17666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices 

implementation of the following 

mitigation measures (see the IPHCP for 

additional details about these 

measures): 

• To the maximum extent feasible, 

the City and County will require that 

any revegetation or landscaping 

activities associated with Covered 

Activities are conducted using locally 

derived source material (i.e., seeds or 

cuttings) of plant species native to the 

Sandhills, with particular emphasis on 

the plant species identified in Appendix 

F of the IPHCP. 

• Prior to beginning any grounddisturbing activities, the impacts of 

Covered Activities must be mitigated in 

one of the following ways: (1) The 

landowner must secure conservation 

credits for the Mount Hermon June 

beetle at a ratio of 1:1 in terms of acres 

of disturbance to numbers of credits 

(e.g., a project with a 0.1-acre 

disturbance envelope will mitigate by 

securing 0.1 acre of conservation credits 

for the Mount Hermon June beetle) at 

the Zayante Sandhills Conservation 

Bank; or (2) The landowner must secure 

conservation credits for the Mount 

Hermon June beetle at a ratio of 1:1 in 

terms of acres of disturbance to numbers 

of credits (e.g., a project with a 0.1-acre 

disturbance envelope will mitigate by 

securing 0.1 acre of conservation credits 

for the Mount Hermon June beetle) at 

another Service-approved conservation 

bank; this bank must also have an 

Operating Agreement with the County if 

the parcel is within the County’s 

jurisdiction. 

Environmental Assessment (EA) 

The Draft EA considers the effects on 

the human environment of: (1) Our 

proposed action of issuing ITPs to the 

City and County based on the IPHCP, 

(2) a Reduced-Take Alternative to the 

proposed action, and (3) No Action 

Alternative. Under the Reduced-Take 

Alternative, we would propose to issue 

ITPs to the City and County where the 

total amount of development that would 

be covered under the IPHCP and related 

ITPs would be 100 acres, instead of 139 

acres as is currently proposed. The 

maximum disturbance footprint would 

remain at 15,000 square feet (0.34 acre) 

per parcel. The boundaries of the 10 

project units would remain unchanged 

as would the minimization and 

mitigation measures of the IPHCP’s 

operating conservation plan. Under the 

No Action Alternative, the Service 

would not issue ITPs for the Mount 

Hermon June beetle to the City and 

County; thus, private landowners within 

the IPHCP area would have to apply to 

the Service individually to obtain an 

ITP. 

Request for Comments 

We are requesting comments on our 

preliminary determination that the 

proposed project will not have 

significant effects on the environment, 

and suggestions for issues we should 

consider in our analysis. The Service 

will use the EA to determine whether its 

decision can result in a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) or if an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

must be prepared. 

Based on our review of public 

comments that we receive in response to 

this notice, we may revise this 

preliminary determination. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Please direct any comments to the 

Service contact listed above in the 

ADDRESSES section, and any questions to 

the Service contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

All comments and materials we receive, 

including names and addresses, will 

become part of the administrative record 

and may be released to the public. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Next Steps 

We will evaluate the IPHCP and 

comments we receive to determine 

whether the permit applications meet 

the requirements of section 10(a) of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and 

complete our compliance with NEPA. If 

we determine that the applications meet 

these requirements, we will issue the 

permits for incidental take of the Mount 

Hermon June beetle. We will also 

evaluate whether issuance of section 

10(a)(1)(B) permits would comply with 

section 7 of the Act by conducting an 

intra-Service section 7 consultation. We 

will use the results of this consultation, 

in combination with the above findings, 

in our final analysis to determine 

whether or not to issue a permit. If the 

requirements are met, we will issue the 

permits to the applicants. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under section 

10 of the Act (U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). 

Dated: March 24, 2011. 

Paul B McKim, 

Acting Deputy Regional Director, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Sacramento, CA. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7426 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R8–ES–2011–N010; 1112–0000– 

80221–F2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Permits; Joint 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact 

Statement, Riverside County, CA 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), in coordination with 

the Coachella Valley Conservation 

Commission (CVCC), are gathering 

information necessary for the 

preparation of a joint Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Report/ 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(Supplemental EIR/EIS) under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). This is a Supplemental EIR/EIS 

to the approved and certified September 

2007 Final Recirculated EIR/EIS for the 

Coachella Valley Multiple Species 

Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan, or 

CVMSHCP). The Supplemental EIR/EIS 

will consider the environmental effects 

associated with the issuance of an 

amended permit for the CVMSHCP, 

adding the City of Desert Hot Springs 

(City) and Mission Springs Water 

District (MSWD) as permittees under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), 

as amended.We are furnishing this 

notice to announce the initiation of a 

public scoping period, during which we 

invite other agencies, Tribes, and 

interested persons to provide comments 

to identify and discuss the scope of 

issues and alternatives that should be 

addressed in the Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by 5 p.m. on April 29, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Mr. Jim 

A. Bartel, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 6010 Hidden 

Valley Road, Suite 101, Carlsbad, CA 

92011. Alternatively, you may submit 

comments by facsimile to (760) 918– 

0638. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carol Roberts, Division Chief, Coachella 

and Imperial Valleys (see ADDRESSES), 

telephone (760) 431–9440. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices 17667 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In accordance with section 10(a)(2)(A) 

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 

as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), the Coachella Valley Conservation 

Commission (CVCC) is preparing a 

proposed habitat conservation plan 

(HCP) in support of an application for 

an amended permit from the Service to 

incidentally take listed species. Section 

9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538) and its 

implementing regulations prohibit the 

take of animal species listed as 

endangered or threatened. The term 

‘‘take’’ is defined under the ESA (16 

U.S.C. 1532) as to harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect or attempt to engage in such 

conduct. ‘‘Harm’’ is defined in the Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) by Service 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.3 to include 

significant habitat modification or 

degradation where it actually kills or 

injures wildlife by significantly 

impairing essential behavior patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering. In certain circumstances, 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, we 

may issue permits to authorize 

‘‘incidental take’’ of listed species. 

‘‘Incidental take’’ is defined by the ESA 

as take that is incidental to, and not the 

purpose of, carrying out an otherwise 

lawful activity. Regulations governing 

permits for threatened and endangered 

species are found at 50 CFR 17.32 and 

50 CFR 17.22, respectively. Take of 

listed plant species on non-Federal 

lands is not prohibited under the ESA, 

and authorization under an ESA section 

10 permit is not required. However, 

plant species may be included on a 

permit in recognition of the 

conservation benefits provided for them 

under the HCP. If the permit is issued, 

the CVCC would receive assurances for 

all species included on the incidental 

take permit under the Service’s ‘‘No 

Surprises’’ regulations (50 CFR 17.22 

(b)(5) and 17.32 (b)(5)). 

Section 10 of the ESA specifies the 

requirements for the issuance of 

incidental take permits to non-Federal 

entities. Any proposed take must be 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities 

and must not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival and recovery 

of the species in the wild. The impacts 

of such take must also be minimized 

and mitigated to the maximum extent 

practicable. To obtain an incidental take 

permit, an applicant must prepare a 

HCP describing the impact that would 

likely result from the proposed taking, 

the measures for minimizing and 

mitigating the take, the funding 

available to implement such measures, 

alternatives to the taking, and the reason 

why such alternatives are not being 

implemented. 

In February 2006, the Final 

CVMSHCP and associated Final EIR/EIS 

were released for review and approval 

by the participating jurisdictions and 

agencies as part of the application 

process to support the issuance of take 

authorizations by the Service (April 1, 

2006, 71 FR 20719). However, in June 

2006, the City voted not to approve the 

Plan. Subsequently, the Coachella 

Valley Association of Governments 

(CVAG) Executive Committee rescinded 

its approval of the Plan and directed 

that Desert Hot Springs be removed as 

a Permittee. The CVAG prepared and 

recirculated a revised Plan and 

associated EIR/EIS, which removed the 

City and made other modifications 

consistent with direction from the 

CVAG Executive Committee (March 30, 

2007, 72 FR 15148). 

The revised and recirculated 

CVMSHCP was approved and the 

associated Final Recirculated EIR/EIS 

was certified by CVAG and the CVCC in 

September 2007 and subsequently by all 

local Permittees by the end of October 

2007. The State Permittees (Caltrans, 

CVMC, and California State Parks) 

approved the Plan and signed the 

Implementing Agreement as of March 

2008. The Final Recirculated 

CVMSHCP, which did not include the 

City, received final State and Federal 

permits on September 9 and October 1, 

2008, respectively. 

However, in a reversal of their June 

2006 decision to optout of the Plan, the 

City Council reconsidered their decision 

and unanimously approved a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

in October 2007, stating the parties’ 

mutual intent to enter into negotiations 

for the City to join the CVMSHCP as a 

Permittee. The MOU was subsequently 

approved by the CVCC, CVAG, and the 

County of Riverside as of February 2008. 

Subsequent to the City’s decision, the 

MSWD has also made the decision to 

join the CVMSHCP as a Permittee, and 

the addition of both entities as 

Permittees will be evaluated in the 

Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

The Amendment to reinstate the City 

proposes that the Plan provisions and 

boundaries will be based on the 

February 2006 CVMSHCP, with 

modifications as described in the 

September 2007 Final Recirculated 

CVMSHCP to provide for the Riverside 

County Flood Control and Water 

Conservation District’s future flood 

control facility. The current Plan 

boundaries would be amended to 

include all of the private lands within 

the City limits and restore the original 

boundaries of the Upper Mission Creek/ 

Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater 

Canyon Conservation Areas within City 

limits. Adding the City as a Permittee 

requires a Major Amendment to the 

CVMSHCP in accordance with the 

requirements outlined in Section 6.12.4 

of the Plan. The procedures outlined in 

Section 6.12.4 state that Major 

Amendments require the same process 

to be followed as for the original 

CVMSHCP approval, including 

California Environmental Quality Act 

and NEPA compliance. In addition, 

MSWD, not previously a participating 

agency, has also opted to join the 

CVMSHCP as a Permittee. MSWD and 

the City have proposed that a number of 

infrastructure projects be included as 

Covered Activities under the Plan. 

Covered Activities include certain 

activities carried out or conducted by 

Permittees, which receive take 

authorization under an USFWS section 

10(a)(1)(B) permit and a State Natural 

Community Conservation Planning 

Permit, provided these activities are 

otherwise lawful. Details of the 

proposed Covered Activities for an 

amended permit will be provided in the 

amended CVMHCP and Supplemental 

EIR/EIS. 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Prior to issuing an amendment to the 

permit, we will prepare a draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS to analyze the 

environmental impacts associated with 

the issuance of the requested permit 

amendment and the implementation of 

the amended CVMSHCP by the City and 

the MSWD. The Fish and Wildlife 

Service is the NEPA lead for the 

Supplemental EIR/EIS, and we are 

responsible for the scope and content of 

the document. The Supplemental EIR/ 

EIS will consider the proposed action, 

the issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) 

permit amendment under the ESA, No 

Action (no permit amendment), and a 

reasonable range of alternatives. A 

detailed description of the impacts of 

the proposed action and each alternative 

will be included in the Supplemental 

EIR/EIS. 

The proposed action and alternatives 

will be evaluated against the No Action 

alternative, which assumes that no 

permit amendment will be issued. A 

range of alternatives will be considered 

and analyzed, representing varying 

levels of conservation and impacts. The 

alternatives to be considered for 

analysis in the Supplemental EIR/EIS 

may include: Variations in the scope of 

covered activities; variations in the 

location, amount, and type of 

conservation; variations in permit 

duration; or a combination of these 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

17668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 61 / Wednesday, March 30, 2011 / Notices 

elements. The Supplemental EIR/EIS 

will also identify potentially significant 

direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

on biological resources, land use, air 

quality, water quality, water resources, 

and socioeconomics, along with other 

environmental issues that could occur 

with the implementation of the 

proposed actions and alternatives. For 

all potentially significant impacts, the 

Supplemental EIR/EIS will identify 

avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation measures to reduce these 

impacts, where feasible, to a level below 

significance. 

Public Comments 

Please direct any comments to the 

Service contact listed above in the 

ADDRESSES section, and any questions to 

the Service contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

All comments and materials received, 

including names and addresses, will 

become part of the administrative record 

and may be released to the public. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: This notice is provided under 

section 10(a) of the ESA and Service 

regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 

1506.6). 

Dated: March 24, 2011. 

Paul McKim, 

Acting Deputy Regional Director, Pacific 

Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. 

[FR Doc. 2011–7420 Filed 3–29–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[L51010000–FX0000–LVRWA09A2590– 

LLAZC02000; AZA34666] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare a Possible 

Land Use Plan Amendment in 

Conjunction With the Proposed 

Quartzsite Solar Energy Project, La 

Paz County, AZ 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), Yuma Field 

Office, Yuma, Arizona, proposes to 

amend the Yuma Resource Management 

Plan (RMP), in conjunction with the 

Quartzsite Solar Energy Project (QSEP), 

and by this notice is announcing the 

beginning of the scoping process to 

solicit public comments and identify 

issues associated with the proposed 

RMP amendment. 

DATES: This notice initiates the public 

scoping process for the proposed 

amendment. To be fully considered in 

the planning process, comments must 

be submitted in writing by April 29, 

2011. The date(s) and location(s) of all 

scoping meetings will be announced at 

least 15 days in advance of the 

meeting(s) through local media and the 

following BLM Web site at: http:// 

www.blm.gov/az/st/en.html. The BLM 

will provide additional opportunities 

for public participation upon 

publication of the draft planning 

document. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

related to the plan amendment proposal 

by any of the following methods: 

• Web site: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/ 

en.html. 

• E-mail: Quartzsite_Solar@blm.gov. 

• Fax: 928–317–3250. 

• Mail: Quartzsite Solar Energy 

Project, BLM, Yuma Field Office, 

Attention: Eddie Arreola, Supervisory 

Project Manager, 2555 East Gila Ridge 

Road, Yuma, Arizona 85365. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Eddie Arreola, Supervisory Project 

Manager, telephone 602–417–9505; 

e-mail eddie_arreola@blm.gov; address 

One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Quartzsite 

Solar Energy LLC (QSE), a wholly 

owned subsidiary of Solar Reserve LLC, 

has requested a right-of-way 

authorization from the BLM to 

construct, operate, and maintain a 100- 

megawatt solar energy generation 

facility on 1,450 acres using 

concentrated solar power tower 

technology and has also applied for the 

approval of the Western Area Power 

Administration (WAPA) to interconnect 

the facility’s electric grid system into 

WAPA’s existing 230 kilovolt 

transmission line paralleling State Route 

95. QSE’s proposed project is 

approximately 10 miles north of the 

Town of Quartzsite and approximately 1 

mile to the east of State Route 95. 

WAPA, as the lead agency under NEPA 

for the project, published a Notice of 

Intent to prepare an environmental 

impact statement (EIS) for the proposed 

project in the Federal Register on 

January 14, 2010 (75 FR 2133). Public 

scoping meetings on the QSE project EIS 

were held on January 26, 2010, in 

Yuma, Arizona; January 27, 2010, in 

Parker, Arizona; and January 28, 2010, 

in Quartzsite, Arizona. The BLM is a 

cooperating agency for this EIS. 

Preliminary environmental analysis 

by the BLM has determined that QSE’s 

proposed project tower is in nonconformance with the Yuma RMP’s 

Visual Resources Management (VRM) 

Class III management objectives. 

Authorization of the solar facility may 

therefore require an amendment to the 

Yuma RMP. 

By this notice, the BLM is complying 

with requirements in 43 CFR 1610.2(c) 

to notify the public of potential 

amendments to land use plans, 

predicated on the findings of the NEPA 

analysis. The BLM will coordinate the 

RMP commenting process to satisfy the 

public involvement process under 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470(f)), as 

provided for in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). 

Native American tribal consultations 

will be conducted in accordance with 

policy, and tribal concerns, including 

impacts on Indian trust assets, will be 

given due consideration. 

The purpose of this public scoping 

process is to determine relevant issues 

that will influence the scope of the 

environmental analysis as it relates to 

the potential RMP amendment, 

including alternatives, and guide the 

process for developing the relevant 

NEPA analyses. At present, the BLM has 

identified the following preliminary 

issues, among others: Air quality, 

geologic resources, soils, water 

resources, threatened and endangered 

species, wildlife habitats, cultural and 

historical resources, paleontological 

resources, visual resources, land use, 

recreational resources, and public 

health and safety. Federal, State, and 

local agencies, along with other 

stakeholders that may be interested or 

affected by the BLM’s decision on this 

project, are invited to participate in the 

scoping process and, if eligible, may 

request or be requested by the BLM to 

participate as a cooperating agency for 

the development of the RMP 

amendment. 

The NEPA document analyzing the 

RMP amendment will consider the 

impacts of the proposed action, 

alternatives, and the no action 

alternative. The BLM, as a cooperating 

agency for the project EIS, will work to 

coordinate the analysis associated with 

the RMP amendment with the project 

EIS. The public is invited to submit 

comments on the possible amendment 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES