, no areas were identified as
essential to ABM conservation based solely on a natural light regime. Comments Related to Mapping
(38) Comment: One commenter asked how much of the Surfside Shores subdivision is within the critical habitat boundaries.
Our Response: We are designating approximately 75 ac (30 ha) of ABM
habitat within Surfside Shores. Designated critical habitat generally
stretches from the mean high water line landward to the wetland swale
located between Driftwood and Palmetto Drives, and from Kiva Dunes in
the east to Morgantown in the west. Housing footprints, driveways, and small areas or lots that do not contain one or more
[[Page 4338]]
PCEs are not included in the designation. UTM coordinates and general
maps of the designation are found below. Consult our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/daphne , or visit the Refuge headquarters, 12295 State
Highway 180, Gulf Shores, or our Daphne Field Office (see ADDRESSES) for detailed aerial photography outlining the designation.
(39) Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule should
have contained maps and details of the original designation, so that
readers could better assess changes between the original (1985) and revised designations.
Our Response: The original designation of critical habitat,
encompassing approximately 1,034 acres of primary and secondary dunes
and 10.6 miles (17 km) of coastline, was published in the Federal
Register on June 6, 1985 (50 FR 23872). Maps of the original
designation are in the public domain and, therefore, were not
reprinted. These maps were available for public inspection at the field office during both comment periods.
(40) Comment: One commenter stated that the area north of Adair Lane in the Cabana Beach subdivision did not contain PCEs.
Our Response: We visited Adair Lane and agree with this assessment.
Habitat north of Adair Lane consists of a wetland swale with intermixed
maritime forest dominated by young pine trees. We have revised the
designation in this area to include only those areas south of Adair
Lane. We also removed an area along the S.R. 180 corridor between
Veterans Road and Martinique that is actually maritime forest, and does
not contain the requisite PCEs. These changes resulted in approximately
10 ac (4 ha) being removed from the designation. Please see the
``Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule'' section and maps for more information.
(41) Comment: One commenter pointed out that a small portion of
land along S.R. 180 identified as not meeting the definition of
critical habitat because it is part of Refuge property is actually
private. Two commenters maintain there are plans to develop this
property, and, therefore, it must be included in critical habitat.
Our Response: We have reduced the area of the Refuge identified as
having the features essential to the conservation of the species from
1,063 (430) ha to 807 acres based on new information (see Comment 31
and ``Summary of Changes from Proposed Rule'' section). Approximately
20 ac (8 ha) of ABM habitat exists in the referenced area, of which
approximately 13 ac (5 ha) are in private ownership. This habitat patch
is approximately 0.4 miles (0.6 kilometers) east and 0.4 miles (0.6
kilometers) north of other areas identified as essential to the
conservation of the subspecies, and therefore isolated. We have
eliminated it from critical habitat. Trapping along the S.R. 180 right
ofway here in 2003 yielded no beach mouse captures (Farris 2003).
However, this area is still included in our ABM habitat maps (see
Comment 13) and any mice occurring there are protected under section 7
or section 9 of the Act. Impacts to ABM habitat there will still have to be reviewed by the Service.
(42) Comment: One commenter questioned our assertion that the
proposed critical habitat was spread evenly throughout the historic range of the subspecies.
Our Response: In the proposed rule (February 1, 2006; 71 FR 5516),
we suggested that critical habitat was spread evenly throughout the
historic range of the subspecies. This was in error. The critical
habitat is distributed throughout the western range of the subspecies,
with a small portion (Unit 5) being found in the center of the historic
range. Much of the eastern and central portions of the range no longer possess ABM or ABM habitat due to development.
Comments Related to SiteSpecific Areas
(43) Comment: Critical habitat designation along the S.R. 180 (Fort
Morgan Road) corridor would preclude utility companies from rapidly
accessing lines in the event of a water or sewer line break.
Our Response: Critical habitat designation would not interfere with
these activities. When critical habitat is designated, Federal agencies
are required to confer with the Service on any action (including
actions that agencies carry out themselves, fund, or authorize) that is
likely to result in destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. The routine maintenance or emergency repair of water and sewer
lines adjacent to Fort Morgan Road is not a Federal action.
Furthermore, utility line maintenance may actually benefit ABM
conservation by thinning out dense vegetation (see Unit 2 description below).
(44) Comment: Several commenters questioned why Gulf State Park
should be included in the proposal when there are currently no ABM and
the habitat is susceptible to flooding during hurricane events.
Our Response: Critical habitat in Gulf State Park represents the easternmost extent of the presentday ABM range. Gulf State Park was occupied at the time of listing, and possesses all PCEs except PCE 5. While ABM have twice been extirpated from the site (see Unit 5 description below) it nonetheless possesses the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Hurricanes are one of the main threats to the ABM (June 6, 1985; 50 FR 2387980; Service 2004, 2005). Because the ABM is a narrowly endemic subspecies restricted to less than 34 miles of coastline, one major hurricane could easily affect the entire range of the species. Impacts within individual hurricanes, however, can vary greatly in intensity, and wide fluctuations in storm surge and wave runup are possible depending on bathymetry, beach configuration, and variations in wind speed and waves within the storm. Protecting multiple populations, representative of the natural range of the subspecies, therefore, would likely increase the chance that at least one population within the range of a subspecies will survive episodic storm events and persist while vegetation and dune structure recover. The history of the closely related Perdido Key beach mouse clearly illustrates the need for multiple populations (a now potentially extirpated population was the source of the two remaining populations of the subspecies (Holler et al. 1989, pp. 398399)). Furthermore, Gulf State Park, which, although isolated, is capable of holding a selfsustaining population of mice due to its size, could prove important in the event of unforeseen threats to connected population
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Field Supervisor, Daphne Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at telephone 2514415181 or facsimile 2514416222. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800877 8339.
Common CFR Searches
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 26 CFR Part 1 50 CFR Part 679 40 CFR Part 180 47 CFR Part 73 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 26 CFR Part 301 50 CFR Part 622 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 50 CFR Part 660 44 CFR Part 65 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 14 CFR Part 23 14 CFR Part 25 21 CFR Part 522 50 CFR Part 665 47 CFR Part 76 27 CFR Part 9