![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Applications for Incidental Take Permits by Gulf Highlands LLC and Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture in Alabama
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: December 28, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 249)]
[Notices]
[Page 67290-67292]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de01-112]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Applications for Incidental Take Permits by Gulf Highlands LLC
and Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture in Alabama
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; Reopening of public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of an Environmental Assessment and receipt of applications
for incidental take permits for residential development in Alabama. We
also provide notice that the public comment period for the proposal is
reopened to allow all interested parties to submit written comments on
the proposed incidental take permits. Comments previously submitted
need not be resubmitted. The original public notice, 66 FR 54020-54022,
opened the comment period from October 25 through December 10, 2001.
Gulf Highlands LLC and Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture
(Applicants) seek incidental take permits (ITP) from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The proposed take
would be incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including
construction of residential condominiums, commercial facilities, and
recreational amenities on adjoining tracts of land owned by the
Applicants. The proposed action would involve approval of the Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) jointly developed by the Applicants, as
required by section 10(a)(2)(B) of the Act, to minimize and mitigate
for incidental take of the Federally-listed, endangered Alabama beach
mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates)(ABM), the endangered Kemp's
ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii), the threatened green sea
turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the threatened loggerhead sea turtle
(Caretta caretta). The subject permits would authorize take of ABM and
the three sea turtles along 2,844 linear feet of coastal dune habitat
fronting the Gulf of Mexico in Baldwin County, Alabama. The Applicants'
properties total 180.5 acres, but only 62 acres would be developed.
Additionally, about 16 acres of platted road rights-of-way are
encompassed by the project and bring the total area to 196.4 acres. A
more detailed description of the mitigation and minimization measures
to address the effects of the Project to the ABM and sea turtles is
provided in the Applicants' HCP, the Service's Environmental Assessment
(EA), and in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
The Service announces the availability of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and Habitat Conservation Plan/Applications for
Incidental Take. The permit applications incorporate the Applicants'
HCP as the proposed action for evaluation in the Service's EA. Copies
of the EA on compact disk and the HCP
[[Page 67291]]
may be obtained by making a request to the Regional Office (see
ADDRESSES). Requests must be in writing to be processed. This notice
also advises the public that the Service has not made a preliminary
determination of whether issuance of the ITPs would be a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). The Service must decide whether
issuance of the proposed ITPs constitutes a major Federal action and
whether to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact based on the EA
and public comment, or if preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is appropriate. The final determination will be made no
sooner than the close of the comment period. This notice is provided
pursuant to section 10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
The Service specifically requests information, views, and opinions
from the public via this Notice on the Federal action, including the
identification of any other aspects of the human environment not
already identified in the Service's EA. Further, the Service
specifically solicits information regarding the adequacy of the HCP as
measured against the Service's ITP issuance criteria found in 50 CFR
Parts 13 and 17.
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of
several methods. Please reference permit numbers TE007985-0 and
TE031307-0 in such comments. You may mail comments to the Service's
Regional Office (see ADDRESSES). You may also comment via the internet
to ``david_dell@fws.gov''. Please submit comments over the internet as
an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of
encryption. Please also include your name and return address in your
internet message.
Due to Court order, the Department of Interior has temporarily lost
use of our internet capability, and likely will not regain it by the
time this notice is published. We encourage the public to submit
comments by mail or express courier, or to call (see FURTHER
INFORMATION) to confirm whether our internet capability has been
restored.
If you do not receive a confirmation from the Service that we have
received your internet message, contact us directly at either telephone
number listed below (see FURTHER INFORMATION). Finally, you may hand
deliver comments to either Service office listed below (see ADDRESSES).
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of
respondents, available for public review during regular business hours.
Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address
from the administrative record. We will honor such requests to the
extent allowable by law. There may also be other circumstances in which
we would withhold from the administrative record a respondent's
identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your
comments. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. We will
make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their
entirety.
DATES: The original comment period closed December 10, 2001. The
comment period is hereby reopened through January 4, 2002. Written
comments on the ITP application, EA, and HCP should be sent to the
Service's Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review the application, HCP, and EA may
obtain an electronic copy on compact disk by writing the Service's
Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. Documents will also be
available for public inspection by appointment during normal business
hours at the Regional Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200,
Atlanta, Georgia 30345 (Attn: Endangered Species Permits), Ecological
Services Field Office, 1208-B Main Street, Daphne, Alabama 36526, or
Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge, 12295 State Highway 180, Gulf
Shores, Alabama 35603. Written data or comments concerning the
application or HCP should be submitted to the Regional Office. Please
reference permit numbers TE007985-0 and TE031307-0 in requests for the
documents discussed herein.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Dell, Regional HCP
Coordinator, (see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 404/679-7313, facsimile:
404/679-7081; or Ms. Celeste South, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Daphne
Field Office, Alabama (see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 251/441-5181.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ABM is one of eight subspecies of the
oldfield mouse restricted to coastal dunes. The Service estimates that
ABM historically occupied approximately 45 km (28 mi) of shoreline. By
1987, the total occupied linear, shoreline habitat for the ABM,
Choctawhatchee, and Perdido Key beach mice was estimated at less than
35 km (22 mi). Monitoring (trapping and field observations) of the ABM
population on other private lands that hold, or are under review for,
an ITP during the last five years indicates the Fort Morgan Peninsula
remains occupied (more or less continuously) by ABM along its primary
and secondary dunes while ABM use interior habitats intermittently. The
current occupied coastline for the ABM extends approximately 37 km (23
miles).
ABM habitat on the Applicants' properties consists of approximately
38 acres of primary/secondary dunes, 21.7 acres of escarpment, 21.8
acres of adjacent scrub and 90 acres of interior scrub. The total area
of designated critical habitat among these habitats is 32.4 acres,
consisting of open beach dunes and swales within the southern portions
of the properties, extending from the mean high water line of the Gulf
of Mexico northward for 500 feet.
The green turtle has a circumglobal distribution and is found in
tropical and sub-tropical waters. The Florida population of this
species is federally listed as endangered; elsewhere the species is
listed as threatened. Primary nesting beaches in the southeastern
United States occur in a six-county area of east-central and
southeastern Florida, where nesting activity ranges from approximately
350-2,300 nests annually. The Service's turtle nesting surveys of the
Fort Morgan Peninsula, from Laguna Key west to Mobile Point, for the
period 1994-2001 have not confirmed any green turtle nests, though some
crawls were suspected in 1999 and 2000.
The loggerhead turtle is listed as a threatened species throughout
its range. This species is circumglobal, preferring temperate and
tropical waters. In the southeastern United States, 50,000 to 70,000
nests are deposited annually, about 90 percent of which occur in
Florida. Most nesting in the Gulf outside of Florida appears to be in
the Chandeleur Islands of Louisiana; Ship, Horn and Petit Bois Islands
in Mississippi; and the outer coastal sand beaches of Alabama. The
Service's nesting surveys of the Fort Morgan Peninsula, from Laguna Key
to Mobile Point, for the 2001 report included over 70 loggerhead turtle
nests, four of which were found on shoreline beaches along the
Applicants' properties.
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is an endangered species throughout
its range. Adults are found mainly in the Gulf of Mexico. Immature
turtles can be found along the Atlantic coast as far north as
Massachusetts and Canada. The species' historic range is tropical and
temperate seas in the Atlantic Basin and in the Gulf of Mexico. Nesting
occurs
[[Page 67292]]
primarily in Tamaulipas, Mexico, but occasionally also in Texas and
other southern states, including an occasional nest in North Carolina.
The Service's nesting surveys of the Fort Morgan Peninsula, from Laguna
Key to Mobile Point, for the period 1994-2001 report no nests of the
Kemp's ridley sea turtle on beaches along the Applicants' properties.
In 1999, a Kemp's ridley sea turtle nested on Bon Secour National
Wildlife Refuge and another along the Gulf Island's National Seashore
in Perdido Key Florida. In 2001, two dead Kemp's ridley sea turtle
hatchlings were recovered, one on Bon Secour National Wildlife Refuge,
and the second in Gulf Shores, Alabama.
The two projects, Gulf Highlands Condominiums (GHC) and Beach Club
West (BCW), are separate developments but are being considered together
at the request of Gulf Highlands LLC and Fort Morgan Paradise Joint
Venture, the respective Applicants. The two Applicants have joined
together to produce a single Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), as
required by the Endangered Species Act, for their projects. The
Applicants hope to obtain their permits and jointly implement the
provisions of the HCP.
The EA considers the effects of six project alternatives, including
a no-action alternative that would result in no new construction on the
Project site, and a single family home alternative that would result in
build out of the properties as originally platted. Neither of these
alternatives would be economically feasible for the applicants. The
remaining four alternatives involve various arrangements of high-rise
condominiums. The important differences among these four alternatives
relate to the amount of beach front developed, the width and placement
of an undeveloped ABM ``corridor'' to allow ABM movements to and from
the dune and escarpment habitats, and the placement of the condominium
towers. One of these alternatives was suggested by the Service as a
``less-take'' alternative and would move the development approximately
300 feet north of the escarpment. The applicants have cited legal and
economical reasons for why the less-take alternative could not be
implemented.
In the Applicant's preferred alternative, the two projects involve
construction of large condominium developments near the Gulf of Mexico
on approximately 62 of the total 180.5 acres of wet beach, coastal
dune, escarpment, wetlands, and scrub habitats owned by the applicants.
An additional 16 acres of platted road rights-of-way, owned by Baldwin
County, exist within the project boundary. The project area therefore
encompasses about 196.4 acres. Applicant land holdings extend from the
Gulf to Alabama Highway 180. Only part of this acreage would actually
be developed, totaling about 62.7 acres of ABM habitat. The remaining
area, some of which is ABM habitat, would be conserved in perpetuity.
Six 20-story condominium towers (two for BCW and four for GHC),
thirteen single family units, and a commercial development including
about 20 housing units on the upper level would be constructed.
Collectively this development would contain 973 living units. Other
facilities would include parking lots, access roads, swimming pools,
tennis courts, patios, a club house, shops, a proposed medical
facility, sidewalks, landscaped areas, small freshwater lakes-detention
ponds, trails, and dune walkovers for access to the Gulf of Mexico. The
condominium structures would be oriented on an east-west alignment
starting approximately 660 to 730 feet north of the Gulf of Mexico. The
applicants own approximately 2,844 feet of Gulf frontage. As proposed
in the Applicants' preferred alternative, 1,835 feet of that frontage
would be developed and 909 feet conserved in perpetuity. The area south
of the structures would be sloped by the applicants and native
vegetation planted.
All proposed alternatives include measures designed to avoid or
minimize take. In addition to these measures, in the applicant's
preferred alternative, a planned development adjoining the western
boundary of the project, the French Caribbean, would not be constructed
and would remain undeveloped as an ABM conservation area. Fort Morgan
Paradise Joint Venture owns the French Carribean development, and has
offered to forego its construction. As this development has received a
Corps of Engineers wetland permit, and was subject to review under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, there is no ITP required for
it.
Based on trapping data and other research, the ABM uses portions
(some on a permanent basis, others episodically) of the entire tract of
land, except for wetlands, heavily vegetated areas, and northern
sections that lack suitable soil for burrowing. The proposed project
would adversely impact the ABM population directly by killing
individuals in the construction areas via crushing or entombment and
indirectly by introduction of house pets (cats), introduction of
competitors (house mice), attraction of predators, permanent human
disturbances and fragmentation of habitat and ABM populations.
Occupation of the proposed structures could adversely affect sea turtle
nesting by disorienting nesting females and misorienting hatchlings by
excess artificial lighting, trampling nests, and trapping or
disorienting nesting females and emerging hatchlings among tire ruts or
beach equipment left after dark.
Under section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations,
``taking'' of endangered and threatened wildlife is prohibited.
However, the Service, under limited circumstances, may issue permits to
take such wildlife if the taking is incidental to and not the purpose
of otherwise lawful activities. The Applicants have prepared an HCP as
required for the incidental take permit application, and as described
above as part of the proposed project.
As stated above, the Service has not made a preliminary
determination whether the issuance of the ITPs is a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of NEPA. This determination
will be made incorporating public comment received in response to this
notice and will be based on information contained in the EA and HCP.
The Service will also evaluate whether the issuance of section
10(a)(1)(B) ITPs complies with section 7 of the Act by conducting an
intra-Service section 7 consultation. The results of the biological
opinion, in combination with the above findings, will be used in the
final analysis to determine whether or not to issue the ITP.
Dated: December 20, 2001.
Sam D. Hamilton,
Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 01-31907 Filed 12-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P