Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Critical Habitat for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, and St. Andrew Beach Mouse, 74426-74549 [05-23695]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74426-74549]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23695]



[[Page 74425]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Critical Habitat for the 
Perdido Key Beach Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, and St. Andrew 
Beach Mouse; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 240 / Thursday, December 15, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 74426]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AT90


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and 
information concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field 
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Fish and 
Wildlife Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32405.
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Office, at the 
above address.
    3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
flbeachmice@fws.gov. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section 
below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
    4. You may fax your comments to 850-763-2177.
    5. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business 
hours at the Panama City U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office at the 
above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Panama City, Florida 32405, (telephone 850-769-0552; 
facsimile 850-763-2177).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, comments or 
suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the 
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party 
concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments 
particularly are sought concerning:
    (1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to 
be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act, including 
whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the 
species due to designation;
    (2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of Perdido 
Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and St. Andrew beach mouse 
habitat, and what areas should be included in the designations that 
were occupied at the time of listing that contain the features that are 
essential for the conservation of the species and why and what areas 
that were not occupied at the listing are essential to the conservation 
of the species and why;
    (3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities;
    (5) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be 
improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public 
participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating 
public concerns and comments; and
    (6) Information from the Department of Defense to assist the 
Secretary of the Interior in evaluating critical habitat on lands 
administered by or under the control of the Department of Defense based 
on any benefit provided by an Integrated Natural Resources Management 
Plan (INRMP) to the conservation of the Choctawhatchee beach mouse and 
St. Andrew beach mouse; and information regarding impacts to national 
security associated with the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    (7) Whether we should split Unit 5 into two units, since part of 
the unit is occupied and part of the unit is not occupied by the 
species. This unit is all within the St. Andrew State Park.
    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials 
concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES 
section). Please submit comments electronically to flbeachmice@fws.gov 
in ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters or any 
form of encryption. Please also include ``Attn: Beach mouse critical 
habitat'' in your e-mail subject header and your name and return 
address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a 
confirmation from the system that we have received your electronic 
message, contact us directly by calling the Panama City U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service Office at phone number 850-769-0552. Please note that 
the Internet address flbeachmice@fws.gov will be closed out at the 
termination of the public comment period.
    Our practice is to make comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home addresses from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which 
we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, 
as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or 
address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your 
comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make 
all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals 
identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations 
or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. 
Comments and materials received will be available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above 
address.

[[Page 74427]]

Designation of Critical Habitat Provides Little Additional Protection 
to Species

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

Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and 
Implementing the Act

    While attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to 
successful conservation actions, we have consistently found that, in 
most circumstances, the designation of critical habitat is of little 
additional value for most listed species, yet it consumes large amounts 
of conservation resources. Sidle (1987) stated, ``Because the Act can 
protect species with and without critical habitat designation, critical 
habitat designation may be redundant to the other consultation 
requirements of section 7.'' Currently, only 470 species or 37.5 
percent of the 1,253 listed species in the U.S. under the jurisdiction 
of the Service have designated critical habitat.
    We address the habitat needs of all 1,253 listed species through 
conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the 
section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective 
prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, and 
the section 10 incidental take permit process. The Service believes 
that it is these measures that may make the difference between 
extinction and survival for many species.
    We note, however, that the August 6, 2004 Ninth Circuit judicial 
opinion (Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service) found our definition of adverse modification was invalid. In 
response to the decision, the Director has provided guidance to the 
Service based on the statutory language. In this rule, our analysis of 
the consequences and relative costs and benefits of the critical 
habitat designation is based on application of the statute consistent 
with the Ninth Circuit's ruling and the Director's guidance.

Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat

    We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate 
critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging 
critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have 
subjected the Service to an 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 almost no ability to provide for adequate 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, is very 
expensive, and in the final analysis provides relatively little 
additional protection to listed species.
    The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the 
cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of 
the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to 
public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). None of these costs result in 
any benefit to the species that is not already afforded by the 
protections of the Act enumerated earlier, and they directly reduce the 
funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.

Background

    We intend to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the 
designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more 
information on the Perdido Key beach mouse and Choctawhatchee beach 
mouse, please refer to the final listing rule published in the Federal 
Register on June 6, 1985 (50 FR 23872), and for the St. Andrew beach 
mouse, please refer to the final listing rule published on December 18, 
1998 (63 FR 70053).
    The Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and St. 
Andrew beach mouse are three of five subspecies of the oldfield mouse 
that inhabit coastal dune communities along the Gulf coast of Florida 
and Alabama. Historically, Perdido Key beach mice were thought to occur 
in coastal dune habitat on Perdido Key between Perdido Bay, Alabama, to 
the west and Pensacola Bay, Florida, to the east (Bowen 1968). The 
effects of Hurricane Frederic (1979) coupled with increased habitat 
fragmentation due to human development led to the extirpation of all 
but one population of Perdido Key beach mice. Fewer than 30 individuals 
at Gulf State Park (at the westernmost end of Perdido Key) were once 
the only known existing population of Perdido Key beach mice (Holler et 
al. 1989). Beach mice from this site were used to reestablish mice at 
Gulf Islands National Seashore (GINS) (1986-1988; Holler et al. 1989). 
In 2000, ten Perdido Key beach mice (five pairs) were relocated from 
GINS-Perdido Key Area to Perdido Key State Park. In February of 2001, 
this relocation was supplemented with an additional 32 mice (16 pairs). 
Perdido Key beach mice were released on both north and south sides of 
Highway 292 in suitable habitat. Two years of quarterly survey trapping 
(standard protocol for determining presence or absence of beach mice) 
indicated that the relocations of mice to Perdido Key State Park were 
successful and this is now considered an established population 
(Service 2004a). Presently, beach mouse habitat exists on public lands 
in areas along 8.4 miles (mi) (13.5 kilometers (km)) of coastline on 
Perdido Key at GINS and Perdido Key State Park. Perdido Key beach mice 
were trapped on private lands between GINS and Perdido Key State Park 
in 2004, increasing documentation of current occurrences of the mouse. 
Perdido Key beach mice are believed to be extirpated at Gulf State Park 
since 1998 (Auburn University 1999), though two years of

[[Page 74428]]

quarterly trapping to determine absence of beach mice has not been 
conducted.
    Choctawhatchee beach mice were once present along the coastal dunes 
between Choctawhatchee Bay and St. Andrew Bay, Florida (Bowen 1968). 
Based on trapping data, four general areas of occupancy currently 
exist: (1) Topsail Hill Preserve State Park (and adjacent eastern and 
western private lands), (2) Shell Island (includes St. Andrew State 
Park mainland, Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB), and private land 
inholdings), (3) Grayton Beach State Park (and adjacent eastern private 
lands), and (4) West Crooked Island (Tyndall AFB) and adjacent private 
lands. Approximately 96 percent of the lands known to be occupied by 
Choctawhatchee beach mice are public lands. Translocations to establish 
mice on private lands at Camp Creek/WaterSound in Walton County, 
Florida, began in March 2003, and the population was supplemented in 
March 2005 (Service 2003a, 2005). Topsail Hill Preserve State Park 
served as the source for the translocations (total of 36 mice, 18 
pairs). Furthermore, as the viability of beach mouse populations on the 
St. Andrew State Park mainland and Henderson Beach State Park is 
uncertain, these sites may be considered for future translocation 
projects.
    The geographical range of St. Andrew beach mice is identified as 
St. Joseph spit in Gulf County, Florida, to the east entrance of St. 
Andrew Bay, including Cape Sand Blas and Money Bayou in Bay County, 
Florida (Bowen 1968). The St. Andrew beach mouse currently consists of 
two core populations, East Crooked Island (Tyndall AFB) and adjacent 
private lands, and St. Joseph Peninsula State Park and adjacent private 
lands. Specific areas of private lands between the two core populations 
have been trapped since listing and presence has recently been 
established in one area (Moyers and Shea 2002; S.S. Shea, St. Joe 
Timberland Co., personal communication (pers. comm.), 2005). The 
current population at East Crooked Island is a result of translocations 
of beach mice from St. Joseph Peninsula State Park to Crooked Island 
(1997-1998). The persistence of St. Andrew beach mice on other public 
lands, such as Eglin AFB lands at Cape San Blas and Rish Park, is 
uncertain at this time. As there are currently only two core 
populations of this subspecies, and limited viable opportunities exist 
on public lands, a reestablishment project on private lands may be 
considered for this subspecies. Preliminary discussions have had 
favorable support.
    Since the listing of these subspecies, research has refined 
previous knowledge of beach mouse habitat requirements and factors that 
influence their use of habitat. The findings most pertinent to this 
revision of critical habitat and prudency determination involve the 
role of scrub dune habitat. Coastal dune habitat is generally 
categorized as: primary dunes (characterized by sea oats (Uniola 
paniculata) and other grasses), secondary dunes (similar to primary 
dunes but also frequently include such plants as woody goldenrod 
(Chrysoma pauciflosculosa), false rosemary (Conradina canescens)), and 
interior or scrub dunes (often dominated by scrub oaks (Quercus 
geminata) and yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria)). Contrary to the early 
belief that beach mice were restricted to (Howell 1909, 1921; Ivey 
1949) or preferred the frontal dunes (Blair 1951; Pournelle and 
Barrington 1953; Bowen 1968), more recent research has shown that scrub 
habitat serves an invaluable role in the persistence of beach mouse 
populations (Swilling et al. 1998; Sneckenberger 2001). Beach mice 
occupy scrub dunes on a permanent basis and studies have found no 
detectable differences in beach mouse body mass, home range size, 
dispersal, reproduction, survival, food quality, and burrow site 
availability between scrub and frontal dunes (Swilling et al. 1998; 
Swilling 2000; Sneckenberger 2001). The transition from scrub habitat 
to maritime forest, which is characterized by large trees (pines and 
oaks), thick leaf litter, and dense understory, frequently serves to 
delineate the northern or landward extent of suitable beach mouse 
habitat.
    While seasonally abundant, the availability of food resources in 
the primary and secondary dunes fluctuates (Sneckenberger 2001). In 
contrast, the scrub habitat provides a more stable level of food 
resources which becomes crucial when food is scarce or nonexistent in 
the primary and secondary dunes. This suggests that access to primary, 
secondary, and scrub dune habitat is essential to beach mice at the 
individual level.
    In addition to providing burrow sites, food resources, and cover, 
scrub dune habitat also serves as a high-elevation refuge during storm 
events and as a population source as the primary and secondary dunes 
recover (Swilling et al. 1998; Sneckenberger 2001). Hurricanes can 
severely affect beach mice and their habitat, as tidal surge and wave 
action overwash habitat, leaving a flat sand surface denuded of 
vegetation; sand is deposited inland, completely or partially covering 
vegetation; blowouts between the Gulf of Mexico and bays and lagoons 
leave patchy landscapes of bare sand; primary dunes are sheared or 
eroded; and habitat is completely breached, creating channels from the 
Gulf of Mexico to bays and lagoons. Until frontal (primary and 
secondary) dune topography and vegetation redevelop, scrub habitat 
maintains beach mouse populations and provides the majority of food 
resources and potential burrow sites (Lynn 2000; Sneckenberger 2001). 
While storms temporarily reduce population densities (often severely), 
this disturbance regime maintains open habitat and retards succession, 
yielding a habitat more suitable for beach mice than one lacking 
disturbance. The low-nutrient soil of the coastal dune ecosystem often 
receives a pulse of nutrients from the deposition of vegetative debris 
along the coastline (Lomascolo and Aide 2001). Therefore, as the 
primary and secondary dunes recover, beach mice recolonize this habitat 
readily as food plants develop to take advantage of the newly available 
nutrients. Recovery times vary depending upon factors such as hurricane 
characteristics (that is, severity, amount of associated rain, 
directional movement of the storm eye, storm speed), successional stage 
of habitat prior to hurricane, elevation, and restorative actions post 
hurricane. Depending on these factors, recovery of habitat may take 
from one year to more than 40 years (Traylor-Holzer et al. 2005).
    Species that are protected across their ranges have lower 
probabilities of extinction (Soule and Wilcox 1980). Despite local 
extirpations due to storm events or the harsh, stochastic nature of 
coastal ecosystems, beach mouse populations naturally recover and 
persist. Historically, extirpated areas would be recolonized as 
population densities increase and dispersal occurs from adjacent 
populated areas. In addition, from a genetic perspective, beach mice 
recover well from population size reductions (Wooten 1994), provided 
sufficient habitat is available for population expansion after the 
bottleneck occurs. As human development has fragmented the coastal dune 
landscape, beach mice can no longer recolonize along these areas as 
they did in the past (Holliman 1983). As a continuous presence of beach 
mice or suitable habitat along the coastline is no longer possible and 
any hurricane can impact the entire range of a subspecies, the 
probability of beach mice persisting would be enhanced by the presence 
of contiguous tracts of suitable habitat occupied by multiple 
independent populations (Danielson 2005). The history of the Perdido 
Key beach mouse

[[Page 74429]]

clearly illustrates the need for multiple populations (a now extirpated 
population was the source of the two remaining populations of the 
subspecies (Holler et al. 1989; Service 2004a)). While maintaining 
multiple populations of beach mouse subspecies provides protection from 
total loss (extinction) (Oli et al. 2001), conservation of a subspecies 
necessitates protection of genetic variability throughout its range 
(Ehrlich 1988). Conservation of a species over a range of habitat types 
where it is known to occur reduces the chance of losing disjunct 
populations, which represent an important conservation value for their 
adaptation to local environmental conditions and their genetic 
uniqueness (Fahrig and Merriam 1994). This includes ``peripheral'' 
populations (populations on the fringes of the natural range of the 
species/subspecies), which in many cases are thought to be highly 
desirable because of their distinct genetic characters or adaptations 
due to divergent natural selection (Lesica and Allendorf 1995). 
Preservation of natural populations is therefore crucial, as the loss 
of a population of beach mice can result in a permanent loss of alleles 
(Wooten and Holler 1999). This loss of genetic variability cannot be 
regained through translocations or other efforts.

Previous Federal Actions

    The Perdido Key beach mouse and Choctawhatchee beach mouse were 
listed as endangered on June 6, 1985 (50 FR 23872). Critical habitat 
was designated for the Perdido Key beach mouse and the Choctawhatchee 
beach mouse at the time of listing, consisting primarily of primary and 
secondary dunes and did not include high-elevation (scrub dune) 
habitat. A recovery plan for these beach mice was completed in 1987. On 
November 5, 1991, the Service received a petition from the Alabama 
Conservancy to revise critical habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse 
through an emergency rule. A notice announcing our finding that the 
petitioned action was warranted, but would be delayed until higher 
priority actions had been completed, was published on June 18, 1993 (58 
FR 33606). On February 2, 1999, the Service was petitioned by the 
Sierra Club and Biodiversity Legal Foundation to revise critical 
habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, 
and the Alabama beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus ammobates). The 
Service published a 90-day finding on November 18, 1999 (64 FR 63004). 
The 12-month finding, published September 26, 2000 (65 FR 57800), found 
that revision of critical habitat for the three subspecies of beach 
mice was warranted. Since that time, critical habitat revision has been 
precluded due to other higher priority listing and critical habitat 
actions. On June 17, 2003, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District 
Court for the Southern District of Alabama (Sierra Club and Center for 
Biological Diversity v. Norton et al., 1:03-CV-00377-CB) alleging that 
the Service violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to revise 
critical habitat for the Perdido Key, Choctawhatchee, and Alabama beach 
mice and that the revision was withheld or unreasonably delayed under 
the Administrative Procedure Act. In a December 2004 declaration, we 
stated we would submit a proposed revision for the Perdido Key beach 
mouse and the Choctawhatchee beach mouse by November 15, 2005, and a 
final revision by September 30, 2006. The proposed revision of critical 
habitat for the Alabama beach mouse will be published in a separate 
determination.
    The St. Andrew beach mouse was listed as endangered on December 18, 
1998 (63 FR 70053). The designation of critical habitat was found to be 
not prudent at the time of listing. In 2003, a lawsuit was filed 
against the Service in 2003 by the Center for Biological Diversity 
(Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton, 4:03CV315-WS/WCS), 
challenging the ``not prudent'' determination. On July 27, 2004, the 
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted the 
Service's motion for voluntary remand and ordered the Service to 
publish a new final decision with respect to the designation of 
critical habitat for the St. Andrew beach mouse on or before September 
30, 2006. A recovery plan for this subspecies is currently under 
development.
    For more information on previous Federal actions concerning the 
Perdido Key beach mouse and Choctawhatchee beach mouse, please refer to 
the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on June 6, 
1985 (50 FR 23872). For more information on previous Federal actions 
concerning the St. Andrew beach mouse, please refer to the final 
listing rule published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1998 (63 
FR 70053).

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (i) The 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon 
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and 
procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened 
species to the point at which listing under the Act is no longer 
necessary.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or 
authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on 
Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat 
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, 
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does 
not allow government or public access to private lands.
    To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat 
within the area occupied by the species at the time of listing must 
first have features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known 
using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas 
that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on 
which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 
424.12(b)).
    Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical 
habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special 
management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing 
management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below, 
such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to 
section 4(b)(2).) Accordingly, when the best available scientific data 
do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species so 
require, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An 
area currently occupied by the species but was not known to be occupied 
at the time of listing will likely be essential to the conservation of 
the species and, therefore, included in the critical habitat 
designation.
    The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered 
Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and

[[Page 74430]]

General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 
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 and commercial data available. They require Service 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific and commercial data available, to use primary and 
original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to 
designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical 
habitat, one primary source of information is generally the listing 
package for the species. Additional information sources include the 
recovery plan for the species, articles in 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 Public Law 106-554 and the 
associated Information Quality Guidelines.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to 
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, 
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the 
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information 
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 
424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
we designate critical habitat at the time a species is listed as 
endangered or threatened. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state 
that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or 
both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened 
by taking or other activity and the identification of critical habitat 
can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species or (2) 
such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the 
species. In our December 18, 1998, final rule (63 FR 70053), we 
determined that the designation of critical habitat was not prudent for 
the St. Andrew beach mouse due to the lack of additional conservation 
benefit from such designation. However, several of our determinations 
that the designation of critical habitat would not be prudent have been 
overturned by court decisions. For example, Conservation Council for 
Hawaii v. Babbitt, (2 F. Supp. 2d 1280 [D. Hawaii 1998]), Natural 
Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior, (13 F. 3d 
1121, 1125 [9th Cir. 1997]).
    We are already working with Federal and State agencies, private 
individuals, and organizations in carrying out conservation activities 
for the St. Andrew beach mouse and in conducting surveys for additional 
occurrences of the species and to assess habitat conditions. However, 
the designation may provide additional information to individuals, 
local and State governments, and other entities engaged in long-range 
planning, since areas with features essential to the conservation of 
the species are more clearly defined and, to the extent currently 
feasible, the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to 
the survival of the subspecies are specifically identified. Moreover, 
although the low numbers and restricted range of these mice make it 
unlikely that their populations could withstand even moderate 
collecting pressure or vandalism, we do not have specific evidence for 
taking, collection, vandalism, trade, or unauthorized human 
disturbance.
    Accordingly, we withdraw our previous determination that the 
designation of critical habitat will not benefit the St. Andrew beach 
mouse and now determine that the designation of critical habitat is 
prudent for this subspecies. At this time, we have sufficient 
information necessary to identify specific areas that meet the 
definition of critical habitat and are, therefore, proposing critical 
habitat for the St. Andrew beach mouse (see ``Methods'' section below 
for a discussion of information used in our reevaluation).

Methods

    As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best 
scientific data available in determining areas that contain the 
features that are essential to the conservation of the Perdido Key 
beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and St. Andrew beach mouse. We 
have reviewed the overall approach to conservation of the three 
subspecies of beach mice undertaken by the local, State, and Federal 
agencies operating within the species' range since their listing, and 
the recovery plan for Perdido Key and Choctawhatchee beach mice (1987).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the historic 
and current distributions, previously designated critical habitat, life 
histories, habitats of, and threats to the beach mice. We reviewed 
available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of 
these subspecies, including material received since completion of the 
1987 recovery plan. This material includes data in reports submitted 
during section 7 consultations and by biologists holding section 
10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research published in peer-reviewed 
articles and presented in academic theses and agency reports; regional 
Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages; and beach mouse habitat 
maps developed by the Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife 
Conservation Commission (FWC), as well as our own site-specific species 
and habitat information, recent biological surveys, reports and 
communication with other qualified biologists or experts, and 
unpublished species occurrence data contained within our files.
    Four steps were conducted to identify critical habitat units. 
First, based on a compilation of information listed above on the known 
occurrences of the three subspecies of beach mice, we created maps 
indicating the areas and habitat features associated with these 
occurrences. The habitat units were delineated using ArcView 
(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS 
program, to evaluate GIS and locality data derived from a variety of 
Federal, State, and local agencies, and from private organizations and 
individuals. Our mapping process was based on the need

[[Page 74431]]

to exclude areas that lack essential habitat features, while 
simultaneously accounting for the dynamic nature of coastal habitat. We 
depicted the mapped shoreline according to the mean high water line 
(MHWL), though the land configurations of these coastal areas change 
dramatically through time. Landward boundaries of the units, which 
frequently consist of urban areas or maritime forest are more stable 
and provide easily discernable landmarks when visiting a proposed 
critical habitat unit. Habitat delineation included current and 
historic species occurrence locations. The Service has developed a 
trapping protocol for establishing absence of beach mice (see ADDRESSES 
to request a copy). In summary, this protocol requires two years of 
quarterly trapping with no beach mice captured to document absence. 
Presence of beach mice, however, can be successfully documented by the 
capture of one beach mouse, or the observation of beach mouse tracks or 
beach mouse burrows by a beach mouse expert or similarly qualified 
biologist.
    Second, we identified, in accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the 
Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, the physical and biological 
habitat features (also called primary constituent elements, or PCEs) at 
those sites that are essential to the conservation of the species. We 
mapped critical habitat unit boundaries at each site based on the 
extent of habitat containing sufficient PCEs to support biological 
function. The mapping itself was the third step. The fourth and final 
step was to determine and identify any areas that do not meet the 
definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A) of the Act, and to 
identify other areas that may be subject to an approved INRMP that 
provides a benefit to the species and may be exempted under section 
4(a)(3), and to identify units that may be considered for exclusion 
based on section 4(b)(2) of the Act (see the Application of Sections 
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
below, for a detailed description).

Primary Constituent Elements

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

Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior

    Long-term trapping data have shown that beach mouse densities are 
cyclic and fluctuate by magnitudes on a seasonal and annual basis. 
These fluctuations can be a result of reproduction rates, food 
availability, habitat quality and quantity, catastrophic events, 
disease, and predation (Blair 1951; Bowen 1968; Smith 1971; Hill 1989; 
Rave and Holler 1992; Swilling et al. 1998; Swilling 2000; 
Sneckenberger 2001). Without suitable habitat sufficient in size to 
support the natural cyclic nature of beach mouse populations as they 
expand, subspecies are at risk from local extirpation and extinction, 
and may not attain the densities necessary to persist through storm 
events and seasonal fluctuations of resources. The conservation of 
multiple large, contiguous tracts of habitat is a key to the 
persistence of beach mice.
    At present, such large parcels exist mainly on public lands. 
Protection, management, and conservation of beach mice on public areas 
have been complicated by increased recreational use by humans as public 
lands are rapidly becoming the only natural areas left on the coast. 
Where protection of large contiguous tracts of beach mouse habitat 
along the coast is not possible, establishing multiple independent 
populations is the best defense against local and complete extinctions 
due to storms and other stochastic events (Danielson 2005). Protecting 
multiple populations increases the chance of at least one population 
within the range of a subspecies surviving episodic storm events and 
persisting while vegetation and dune structure recover.

Habitat Connectivity

    Habitat loss and fragmentation associated with residential and 
commercial real estate development is the primary threat contributing 
to the endangered status of beach mice (Holler 1992a; Humphrey 1992). 
Coastal development has fragmented all the subspecies into disjunct 
populations. Isolation of habitats by imposing barriers to species 
movement is an effect of fragmentation that equates to reduction in 
total habitat (Noss and Csuti 1997). Furthermore, isolation of small 
populations of beach mice reduces or precludes gene flow between 
populations and can result in the loss of genetic diversity. Selander 
et al. (1971) found that allozyme variation in beach mouse populations 
(Perdido Key beach mice, Choctawhatchee beach mice, and Alabama beach 
mice) was significantly lower than the variation detected in adjacent 
inland populations. Correlations between genetic variation 
(heterozygosity) and other factors have been well-researched with 
oldfield mice. Lower levels of heterozygosity have been linked to less 
efficient feeding, fewer demonstrations of social dominance and 
exploratory behavior, and smaller body size (Garten 1976, Teska et al. 
1990). Research focused on inbreeding depression in oldfield mice 
(including one beach mouse subspecies) determined that the effects of 
inbreeding negatively influenced factors such as litter size, number of 
litters, and juvenile survivorship (Lacy et al. 1995). Demographic 
factors, such as predation (especially by domestic cats), diseases, and 
competition with house mice, are intensified in small, isolated 
populations which may be rapidly extirpated by these pressures. 
Especially when coupled with events such as storms, reduced food 
availability, and reduced reproductive success, isolated populations 
may experience severe declines or extirpation (Caughley and Gunn 1996). 
The strength of influence these factors have on populations or 
individuals is largely dependent on the degree of isolation.
    Connectivity becomes essential where mice occupy fragmented areas 
lacking one or more habitat types. If scrub habitat is lacking from a 
particular tract, adjacent or connected tracts with scrub habitat are 
necessary for food and burrow sites when resources are scarce in the 
frontal dunes, and are essential to beach mouse populations during and 
immediately after hurricanes. Trapping data suggest that beach mice 
occupying the scrub following hurricanes recolonize the frontal dunes 
once vegetation and some dune structure have recovered (Swilling et al. 
1998; Sneckenberger 2001). Similarly, when frontal dune habitat is 
lacking from a tract and a functional pathway to frontal dune habitat 
does not exist, beach mice may not be able to obtain the resources

[[Page 74432]]

necessary to expand the population and reach the densities necessary to 
persist through the harsh summer season or the next storm. Functional 
pathways may allow for natural behavior such as dispersal and 
exploratory movements, as well as gene flow to maintain genetic 
variability of the population within fragmented or isolated areas. To 
that end, contiguous tracts or functionally connected patches of 
suitable habitat are features that are essential to the long-term 
conservation of beach mice.

Food Resources and Vegetative Cover

    Beach mice feed primarily upon seeds and fruits, but have been 
shown to prey on insects. Beach mice appear to forage on food items 
based on availability and have shown no preferences for particular 
seeds or fruits (Moyers 1996). Research suggests that the availability 
of food resources fluctuates seasonally in Gulf Coast coastal dune 
habitat; specifically, food resources may be limited during winter and 
spring in the scrub habitat and limited in the frontal dunes in the 
summer and fall (Sneckenberger 2001). Nutritional analysis of foods 
available in each habitat revealed that seeds of plant species in both 
habitats provide a similar range of nutritional quality. The frontal 
dunes appear to have more species of high-quality foods, but these 
sources are primarily grasses and annuals that produce large quantities 
of small seeds in a short period of time. Foods available in the scrub 
consist of larger seeds and fruits that are produced throughout a 
greater length of time and linger in the landscape. Consequently, 
large, contiguous tracts containing both frontal dune and scrub habitat 
types are necessary to provide both: (1) A large quantity of food 
resources coinciding with the reproductive season, and (2) a relatively 
stable source of food resources when availability is reduced.
    Foraging activities and other natural behaviors of beach mice are 
influenced by many factors. Artificial lighting alters behavior 
patterns causing beach mice to avoid otherwise suitable habitat and 
decreases the amount of time they are active in those areas (Bird et 
al. 2004). Within the relatively sparsely vegetated frontal dune and 
scrub dune habitat occupied by beach mice, the presence of vegetative 
cover reduces predation risk and perceived predation risk of foraging 
beach mice, and allows for normal movements, activity, and foraging 
patterns. Foraging in sites with vegetative cover is greater and more 
efficient than in sites without cover (Bird 2002). Beach mice have also 
been found to prefer coastal dune habitat (that is, not maritime 
forest) with increased percent cover of vegetation, and decreased 
distance between vegetated patches (Smith 2003). Behavioral 
modification or increased predation in response to these factors can 
result in population decreases and restricted use of available habitat.

Burrow Sites

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

Habitats Protected From Anthropogenic Disturbance

    Artificial lighting, non-native species, and refuse can directly 
and indirectly increase predation pressure on beach mice beyond their 
natural levels. Free-roaming and feral pets are believed to have a 
devastating effect on beach mouse persistence (Bowen 1968; Linzey 1978) 
and are considered to be the main cause of the loss of at least one 
population of beach mice (Holliman 1983). Cat tracks have been observed 
in areas of low trapping success for beach mice (Auburn University 
1999). The population and habitat viability analysis for the Alabama 
beach mouse indicated that if each population had as few as one feral 
cat that ate one mouse a day, rapid extinction of the species occurred 
in over 99 percent of all iterations (Traylor-Holzer et al. 2005). 
Refuse may attract competitors (house mice (Mus musculus)) and 
predators (such as coyotes (Canis latrans) and red foxes (Vulpes 
vulpes)), unsettling the natural predator/prey balance and competing 
with beach mice for resources. This issue is of particular importance 
and has the most impact when beach mouse populations are at low 
densities. This influx of development-related predators and competitors 
is believed to be the final cause of the extinction of the pallid beach 
mouse (Peromyscus polionotus decoloratus) (Humphrey 1992).
    Beyond the direct effects of mortality due to predation, beach 
mouse habitat use and foraging patterns are influenced by these 
anthropogenic disturbances. Artificial lighting, for example, 
influences beach mouse foraging patterns and natural movements (for 
example, avoidance of an otherwise suitable area) due to an increased 
risk of predation in the lighted areas. Beach mice avoid areas with 
artificial lighting or reduce the time spent foraging in lighted areas 
(Bird et al. 2004). Consequently, because of these anthropogenic 
factors, mice may be unable to gather necessary food resources or fail 
to utilize otherwise suitable habitat.

PCEs for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse, Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse, and 
St. Andrew Beach Mouse

    PCEs previously determined for the Perdido Key beach mouse and 
Choctawhatchee beach mouse included ``dunes and interdunal areas, and 
associated grasses and shrubs that provide food and cover'' (50 FR 
23872). These elements did not address many of the requirements that we 
now know are crucial for long-term persistence of beach mice, including 
the need for scrub dune habitat. Based on our current knowledge of the 
life history, biology, and ecology of the species and the requirements 
of the habitat to sustain the essential life history functions of the 
species, we have determined that the Perdido Key beach mouse, 
Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and St. Andrew beach mouse's primary 
constituent elements include:
    1. A contiguous mosaic of primary, secondary, and scrub vegetation 
and dune structure, with a balanced level of competition and predation 
and few or no competitive or predaceous nonnative species present, that 
collectively provide foraging opportunities, cover, and burrow sites.
    2. Primary and secondary dunes, generally dominated by sea oats 
(Uniola paniculata), that, despite occasional temporary impacts and 
reconfiguration from tropical storms and hurricanes, provide abundant 
food resources, burrow sites, and protection from predators.
    3. Scrub dunes, generally dominated by scrub oaks (Quercus spp.), 
that provide food resources and burrow sites, and provide elevated 
refugia during and after intense flooding due to

[[Page 74433]]

rainfall and/or hurricane-induced storm surge.
    4. Functional, unobstructed habitat connections that facilitate 
genetic exchange, dispersal, natural exploratory movements, and 
recolonization of locally extirpated areas.
    5. A natural light regime within the coastal dune ecosystem, 
compatible with the nocturnal activity of beach mice, necessary for 
normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    Stabilization of the Perdido Key, Choctawhatchee, and St. Andrew 
beach mice at their present populations and distributions will not 
achieve conservation of these subspecies. Protection and enhancement of 
existing populations and their habitat, plus reestablishment of 
populations in suitable areas within their historic ranges, are 
necessary for the subspecies survival and recovery. Core beach mouse 
populations (that is, populations that have been either relatively 
persistent in the recent past, or have recently maintained healthy 
densities) remain isolated and are vulnerable to natural and 
anthropogenic factors that may further reduce or degrade habitat or 
directly reduce beach mouse population sizes. Maximizing the number of 
independent populations is critical to species survival. Protection of 
a single, isolated, minimally viable population risks the extirpation 
or extinction of a species as a result of harsh environmental 
conditions, catastrophic events, or genetic deterioration over several 
generations (Kautz and Cox 2001). To reduce the risk of extinction 
through these processes, it is important to establish multiple 
protected populations across the landscape (Soul[eacute] and Simberloff 
1986; Wiens 1996). To reduce overall risk to the subspecies, we aimed 
to propose units for each subspecies spaced throughout their respective 
historic ranges, depending on relative fragmentation, size, and health 
of habitat, as well as availability of areas with beach mouse PCEs.
    Based on these considerations, an area was considered for 
designation where it possesses one or more of the PCEs and one of the 
following characteristics: (1) Supports a core population of beach 
mice; (2) was occupied by Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach 
mouse, or St. Andrew beach mouse at the time of listing; or (3) is 
currently occupied by the beach mouse and is an area essential to the 
conservation of the species because it represents an existing 
population needed for conservation.
    Following the strategy outlined above, we began by mapping coastal 
dune communities within the historic range of each subspecies of beach 
mouse. These areas were refined by using aerial map coverages to 
eliminate features such as housing developments and other areas that 
are unlikely to contribute to the conservation of beach mice. We then 
focused on areas supporting beach mice as well as areas that contain 
the PCEs for the subspecies. Because both the Perdido Key beach mouse 
and the St. Andrew beach mouse have been reduced to one location in the 
past, with additional populations re-established by biologists since, 
and translocations are currently underway for the Choctawhatchee beach 
mice, we believe that limiting the proposed designation to occupied 
areas would not yield sufficient habitat for the persistence of beach 
mice. As previously discussed, the fragmentation of the species' 
historic habitat coupled with the stochasticity of the landscape due to 
tropical storms makes multiple populations necessary for species 
conservation. Consequently, we are proposing units which were not 
occupied at the time of listing. These areas, however, are currently 
occupied by the species, have one or more of the PCEs, are within the 
historic range of the species, and are essential to their conservation. 
See below for a more explicit discussion of why these areas are 
essential to the conservation of the beach mice.
    The combined extent of these mapped areas is defined as the habitat 
that contains features that are essential to the conservation of the 
subspecies. Although these areas proposed for designation represent 
only a small proportion of each subspecies' historic range, they 
include a significant proportion of the remaining intact coastal 
communities and reflect the habitat types historically occupied by 
beach mice. Areas not containing the PCEs, such as wetlands and 
maritime forests, were not included within the proposed designation. 
Field reconnaissance was done in a few areas for ground-truthing. We 
eliminated highly degraded tracts, and small, isolated, or highly 
fragmented tracts that provide no long-term conservation value. The 
remaining areas are proposed as five distinct units for the Perdido Key 
beach mouse, five distinct units for the Choctawhatchee beach mouse, 
and three distinct units for the St. Andrew beach mouse.
    Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for 
the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. 
An incidental take permit application must be supported by a habitat 
conservation plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the 
permittee agrees to implement for the species to minimize and mitigate 
the impacts of the requested incidental take. We often exclude non-
Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing 
operative HCP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from designated 
critical habitat because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the 
benefits of inclusion as discussed in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. As 
discussed in further detail below (see ``Application of Sections 
3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act''), 
we are proposing two areas for exclusion that are currently protected 
through Habitat Conservation Plans that provide protection and habitat 
management for Choctawhatchee beach mice.
    When determining the boundaries of proposed critical habitat for 
the Perdido Key beach mouse, Choctawhatchee beach mouse, and the St. 
Andrew beach mouse, we made every effort to avoid including within the 
boundaries of the map contained within this proposed rule developed 
areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack 
PCEs. The scale of the maps prepared under the parameters for 
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the 
exclusion of such developed areas. Any such structures and the land 
under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown 
on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the 
proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. 
Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger 
section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species and/or primary 
constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat. It is important to 
note that the maps provided in this proposed rule (see ``Proposed 
Regulation Promulgation'' section) are for illustrative purposes. For 
the precise legal definition of critical habitat, please refer to the 
narrative unit descriptions in the ``Proposed Regulation Promulgation'' 
section of this rule.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas are 
determined to be occupied at the time of listing and contain the PCEs 
which may require special management considerations or protections. As 
discussed in more detail in the unit descriptions below, we find that 
all of the PCEs in the areas we are proposing for designation may 
require

[[Page 74434]]

special management considerations or protections due to threats to the 
subspecies and/or its habitat. Such management considerations and 
protections include: management of non-native predators and 
competitors, management of non-native plants, protection of beach mice 
and their habitat from threats by road construction, urban and 
commercial development, heavy machinery, and recreational activities.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

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

Perdido Key Beach Mouse

    We are proposing five units as critical habitat for the Perdido Key 
beach mouse: (1) Gulf State Park Unit, (2) West Perdido Key Unit, (3) 
Perdido Key State Park Unit, (4) Gulf Beach Unit, and (5) Gulf Islands 
National Seashore Unit. Table 1 provides, by County, the approximate 
area (acres/hectares) determined to meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the Perdido Key beach mouse.

  TABLE 1.--Areas Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat
for the Perdido Key Beach Mouse and the Area Proposed for Exclusion From
          the Final Critical Habitat Designation, if Applicable
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Area proposed
                                                           for exclusion
                                           Areas meeting  from the final
                                          the definition     critical
              County, state                 of critical       habitat
                                          habitat (acres/   designation
                                             hectares)        (acres/
                                                             hectares)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Escambia, Florida.......................        1116/452              NA
Baldwin, Alabama........................          148/59              NA