2007 Federal Register, 72 FR 4330; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

[Federal Register: January 30, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 19)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4329-4369]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ja07-14]

[[Page 4329]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II

Department of the Interior

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fish and Wildlife Service

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Alabama Beach Mouse; Final Rule

[[Page 4330]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AU46

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for the Alabama Beach Mouse

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 1, 2007.

ADDRESSES: To review comments and materials received, as well as
supporting documentation used in the preparation of this final rule,
make an appointment during normal business hours with the Field
Supervisor, Daphne Field Office, 1208-B Main Street, Daphne, Alabama
36526. The final rule, economic analysis, and maps are also available
on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/daphne.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, Daphne Field Office,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at telephone 251-441-5181 or facsimile
251-441-6222. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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 decision-making 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, non-regulatory 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, time-consuming, 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 ever-increasing series of court orders and
court-approved 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 limited ability to provide for public participation or
to ensure a defect-free 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 Press-Register 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. 294-296; 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. 195-200; Howell 1921, p. 239; Howell 1909, p. 61;
Blair 1951, p. 21; Pournelle and Barrington 1953, pp. 133-134; 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. 1-3; 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. 294-296;
Sneckenberger 2001, p. 18). The importance of high-elevation 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. 9-10; Service 2005a, pp.
10-13). Therefore, we incorporated high-elevation 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 (Traylor-Holzer et al. 2005;
Traylor-Holzer 2005, pp. 51-57; 2005b, pp. 29-30; Reed & Traylor-Holzer
2006, pp. 21-22), general observations (for example, extirpation of
various ABM populations in Gulf State Park (Holliman 1983, pp. 125-126;
Service 2005, pp. 6-9), and the City of Orange Beach (Endangered
Species Consulting Services 2001, pp. 1-3) 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) right-of-way (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 non-contiguous 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 rights-of-way
(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. 116-117). 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. 2-4),
Sneckenberger (2001, pp. 51-52), Lynn (2000, pp. 30-33), and Moyers
(1996, pp. 2, 25-26, 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
Service-issued 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 pre-Ivan 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 live-trapping 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. 1-3; Farris
2003, pp. 1-5). 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. 351-352) 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. 48-51) 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 involved--for 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 nexus--that 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 single-family 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 on-site or in-house 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 non-regulatory 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. 113-114) 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
1.1 percent likelihood of extinction (Traylor-Holzer 2006,
p. 20). If all privately owned habitat between the public lands is
lost, the estimate of probability of extinction increases (Traylor-
Holzer 2006, p. 20). There are many limitations with population
viability analyses, and we must view estimates of extinction
probability with caution (Reed et al. 2006; Morris and Doak 2002, pp.
12-13). However, we believe that these estimates emphasize the
importance of core populations and habitat continuity. This maintenance
of both core populations and habitat continuity would not be possible
without the conservation of habitat on private lands connecting the
various federally owned properties.
(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 species-specific 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 Service-approved
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 Service-approved 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 single-family 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 single-family and duplex
projects on the Fort Morgan Peninsula (approximately 700 lots), and
would substantially streamline the HCP-ITP 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 one-time 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 HCP-ITP 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 HCPs-ITPs 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
live-trapping 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 Highlands-Perdue 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 east-west 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 east-west 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-
of-way 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 Site-Specific 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 present-day 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 23879-80;
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 run-up 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. 398-399)). Furthermore, Gulf State Park, which, although
isolated, is capable of holding a self-sustaining population of mice
due to its size, could prove important in the event of unforeseen
threats to connected populations on the Fort Morgan Peninsula, such as
disease.
(45) Comment: Several commenters questioned why areas of the S.R.
180 right-of-way south of the road were designated, but areas to the
north were not.
Our Response: The State of Alabama owns the S.R. 180 right-of-way.
State ownership extends 160 ft (49 m) both north and south of the
roadway centerline. Scrub habitat to the south is generally more open
and, therefore, more suitable for ABM. Accordingly, it was included in
this revised designation. In fact, several more open areas to the north
were also included, especially in the western portions of Unit 2 and
Unit 3. We have updated our Unit 2 and 3 descriptions to include
commentary on these small sections north of the roadway.
(46) Comment: One commenter stated that feral cats are a major
threat to ABM and provided an example of a cat population within Gulf
State Park on Perdido Key at the entrance to Ono Island.

[[Page 4339]]

Our Response: This comment refers to a problem with a feral cat
colony on Perdido Key, which is outside the range of the ABM and
involves the endangered Perdido Key beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus
trissyllepsis). The comment was addressed in the recent final rule
designating critical habitat for three Gulf Coast beach mice, which
included the Perdido Key beach mouse (October 12, 2006; 71 FR 60237).
We concur that feral cats are a major threat to beach mice. Cat
colonies may have led to the extirpation of Alabama and Perdido Key
beach mice (Linzey 1978, p. 20; Holliman 1983, p. 128). For this
reason, incidental take permits issued for ABM contain conditions
specifically addressing control of cats.

Specific Comments Related to the Draft Economic Analysis (DEA)

(47) Comment: Several commenters believe that the Service should
not take economic impacts into consideration when designating critical
habitat.
Our Response: Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical
habitat shall be designated and revised on the basis of the best
available scientific data after taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and any other relevant impact, of
specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may
exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based on
the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate such
area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the species.
In making that determination, the Secretary is afforded broad
discretion and the Congressional record is clear that in making a
determination under the section the Secretary has discretion as to
which factors to consider and how much weight will be given to any
factor.
(48) Comment: One commenter stated that the Service's failure to
release the economic analysis simultaneously with the proposed rule
frustrates the public's attempt to meaningfully comment on the critical
habitat being proposed.
Our Response: We acknowledge this concern; however, the Service
strives to keep the comment period on a draft economic analysis open as
long as possible to allow the public time to review and comment on the
draft economic analysis. The public was given a chance to comment on
the DEA concerning our proposed revised critical habitat designation
for ABM during our second public comment period from August 8, 2006, to
September 7, 2006.
(49) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service has
already made exclusions based on economics prior to the availability of
a DEA (and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act).
Our Response: The exclusions proposed under section 4(b)(2) of the
Act in the proposed rule were based on secure HCPs, not on economic
data. We did not have a DEA ready for public review until August 8,
2006, and the comment period on the DEA did not end until September 7,
2006.
(50) Comment: One commenter states it is puzzling that the Service
is imposing economic hardship in light of other Federal government tax
incentives (Gulf Opportunity Zone Act of 2005).
Our Response: This designation is non-discretionary and was in
motion well before the Gulf Zone Act of 2005. We have considered the
economic impacts of the designation.
(51) Comment: One commenter requests the areas covered by the
proposed rangewide HCP be excluded from critical habitat due to
economic reasons.
Our Response: Please refer to Comment 26. Because enrollment in the
proposed rangewide HCP would be voluntary, we do not know which areas
would actually be covered by it.
(52) Comment: One commenter asserts the DEA does not support
certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis should be prepared and reviewed by the
public.
Our Response: We have considered whether this designation would
result in a significant economic effect on a substantial number of
small entities. We have determined that it is not likely to affect a
substantial number of small entities. Federal involvement, and thus
section 7 consultations, would be limited to a subset of the area
designated. The most likely Federal involvement could include: Corps
permits, permits we may issue under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act
(ITPs), FHA funding for road improvements, and activities funded by
FEMA. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Please refer
to the Required Determinations section for further information.
(53) Comment: One commenter states the mission of the Service is to
protect wildlife, not give considerations to economic impact.
Our Response: Although economics may not be considered when listing
a species, Congress has expressly required this consideration when
designating critical habitat.
(54) Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the estimated
costs for Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands were overstated and that
this may result in the two developments incorrectly being excluded from
critical habitat for economic reasons.
Our Response: Section 3 of the final economic analysis (EA)
estimates impacts to the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands development
projects. The developments were analyzed in the context of potential
costs which they may incur as a result of ABM conservation efforts, but
they were not excluded for economic reasons.
(55) Comment: Multiple commenters assert that the DEA
underestimates the economic impact of critical habitat on specific
projects and the local economy, as described in a study by Klages
(2006). The Klages study is a report commissioned by private and public
entities with an interest in development activities on the Fort Morgan
Peninsula. The study estimates the impacts on the local economies of
Baldwin County and Gulf Shores, Alabama, that could be generated by
proposed development of properties on the Fort Morgan Peninsula
potentially affected by the proposed critical habitat designation for
the ABM.
Our Response: Section 3 of the EA provides a discussion of the
Klages study. As stated in Section 3 of the EA, the Klages study
provides useful context for understanding development activity along
the peninsula. Both the Klages study and the EA rely upon the same
information concerning the extent of developable properties and the
type of development that may occur. The Klages study and the EA differ,
however, in certain base assumptions and methods for quantifying
impacts. Most significantly, the EA assumes that development will
proceed, but that ABM conservation efforts will cause incremental
delays in development activities and land set-asides, or lower the
number of residential units, as well as produce other direct costs. The
Klages study posits that no development will occur on vacant parcels
within critical habitat designation, and then employs a form of input-
output modeling to measure revenue and other effects of foregone
development. In the Klages study, it is unclear what specific
properties are determined to be precluded from development. Therefore,
the specific study area may be different than the critical habitat
designation. These differences affect the impact estimates as follows:
First, the impacts identified in the Klages study are higher than those
presented in the EA. The Service agrees that, while potential impacts
on development are significant,

[[Page 4340]]

it is unlikely that all development activity would be prohibited within
the bounds of critical habitat. Despite these differences in absolute
impacts, however, the study and the EA are consistent with respect to
``relative'' impacts across different parcels and different types of
development. That is, development locations identified as experiencing
high impacts in the Klages study also experience high impacts in this
economic analysis. The same result holds for locations identified as
having relatively low impacts.
(56) Comment: Various commenters stated the economic analysis
should not be based on the Klages study because it was paid for by
developers and is, therefore, biased.
Our Response: The DEA is not based on the Klages study. Section 3
of the DEA provides a discussion of the Klages study; however, the DEA
does not use the information in the Klages study to estimate impacts of
conservation efforts for the ABM within critical habitat.
(57) Comment: One commenter states the economic analysis
overestimates the economic impacts of critical habitat. Specifically,
the commenter states no highway project will occur within the Highway
180 right-of-way, only a small number of projects will occur seaward of
the construction control line (CCL), and there have been no residential
housing units lost due to conservation efforts for the ABM.
Our Response: The DEA may overestimate the economic impact of
critical habitat because it looks at all the costs of conserving beach
mice. Some of the costs might occur even if critical habitat was not
designated. However, as stated in Section 4 of the DEA, Alabama
Department of Transportation plans to expand Highway 180 within the
right-of-way. As discussed in the DEA, it is likely that State Route
180 can be widened within the existing right-of-way on the north side
of the road with limited or no impact on ABM critical habitat, except
along one quarter-mile to a half-mile of road. Second, as discussed in
Appendix C, the DEA assumes no development will occur seaward of the
CCL. Lastly, Section 3 of the DEA estimates ABM conservation efforts
resulted in a reduction in approximately 66 residential housing units.
(58) Comment: One commenter writes the DEA underestimates the
economic impacts of ABM critical habitat on development because it does
not consider the stigma impacts on the marketability of property
designated as critical habitat; does not consider the impacts of a
potential reduction in the number of dwelling units which can be built;
does not consider the reduction of market value of loss of proximity to
beachfront; does not consider the alteration of amenities which can be
packaged with the units; does not give consideration to the costs
associated with delays; and does not consider costs associated with
permit application.
Our Response: We agree that an economic analysis should incorporate
costs associated with each of the categories referenced by the
commenter. As described in Section 3 of the DEA, the conservation
activities associated with the ABM may result in losses to developers
and individual landowners by imposing the following costs: (1)
Increased administrative costs to secure incidental take permits
(ITPs), including associated project delay costs; (2) on-site project
modification costs to protect the ABM; and (3) land value losses
associated with development restrictions, i.e., required land setbacks
or set-asides.
Ideally, a hedonic model of regional property values would be
employed to estimate welfare losses associated with potential
development constraints in critical habitat. This economic tool, that
is, a hedonic model, measures the influence of amenities, disamenities,
and regulations on land and housing prices and, in theory, could
provide a direct measure of the effects associated with critical
habitat arising from demand and supply factors (including the costs
described above). To utilize a hedonic model data on property sales
prices, structural and locational characteristics for the housing
markets in the vicinity of ABM habitat would be required. However,
these data are not available. Therefore, to estimate welfare losses
associated with potential development constraints in designated areas,
the economic analysis primarily relies on the direct compliance cost
approach to quantify potential impacts of ABM conservation on
development in critical habitat. To estimate losses associated with
increased administrative costs and project modifications, we contacted
area developers and other stakeholders to obtain cost information that
can be applied to existing and potential development activities in
units for critical habitat designation and areas proposed for
exclusion. Given available information, the compliance cost approach is
a reasonable method to determine the relative magnitude of conservation
effort costs across parcels within critical habitat.
(59) Comment: One commenter asserts that the Service did not
consider the economic losses associated with critical habitat in the
context of hurricane recovery, specifically recovery following
hurricane Katrina.
Our Response: The purpose of the economic analysis is to identify
and analyze the potential economic impacts associated with the critical
habitat designation for the federally listed ABM. Section 5 of the DEA
outlines estimated past impacts from storms. It is not practicable to
estimate future impacts of hurricanes for several reasons. First,
although some models are available to predict storm events, these data
are not sufficient to predict the likely human response to the damage
and conservation efforts for the ABM. Accordingly, this analysis does
not quantify costs of conservation efforts resulting from future storm
damage. Second, not accounting for potential tropical storms and
hurricanes is expected to have a downward impact on estimating total
cost of conservation efforts for the ABM. Most responses to storm
events will have little to do with the ABM critical habitat
designation. For example, dune restoration and protection efforts (for
example, beach nourishment) are a result of the storm event and not the
ABM; however, some additional efforts may be required by the critical
habitat designation, such as conducting a consultation. In addition, it
is important to note that some conservation efforts for the ABM may
result in dune protection to the extent that dune protection lessens
storm damage.
(60) Comment: Several commenters request an economic analysis of
proposed critical habitat for Planning District 25 only.
Our Response: As discussed in Section 1 of the DEA, the geographic
scope of the economic analysis includes all areas proposed for critical
habitat designation and areas proposed for exclusion. Therefore, the
economic analysis considers impacts that may occur within Planning
District 25 (Fort Morgan Peninsula) as well as outside this area (for
example, Gulf State Park).
(61) Comment: Several commenters state the DEA underestimates the
number of small entities in the development industry that may be
affected and the burden the critical habitat may impose on these small
entities.
Our Response: Because the Final Economic Analysis (FEA) is
prospective in nature, we are unable to identify the specific
developers undertaking projects in critical habitat in the next 20
years. The FEA assumes that project modification costs associated with
ABM conservation efforts (for example, onsite set-asides, minimizing
artificial lighting, and dune maintenance) will be

[[Page 4341]]

capitalized into the price of land and will be borne by the existing
landowner, regardless of whether that landowner actually undertakes the
development project themselves. Using the number of privately owned
developable parcels (or lots) that intersect the revised critical
habitat, approximately 137 landowners could be impacted by ABM
conservation efforts. Many of these landowners may be individuals or
families that are not registered businesses (for example, they may be
holding the land as an investment). No North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code exists for landowners, and the Small
Business Administration does not provide a definition of small
landowner. A lower bound estimate of the potential impact to small
entities would be to assume that all existing landowners are not
registered businesses, and, therefore, no impact on small entities is
expected. To develop an upper bound estimate of the potential impacts
on small entities, the FEA makes the conservative assumption that all
of the private owners of developable lands in critical habitat impacted
by future ABM conservation efforts will be developers. This assumption
is likely to overstate the actual impacts to small development firms.
The FEA estimates that less than two small developers may experience a
reduction in revenues of 2.8 percent each year as a result of ABM
conservation efforts in critical habitat. In addition, we acknowledge
that some subcontractors to developers may meet the definition of a
small business definition under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601-612) and may be affected by the impacts to development
activities from critical habitat designation. These subcontractors are
indirectly affected by ABM conservation efforts that directly affect
the project proponent (the developer).
(62) Comment: One commenter wrote the DEA underestimates the amount
of property that could potentially be developed as multi-family units.
Our Response: Appendix C of the DEA provides the methodology used
to determine the type of development likely to occur within critical
habitat. The DEA uses geographic information systems (GIS) software to
estimate the maximum number of potential residential units that could
be built in critical habitat under current Baldwin County, Alabama,
zoning regulations, and future City of Gulf Shores, Alabama, zoning.
Potential redevelopment areas are estimated using the 2003 study by
Volkert & Associates, Permitted or Potential Future Gulf-Front Multi-
Family Development Locations, Fort Morgan Peninsula, Gulf Shores,
Alabama. The Volkert & Associates study identified lands that can
physically and legally support multi-family development, irrespective
of current zoning. No additional properties are expected to be capable
of supporting multi-family development.
(63) Comment: Several commenters state the DEA does not consider
all of the alternatives for Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands outlined
in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for these projects.
Our Response: The DEA estimates impacts based on activities that
are reasonably foreseeable, which include, but are not limited to,
activities that are currently authorized, permitted, or funded, or for
which proposed plans are currently available to the public. Section 3
of the DEA estimates costs of ABM conservation efforts for the Beach
Club West and Gulf Highlands projects associated with the most
reasonably foreseeable project, the Preferred Alternative provided in
the DEIS.
(64) Comment: Several commenters assert the DEA only focuses on two
developments, Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands.
Our Response: The DEA estimates potential impacts on many
activities, including a wide range of development activities, road
construction and maintenance activities, tropical storms and
hurricanes, species management activities, and recreation activities.
Most anticipated costs are associated with residential and commercial
development (approximately 99 percent). Of these, 70 to 93 percent are
associated with the Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands projects.
(65) Comment: One commenter stated the DEA appears to be based on
the 2003 Volkert & Associates analysis. However, a 2005 study is
available and should be used.
Our Response: As discussed in Appendix C of the DEA, Volkert &
Associates developed a GIS layer identifying vacant single-family lots
within ABM habitat for the City of Gulf Shores Range-Wide HCP in 2005.
This information was used in the DEA to estimate the number of single
family homes likely to be developed under the City of Gulf Shores
Range-Wide HCP within critical habitat. In 2003, Volkert & Associates
developed a separate GIS layer to identify areas on the Fort Morgan
Peninsula that may legally and physically support multi-family
development (irrespective of current zoning). This layer identifies
parcels that are legally (for example, covenants, easements) or
physically (for example, wetlands) incapable of development. The 2003
data were used to estimate the potential for redevelopment as multi-
family within critical habitat. An updated (2005) version of this data
layer is not available.

Comments From States

Section 4(i) of the Act states that the Secretary shall submit to
the State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt a
regulation consistent with the agency's comments or petition. Comments
were received from the State of Alabama's Department of Transportation
(ALDOT) and Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR).
(66) Comment: ALDOT requests the exclusion of the S.R. 180 (Fort
Morgan Road) right-of-way from the critical habitat because of future
plans to widen the corridor to address increasing traffic volumes and
safety concerns.
Our Response: The S.R. 180 right-of-way is owned by the State of
Alabama and extends 160 ft (49 m) south of the roadway centerline.
Trapping data (Farris 2003) demonstrated mice occupancy along most of
the right-of-way from the Fort Morgan Historic Site to just west of The
Beach Club. These areas, which consist of high elevation scrub habitat,
low elevation scrub habitat, and open sandy habitat serving to connect
larger, more contiguous areas designated as critical habitat, are
important for east-west movement of mice along the peninsula. This area
is not covered under a ABM-specific management plan and, as such, does
not meet our criteria for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act
due to conservation plans. We have had discussions with ALDOT regarding
revised critical habitat and the widening project and will continue to
work with ALDOT to ensure that projects proceed with minimal impact to
designated critical habitat.
(67) Comment: ADCNR asked how the designation of critical habitat
would affect the sale and permitting of driveway easements on State-
owned land along S.R. 180.
Our Response: We recommend that landowners planning to construct
driveways through ABM habitat apply for an ITP from the Service
regardless of whether or not there is critical habitat (please see
Comment 13 for a discussion of the difference between ABM habitat and
critical habitat). Critical habitat only applies to Federal actions;
therefore, driveway construction would not trigger consultation with
the Service; however, since take of mice may occur, we recommend an
ITP.

[[Page 4342]]

(68) Comment: ADCNR expressed concern that the areas proposed for
exclusion from critical habitat do not match up with its proposed plans
for the proposed Gulf State Park hotel and convention center.
Our Response: In 2004, we approved an HCP and issued an ITP for the
upcoming demolition and reconstruction of a new hotel and convention
center complex south of S.R. 182 on Gulf State Park. ADCNR applied for
and received a modification to this permit in 2005 to allow for
adjustments to proposed parking lots and building footprints. ADCNR has
now applied for an additional permit modification to include moving and
rebuilding the pier that was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan, and slight
changes to its proposed design for the parking and hotel and convention
center facilities. The Service has attended several meetings with ADCNR
staff regarding project construction and the minimization of impact to
both existing and revised critical habitat. In its current proposal,
ADCNR has outlined plans for a combined facility that features state-
of-the-art, wildlife-friendly lighting and reduces overall ABM habitat
impacts by 2 ac (0.8 ha). We have modified this final rule to reflect
this second permit modification. Please refer to the ``Application of
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section and Map 6 for
more information.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

In preparing this final critical habitat designation for the ABM,
we reviewed and considered comments from the public on the proposed
designation of critical habitat published on February 1, 2006 (71 FR
5516). We likewise reviewed and considered comments from our
announcement of revisions to the proposal, the availability of the DEA,
and public hearing published on August 8, 2006 (71 FR 44976). As a
result of the comments and a reevaluation of the revised proposed
critical habitat boundaries, we made changes to our proposed
designation, as follows:
(1) We revised the critical habitat units based on peer review,
public comments, and biological information received during the public
comment periods. We adjusted the boundaries of Unit 3 to remove 10
acres along the S.R. 180 right-of-way immediately west of Martinique,
and in the Cabana Beach subdivision north of Adair Lane because these
areas do not meet our criteria for inclusion.
(2) We realigned or reduced the area considered to be essential to
the conservation of species on the Perdue Unit of the Bon Secour
National Wildlife Refuge from 1,063 ac (430 ha) to 807 ac (327 ha),
based on site visits, a detailed review of 2005 aerial photography, and
recent tracking and trapping data (see Comment 31). However, these
areas within the Perdue Unit still do not meet the definition of
critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act because they are
protected under the Refuge's CCP (they do not require special
management considerations or protection ) (see ``Application of Section
3(5)(A) of the Act'' for more information).
(3) Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we did not designate the
areas totaling 108 ac (44 ha) covered by the HCP for the Beach Club
West and Gulf Highlands because the HCP provides for ABM conservation
(see ``Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act''
section for more detail).
(4) We have modified the boundaries of the designation for Unit 5:
Gulf State Park to reflect its recent ITP modification. This
modification resulted in the addition of 2 ac (0.8 ha) to Unit 5 (see
Comment 68 and the ``Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act `` section for more information).

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, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means
to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer
necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to,
all activities associated with scientific resources management such as
research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
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. Section 7 is a
purely protective measure and does not require implementation of
restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat
within the area occupied by the species 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
data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs
of the species (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) of the Act.) Furthermore, when the best available
scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the
species require additional areas, we will not designate critical
habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
at the time of listing. However, 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,
typically be included in the critical habitat designation.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Act,
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), and
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; 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 data available. They

[[Page 4343]]

require Service biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and
with the use of the best scientific 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, a primary source of information is generally the listing
package for the species. Additional information sources include the
recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed 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 Section 515 of the Treasury
and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L.
106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines
issued by the Service.
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 are 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 call for a different outcome.

Primary Constituent Elements

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at
50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to designate as critical
habitat, we consider those physical and biological features (PCEs) 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. 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 required for the ABM are derived from the
biological needs of this beach mouse as described in the proposed
critical habitat designation published in the Federal Register on
February 1, 2006 (71 FR 5516).

Primary Constituent Elements for the Alabama Beach Mouse

Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known
physical and biological features (PCEs) essential to ABM conservation.
All areas designated as ABM critical habitat are occupied or essential
to the conservation of the species, within the species' historic
geographic range, and contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one
life history function.
This designation is designed for the conservation of PCEs necessary
to support the life history functions that were the basis for the
proposal. Because not all life history functions require all the PCEs,
not all critical habitat will contain all the PCEs.
Units known to be occupied at the time of listing are designated
based on sufficient PCEs being present to support one or more of the
species' life history functions. Some units contain all PCEs and
support multiple life processes, while some units contain only a
portion of the PCEs necessary to support the species' particular use of
that habitat. Where a subset of the PCEs is present at the time of
designation, this rule protects those PCEs and thus the conservation
function of the 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 PCEs for the ABM are:
(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 rainfall and/or
hurricane-induced storm surge.
(4) 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.
Each of the areas designated in this rule known to be occupied at
the time of listing has been determined to contain sufficient PCEs to
provide for one or more of the life history functions of the ABM. In
some cases, the PCEs exist as a result of ongoing Federal actions. As a
result, ongoing Federal actions at the time of designation will be
included in the baseline in any consultation conducted subsequent to
this designation.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

We are designating critical habitat on lands that were occupied at
the time of listing and contain sufficient PCEs to support life history
functions essential to the conservation of the ABM. In a few instances,
we are also proposing to designate areas that were identified as
occupied after listing, but that we have determined to be essential to
the conservation of the ABM.
Units known to be occupied at the time of listing were designated
based on sufficient PCEs being present to support Alabama beach mouse
life processes and at least one of the following characteristics: (1)
Supports a core population of ABM; (2) was occupied by ABM at the time
of listing; (3) is currently occupied by ABM according to Service ABM
live-trapping protocol (Service 2005, p. 2) and has been determined to
be essential to the conservation of the species. Some units contain all
PCEs and support multiple life processes. Some units contain only a
portion of the PCEs necessary to

[[Page 4344]]

support the ABM's particular use of that habitat. Where only a subset
of the PCEs are present, it has been noted that only PCEs present at
designation will be protected. Areas that are degraded, highly
fragmented, isolated, or otherwise considered of questionable value to
ABM conservation are not included. The Service has developed a trapping
protocol for establishing absence of beach mice (see ADDRESSES to
request a copy). In summary to document absence, this protocol requires
2 years of quarterly live-trapping with no beach mice captured.
Presence of ABM, however, can be 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.
Following the strategy outlined above, we began by mapping coastal
dune communities within the historic range of the species. These areas
were refined by using aerial map coverages, chiefly Baldwin County
aerial photography from 2001 and 2005, and LIDAR imagery (Baldwin
County 2004), to eliminate features such as housing developments and
other areas that are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of ABM.
We then focused on areas supporting ABM, as well as areas that contain
the PCEs for the subspecies.
Because ABM habitat is dynamic and changes in response to coastal
erosion, we believe that limiting the designation to areas occupied at
the time of listing would not yield sufficient habitat for the
persistence of ABM. The fragmentation of the species' historic habitat,
coupled with the dynamic nature of coastal dune habitat due to tropical
storms, makes multiple populations essential for species conservation.
Consequently, we are designating units that were not occupied at the
time of listing. These areas are essential for the conservation of the
ABM. In addition, however, they are also currently occupied by the
species, have one or more of the PCEs, and are within the historic
range of the species.
The combined extent of these mapped areas defines the habitat that
contains features that are essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. Although these designated areas represent only a small
proportion of the subspecies' historic range, they include a
significant proportion of the remaining intact coastal communities and
reflect the habitat types historically occupied by ABM. Areas not
containing the PCEs, such as permanent wetlands and maritime forests,
are not included in the designation. Field reconnaissance was done in a
few areas for verification. We eliminated highly degraded tracts, and
small, isolated, or highly fragmented tracts that provide no long-term
conservation value. The remaining areas, totaling 2,281 ac (923 ha),
were identified as containing the PCEs and essential to the
conservation of the subspecies.
We reviewed existing ABM management and conservation plans to
determine if any areas identified above did not meet the definition of
critical habitat according to section 3(5)(A) of the Act, or could be
excluded from the revised designation in accordance with section
4(b)(2) of the Act. Portions of the Perdue Unit of the Refuge are
adequately protected under the Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and do not require special management or protection. While these areas,
which total 808 ac (327 ha), contain the habitat features that are
essential to the conservation of the subspecies, they do not meet the
definition of critical habitat.
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 on the species 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 excluding 51 properties that are currently protected through
Habitat Conservation Plans providing ABM protection and habitat
management. These excluded properties total 263 ac (106 ha). One of
these areas, the development site for Beach Club West and Gulf
Highlands, was also excluded based on an HCP.
The remaining 1,211 ac (490 ha) of ABM habitat being designated as
critical habitat is divided into the five units described below. These
five critical habitat units, all located within the coastal dune
environment of Baldwin County, Alabama, are currently occupied by ABM.
Although these units represent only a small proportion of the
subspecies' historic range, they include a significant proportion of
Alabama's best remaining coastal dune habitat, and reflect the wide
variety of habitat types utilized by the ABM. The areas include all of
the contiguous high elevation habitats (as determined by review of
LIDAR data, storm surge model estimates, and post-Hurricane Ivan
measurements) crucial to the subspecies' survival during and after
major hurricane events. Because short-term occupation of habitat varies
in response to tropical storm activity, ABM presence will vary
spatially and temporally throughout the designated areas, and may be
unevenly distributed at any given time.
When determining critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort
to avoid the designation of developed areas such as buildings or
houses, paved areas, gravel driveways, ponds, swimming pools, lawns,
and other structures that lack PCEs for the ABM. When it has not been
possible to map out all of these structures and the land upon which
they are sited because of scale issues, they have been excluded by rule
text. Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas would not
trigger section 7 consultations, unless they affect the subspecies or
PCEs in adjacent critical habitat. It is important to note that the
maps provided in this rule (see ``Regulation Promulgation'' section)
are for illustrative purposes. For the precise legal definition of
critical habitat, please refer to the narrative unit descriptions in
the ``Regulation Promulgation'' section of this rule.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas
determined to be occupied at the time of listing contain the features
essential to the conservation that may require special management
considerations or protections. As discussed in more detail in the
proposed critical habitat designation (February 1, 2006; 71 FR 5516)
and in the unit descriptions below, we find that the features we are
designating may require special management considerations or
protections due to threats to the subspecies or its habitat. Such
management considerations and protections include: management of
nonnative predators and competitors, management of nonnative plants,
and protection of ABM and their habitat from threats by road
construction, urban and commercial development, heavy machinery, and
recreational activities.

Critical Habitat Designation

We are designating five units as critical habitat for the ABM (from
west

[[Page 4345]]

to east): (1) Fort Morgan, (2) Little Point Clear, (3) Gulf Highlands,
(4) Pine Beach, and (5) Gulf State Park. They are described below as
our best assessment, at this time, of the areas determined to be
occupied by the ABM at the time of listing that contain one or more of
the PCEs that may require special management, and those additional
areas that were not occupied at the time of listing, but are essential
for the conservation of the ABM because they contain one or more of the
PCEs, support core ABM populations and habitat continuity, and are
currently occupied. Table 1 shows the units that were occupied at the
time of listing and those that are currently occupied but were not so
at the time of listing. Table 2 identifies the areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat but were excluded from final critical
habitat based on their ABM-specific management plans or economic data.

Table 1.--The Units That Were Occupied by ABM at the Time of Listing or Are Currently Occupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occupied at Occupied Acres
Unit time of listing currently (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Fort Morgan............................................... X X 446 (180)
(2) Little Point Clear........................................ ............... X 268 (108)
(3) Gulf Highlands............................................ X X 275 (111)
(4) Pine Beach................................................ X X 30 (12)
(5) Gulf State Park........................................... X X 192 (78)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2.--Areas Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Alabama Beach Mouse But Were
Excluded From Final Critical Habitat Designation
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area excluded
Definitional from final
Geographic area areas (acres/ designation Reason
hectares) (acres/
hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dunes.................................... 10/4 10/4 HCP
Bay to Breakers.............................. 2/1 2/1 HCP
Kiva Dunes................................... 50/20 50/20 HCP
Plantation Palms............................. 2/1 2/1 HCP
The Beach Club............................... 15/6 15/6 HCP
Beach Club West/Gulf Highlands............... 108/44 108/44 HCP
Martinique on the Gulf....................... 10/4 10/4 HCP
Gulf State Park.............................. 235/95 43/17 HCP
43 Single Family Homes....................... 21/8 21/8 HCP
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total (Baldwin County)................... 453/183 263/67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3 provides the approximate area encompassed within each
critical habitat unit determined to meet the definition of critical
habitat for the Alabama beach mouse.

Table 3.--Critical Habitat Units Designated for the Alabama Beach Mouse
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local and
Critical Habitat Units Federal acres/ State acres/ private acres/ Total acres/
hectares hectares hectares hectares
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Fort Morgan................................. 44/18 337/136 66/27 446/180
(2) Little Point Clear.......................... 16/6 82/33 170/69 268/108
(3) Gulf Highlands.............................. 11/4 44/17 218/88 275/111
(4) Pine Beach.................................. 11/4 0 19/8 30/12
(5) Gulf State Park............................. 0 192/78 0 192/78
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... .............. .............. .............. 1,211/490
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the ABM, below.

Unit 1: Fort Morgan

Unit 1 (Map 2) consists of 446 ac (180 ha) and encompasses ABM
habitat in the Fort Morgan State Historic Site and private lands to the
east. It is located at the extreme western edge of the ABM range and
consists principally of habitat that was known to be occupied at the
time of listing (50 FR 23990; Holliman 1983, p. 126) south of S.R. 180
(Fort Morgan Parkway), with the exception of a single line of high
scrub dunes directly north of the roadway and within the historic site
boundaries. Much of Unit 1 is existing critical habitat that was
designated at the time of listing (June 6, 1985; 50 FR 23885). However,
the actual Fort and associated structures and developed areas that

[[Page 4346]]

were included in the original designation are not included in this
critical habitat unit. The unit extends from mean high water line
(MHWL) northward to the break between scrub dune habitat and either the
maritime forest or human developed landscape (for example, grassy areas
associated with Fort Morgan State Historic Site). The unit is bounded
to the west by Mobile Bay, and to the east by Unit 2 (western property
line of the ``Bay to Breakers'' residential development; see below).
The Dunes development and several single family homes covered by
Service-approved HCPs are excluded from this unit (see ``Application of
Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section).
ABM occurrence in the unit over time is well documented (Holliman
1983, p. 126; 50 FR 23990; Rave and Holler 1992, pp. 349-350;
Sneckenberger 2001, pp. 12-13 and 32-36), and mice have been captured
here following Hurricanes Ivan and Katrina (Endangered Species
Consulting Services 2004a, p. 2; Service 2005, p. 15). This unit
contains the features essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
Some areas of the unit contain a contiguous mix of primary and
secondary dunes, interdunal swales, wetlands, and scrub dunes (PCE 1),
whereas other areas contain high quality primary and secondary dune
habitat (PCE 2). While no one portion of the designated unit contains
all PCEs, all five PCEs are present within the unit.
Natural areas of the Fort Morgan Historic Site are owned by the
State of Alabama (Alabama State Historical Commission), but are
currently managed by the Refuge according to a cooperative agreement
(Service 2005) (see ``Application of Section 3(5)(A) and Exclusions
Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section for further detail on
management). Threats in this unit that may require special management
considerations include human-generated refuse, and degraded habitat
(from activities associated with recreational use).

Unit 2: Little Point Clear

Unit 2 consists of 268 ac (108 ha) and includes east-to-west bands
of ABM habitat and connections between habitat south of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management's Coastal Construction Control
Line (CCCL) (ADEM 1995, pp. 2-8 through 2-10) and along the roadway
right-of-way for Fort Morgan Parkway. This Unit is bounded to the west
by Unit 1 and extends eastward to the western edge of the Surfside
Shores subdivision (western boundary of Unit 3). The CCCL varies in
width but generally extends about 300 ft (91 m) landward of MHWL. The
Fort Morgan Parkway right-of-way, which is managed by the State of
Alabama (ADCNR) extends 160 ft (49 m) both south and north of the
roadway centerline. The designation includes the southern sections of
right-of-way and small portions of the northern right-of-way. In
several places along the east west extent of this unit, additional
parcels, either to the south of the Fort Morgan Parkway, or to the
north of the CCCL, that contain the PCEs (see Primary Constituent
Elements section) are included in the revised designation (see Map 3).
Several areas covered by HCPs for single family and duplex development
have been excluded. This unit was not part of the original (1985)
critical habitat designation. This unit is a mix of Federal, State,
local, and private ownership.
This unit, while often being inundated during storm surge events
(Service 2004a; pp. 12-13; ENSR 2004, pp. 3-5 through 4-1; ACOE 2001,
Service 2005a, pp. 14-15), represents the last remaining natural
habitat connections between ABM populations in and around Unit 1 and
Unit 3, and provides an essential link between those populations (PCE
4). Portions of this unit south of the CCCL contain PCE 2 and some
sections of the right-of-way contain PCE 3. While this area was
identified as being within the range of the ABM (50 FR 23872, Holliman
1983, pp. 125-126; Dawson 1983, pp. 8-11), we have no records that ABM
were present at the time of listing. However, pre-hurricane Ivan
trapping has verified the presence of mice south of the CCCL (Meyers
1983, pp. 5, 12-21; 50 FR 23872; Endangered Species Consulting Services
2004b, p. 2) and along the right-of-way (Sneckenberger 2001, p. 13;
Farris 2003). Because the unit is presently occupied and contains two
of the PCEs, and because long-term beach mouse viability depends on the
existence of more populations than were documented at the time of
listing, it is essential to the conservation of the subspecies. Habitat
south of the CCCL consists of primary and secondary dunes, while
habitat along the right-of-way consists primarily of scrub that is
often temporarily disturbed by utility line maintenance. Utility line
work results in a sparsely vegetated, open scrub habitat that still
provides forage and cover opportunities for mice in the area.

Unit 3: Gulf Highlands

Unit 3 consists of 275 ac (111 ha) in the central portion of the
Fort Morgan Peninsula. It includes portions of the Morgantown, Surfside
Shores, and Cabana Beach subdivisions, as well as portions of the Beach
Club West-Gulf Highlands development, BLM properties, and some
properties along the Fort Morgan Parkway right-of-way. It is bounded to
the west by Unit 2. The main portion of the unit generally stretches
from MHWL landward to a natural border of wetlands to the north. This
portion is bisected by ABM habitat associated with the Kiva Dunes,
Plantation Palms, Beach Club, and Martinique developments and is
excluded because of its HCPs (see ``Application of Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' section). The unit also contains an
eastward continuation of ABM habitat adjacent to the Fort Morgan
Parkway. This northern portion of Unit 3 is bounded to the west by Unit
2 and to the east by wetlands and maritime forest along the S.R. 180
and points east. Like the right-of-way corridor in Unit 2, it generally
extends from the centerline of Fort Morgan Parkway 160 ft (49 m) south
though a few areas of habitat north of the road are also captured. Unit
3 serves as an expansion, to encompass scrub habitat, of critical
habitat Zone 2 that was designated at the time of listing (50 FR 23872;
June 6, 1985). This unit contains the features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies; all five PCEs are present in varying
amounts throughout this unit.
This unit, combined with the neighboring Perdue Unit of the Refuge
and several properties with conservation plans that are being excluded
(see ``Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act''
section), contains the largest assemblage of high elevation habitat
within the range of the ABM (ACOE 2001, Plate 2-11; ENSR 2004, pp. 3-5
through 4-1; Service 2004a, pp. 9-12; Service 2004b, p. 6; Service
2005a, pp. 2-4). The largest tracts of contiguous habitat possessing a
full gradient of ABM habitat (primary dunes landward to scrub dunes)
are also found here. ABM occupancy is well documented both at the time
of listing (Meyers 1983, pp. 5, 12-21; Holliman 1983, pp. 125-126) and
recently (Endangered Species Consulting Services, LLC and ENSR
Corporation 2001, p. 22; Farris 2003). ABM were found here following
Hurricane Ivan (Endangered Species Consulting Services 2004, p. 2;
2004d, p. 2). Threats that may require special management include
habitat degradation and fragmentation, extensive recreational pressure,
post-storm cleanups, artificial lighting, predation, and human-
generated refuse.

[[Page 4347]]

Unit 4: Pine Beach

This unit consists of 30 ac (12 ha) including a BLM property and 27
private inholdings within the Perdue Unit of the Refuge that are not
managed under the Refuge's Comprehensive Conservation Plan. The primary
and secondary dunes within this unit were part of ``Zone 2'' of the
original critical habitat designation, which extended from the mean
high tide line of the Gulf of Mexico landward 500 ft (152 m). ABM are
well documented from the area both recently (Rave and Holler 1992, pp.
349-350; Swilling et al. 1998, pp. 289-294; Sneckenberger 2001, pp. 66-
69; Service 2003, p. 1) and from the time of listing (Holliman 1983, p.
126; Meyers 1983, pp. 5, 12-21). This unit, along with adjacent Refuge
lands and exclusions for single family homes covered by Service-
approved HCPs (see ``Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act'' section), contains the features essential to the conservation
of the ABM because of its high elevation habitat and continuity between
habitat types. It contains PCEs 2, 3, and 5, and when combined with the
surrounding Refuge lands, it also includes PCEs 1 and 4. Threats that
may require special management considerations on this unit may include
artificial lighting from residences, human-generated refuse that may
attract predators, habitat fragmentation from the design and
construction of properties (and access routes) to inholdings, and
primary and secondary dunefields impacted from recent storm events.

Unit 5: Gulf State Park

Unit 5 consists of 192 ac (78 ha) of ABM habitat in Gulf State
Park, immediately east of the City of Gulf Shores and west of the City
of Orange Beach. This unit retains most critical habitat designated in
the 1985 listing rule (Zone 3--all primary and secondary dunes south of
State Route 182) (June 6, 1985; 50 FR 23872) and adds approximately 30
ac (12 ha) of scrub habitat located directly north of S.R. 182. It
extends from MHWL northward to a natural boundary consisting of
brackish wetlands and maritime forest. ABM habitat covered under the
2004 HCP and subsequent HCP-ITP modifications is excluded from the
designation (see ``Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of
the Act'' section).
This unit contains a mix of scrub and primary and secondary dune
habitat, and represents the last remaining sizable block of habitat on
the eastern portion of the historic range of the subspecies.
ABM were documented from the Park in the late 1960s (Linzey 1970,
p. 81), but were presumed extirpated by the early 1980s (Holliman 1983,
pp. 123-126; Holler and Rave 1991, p. 22-25), because of habitat
isolation combined with the effects of tropical storms, predation
(primarily from feral cats), and competition with house mice. This area
was referred to as occupied in our final listing rule (June 6, 1985; 50
FR 23872). ABM were reintroduced to the park in 1998, and subsequent
trapping confirmed their presence there (Sneckenberger S., Service,
personal communication, 2005; Service 2003, p. 2). This unit was
heavily impacted by Hurricane Ivan in 2004 (Service 2004a, pp. 5-6) and
Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (Service 2005a, pp. 6-9), and recent trapping
has not located mice (Volkert 2005, pp. 2-5). This unit contains PCEs 2
and 3 and, therefore, possesses the habitat features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. Because this unit contains several
PCEs, because it is presently occupied, and because ABM recovery
depends on more populations than were documented at the time of
listing, it is essential to the conservation of the subspecies.
This unit is State-owned and managed by the State Parks Division of
the ADCNR. It has pressures from heavy recreational use and ABM habitat
here has been severely impacted by recent hurricanes. Threats to ABM
habitat include loss of dune topography and vegetation from habitat
destruction, human-generated refuse that could attract predators, and
artificial lighting. Habitat fragmentation also threatens ABM within
this unit.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our
regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse
modification as ``a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably
diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and
recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not
limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or
biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to
be critical.'' However, recent decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals have invalidated this definition. Pursuant to current
national policy and the statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or
adverse modification is determined on the basis of whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would remain functional (or retain the current ability for the
primary constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve
the intended conservation role for the species.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is
proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its
critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are
codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with
us on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse modification
of designated critical habitat. This is a procedural requirement only.
However, once a proposed species becomes listed, or proposed critical
habitat is designated as final, the full prohibitions of section
7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The primary utility of the
conference procedures is to maximize the opportunity for a Federal
agency to adequately consider proposed species and critical habitat and
avoid potential delays in implementing their proposed action because of
the section 7(a)(2) compliance process, should those species be listed
or the critical habitat designated.
Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory
conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating
conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may
conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are
typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse
effects to the proposed species or critical habitat. Formal conferences
are typically used when the Federal agency or the Service believes the
proposed action is likely to cause adverse effects to proposed species
or critical habitat, inclusive of those that may cause jeopardy or
adverse modification.
The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in
a conference report; while the results of a formal conference are
typically transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on
proposed critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR
402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were designated. We may
adopt

[[Page 4348]]

the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the critical
habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or changes in
the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). As
noted above, any conservation recommendations in a conference report or
opinion are strictly advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section
7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency)
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation,
compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will be documented
through the Service's issuance of: (1) a concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat; or (2) a biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, and are likely to adversely affect, listed
species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable.
``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as
alternative actions identified during consultation that can be
implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the
action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's
legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and
technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid
jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from
slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the
project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent
alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new
species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action or such discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal
agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions
for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may
affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or
adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat. We anticipate
that at least one consultation will have to be reinitiated as a result
of this designation.
Federal activities that may affect ABM or their designated critical
habitat will require section 7 consultation under the Act. Activities
on State, Tribal, local or private lands requiring a Federal permit
(such as a permit from the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act or a permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service)
or involving some other Federal action (such as funding from the
Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the
Federal Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the
section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local or
private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted,
do not require section 7 consultations.

Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards for
Actions Involving Effects to the Alabama Beach Mouse and Its Critical
Habitat

Jeopardy Standard
Prior to and following designation of critical habitat, the Service
has applied an analytical framework for ABM jeopardy analyses that
relies heavily on the importance of core area populations and
connectivity to mouse survival and recovery. The section 7(a)(2)
analysis is focused not only on these populations but also on the
habitat conditions necessary to support them.
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery
needs of Alabama beach mice in a qualitative fashion without making
distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is
necessary for recovery. Generally, if a proposed Federal action is
incompatible with the viability of the affected core area
population(s), inclusive of associated habitat conditions, a jeopardy
finding is considered to be warranted, because of the relationship of
each core area population to the survival and recovery of the species
as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
The analytical framework described in the Director's December 9,
2004, memorandum is used to complete section 7(a)(2) analyses for
Federal actions affecting ABM critical habitat. The key factor related
to the adverse modification determination is whether, with
implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would remain functional (or retain the current ability for the
primary constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve
the intended conservation role for the species. Generally, the
conservation role of ABM critical habitat units is to support viable
core area populations.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat
are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value
of critical habitat for Alabama beach mice is appreciably reduced.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal
agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result in
consultation for Alabama beach mice include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter dune structure or the
degree of soil compaction. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, permanent conversion of ABM habitat for residential or
commercial purposes, excessive foot traffic, and heavy use of
construction, utility, or off-road vehicles in beach mouse habitat.
These activities, even if temporary, could alter burrow construction,
reduce the availability of potential burrow sites, and degrade or
destroy beach mouse habitat.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter the natural vegetation
of the coastal dune community. Such activities could include, but are
not limited to, allowing nonnative species to establish in the area,
landscaping with grass or other nonindigenous plants, and landscaping
that yields excessive leaf litter, mulch, or other foreign materials.
These activities could alter beach mouse foraging activities and
degrade or destroy beach mouse habitat.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter natural lighting. Such
activities could include, but are not limited to,

[[Page 4349]]

allowing artificial lighting that does not comply with wildlife-
friendly lighting specifications. These activities could alter beach
mouse foraging activities, increase predation upon beach mice, and
reduce the use of otherwise suitable beach mouse habitat.
(4) Activities that eliminate or degrade movement within and among
designated critical habitat units. Actions such as bulkhead, canal,
ditch, and wall construction; the permanent conversion of beach mouse
habitat to residential or commercial development; changing of water
elevations or flooding; the removal of vegetation; and excessive
artificial lighting could effectively block east-west or north-south
corridors among various habitat types, and, therefore, isolate habitat.
The five critical habitat units are currently occupied by the
subspecies, based on trapping data, our 2003 habitat map, and Service
trapping protocol (Service 2005b, p. 2). All of the units included in
this designation contain the features that are essential to the
conservation of the ABM or are found to be essential for the
conservation of the subspecies. Federal agencies already consult with
us on activities in areas currently occupied by the ABM. If ABM may be
affected by proposed actions, Federal agencies consult with us to
ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of
ABM. This happens regardless of whether or not critical habitat is
designated.
Application of Section 3(5)(A) of the Act
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are
found those physical and biological features (i) essential to the
conservation of the species, and (ii) which may require special
management considerations or protection. Therefore, areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species that do not contain the
features essential to the conservation of the species are not, by
definition, critical habitat. Similarly, areas within the geographic
area occupied by the species that require no special management or
protection also are not, by definition, critical habitat.

Perdue and Fort Morgan Units of the Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge

The Refuge finalized its Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) in
November 2005. This document details proposed conservation actions for
the Refuge over a 15-year period, and outlines three objectives
(implement monitoring protocol and manage beach and scrub habitat for
the ABM) and two projects (standardize surveys and manage and evaluate
scrub habitat for the ABM) that specifically address the subspecies.
Many other objectives (for example, predator management plan) and
projects (for example, develop biological database) would also benefit
ABM. The Service has a statutory mandate to manage the refuge for the
conservation of listed species, and the CCP provides a detailed
implementation plan. We believe that the CCP provides a substantial
conservation benefit to the subspecies, and there are reasonable
assurances that it will be implemented properly and in an effective
fashion within portions of the Perdue Unit of the Refuge that contain
the PCEs for the ABM. Furthermore, the Refuge, especially on the Perdue
Unit, has demonstrated its resolve for ABM conservation by continually
engaging in dune restoration activities (including following Hurricanes
Ivan and Katrina) and semi-annual ABM trapping, and through outreach
and education. Accordingly, we believe that the Perdue Unit of the
Refuge does not meet the definition of critical habitat under section
3(5)(A) of the Act because a secure management plan is already in place
to provide for the conservation of the ABM, and no special management
or protection will be required.
The Service also either owns or manages 510 ac (206 ha) of coastal
dune habitat, most of which is occupied by ABM, within the boundaries
of the Fort Morgan State Historic Site. These lands, collectively, are
referred to as the Fort Morgan Unit of the Refuge, but are within the
Historic Site. Of the 510 ac, approximately 480 ac (194 ha) are owned
by the State but are managed by the Service through a cooperative
management agreement with the Alabama Historical Commission. While the
CCP outlines proposed management activities within the Fort Morgan
Unit, we do not know whether the cooperative management agreement will
be modified or terminated in the future and, therefore, if the
conservation plan outlined within the CCP will be implemented. Areas
containing the PCEs within these State-owned lands (and the
approximately 30 ac (12 ha) of Federal land imbedded within them),
therefore, may require special management or protection, and are being
designated as critical habitat.

Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

There are multiple ways to provide management for species habitat.
Statutory and regulatory frameworks that exist at a local level can
provide such protection and management, as can lack of pressure for
change, such as areas too remote for anthropogenic disturbance. State,
local, or private management plans, as well as management under Federal
agencies' jurisdictions, can provide protection and management to avoid
the need for designation of critical habitat. When we consider a plan
to determine its adequacy in protecting habitat, we consider whether
the plan, as a whole, will provide the same level of protection that
designation of critical habitat would provide. The plan need not lead
to exactly the same result as a designation in every individual
application, as long as the protection it provides is equivalent,
overall. In making this determination, we examine whether the plan
provides management, protection, or enhancement of the PCEs that is at
least equivalent to that provided by a critical habitat designation,
and whether there is a reasonable expectation that the management,
protection, or enhancement actions will continue into the foreseeable
future. Each review is particular to the species and the plan, and some
plans may be adequate for some species and inadequate for others.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that critical habitat shall be
designated, and revised, on the basis of the best available scientific
data after taking into consideration the economic impact, national
security impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an area
from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the Secretary is afforded broad discretion, and the
Congressional record is clear that, in making a determination under the
section, the Secretary has discretion as to which factors and how much
weight will be given to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude
a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits
of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation, determine whether the benefits
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If an exclusion is
contemplated, then we must determine whether excluding the area would
result in the extinction of the species. In the

[[Page 4350]]

following sections, we address a number of general issues that are
relevant to the exclusions we considered.

Conservation Partnerships on Non-Federal Lands

Most federally listed species in the United States will not recover
without the cooperation of non-Federal landowners. More than 60 percent
of the United States is privately owned (EPA 2003, p. 3-3) and at least
80 percent of endangered or threatened species occur either partially
or solely on private lands (USGAO 1995, p. 4). Stein et al. (1995)
found that only about 12 percent of listed species were found almost
exclusively on Federal lands (90 to 100 percent of their known
occurrences restricted to Federal lands) and that 50 percent of
federally listed species are not known to occur on Federal lands at
all.
Given the distribution of listed species with respect to land
ownership, conservation of listed species in many parts of the United
States is dependent upon working partnerships with a wide variety of
entities and the voluntary cooperation of many non-Federal landowners
(Wilcove and Chen 1998; Crouse et al. 2002; James 2002). Building
partnerships and promoting voluntary cooperation of landowners is
essential to understanding the status of species on non-Federal lands
and is necessary to implement recovery actions such as reintroducing
listed species, habitat restoration, and habitat protection.
Many non-Federal landowners derive satisfaction in contributing to
endangered species recovery. The Service promotes these private-sector
efforts through the Four Cs philosophy--conservation through
communication, consultation, and cooperation. This philosophy is
evident in Service programs such as HCPs, Safe Harbor Agreements,
Candidate Conservation Agreements, Candidate Conservation Agreements
with Assurances, and conservation challenge cost-share. Many private
landowners, however, are wary of the possible consequences of
encouraging endangered species to their property, and there is mounting
evidence that some regulatory actions by the Federal government, while
well-intentioned and required by law, can (under certain circumstances)
have unintended negative consequences for the conservation of species
on private lands (Wilcove et al. 1996; Bean 2002; Conner and Mathews
2002; James 2002; Koch 2002; Brook et al. 2003). Many landowners fear a
decline in their property value due to real or perceived restrictions
on land-use options where threatened or endangered species are found as
illustrated by some of the public comments received on this proposal.
Consequently, harboring endangered species is viewed by many landowners
as a liability, resulting in anti-conservation incentives because
maintaining habitats that harbor endangered species represents a risk
to future economic opportunities (Main et al. 1999; Brook et al. 2003).
The purpose of designating critical habitat is to contribute to the
conservation of threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems
upon which they depend. The outcome of the designation, triggering
regulatory requirements for actions funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies under section 7 of the Act, can sometimes be
counterproductive to its intended purpose on non-Federal lands.
According to some researchers, the designation of critical habitat on
private lands significantly reduces the likelihood that landowners will
support and carry out conservation actions (Main et al. 1999; Bean
2002; Brook et al. 2003). The magnitude of this negative outcome is
greatly amplified in situations where active management measures (for
example, reintroduction, fire management, control of invasive species)
are necessary for species conservation (Bean 2002).
The Service believes that the judicious use of excluding specific
areas of non-federally owned lands from critical habitat designations
can contribute to species recovery and provide a superior level of
conservation than critical habitat alone.
The Department of the Interior's Four C's philosophy of
conservation through communication, consultation, and cooperation is
the foundation for developing the tools of conservation. These tools
include conservation grants, funding for Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, the Coastal Program, and cooperative-conservation challenge
cost-share grants. Our Private Stewardship Grant program and Landowner
Incentive Program provide assistance to private landowners in their
voluntary efforts to protect threatened, imperiled, and endangered
species, including the development and implementation of HCPs.
Conservation agreements with non-Federal landowners (for example,
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs), contractual conservation agreements,
easements, and stakeholder-negotiated State regulations) enhance
species conservation by extending species protections beyond those
available through section 7 consultations. In the past decade, we have
encouraged non-Federal landowners to enter into conservation
agreements, based on a view that we can achieve greater species
conservation on non-Federal land through such partnerships than we can
through coercive methods (61 FR 63854; December 2, 1996).

Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue to non-
Federal entities a permit for the incidental take of endangered and
threatened species. This permit allows a non-Federal landowner to
proceed with an activity that is legal in all other respects, but that
results in the incidental taking of a listed species (take that is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise
lawful activity). The Act specifies that an application for an
incidental take permit must be accompanied by a habitat conservation
plan, and specifies the content of such a plan. The purpose of
conservation plans is to describe and ensure that the effects of the
permitted action on covered species are adequately minimized and
mitigated, and that the action does not appreciably reduce the survival
and recovery of the species. There are currently 51 HCP sites
containing habitat we have identified as essential to the ABM
conservation (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat''
section). These include HCPs for 7 multifamily developments, 1 hotel
and convention center complex, and 43 single family homes.
The completed HCPs and the associated ITPs issued by the Service
contain management measures and protections for identified areas that
protect, restore, and enhance the value of these lands as habitat for
ABM. These measures include explicit standards to minimize any impacts
to the ABM and its habitat. In general, HCPs are designed to ensure
that the value of the conservation lands are maintained, expanded, and
improved for covered species.
For HCPs that have been already approved, we have provided
assurances to permit holders that once the protection and management
required under the plans are in place and for as long as the permit
holders are fulfilling their obligations under the plans, no additional
mitigation in the form of land or financial compensation will be
required of the permit holders and, in some cases, specified third
parties.
A discussion of all HCP sites that we have identified as essential
for the conservation of the subspecies follows.

[[Page 4351]]

Multifamily Developments With HCPs and Issued ITPs

HCPs for six multifamily developments along the Fort Morgan
Peninsula were approved between 1994 and 1996. These developments
include, from west to east, The Dunes, Bay to Breakers, Kiva Dunes,
Plantation Palms, The Beach Club, and Martinique, all of which were
issued 30-year ITPs by the Service. The HCPs covering the properties
are almost identical and consist of setting aside primary and secondary
dune habitat in perpetuity, and the construction of dune walkovers
within protected areas to minimize pedestrian impact to habitat. These
HCPs also require the use of native plants in landscaping, control of
domestic and feral cats, interpretive signage, minimal outdoor
lighting, trapping surveys, and annual reports. HCPs for The Beach Club
and Martinique developments also include the creation of endowment
funds for use in future ABM conservation activities (such as research
or habitat restoration). All of these properties have been developed as
permitted or are nearing completion, and the areas within the
properties that we have identified as containing the features that are
essential to the conservation of the ABM consist of the acreage set
aside as ABM conservation zones (see Table 2 above). Most of these
conservation zones were designated as critical habitat at the time ABM
was listed on June 6, 1985 (50 FR 23885).
On the basis of the conservation benefits afforded the ABM from the
referenced HCPs and the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
exclude from critical habitat the areas on these properties that
contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the
subspecies. We have further determined that the exclusion from critical
habitat of these areas would not result in the extinction of the ABM.
The rationale for this determination is below (see ``Benefits of
Exclusion of 51 Areas Protected by Service-Approved HCPs'').

Proposed Beach Club West and Gulf Highlands Developments

These projects consist of several proposed condominium towers and
associated amenities. We were first approached by the proponents of
Gulf Highlands in 1995 (and proponents of Beach Club West in 2000)
about the development of a 187-ac (75-ha) site within Unit 3 of the
designated critical habitat. While these two projects are separate,
they are adjacent to one another, and we recommended they submit a
joint ABM habitat conservation plan to streamline review and offer
greater minimization and mitigation. The applicants submitted a habitat
conservation plan for these projects in 2001, and following subsequent
environmental review, the Service issued ITPs to both parties in 2002.
The Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, Inc. filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama
challenging our environmental review of the projects under the National
Environmental Policy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
As a result of this litigation, the Service agreed to a voluntary
remand of the environmental review and proceeded to develop an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to more thoroughly evaluate the
impact of the proposed developments on the natural and human
environments. The ITPs issued in 2002 were held in abeyance pending the
outcome of this environmental review and of review of the projects
under the Act. We completed our DEIS (which contained five
alternatives) in early 2006 and announced its availability (and
associated 90-day public comment period) in the Federal Register on
April 28, 2006 (71 FR 25221). We held a public hearing on the DEIS in
Gulf Shores on June 26, 2006. The notice announcing the availability of
a final EIS and determination to sign a record of decision (ROD) on
Beach Club West--Gulf Highlands was published in the Federal Register
on November 29, 2006 (71 FR 69141). Both the ROD and modified permit
instruments were signed on January 10, 2007.
The proposed developments involve the construction of six 20-story
towers and a seventh smaller tower--clubhouse facility. This
construction will permanently convert 40.5 ac (16.3 ha) of the total
project site. With this design, the permittees have demonstrated they
are minimizing the project footprint to the greatest extent possible
through the clustering of the development in the eastern corner of the
property, the use of parking garages, and the removal of some
recreational facilities (such as tennis courts) from the original
design. Construction of the projects will involve an additional 21.9 ac
(8.9 ha) of temporary impacts to ABM habitat; however, according to the
HCP, these areas will be restored to beach mouse habitat. Per the HCP,
all other areas on the project site (with the exception of road right-
of-way owned by Baldwin County) will be protected by restrictive
covenants, permit and HCP conditions, or conservation easements. The
permittees will permanently develop approximately 22 percent of the
project site.
The HCP for these projects outlines numerous conservation measures
designed specifically for ABM. These measures include, but are not
limited to, wildlife-friendly outdoor lighting, control of cats and
house mice, an ABM outreach program, dune walkovers, collection of
trapping data, and habitat restoration. Numerous measures designed to
minimize temporary construction impacts (such as signage, placement of
staging areas, removal of waste) are also outlined. In addition, in
association with the Gulf Highlands HCP, the permittees have agreed to
set aside 96.8 ac (39 ha) of lands that would be placed into
conservation status through a conservation easement or other legal
protective document. A perpetual conservation easement was created on
October 30, 2000, for the Gulf Highlands Condominiums portion (42.6 ac)
of the conservation area in anticipation of ITP issuance and is held by
the Baldwin County Commission. The Beach Club West portion (54.2 ac) of
the conservation area is protected through a Declaration of
Abandonment, filed with Baldwin County on April 15, 2002. The private
inholdings located within the project area that will not be part of
this project, are not subject to the same restrictions, and are
therefore included in the designation.
Although approximately 6 ac (2 ha) of the area owned by the
permittees and identified in this analysis as essential to the
conservation of the subspecies is part of road rights-of-way retained
by Baldwin County, these acres will be managed in accordance with the
HCP for Gulf Highlands. As part of their inclusion in areas being
managed with an HCP, the 6 acres surrounding these rights-of-way will
have management including numerous conservation measures designed
specifically for ABM. These measures include, but are not limited to,
wildlife-friendly outdoor lighting, control of cats and house mice, an
ABM outreach program, dune walkovers, collection of live-trapping data,
and habitat restoration. Numerous measures designed to minimize
temporary construction impacts (such as signage, placement of staging
areas, removal of waste) are also outlined. Because these rights-of-way
have not been vacated and transferred to the permittees, they could be
developed in the future at the discretion of the County. However,
should the County decide to pursue development of these areas, it would
either have to pursue an incidental take permit or enter into section 7
consultation (depending upon the presence of a Federal nexus in the

[[Page 4352]]

project). Because these rights-of-way do not require additional
management considerations or protection, they do not meet the
definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act.
On the basis of the conservation benefits afforded the ABM from the
referenced HCP and the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
exclude from critical habitat all areas within the Gulf Highlands-Beach
Club West project sites containing the features essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. This does not include any private
inholdings as outlined above. We have further determined that the
exclusion of these areas from critical habitat would not result in the
extinction of the ABM. The rationale for this determination is below
(see ``Benefits of Exclusion of 51 Areas Protected by Service-Approved
HCPs'').

Gulf State Park Hotel and Convention Center Complex

In 2004, we approved an HCP for the demolition of existing Gulf
State Park (GSP) and construction of a new hotel and convention center
on the site. In response to hurricane impacts and the need to minimize
future impacts, the ITP issued for this project was modified in 2005 to
adjust the footprint of the GSP beach pavilion and parking lot. The new
GSP complex will replace the current facilities (which were destroyed
during Hurricane Ivan) and its construction will result in a net gain
of 3 ac (1 ha) of ABM habitat due to improved siting and design of the
structures and restoration work outlined in the HCP. The HCP covers
both the construction and operation of the facilities; outlines an
aggressive strategy for the control of roaming cats, house mice, and
refuse; and includes wildlife-friendly lighting, native landscaping,
and visitor outreach on the fragile coastal environment (including
outreach concerning the ABM). The area covered by the HCP and ITP
includes the 43 ac (17 ha) surrounding the complex. In February 2006,
ADCNR informed us of new plans to consolidate the new fishing pier (the
previous pier was destroyed during Hurricane Ivan) with the convention
center complex. This consolidation involves demolition and restoration
of the old pier (and associated parking area) and construction of a new
pier 250 ft to the east. By moving the pier and associated parking
eastward into the previously authorized development footprint, the
revised plan reduces impacts to ABM habitat by 2 ac (1 ha). The new
pier will also feature state-of-the-art, wildlife-friendly lighting
(mainly shielded, low wattage-low pressure sodium lighting) and,
therefore, result in much less light pollution than the old pier,
thereby reducing impacts to sea turtles.
On the basis of the conservation benefits afforded the ABM from
this HCP and the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we exclude
from critical habitat the 43 ac (17 ha) covered area, portions of which
we have identified to contain the features that are essential to the
conservation of the subspecies. We have further determined that the
exclusion of this area from critical habitat would not result in the
extinction of the ABM. The rationale for this determination is below
(see ``Benefits of Exclusion of 51 Areas Protected by Service-Approved
HCPs'').

Single Family Homes

Prior to August 2004, we approved HCPs for the construction of two
single-family homes in the Cabana Beach subdivision. Portions of both
these properties have been determined to contain the features that are
essential to the conservation of the ABM. In August 2004, we approved
HCPs and issued ITPs for the construction of 11 additional single
family homes in occupied ABM habitat. Four of these properties have
been determined to contain features essential to the conservation of
the ABM (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat''). In
September 2005, we approved HCPs for the construction of 55 more
residences within occupied ABM habitat. Thirty-seven of these
properties (11 of which are located within ``The Dunes'' development)
have been determined to be essential to the ABM. The HCPs and ITPs
covering all of these properties, while under and after construction,
require a small developed footprint (typically no larger than 0.1 ac
(0.004 ha)) for all structures and driveways, the construction of a
dune walkover for Gulf-front lots, and the conservation of the
remaining ABM habitat on the property for the duration of the ITP. The
HCPs also call for wildlife-friendly lighting, landscaping with native
plants, control of domestic pets (cats), and refuse control. The
associated ITPs are valid for 50 years, and ITP permit conditions are
transferable if property ownership changes.
On the basis of the conservation benefits afforded the ABM from the
referenced HCPs and the provisions of section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
are excluding from critical habitat ABM habitat within these 43
properties that contain features essential to ABM conservation and are
covered by HCPs and issued ITPs. We have further determined that the
exclusion of these areas from critical habitat would not result in the
extinction of the ABM. The rationale for this determination is below
(see ``Benefits of Exclusion of 51 Areas Protected by Service-Approved
HCPs'').
Following is our analysis of the benefits of including lands within
approved HCPs versus excluding such lands from this critical habitat
designation.
(1) Benefits of Inclusion of 51 Areas Protected Through Service-
Approved HCPs
The principal regulatory benefit of critical habitat is that
federally authorized, funded, or carried out activities require
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act to ensure that they will
not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In the Gifford
Pinchot decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled
that adverse modification evaluations require consideration of impacts
on the recovery of species (379 F.3d 1059, 1070-1072). Conducting
section 7 consultations would provide benefits on HCP lands with a
Federal nexus by helping ensure the integrity of these lands is
maintained. For example, if a federally funded road project was
proposed to cross HCP lands that were designated as critical habitat, a
consultation would need to be conducted to ensure the designated
critical habitat was not destroyed or adversely modified. However, the
presence of ABM would trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act
under the jeopardy standard regardless of whether critical habitat is
designated.
Designation of critical habitat also serves to educate landowners,
State and local governments, and the public, regarding the potential
conservation value of the area. This helps focus, prioritize, and
revitalize conservation efforts, such as dune restoration projects, or
more extensive monitoring of beach mouse populations.
(2) Benefits of Exclusion of 51 Areas Protected by Service-Approved
HCPs
We identified a number of possible benefits of excluding the area
covered by the 51 HCPs from critical habitat designation. First,
exclusion would reduce largely redundant administrative costs of
section 7 consultation. There is no added value in designating these 51
HCP sites as critical habitat because they are subject to the legally
enforceable conditions of ITPs. HCP sites are still protected by the
section 7 ``jeopardy standard'' in the event a Federal action may
adversely affect mice there. For instance, if a federally funded
roadway project were planned to bisect an HCP site, the Federal action
agency would still be required to

[[Page 4353]]

consult with us regarding whether or not the roadway would adversely
affect ABM. Second, exclusion would help to foster an atmosphere of
cooperation in the conservation of endangered species. HCPs and other
conservation partnership efforts typically provide far greater
conservation benefits to species than the limited benefits arising from
critical habitat designation. The latter benefits are restricted to
actions with a Federal nexus and can require only that the action not
adversely modify the habitat. It cannot compel, and in practice may
discourage, the sort of active management actions that generally are
needed to recover listed species. Two of our HCP sites have provided
endowments for beach mouse conservation, and these sites and other
multifamily developments provide us with seasonal trapping data vital
to beach mouse conservation efforts. Through the HCP program, we also
retain the permission to live-trap and monitor habitat on private land,
something that a critical habitat designation does not confer.
Conservation areas within HCP sites we have identified as essential to
the conservation of the species are protected from predators, subject
to rules restricting uncontained human refuse and excessive artificial
light, and conservation subject to a host of other beneficial
requirements that are not conveyed by critical habitat designation.
Through developing positive conservation relationships with property
owners along the Alabama coastline, we are able to partner with private
landowners in habitat restoration, conduct beach mouse translocations,
and monitor populations, thereby facilitating recolonization of
previously inhabited areas, encouraging and providing suitable habitat
for the long-term persistence of beach mice, obtaining more information
on the subspecies, and improving and discovering new techniques and
opportunities that will assist in ABM recovery. While these activities
are admittedly required by HCPs and associated ITPs, our relationships
with permittees and other private stakeholders, which are extremely
important for ABM conservation (see ``Conservation Partnerships''
section above), could be damaged by unnecessary regulation. Exclusion
would provide an incentive for participation in the development of new
HCPs and non-HCP-related ABM conservation activities. The exclusion of
HCP lands from critical habitat designations is an important incentive
for participation in the HCP program; on the other hand, failure to
exclude HCP lands could undermine the conservation benefits provided by
the HCP program, and, more generally, the partnerships required to
conserve most listed species.
It is possible, although unlikely, that Federal action will be
proposed that would be likely to destroy or adversely modify the
essential habitat within the area governed by these HCPs. If such a
project was proposed, due to the specific way in which jeopardy and
adverse modification are analyzed for ABM (we monitor take through
habitat loss), it would likely also jeopardize the continued existence
of the species. In addition, we expect that the benefit of informing
the public of the importance of this area to ABM conservation would be
slight due to the fact that there was a previous designation of
critical habitat for ABM in many of these areas (that underwent public
notice and comment), the HCPs themselves underwent public review and
comment, and this designation has undergone public review and comment.
It is now public knowledge that conservation areas within many areas
with Service-sponsored HCP sites contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of the species. Therefore, we
assigned relatively little weight to the benefits of designating this
area as critical habitat.
In contrast, although the benefits of encouraging participation in
HCPs, (particularly large-scale HCPs) and helping to foster cooperative
conservation are indirect, enthusiastic HCP participation and an
atmosphere of cooperation are crucial to the long-term effectiveness of
the endangered species program.
(3) Benefits of Exclusion of 51 Areas Protected by Service-Approved
HCPs Outweigh the Benefits of Inclusion
We have assigned great weight to the benefits of excluding certain
lands from this critical habitat designation, since we believe
conservation is best fostered in a voluntary environment. To the extent
that there are regulatory benefits of including these lands as critical
habitat, the associated costs could be avoided by excluding the areas
from designation. We expect the regulatory benefits to be slight,
because these areas are currently occupied, and consultation will occur
regardless of critical habitat designation.
We have determined that the benefits of inclusion of the areas
covered by these 51 HCPs are small, while the benefits of exclusion are
substantial. Through these measures identified above, we believe that
for these 51 sites, the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of
inclusion.
(4) Exclusion Will Not Result in Extinction
Because we anticipate that little, if any, conservation benefit to
the ABM will be foregone as a result of excluding these areas (ABM in
these areas are protected by sections 7 and 9 of the Act regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated), the exclusion will not result
in the extinction of the ABM. Accordingly, we exercise discretion under
section 4(b)(2) to exclude the areas covered by these HCPs from the
designation of critical habitat for the ABM.

General Principles of Section 7 Consultations Used in the 4(b)(2)
Balancing Process

The most direct, and potentially largest, regulatory benefit of
critical habitat is that federally authorized, funded, or carried out
activities require consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Act to
ensure that they are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. There are two limitations to this regulatory effect. First, it
only applies where there is a Federal nexus--if there is no Federal
nexus, designation itself does not restrict actions that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat. Second, it only limits destruction
or adverse modification. By its nature, the prohibition on adverse
modification is designed to ensure those areas that contain the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species or unoccupied areas that are essential to the conservation of
the species are not eroded. Critical habitat designation alone,
however, does not require specific steps toward recovery.
Once consultation under section 7 of the Act is triggered, the
process may conclude informally when the Service concurs in writing
that the proposed Federal action is not likely to adversely affect the
listed species or its critical habitat. However, if the Service
determines through informal consultation that adverse impacts are
likely to occur, then formal consultation would be initiated. Formal
consultation concludes with a biological opinion issued by the Service
on whether the proposed Federal action is likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat, with separate analyses being
made under both the jeopardy and the adverse modification standards.
For critical habitat, a biological opinion that concludes in a
determination of no destruction or adverse modification may

[[Page 4354]]

contain discretionary conservation recommendations to minimize adverse
effects to primary constituent elements, but it would not contain any
mandatory reasonable and prudent measures or terms and conditions.
Mandatory reasonable and prudent alternatives to the proposed Federal
action would only be issued when the biological opinion results in a
jeopardy or adverse modification conclusion.
We also note that for 30 years prior to the Ninth Circuit Court's
decision in Gifford Pinchot, the Service equated the jeopardy standard
with the standard for destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. The Court ruled that the Service could no longer equate the
two standards and that adverse modification evaluations require
consideration of impacts on the recovery of species. Thus, under the
Gifford Pinchot decision, critical habitat designations may provide
greater benefits to the recovery of a species. However, we believe the
conservation achieved through implementing habitat conservation plans
(HCPs) or other habitat management plans is typically greater than
would be achieved through multiple site-by-site, project-by-project,
section 7 consultations involving consideration of critical habitat.
Management plans commit resources to implement long-term management and
protection to particular habitat for at least one and possibly other
listed or sensitive species. Section 7 consultations only commit
Federal agencies to prevent adverse modification to critical habitat
caused by the particular project, and they are not committed to provide
conservation or long-term benefits to areas not affected by the
proposed project. Thus, any HCP or management plan that considers
enhancement or recovery as the management standard will always provide
as much or more benefit than a consultation for critical habitat
designation conducted under the standards required by the Ninth Circuit
in the Gifford Pinchot decision.
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions below that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat in that it provides the framework for the
consultation process.

Educational Benefits of Critical Habitat

A benefit of including lands in critical habitat is that the
designation of critical habitat serves to educate landowners, State and
local governments, and the public regarding the potential conservation
value of an area. This helps focus and promote conservation efforts by
other parties by clearly delineating areas of high conservation value
for the ABM. In general the educational benefit of a critical habitat
designation always exists, although in some cases it may be redundant
with other educational effects. For example, HCPs have significant
public input and may largely duplicate the educational benefit of a
critical habitat designation. This benefit is closely related to a
second, more indirect benefit: that designation of critical habitat
would inform State agencies and local governments about areas that
could be conserved under State laws or local ordinances.
However, we believe that there would be little additional
informational benefit gained from the designation of critical habitat
for the exclusions we are making in this rule because these areas were
included in the proposed rule as having habitat containing the features
essential to the conservation of the species. Consequently, we believe
that the informational benefits are already provided, even though these
areas are not designated as critical habitat. Additionally, the purpose
normally served by the designation, that of informing State agencies
and local governments about areas that would benefit from protection
and enhancement of habitat for the ABM, is already well established
among State and local governments, and Federal agencies in those areas
that we are excluding from critical habitat in this rule on the basis
of other existing habitat management protections.
The information provided in this section applies to all the
discussions herein that discuss the benefits of inclusion and exclusion
of critical habitat.

Relationship of Critical Habitat to Economic Impacts--Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act allows the Secretary to exclude areas
from critical habitat for economic reasons if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion exceed the benefits of designating the area
as critical habitat, unless the exclusion will result in the extinction
of the species concerned. Congress has granted this discretionary
authority to the Secretary with respect to critical habitat. Although
economic and other impacts may not be considered when listing a
species, Congress has expressly required their consideration when
designating critical habitat.
In making the exclusions, we have, in general, considered that all
of the costs and other impacts predicted in the economic analysis may
not be avoided by excluding the area, because most or all of the areas
in question are currently occupied by the listed species or considered
essential to the conservation of the species, and there will be
requirements for consultation under section 7 of the Act, or for
permits under section 10 (henceforth ``consultation''), for any take of
these species, and other protections for the species exist elsewhere in
the Act and under State and local laws and regulations. In conducting
economic analyses, we are guided by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal's
ruling in the New Mexico Cattle Growers Association case (248 F.3d at
1285), which directed us to consider all impacts, ``regardless of
whether those impacts are attributable co-extensively to other
causes.'' As explained in the analysis, due to possible overlapping
regulatory schemes and other reasons, some elements of the analysis may
also overstate some costs.
Conversely, the Ninth Circuit has recently ruled (Gifford Pinchot,
378 F.3d at 1071) that the Service's regulations defining ``adverse
modification'' of critical habitat are invalid because they define
adverse modification as affecting both survival and recovery of a
species. The Court directed us to consider that determinations of
adverse modification should be focused on impacts to recovery. While we
have not yet proposed a new definition for public review and comment,
compliance with the Court's direction may result in additional costs
associated with the designation of critical habitat (depending upon the
outcome of the rulemaking). In light of the uncertainty concerning the
regulatory definition of adverse modification, our current
methodological approach to conducting economic analyses of our critical
habitat designations is to consider all conservation-related costs.
This approach would include costs related to sections 4, 7, 9, and 10
of the Act, and should encompass costs that would be considered and
evaluated in light of the Gifford Pinchot ruling.
In addition, we have received several credible comments on the
economic analysis contending that it underestimates, perhaps
significantly, the costs associated with this critical habitat
designation. Both of these factors are a balancing consideration
against the possibility that some of the costs shown in the economic
analysis might be attributable to other factors, or are overly high,
and so would not necessarily be avoided by excluding the area for which
the costs are predicted from this critical habitat designation.

[[Page 4355]]

Economic Analysis

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical
habitat on the basis of the best scientific information available and
to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of designating a
particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical
habitat upon a determination that the benefits of such exclusions
outweigh the benefits of specifying such areas as critical habitat. We
cannot exclude such areas from critical habitat when such exclusion
will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
Following the publication of the proposed critical habitat
designation, we conducted an economic analysis to estimate the
potential economic effect of the designation. The draft analysis was
made available for public review on August 8, 2006 (71 FR 44976). We
accepted comments on the draft analysis until September 7, 2006.
The primary purpose of the economic analysis is to estimate the
potential economic impacts associated with the designation of ABM
critical habitat. This information is intended to assist the Secretary
in making decisions about whether the benefits of excluding particular
areas from the designation outweigh the benefits of including those
areas in the designation. This economic analysis considers the economic
efficiency effects that may result from the designation, including
habitat protections that may be co-extensive with the listing of the
species. It also addresses distribution of impacts, including an
assessment of the potential effects on small entities and the energy
industry. This information can be used by the Secretary to assess
whether the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular
group or economic sector.
This analysis focuses on the direct and indirect costs of the rule.
However, economic impacts to land use activities can exist in the
absence of critical habitat. These impacts may result from, for
example, local zoning laws, State and natural resource laws, and
enforceable management plans and best management practices applied by
other State and Federal agencies. Economic impacts that result from
these types of protections are not included in the analysis as they are
considered to be part of the regulatory and policy baseline.
The draft economic analysis found that costs associated with
conservation activities for the ABM are forecast to range from $18.3
million to $51.9 million in undiscounted dollars over the next 20
years. Adjusted for possible inflation, the costs would range from
$16.1 million to $46.9 million over 20 years, or $1.1 million to $3.1
million annually using a three percent discount; or $14.2 million to
$41.8 million over 20 years, or $1.3 million to $3.9 million annually,
using a seven percent discount. Although disproportionate impacts may
exist, the areas that may suffer these impacts are already being
excluded due to other reasons (see ``Application of Exclusions Under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act'' for more detail). Therefore, the Service
did not exclude any areas based on economics.
A copy of the final economic analysis with supporting documents is
included in our administrative record and may be obtained by contacting
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species (see
ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/daphne
.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this document is a
significant rule in that it may raise novel legal and policy issues,
but will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or
more or affect the economy in a material way. Due to the tight timeline
for publication in the Federal Register, the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) has not formally reviewed this rule. As explained above,
we prepared an economic analysis of this action. We used this analysis
to meet the requirement of section 4(b)(2) of the Act to determine the
economic consequences of designating the specific areas as critical
habitat. We also used it to help determine whether to exclude any area
from critical habitat, as provided for under section 4(b)(2), if we
determine that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of
specifying such area as part of the critical habitat, unless we
determine, based on the best scientific data available, that the
failure to designate such area as critical habitat will result in the
extinction of the species.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996),
whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for
any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the
effect of the rule on small entities (small businesses, small
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA to
require Federal agencies to provide a statement of factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA also amended the RFA
to require a certification statement.
Small entities include small organizations, such as independent
nonprofit organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including
school boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; as well as small businesses. Small businesses include
manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500 employees,
wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, retail and
service businesses with less than $5 million in annual sales, general
and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 million in
annual business, special trade contractors doing less than $11.5
million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic impacts to
these small entities are significant, we consider the types of
activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the rule could significantly affect a substantial
number of small entities, we consider the number of small entities
affected within particular types of economic activities (e.g., housing
development, grazing, oil and gas production, timber harvesting). We
apply the ``substantial number'' test individually to each industry to
determine if certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not
explicitly define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic
impact.'' Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of
small entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers
the relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area.
In some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the number of small entities

[[Page 4356]]

potentially affected, we also consider whether their activities have
any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, or permitted by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities are
unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be affected by
critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is present,
Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under section
7 of the Act on activities they fund, permit, or implement that may
affect ABM. Federal agencies also must consult with us if their
activities may affect critical habitat. Designation of critical
habitat, therefore, could result in an additional economic impact on
small entities due to the requirement to reinitiate consultation for
ongoing Federal activities.
In our economic analysis of the critical habitat designation, we
evaluated the potential economic effects on small business entities
resulting from conservation actions related to the listing of ABM and
proposed designation of its critical habitat. This analysis estimated
prospective economic impacts due to the implementation of ABM
conservation efforts in five categories: residential and commercial
real estate development activities, road construction and maintenance,
tropical storms and hurricanes, species management and habitat
protection activities, and recreation. We determined from our analysis
that in four of these five categories, impacts of the ABM conservation
efforts are not anticipated to impact small business. The small
business entities that may be affected are private developers. Costs
associated with residential and commercial development comprise 99
percent of the total quantified future impacts. Total costs are
expected to be $18.1 to $51.3 million (undiscounted) over the next 20
years. Conservation effort costs include land preservation (set-
asides), monitoring, and predator control that may be required of new
development activity on private land. Approximately 99 percent of
developers in the region are considered small; thus, 1.6 small
developers could be impacted each year. For those projects likely to be
undertaken by a small entity, beach mouse conservation costs are
estimated to be approximately $471,000 per typical developer. Assuming
the annual revenues of an average small developer are $16.8 million
(see the economic analysis for explanation of assumptions), the average
annualized cost per project is roughly 2.8 percent of the typical
annual sales. Therefore, we do not believe that the designation of
critical habitat for the ABM will result in a disproportionate effect
to small business entities. Please refer to our economic analysis of
the critical habitat designation for a more detailed discussion of
potential economic impacts.
In general, two different mechanisms in section 7 consultations
could lead to additional regulatory requirements for the approximately
four small businesses, on average, that may be required to consult with
us each year regarding their project's impact on ABM and their habitat.
First, if we conclude, in a biological opinion, that a proposed action
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species or
adversely modify its critical habitat, we can offer ``reasonable and
prudent alternatives.'' Reasonable and prudent alternatives are
alternative actions that can be implemented in a manner consistent with
the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
that are economically and technologically feasible, and that would
avoid jeopardizing the continued existence of listed species or result
in adverse modification of critical habitat. A Federal agency and an
applicant may elect to implement a reasonable and prudent alternative
associated with a biological opinion that has found jeopardy or adverse
modification of critical habitat. An agency or applicant could
alternatively choose to seek an exemption from the requirements of the
Act or proceed without implementing the reasonable and prudent
alternative. However, unless an exemption were obtained, the Federal
agency or applicant would be at risk of violating section 7(a)(2) of
the Act if it chose to proceed without implementing the reasonable and
prudent alternatives.
Second, if we find that a proposed action is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed animal or plant species,
we may identify reasonable and prudent measures designed to minimize
the amount or extent of take and require the Federal agency or
applicant to implement such measures through non-discretionary terms
and conditions. We may also identify discretionary conservation
recommendations designed to minimize or avoid the adverse effects of a
proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help implement
recovery plans, or to develop information that could contribute to the
recovery of the species.
Based on our experience with consultations pursuant to section 7 of
the Act for all listed species, virtually all projects--including those
that, in their initial proposed form, would result in jeopardy or
adverse modification determinations in section 7 consultations--can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These measures, by definition, must be
economically feasible and within the scope of authority of the Federal
agency involved in the consultation. We can only describe the general
kinds of actions that may be identified in future reasonable and
prudent alternatives. These are based on our understanding of the needs
of the species and the threats it faces, as described in the final
listing rule and this critical habitat designation. Within the
designated critical habitat units, the types of Federal actions or
authorized activities that we have identified as potential concerns
are:
(1) Regulation of activities affecting waters of the United States
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean
Water Act;
(2) The Service's incidental take permitting program;
(3) Road construction and maintenance funded by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHA); and
(4) Hazard mitigation and post-disaster repairs funded by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
It is likely that a developer or other project proponent could
modify a project or take measures to protect ABM. The kinds of actions
that may be included if future reasonable and prudent alternatives
become necessary include conservation set-asides, management of
competing nonnative species, restoration of degraded habitat, and
regular monitoring. These are based on our understanding of the needs
of the species and the threats it faces, as described in the final
listing rule and proposed critical habitat designation. These measures
are not likely to result in a significant economic impact to project
proponents.
In summary, we have considered whether our designation of critical
habitat for ABM would result in a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities. We have determined, for the above
reasons and based on currently available information, that it is not
likely to affect a substantial number of small entities. Federal
involvement, and thus section 7 consultations, would be limited to a
subset of the area designated. The most likely Federal involvement
could include: Corps permits, permits we may issue under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act (ITPs), FHA funding for road improvements, and
activities funded by

[[Page 4357]]

FEMA. A regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C 801 et
seq.)

Under SBREFA, this rule is not a major rule. Our detailed
assessment of the economic effects of this designation is described in
the economic analysis. Based on the effects identified in the economic
analysis, we believe that this rule will not have an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity,
innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with
foreign-based enterprises. Refer to the final economic analysis for a
discussion of the effects of this determination.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use) on regulations that significantly affect
energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. This final rule to designate critical habitat for ABM
is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution,
or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and
no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, Tribal
governments, or the private sector and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. (At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement.) ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance; or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities who receive Federal
funding, assistance, permits or otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
on to State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it will not produce a Federal mandate
of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no obligations on
State or local governments. As such, a Small Government Agency Plan is
not required.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), the rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment
is not required. In keeping with the Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this final critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Florida and Alabama. The
designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by ABM may
impose nominal additional regulatory restrictions to those currently in
place and, therefore, may have little incremental impact on State and
local governments and their activities. The designation may have some
benefit to these governments in that the areas that contain the
features essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly
defined, and the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary
to the conservation of the species are specifically identified. While
making this definition and identification does not alter where and what
federally sponsored activities may occur, it may assist these local
governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-
case section 7 consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform),
the Office of the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not
unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are designating critical
habitat in accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species
Act. This final rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies
the primary constituent elements within the designated areas to assist
the public in understanding the habitat needs of the ABM.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule
will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or
local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to,
a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

It is our position that, outside the Tenth Circuit, we do not need
to prepare environmental analyses as defined by the NEPA in connection
with designating critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this

[[Page 4358]]

determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This assertion was upheld in the courts of the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. Ore. 1995), cert.
denied 116 S. Ct. 698 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and the Department
of Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. We have determined that
there are no Tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain
the features essential for the conservation and no Tribal lands that
are unoccupied areas that are essential for the conservation of the
ABM. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for the ABM has not
been designated on Tribal lands.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, (``Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property
Rights''), we have analyzed the potential takings implications of
designating 1,211 ac (490 ha) of lands in Baldwin County, Alabama as
critical habitat for the Alabama beach mouse in a takings implication
assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this
final designation of critical habitat does not pose significant takings
implications for lands within or affected by the designation.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Daphne Field Office
(see ADDRESSES).

Author(s)

The primary author of this package is the Daphne Field Office of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

0
2. In Sec. 17.95(a), revise the entry for ``Alabama Beach Mouse
(Peromyscus polionotus ammobates)'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

(a) Mammals.
* * * * *

Alabama Beach Mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates)

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Baldwin County,
Alabama, on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
Alabama Beach Mouse are the habitat components that provide:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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 rainfall and/
or hurricane-induced storm surge.
(iv) Unobstructed habitat connections that facilitate genetic
exchange, dispersal, natural exploratory movements, and recolonization
of locally extirpated areas.
(v) 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.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airport runways, roads, other paved areas, and
piers) and the land on which they are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created by delineating habitats that contained one or more of the PCEs
defined in paragraph (2) of this entry, over 2005 Baldwin County,
Alabama color photography (UTM 16, NAD 83).
(5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 4359]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA07.000

[[Page 4360]]

(6) Unit 1: Fort Morgan, Baldwin County, Alabama.
(i) General Description: Unit 1 consists of 446 ac (180 ha) at the
extreme western tip of the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County,
Alabama. This unit encompasses essential features of Alabama beach
mouse habitat within the boundary of the Fort Morgan State Historic
Site and adjacent properties west of the Bay to Breakers development.
The southern and western extents are the mean high water level (MHWL).
The unit extends northward to either the seaward extent of maritime
forest, developed features associated with the Fort Morgan State
Historic Site, or Ft. Morgan Parkway.
(ii) Coordinates: From the Fort Morgan and Saint Andrews Bay USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle maps, Alabama, land bounded by the following UTM 16
NAD 83 coordinates (E, N): 401473.62, 3344763.21; 401547.57,
3344692.62; 401513.96, 3344669.09; 01503.87, 3344514.47; 401369.42,
3344440.53; 401577.82, 3344356.49; 402008.06, 3344443.89; 402169.41,
3344622.04; 402525.70, 3344682.54; 403820.62, 3344782.93; 404628.95,
3344823.00; 404623.54, 3344330.64; 404288.09, 3344287.36; 403970.48,
3344745.87; 403970.48, 3344230.37; 403292.55, 3344087.17; 402583.77,
3343995.19; 401269.00, 3343995.19; 400971.42, 3344125.04; 400976.83,
3344206.20; 401301.47, 3344628.22; 404286.32, 3344756.22; 402854.33,
3344659.30; 402903.74, 3344669.55; 402929.27, 3344691.88; 403288.24,
3344682.82; 403627.98, 3344721.72; 403654.87, 3344714.12; 403590.33,
3344665.04; 403546.85, 3344641.30; 403501.91, 3344628.03; 403337.34,
3344622.77; 403056.19, 3344638.97
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 1, Fort Morgan (Map 2), follows:

[[Page 4361]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA07.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 4362]]

(7) Unit 2: Little Point Clear, Baldwin County, Alabama.
(i) General Description: Unit 2 consists of 268 ac (108 ha) on the
Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama. This unit encompasses
essential features of Alabama beach mouse habitat north of the mean
high water line (MHWL) and south of the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management Coastal Construction Control Line (as defined
in Alabama Administrative Code of Regulations 335-8-2-0.8) from the
eastern property boundary of Bay to Breakers eastward to the western
boundary of the Surfside Shores subdivision. This unit also includes
essential features of Alabama beach mouse habitat 160 ft south (except
where otherwise noted) of the centerline of Fort Morgan Parkway, from
the eastern boundary of Bay to Breakers east to the western boundary of
the Surfside Shores subdivision, and associated areas as depicted on
Map 3 in paragraph (7)(iii) of this entry and in the coordinates
provided in paragraph (7)(ii) of this entry.
(ii) Coordinates: From the Saint Andrews Bay USGS 1:24,000
quadrangle map, Alabama, land bounded by the following UTM 16 NAD 83
coordinates (E, N), except those areas covered by incidental take
permits shown in the maps: 408673.97, 3345088.73; 408690.96,
3345050.98; 408964.63, 3345069.85; 408992.95, 3345115.15; 409098.64,
3345124.59; 409260.96, 3345071.74; 409306.26, 3345047.20; 409421.39,
3345039.65; 409421.39, 3345018.89; 409839.57, 3345038.68; 410450.38,
3345133.36; 410638.20, 3345180.70; 411632.04, 3345331.96; 411819.06,
3345348.96; 411819.06, 3345276.71; 411455.65, 3345227.83; 411423.77,
3345234.20; 411115.62, 3345195.95; 410735.21, 3345138.57; 410735.21,
3345117.32; 410129.52, 3345030.18; 405929.15, 3344870.87; 406790.26,
3344915.69; 406790.26, 3344944.50; 406889.49, 3344986.11; 406915.10,
3344986.11; 406947.11, 3344973.31; 406972.72, 3344998.92; 406998.33,
3344960.50; 407039.95, 3344973.31; 407065.56, 3344950.90; 407148.55,
3344960.50; 407232.02, 3345008.52; 407238.42, 3345034.13; 407289.64,
3344954.10; 407918.85, 3345054.48; 408411.28, 3345026.14; 408414.83,
3345068.65; 408687.61, 3345125.34; 408723.04, 3345107.62; 406397.69,
3344654.51; 408502.15, 3344816.39; 408502.15, 3344974.12; 408369.32,
3344978.29; 408074.61, 3345003.18; 407842.17, 3344994.88; 407194.65,
3344878.65; 406327.13, 3344837.15; 406318.83, 3344720.92; 406181.85,
3344716.77; 406165.25, 3344837.15; 404625.30, 3344770.73; 408639.12,
3344982.42; 408850.81, 3345011.48; 408626.67, 3344828.84; 408904.77,
3345015.63; 409021.00, 3345003.18; 409033.45, 3344837.15; 410127.40,
3344881.42; 409942.50, 3345003.19; 409321.94, 3344964.94; 409122.17,
3344994.69; 409122.17, 3344839.55; 411303.93, 3344704.32; 410054.54,
3344754.13; 410029.64, 3344741.68; 409992.28, 3344745.83; 409963.23,
3344758.28; 408879.87, 3344720.92; 407157.29, 3344642.06; 406011.67,
3344509.23; 405044.53, 3344417.91; 404700.02, 3344343.20; 404624.32,
3344815.46; 404709.17, 3344488.16; 405203.36, 3344433.41; 405813.57,
3344509.70; 406027.79, 3344616.83; 406662.44, 3344675.99; 406677.12,
3344600.23; 407261.66, 3344729.73; 407664.18, 3344758.57; 407637.12,
3344658.32; 408856.44, 3344833.42; 408903.73, 3344832.33; 409944.78,
3344975.70; 409961.53, 3344931.31; 409960.68, 3344885.70; 409940.98,
3344852.55; 410474.83, 3344831.25; 411896.05, 3344778.56; 411897.06,
3344677.82; 411898.98, 3345357.59; 411899.47, 3345349.16; 411899.92,
3345333.36; 411898.69, 3345292.29
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 2, Little Point Clear (Map 3), follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 4363]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA07.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 4364]]

(8) Unit 3: Gulf Highlands, Baldwin County, Alabama.
(i) General Description: Unit 3 consists of 275 ac (111 ha) on the
Fort Morgan Peninsula in Baldwin County, Alabama. This unit encompasses
essential features of Alabama beach mouse habitat north of the mean
high water line (MHWL) to the seaward extent of interdunal wetlands as
depicted on Map 4 in paragraph (8)(iii) of this entry and in the
coordinates in paragraph (8)(ii) of this entry. This unit also includes
essential features of Alabama beach mouse habitat 160 ft south of the
centerline of Fort Morgan Parkway (except some areas to the north as
noted in paragraphs (8)(ii) and (8)(iii) of this entry). Unit 3 is
bounded to the west by the eastern property line of the Morgantown
subdivision and to the east by the western property line of Martinique
on the Gulf.
(ii) Coordinates: From the Pine Beach and Saint Andrews Bay USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle maps, Alabama, land bounded by the following UTM 16
NAD 83 coordinates (E, N), except those areas covered by incidental
take permits shown in the maps:
(A) Surfside Shores--412122.39, 3344896.76; 412230.61, 3344952.19;
412407.44, 3344970.66; 412407.44, 3344997.06; 413286.34, 3345139.58;
413283.70, 3344598.52; 411897.20, 3344677.62; 411896.72, 3344778.70;
411901.40, 3344895.52; 412585.68, 3344637.82; 413286.36, 3345090.20;
413224.06, 3345080.28; 413224.52, 3344927.47; 413284.56, 3344937.39
(B) Gulf Highlands--414393.00, 3344536.62; 414393.00, 3344732.11;
414676.12, 3344736.60; 415529.98, 3344440.00; 414671.87, 3344524.00;
414736.29, 3344520.49; 414736.41, 3344546.27; 415324.89, 3344541.53;
415326.46, 3344653.21; 415533.04, 3344653.83; 415290.55, 3345011.54;
415327.74, 3345011.79; 415327.61, 3344980.39; 415290.42, 3344981.38;
415308.84, 3344940.80; 415327.02, 3344940.72; 415327.30, 3344910.13;
415308.70, 3344910.21; 415358.01, 3344940.99; 415376.61, 3344940.91;
415376.48, 3344910.33; 415357.88, 3344910.41; 415291.27, 3345081.38;
415309.04, 3345081.30; 415309.47, 3345085.02; 415291.28, 3345084.28;
415326.74, 3345051.69; 415326.74, 3345039.99; 415181.66, 3345041.16;
415184.00, 3345052.86; 415174.64, 3345051.69; 415174.64, 3345041.16;
414954.68, 3345042.33; 414954.68, 3344655.06; 414920.74, 3344656.23;
414920.74, 3344761.53; 414735.88, 3344762.70; 414735.88, 3344773.23;
414921.91, 3344772.06; 414921.91, 3344831.73; 414737.05, 3344832.90;
414737.05, 3344843.43; 414921.91, 3344842.26; 414923.08, 3344903.10;
414735.88, 3344903.10; 414735.88, 3344915.97; 414924.25, 3344913.63;
414921.91, 3344972.13; 414738.22, 3344974.47; 414738.22, 3344983.83;
414921.91, 3344982.66; 414923.08, 3345043.50; 414738.22, 3345043.50;
414738.22, 3345054.03; 414921.91, 3345054.03; 414921.91, 3345071.59;
414953.51, 3345073.93; 414953.51, 3345052.86; 414953.51, 3344876.19;
(C) Gulf Shores Plantation--414204.25, 3344552.35; 414204.25,
3344725.37; 414343.57, 3344754.58; 414341.32, 3344543.36
(D) Cabana Beach--415938.37, 3344420.63; 416333.53, 3344954.65;
416756.08, 3344395.60; 416750.70, 3344919.13; 415945.72, 3344968.29
(E) ROW--413472.87, 3345602.80; 413767.66, 3345609.58; 413781.21,
3345585.86; 414496.15, 3345582.47; 414760.44, 3345545.20; 414973.90,
3345460.49; 415278.85, 3345487.60; 416224.19, 3345470.66; 415654.96,
3345426.61; 414973.90, 3345402.89; 414533.42, 3345521.48; 413621.96,
3345538.42; 411899.45, 3345292.57; 411899.63, 3345333.23; 411898.97,
3345349.21; 411898.28, 3345357.92; 416599.61, 3345528.80; 416603.89,
3345480.95
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 3, Gulf Highlands (Map 4), follows:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 4365]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA07.003

[[Page 4366]]

(9) Unit 4: Pine Beach, Baldwin County, Alabama.
(i) General Description: Unit 4 consists of 30 ac (12 ha) on 27
inholdings within the Perdue Unit of the Bon Secour National Wildlife
Refuge as depicted on Map 5 in paragraph (9)(iii) of this entry and in
the coordinates in paragraph (9)(ii) of this entry.
(ii) Coordinates: From the Pine Beach USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map,
Alabama, land bounded by the following UTM 16 NAD 83 coordinates (E,
N), except those areas covered by incidental take permits shown on the
map in paragraph (9)(iii) of this entry: 419890.08, 3344529.29;
419946.90, 3344389.62; 420406.15, 3344394.35; 420401.42, 3344342.27;
419587.07, 3344320.96; 419589.44, 3344384.88; 419658.09, 3344384.88;
419655.72, 3344503.25; 419636.78, 3344503.25; 419639.15, 3344534.02;
419783.19, 3344531.65; 419783.55, 3344384.88; 419803.49, 3344384.88;
421930.69, 3344448.80; 421895.18, 3344446.43; 422030.12, 3344465.37;
419842.74, 3344635.81; 419797.76, 3344640.55; 419688.86, 3344841.77;
419740.94, 3344841.77; 419688.86, 3344645.28; 419743.31, 3344642.92;
419740.94, 3344593.20; 419688.86, 3344595.57; 420294.50, 3345060.66;
420306.84, 3345060.44; 420306.62, 3345022.12; 420294.28, 3345022.34;
420148.12, 3344725.77; 420190.73, 3344725.77; 420188.36, 3344633.45;
420150.49, 3344633.45; 420046.32, 3344728.14; 420098.40, 3344728.14;
420098.40, 3344635.81; 420046.32, 3344635.81; 420046.32, 3344567.16;
420058.16, 3344567.16; 420058.16, 3344545.86; 420003.71, 3344545.86;
420003.71, 3344638.18; 419906.65, 3344638.18; 419927.96, 3344638.18;
419927.96, 3344545.86; 419906.65, 3344548.22; 419690.90, 3344778.02;
419740.44, 3344772.85; 419801.19, 3344677.57; 419842.01, 3344675.40;
421902.16, 3344854.73; 421932.71, 3344858.24; 421999.30, 3344843.90;
422029.66, 3344830.25; 421996.44, 3344462.00
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 4, Pine Beach (Map 5), follows:

[[Page 4367]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA07.004

[[Page 4368]]

(10) Unit 5: Gulf State Park, Baldwin County, Alabama.
(i) General Description: Unit 5 consists of 192 ac (78 ha) in Gulf
State Park east of the City of Gulf Shores in Baldwin County, Alabama.
This unit encompasses essential features of Alabama beach mouse habitat
north of the mean high water line (MHWL) to the seaward extent of
either coastal wetlands, maritime forest, or Alabama beach mouse
habitat managed under the 2004 Gulf State Park habitat conservation
plan. Exact boundaries are depicted on Map 6 in paragraph (10)(iii) of
this entry and in the coordinates in paragraph (10)(ii) of this entry.
(ii) Coordinates: From the Gulf Shores USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle
map, Alabama, land bounded by the following UTM 16 NAD 83 coordinates
(E, N), except those areas identified as developable in the current
incidental take permit for the Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources: 438247.09, 3347462.61; 438384.26, 3347485.47;
438504.29, 3347456.89; 438738.63, 3347479.75; 438738.63, 3347411.17;
438681.48, 3347405.45; 438675.76, 3347193.97; 437681.24, 3346988.21;
436938.21, 3346702.43; 436349.50, 3346599.55; 435377.85, 3346548.11;
435160.66, 3346490.95; 435166.37, 3346736.72; 435606.47, 3346856.75;
436572.41, 3346828.17; 36572.41, 3346913.91; 436881.06, 3347033.94;
436909.64, 3347068.23; 437612.66, 3347325.43; 437818.42, 3347319.72;
437829.85, 3347251.13; 438035.61, 3347308.29; 438041.33, 3347394.02;
435699.17, 3346883.42; 435754.39, 3346634.94; 435940.75, 3346652.19;
436154.72, 3346638.39; 436368.69, 3346683.25; 436368.69, 3346790.24
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 5, Gulf State Park (Map 6), follows:

[[Page 4369]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JA07.005

* * * * *

Dated: January 12, 2007.
Todd Willens,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 07-270 Filed 1-29-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C