69348 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 

Procedural 

The meeting is open to the public. 

Please note that the meeting may close 

early if all business is finished. At the 

Chair’s discretion, members of the 

public may make oral presentations 

during the meeting. If you would like to 

make an oral presentation at the 

meeting, please notify the Assistant 

Executive Director (as provided above in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no 

later than November 28, 2005. Written 

material for distribution at the meeting 

should reach the Coast Guard no later 

than November 28, 2005. 

Information on Services for Individuals 

With Disabilities 

For information on facilities or 

services for individuals with disabilities 

or to request special assistance at the 

meeting, contact Mr. Miante at the 

number listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as 

possible. 

Dated: November 8, 2005. 

Howard L. Hime, 

Acting Director of Standards, Marine Safety, 

Security and Environmental Protection. 

[FR Doc. 05–22596 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 091305C] 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Public 

Scoping Meetings and to Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Related to the Bi-State Water Diversion 

Habitat Conservation Plan for the 

Walla Walla River Basin 

AGENCIES: Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS), Interior; National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct 

scoping meetings. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and National Marine Fisheries 

Service (Services) advise interested 

parties of their intent to conduct public 

scoping under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to 

gather information to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

The Services anticipate receiving permit 

applications from Gardena Farms 

Irrigation District (GFID), Hudson Bay 

District Improvement Company 

(HBDIC), and the Walla Walla River 

Irrigation District (WWRID). Other 

surface water diverters in the Walla 

Walla Basin, such as independent 

irrigators, ditch companies, and other 

local governments, may also apply. The 

permit applications would be submitted 

under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) for the incidental take of listed 

species through actions associated with 

the Bi-State Habitat Conservation Plan 

(HCP) for the Walla Walla River Basin. 

Given the present list of likely permit 

applicants, the geographic scope of the 

permit would be that portion of the 

mainstem Walla Walla River 

downstream from the Walla Walla River 

Irrigation District’s diversion. If other 

surface water diverters apply for 

permits, the geographic scope would be 

expanded accordingly to include those 

stream reaches within the Walla Walla 

Basin that are potentially affected by 

those diversions. The proposed actions 

to be covered by the permit would be 

those activities undertaken by the 

applicants that are associated with the 

diversion and delivery of surface water. 

DATES: Four scoping meetings will be 

held in November 2005. They will 

include one meeting for the 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation (CTUIR), one for all 

interested and affected agencies, and 

two for the public. Meeting locations 

and times will be published in the local 

newspapers of record: 

1. Public scoping meeting, November 

16, 2005, 7 p.m.–9 p.m. 

2. Public scoping meeting, November 

17, 2005, 7 p.m.–9 p.m. 

3. Agency scoping meeting, November 

17, 2005, 1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m. 

4. CTUIR scoping meeting, November 

18, 2005, 9 a.m.–10 a.m.Written 

comments should be received on or 

before December 30, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting locations are: 

1. Public scoping meeting,Washington 

State Department of Transportation 

(Conference Room) 1210 G Street, Walla 

Walla, WA 99362. 

2. Public scoping meeting, Milton 

Freewater Library (Albee Room), 8 SW 

8th Avenue, Milton-Freewater, OR 

97862. 

3. Agency scoping meeting, 

Washington State Department of 

Transportation (Conference Room) 1210 

G Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362. 

4. CTUIR scoping meeting, 73239 

Confederated Way, Mission, OR 97801. 

All comments concerning the 

preparation of the EIS and the NEPA 

process should be addressed to: Ms. 

Michelle Eames, FWS, 1103 East 

Montgomery Drive, Spokane, 

Washington 99206, facsimile 509–891–

6748; or Mr. Dale Bambrick, NMFS, 304 

S. Water Street, Suite 200, Ellensburg, 

WA 98926, facsimile 509–962–8544. Email comments may be submitted to the 

following address: 

WallaWallaHCP@fws.gov. In the subject 

line of the e-mail, include the document 

identifier: Walla Walla HCP-EIS. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michelle Eames, FWS, (509)-891–6839, 

or Dale Bambrick, NMFS, (509) 962–

8911. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Statutory Authority 

Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR 17.21(c), 17.31(a)) prohibit the 

‘‘taking’’ of animal species listed as 

endangered or threatened. The term 

‘‘take’’ is defined under the ESA to 

mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). ‘‘Harm’’ is 

defined by FWS regulation to include 

significant habitat modification or 

degradation where it actually kills or 

injures wildlife by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, and 

sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). NMFS’

definition of harm includes significant 

habitat modification or degradation 

where it actually kills or injures fish or 

wildlife by significantly impairing 

essential behavioral patterns, including 

breeding, feeding, spawning, migrating, 

rearing, and sheltering (64 FR 60727, 

November 8, 1999). 

Section 10 of the ESA and 

implementing regulations provide for 

the issuance of incidental take permits 

(ITPs) to non-Federal applicants to 

authorize incidental take of endangered 

and threatened species (16 U.S.C. 

1539(a); 50 CFR 17.22(b), 17.32(b)). Any 

proposed take must be incidental to an 

otherwise lawful activity, must not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 

survival and recovery of the species in 

the wild, and must be minimized and 

mitigated to the maximum extent 

practicable. In addition, an applicant 

must prepare an HCP describing the 

impact that will likely result from such 

taking, a plan for minimizing and 

mitigating the impacts of such 

incidental take, the funding available to 

implement the plan, alternatives to such 

taking, and the reason such alternatives 

are not being implemented. 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires 

that Federal agencies conduct an 

environmental analysis of their 

proposed actions to determine if the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 69349 

actions may significantly affect the 

human environment. Under NEPA, a 

reasonable range of alternatives to the 

proposed project is developed and 

considered in the Services’ EIS. 

Alternatives considered for analysis in 

an EIS may include: variations in the 

scope or types of covered activities; 

variations in the location, amount, and 

types of conservation measures; timing 

of project activities; variations in permit 

duration; or a combination of these 

elements. In addition, an EIS will 

identify potentially significant direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects on 

biological resources, land use, air 

quality, water quality, water resources, 

socioeconomics, minority communities, 

cultural resources, and other 

environmental issues that could occur 

with the implementation of the 

applicant’s proposed actions and 

alternatives. An EIS will identify all 

potentially significant environmental 

effects and what steps will be taken to 

reduce these effects, where feasible, to 

a level below significance. 

Background 

The proposed EIS would analyze the 

potential issuance of two ITPs, one by 

NMFS and one by the FWS. To obtain 

an ITP, the applicants must prepare a 

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that 

meets the issuance criteria established 

by the ESA and Service regulations (50 

CFR 17.22(b)(2) 17.32(b), 222.307). 

Should a permit or permits be issued, 

the permit(s) may include assurances 

under the Service’s ‘‘No Surprises’’

regulations. The NEPA scoping process 

will identify and evaluate the range of 

alternatives and issues to be addressed 

in the EIS. If additional potential 

applicants or conservation measures are 

identified that are distinctly different 

from those above, the scoping process 

may be revisited. 

The Walla Walla Basin is located in 

southeast Washington and northeast 

Oregon. The basin encompasses 

approximately 1,800 square miles (4,698 

Km) in Columbia and Walla Walla, 

Counties in Washington, and Umatilla, 

Union, and Wallowa Counties in 

Oregon. The activities anticipated to be 

covered include all activities associated 

with the diversion and delivery of 

surface water that have the potential to 

affect species subject to protection 

under the ESA, as well as other, 

unlisted, species of concern to the 

Services. 

The species currently listed under the 

ESA that are being proposed for 

coverage under an ITP include the bull 

trout (Salvelinus confluentus), under the 

jurisdiction of the FWS, and the MidColumbia River evolutionarily 

significant unit of steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss), under the 

jurisdiction of NMFS, both currently 

listed as threatened. Other listed or 

unlisted species may also be considered 

and addressed. 

Proposed conservation measures that 

the applicants may incorporate include, 

but are not limited to: curtailment of 

surface diversions, seasonal diversion 

reductions, water quality improvements, 

and physical habitat enhancements. 

A draft HCP, to be prepared by the 

applicants in support of their ITP 

applications, will describe the impacts 

of take on the proposed covered species, 

and will propose a conservation strategy 

to minimize and mitigate impacts on 

each covered species to the maximum 

extent practicable. The draft will also 

identify funding for the conservation 

plan, as well as the HCP alternatives 

and will explain why those alternatives 

are not being utilized. The Services are 

responsible for determining whether the 

draft HCP satisfies ESA section 10 

issuance criteria. 

Under NEPA, a reasonable range of 

alternatives to a proposed project must 

be developed and considered in the 

Services’ EIS. The Services have 

identified the following preliminary 

alternatives for public comment during 

the public scoping period: 

Alternative 1: No Action Alternative - 

Under the No Action Alternative, an ITP 

would not be issued and an HCP would 

not be approved. The current FWS 

Settlement Agreement (Agreement) 

would continue through January 2007 

and would need to either be extended 

or renewed for an additional time 

period, or end. If the Agreement is 

renewed, it could include additional 

instream flow requirements and/or other 

requirements. If the Agreement is not 

renewed or extended, then the districts 

could be open to enforcement actions 

due to ESA violations, and the stream 

could be dewatered again, as it was 

prior to 2001. Continued operational 

and capital improvements could be 

made by the districts. 

Alternative 2: Proposed Action 

Alternative - NMFS and the FWS would 

each issue ESA incidental take permits, 

and full implementation of the HCP 

would occur. The HCP would include a 

set of conservation measures specific to 

each applicant that would minimize and 

mitigate the impacts of the project to the 

maximum extent practicable. 

Alternative 3: Programmatic HCP 

Alternative - Under this alternative, 

independent irrigators, irrigation 

districts, ditch companies, and/or 

municipalities may participate in the 

HCP described under the Proposed 

Action Alternative. They would 

participate by either signing a Certificate 

of Inclusion that would cover their 

activities under another applicant’s 

permit, rather than developing a 

separate HCP; or through separate FWS 

and NMFS authoization under ESA 

Section 7 or 10 to cover their activities. 

If these future participants do not adopt 

the HCP described under the Proposed 

Action, it is possible that additional 

NEPA review would be required at the 

time their request for ESA coverage is 

received by the Services. If participants 

choose to adopt the HCP, a site-specific 

plan would be developed and approved 

by both agencies. If the adoption 

includes modifications to the HCP, the 

Services would ensure that the NEPA 

review for the HCP included these 

conditions, and if not, would comply 

with NEPA to provide a review on such 

modifications. 

Alternative 4: Reduced Take 

Alternative - Under this alternative the 

proposed HCP would be modified by 

changing or adding measures to further 

reduce the amount and risk of 

incidental take. These measures could 

include different conservation 

measures, covered species, covered 

lands, covered activities, and/or permit 

duration. Additional project alternatives 

may be developed based on input 

received from the public scoping 

process. 

Request for Comments 

The primary purpose of the scoping 

process is for the public to assist the 

Services in developing the EIS by 

identifying important issues and 

alternatives related to the proposed 

action. Each scoping meeting will 

allocate time for informal discussion 

and questions with presentations by the 

Services and potential applicants. All 

comments and materials received, 

including names and addresses, will 

become part of the administrative record 

and may be released to the public. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the offices listed in the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. 

The Services request that comments 

be specific. In particular, we request 

information regarding: direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts that 

implementation of the proposed HCP 

could have on covered species and their 

habitats and on the built, social, 

economic, natural and cultural 

environments; strategies for meeting the 

purpose and need, in particular 

strategies for improving instream flows; 

potential adaptive management and/or 

monitoring provisions; funding issues; 

existing environmental conditions in 

69350 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices 

the project area; other plans or projects 

that might be relevant to this proposed 

project; and minimization and 

mitigation efforts. The Services estimate 

that a draft EIS will be available for 

public review late in 2006. 

Reasonable Accommodation 

Persons needing reasonable 

accommodations to attend and 

participate in public meetings should 

contact Michelle Eames (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). To 

allow sufficient time to process 

requests, please call no later than 1 

week before the scheduled public 

meeting. Information regarding this 

proposed action is available in 

alternative formats upon request. A 

Spanish interpreter will be available at 

all public meetings. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Daniel H. Diggs, 

Acting Deputy Regional Director, Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Angela Somma, 

Division Chief, Endangered Species Division, 

Office of Protected Resources, National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22632 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODES 3510–22–S, 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[NV–010–06–1020PH] 

Notice Public Meetings: Northeastern 

Great Basin Resource Advisory 

Council 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Fiscal Year 2006 

Meetings Locations and Times for the 

Northeastern Great Basin Resource 

Advisory Council (Nevada). 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Nevada 

Northeastern Great Basin Resource 

Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as 

indicated below. Topics for discussion 

at each meeting will include, but are not 

limited to: February 16, 2006 (Battle 

Mountain, Nevada)—Land Tenure, Sage 

Grouse Conservation Projects, Shoshone 

Range Off-Highway Vehicle Trail; 

tentatively April 27, 2006 (Eureka, 

Nevada); June 15, 2006 (Ely, Nevada)—

Ely Resource Management Plan 

Comments, Minerals activities update; 

August 17 & 18, 2006 (Wells, Nevada)—

Travel Management Planning, Spruce 

Mountain Tour. Managers’ reports of 

field office activities will be given at 

each meeting. The council may raise 

other topics at any of the three planned 

meetings. 

DATES: The RAC will meet three or four 

times in Fiscal Year 2006: on February 

16, 2006 at the BLM Battle Mountain 

Field Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle 

Mountain, Nevada; tentatively on April 

27 at the Eureka Opera House at 31 

South Main, Eureka, Nevada; on June 

15, 2006 at the Bristlecone Convention 

Center, 150 6th Street, Ely, Nevada; and 

on August 17 & 18 at the old El Rancho 

Hotel, 1629 Lake Avenue, Wells, 

Nevada. All meetings are open to the 

public. Each meeting will last from 8 

a.m. to 4 p.m. and will include a general 

public comment period, where the 

public may submit oral or written 

comments to the RAC. Each public 

comment period will begin at 

approximately 1 p.m. unless otherwise 

listed in each specific, final meeting 

agenda. 

Final detailed agendas, with any 

additions/corrections to agenda topics, 

locations, field trips and meeting times, 

will be sent to local and regional media 

sources at least 14 days before each 

meeting, and hard copies can also be 

mailed or sent via FAX. Individuals 

who need special assistance such as 

sign language interpretation or other 

reasonable accommodations, or who 

wish a hard copy of each agenda, should 

contact Mike Brown, Elko Field Office, 

3900 East Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada 

89801, telephone (775) 753–0386 no 

later than 10 days prior to each meeting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Brown, Public Affairs Officer, Elko 

Field Office, 3900 E. Idaho Street, Elko, 

NV 89801. Telephone: (775) 753–0386. 

E-mail: mbrown@nv.blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15- 

member Council advises the Secretary 

of the Interior, through the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), on a variety 

of planning and management issues 

associated with public land 

management in Nevada. All meetings 

are open to the public. The public may 

present written comments to the 

Northeastern Great Basin Resource 

Advisory Council. 

Dated: November 7, 2005. 

Helen Hankins, 

Field Office Manager. 

[FR Doc. 05–22594 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease NMNM 

9023 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 

Section 371(a) of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, the lessee(s), Anderson Oil Ltd., 

John M. Beard Trust, and Patina 

Oklahoma Corp., timely filed a petition 

for reinstatement of oil and gas lease 

NMNM 9023 in Lea County, NM. The 

lessee paid the required rental accruing 

from the date of termination, March 1, 

2003. No leases were issued that affect 

these lands. The lessee agrees to the 

new lease terms for rentals and royalties 

of $5 per acre and 162⁄3 percent or 4 

percentages above the existing 

competitive royalty rate. The lessee paid 

the $500 administration fee for the 

reinstatement of the lease and $166 cost 

for publishing this Notice. 

The lessee met the requirements for 

reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(e) 

of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 

U.S.C. 188(e)). We are proposing to 

reinstate the lease, effective the date of 

termination subject to: 

• The original terms and conditions 

of the lease; 

• The increased rental of $5 per acre; 

• The increased royalty of 162⁄3

percent or 4 percentages above the 

existing competitive royalty rate; and 

• The $166 cost of publishing this 

Notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico 

State Office, (505) 438–7586. 

Dated: October 27, 2005. 

Lourdes B. Ortiz, 

Land Law Examiner. 

[FR Doc. 05–22623 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–FB–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease TXNM 

100506 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 

Section 371(a) of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, the lessee, Chief Oil and Gas 

LLC, timely filed a petition for 

reinstatement of oil and gas lease TXNM 

100506 in Wise County, TX. The lessee 

paid the required rental accruing from 

the date of termination, March 1, 2002.