Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 26883 

throughout most of its range. By some 

estimates, as much as 90 percent of the 

scrub ecosystem has already been lost to 

residential development and conversion 

to agriculture, including citrus groves. 

Applicant’s Proposal 

The applicant is requesting take of 

approximately 0.19 ac of occupied sand 

skink habitat incidental to the project. 

The 1.06-ac project is located east of 

State Road 455 within Section 17, 

Township 21 South, Range 26 East, Lake 

County, Florida. The proposed project 

currently includes realignment of a 

portion of CR 455 that does not meet 

government safety standards and will 

include construction of a stormwater 

retention pond to address runoff 

associated with the realigned roadway. 

The applicant proposes to mitigate for 

the take of the sand skink at a ratio of 

2:1 based on Service Mitigation 

Guidelines. The applicant proposes to 

mitigate for 0.19 ac of impacts by 

purchasing 0.40 ac of occupied sand 

skink habitat in Polk County, Florida, 

within the boundaries of the Lake Wales 

Ridge. 

We have determined that the 

applicant’s proposal, including the 

proposed mitigation and minimization 

measures, would have minor or 

negligible effects on the species covered 

in the HCP. Therefore, we are making a 

preliminary determination that the ITP 

is a ‘‘low-effect’’ project and qualifies 

for categorical exclusion under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), as provided by the Department 

of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 

Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6 Appendix 1). 

We may revise this preliminary 

determination based on our review of 

public comments we receive in response 

to this notice. A low-effect HCP is one 

involving: (1) Minor or negligible effects 

on federally listed or candidate species 

and their habitats, and (2) minor or 

negligible effects on other 

environmental values or resources. 

We will evaluate the HCP and 

comments we receive to determine 

whether the ITP application meets the 

requirements of section 10(a) of the Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If we determine 

that the application meets those 

requirements, we will issue the ITP for 

incidental take of the sand skink. We 

will also evaluate whether issuance of 

the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies 

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 the 

ITP. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under Section 

10 of the Act and NEPA regulations (40 

CFR 1506.6). 

Dated: May 28, 2009. 

David L. Hankla, 

Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–13033 Filed 6–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2009–N0061; 40136–1265– 

0000–S3] 

Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Lanier County, GA 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental 

assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Banks 

Lake National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

for public review and comment. In this 

Draft CCP/EA, we describe the 

alternative we propose to use to manage 

this refuge for the 15 years following 

approval of the final CCP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

July 6, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, 

and requests for information to: Ms. 

Laura Housh, Refuge Planner, 

Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330, 

Folkston, GA 31537. The Draft CCP/EA 

is available on compact disk or in hard 

copy. The Draft CCP/EA may also be 

accessed and downloaded from the 

Service’s Internet Site: http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Laura Housh; telephone: 912/496–7366, 

ext. 244; fax: 912/496–3322; e-mail: 

laura_housh@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Banks Lake NWR. We started 

this process through a notice in the 

Federal Register on December 6, 2007 

(72 FR 68892). 

Background 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee) (Improvement Act), which 

amended the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, 

requires us to develop a CCP for each 

national wildlife refuge. The purpose for 

developing a CCP is to provide refuge 

managers with a 15-year strategy for 

achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 

consistent with sound principles of fish 

and wildlife management, conservation, 

legal mandates, and our policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. We will 

review and update the CCP at least 

every 15 years in accordance with the 

Improvement Act. 

Banks Lake NWR is managed by staff 

of the Okefenokee NWR. The refuge, 

which is part of a larger blackwater 

system, was established in 1985 for the 

protection and conservation of this 

unique environment, as well as for 

migratory and resident wildlife. It totals 

approximately 3,559 acres. 

Development of the CCP began in 

October 2007, with preplanning 

activities such as gathering data and 

information, meeting with Okefenokee 

NWR staff, and preparing for the public 

scoping phase of the planning process. 

A public scoping meeting was held on 

January 24, 2008, in Lakeland, Georgia. 

The following issues were identified by 

the public, intergovernmental partners, 

and the Service: (1) Threats to 

biodiversity, listed species, and 

migratory birds; (2) need for data and 

comprehensive habitat management; (3) 

impacts to water quantity and quality; 

(4) need for an updated acquisition 

boundary; (5) future land acquisition 

needs; (6) drainage easement protection; 

(7) lack of information on refuge 

cultural resources; (8) need for 

increased law enforcement; (9) need for 

increased public use opportunities; and 

(10) need for adequate resources. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed three alternatives for 

managing the refuge and chose 

Alternative B as the proposed 

alternative. A full description is in the 

Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each 

alternative below. 

Alternative A—No Action Alternative 

Federal- and State-listed species, 

incidental sightings of wood storks, and 

26884 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 

round-tailed muskrats would continue 

to be recorded. The refuge would 

respond to nuisance alligators, and bald 

eagle nests would be protected. There 

would be no management for listed 

plants. 

Management for migratory birds 

would remain minimal, with incidental 

sightings recorded. Aerial surveys 

would continue to be conducted by 

partners over refuge and adjacent lands 

with regard to the bird-aircraft strike 

program at Moody Air Force Base 

(MAFB). 

With regard to nonnative and 

nuisance species, the refuge would 

continue to control water hyacinths 

through herbicidal applications, while 

submerged aquatic vegetation would be 

managed via periodic lake drawdowns. 

For aquatic wildlife, the refuge would 

organize apple snail surveys. There 

would be no management for terrestrial 

nonnative species. 

Apart from aerial mapping conducted 

as part of The Nature Conservancy’s 

2003 Grand Bay–Banks Lake Ecosystem 

Plan, there would be no habitat 

management for the refuge’s marshes, 

scrub/shrub, Carolina bays, or pine 

flatwoods. Management of native fishes 

would include surveys every other year 

and periodic mercury and lead surveys 

conducted by the State. Management for 

reptiles and amphibians would be 

minimal, consisting of incidental 

sightings reporting and occasional frog 

malformation surveys. 

Management of water resources on the 

refuge would include water-quality 

monitoring during fish surveys. The 

refuge would continue to work with 

county governments and landowners to 

connect private systems to the city 

sewage utility, minimizing water quality 

degradation. The refuge would continue 

collaborative efforts with the city of 

Lakeland to facilitate running 

drawdown waters through Lake Irma. In 

addition, the refuge would protect, as 

necessary, its water rights from 

unauthorized private diversions. 

Under this alternative, the refuge 

would not collect data to monitor the 

potential effects of climate change on its 

resources. 

Approximately one-third of the refuge 

boundary (north and portion of east 

side) has been surveyed and signed. The 

lack of a complete boundary survey has 

prevented any potential land acquisition 

opportunities. The refuge would manage 

potential encroachment issues by 

working with adjacent landowners to 

remove any unauthorized structures or 

water diversion equipment. The refuge 

has a flowage easement to drain water 

via a creek through Lake Irma to the 

Alapaha River. The Georgia Department 

of Transportation has a 1,100-acre 

wetland mitigation area that lies 

adjacent to the refuge. No cooperative 

management agreement would be 

developed for that land. Archaeological 

and historical resources management 

would be minimal under the current 

alternative, with surveys having been 

conducted at the old mill and dam sites. 

Law enforcement would consist of an 

intermittent presence of refuge staff, as 

well as county and city officers. 

The refuge currently does not collect 

an entrance fee. Visitor welcome and 

orientation information is provided by 

an onsite kiosk, while the concession 

operation also provides information to 

visitors. State directional signs are in 

place. The refuge has onsite volunteers 

for a majority of the year. Outreach 

efforts consist of periodic articles 

submitted to the local media and public 

notices issued for proposed actions. 

Hunting is currently not permitted on 

the refuge, and under this alternative 

this activity would not be evaluated for 

potential authorization. The refuge is 

open year-round, both day and night, for 

fishing. There is an access area and 

well-established fishing pier at the 

entrance area. In addition, an annual 

kids’ fishing day is held in collaboration 

with partners. Periodic drawdowns are 

conducted to enhance fisheries. Under 

this alternative, fishing opportunities 

would likely remain unchanged. 

Wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities are relatively limited and 

would not increase appreciably under 

this alternative. The concession offers 

canoe and kayak rentals, while a boat 

ramp allows the launching of private 

watercraft. The fishing pier offers 

limited wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities. The refuge 

does not offer any other recreational 

opportunities, and camping is not 

permitted. 

In the absence of a friends group, the 

Okefenokee Wildlife League provides 

assistance at Banks Lake NWR. 

Generally, a volunteer is stationed at the 

refuge year-round, with travel trailer 

and hook-up provided. 

Since no staff is permanently assigned 

to the refuge, volunteers and 

Okefenokee NWR staff provide the 

majority of the management. Some 

duties are also contracted out to the 

concessionaire. Staffing is not expected 

to change under this alternative. Refuge 

infrastructure (e.g., concession, access 

area, water control structure, restrooms, 

sewage system, city water, piers, 

walkways, boat ramp, hiking trail, 

volunteer housing and recreational 

vehicle pad, parking lot, boat storage 

area, and entrance sign) would be 

repaired as needed under this 

alternative. With regard to 

intergovernmental coordination, the 

refuge would continue to meet 

periodically with a number of Federal, 

State, and local entities to update them 

on refuge programs and planned 

activities. 

Alternative B—Expanded Management 

by the Service (Proposed Alternative) 

Management would include 

monitoring efforts to determine trends 

(relative numbers and use patterns) for 

wood storks and round-tailed muskrats. 

Management for bald eagles would 

remain at current levels. The refuge 

would continue to ban alligator hunting 

until population data are available. It 

would increase public awareness of the 

dangers of feeding alligators. In 

addition, the refuge would work with 

the State to respond appropriately to 

nuisance alligator complaints and to 

monitor alligator populations. The 

refuge would coordinate surveys for 

listed plant species. 

For migratory birds, the refuge would 

determine trends in relative numbers 

and use patterns through monitoring of 

waterfowl, wading birds, marshbirds, 

and raptors. The refuge would conduct 

breeding bird surveys for neotropical 

migratory birds. With regard to birdaircraft collision minimization efforts 

carried out by MAFB, the refuge would 

increase surveys and data-sharing 

regarding wildlife services. 

Management of nonnative and 

nuisance species would increase. The 

refuge would establish boat and trailer 

cleaning stations. An annual weed 

control program would be developed, 

with a goal of keeping area coverage of 

water hyacinths to less than 20 percent. 

It would expand survey efforts for 

nonnative aquatic wildlife species of 

regional concern and increase public 

awareness to promote early detection. 

The refuge would survey lands for 

nonnative species on a 3-year cycle, and 

work with partners to identify, locate, 

control, and eliminate (where possible) 

exotic species. 

Under this alternative, habitat 

management would be expanded. For 

Banks Lake NWR, the refuge would 

identify benchmarks for initiating 

drawdowns. In addition, the refuge 

would map and classify vegetation 

communities sufficient to manage 

habitat to achieve the refuge mission 

and the goals recommended in the 

Grand Bay–Banks Lake Habitat Site 

Conservation Plan. 

For native fishes, the refuge would 

expand Alternative A with a creel 

survey. It would also work with the 

State to develop a trophy largemouth 

bass sports fishery. With respect to 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 26885 

reptiles and amphibians, the refuge 

would obtain baseline information and 

determine population trends through 

increased monitoring. 

The management of refuge water 

resources would increase under this 

alternative. The refuge would establish 

a permanent water quality monitoring 

system. In addition, a contaminants 

monitoring regime for septic, non-point 

source pollution, and urban/agricultural 

runoff would be established. Water 

quantity would be managed the same as 

under Alternative A. Furthermore, the 

refuge would establish water budgets, 

fill drain curves, and other important 

hydrological parameters for Banks Lake. 

It would also collaborate with 

downstream landowners to maximize 

drawdown capabilities. 

The refuge would institute 

management activities to address the 

impacts of climate change on refuge 

resources. The refuge would coordinate 

with researchers and partners to identify 

climate change research needs for the 

refuge, investigating the impacts of 

climate change on fish and wildlife, 

listed species, vegetative communities, 

water quality and quantity, and other 

important resources. 

Management of the refuge would 

focus on the lands and waters where the 

Service is confident that it has 

jurisdiction. Additional title work and a 

complete survey of the boundary would 

be required to settle any issue regarding 

the refuge boundary. The refuge would 

establish an acquisition boundary and 

purchase land from willing sellers as 

funding becomes available. It would 

identify potential threats early in the 

planning process and work 

cooperatively with local planning 

departments and elected officials to 

protect the refuge from the impacts of 

urbanization. The refuge would 

establish formal cooperative agreements 

with adjacent landowners to maintain 

the Banks Lake flowage easement. It 

would also negotiate a long-term 

management agreement with the State to 

manage the wetland mitigation area as 

part of the refuge. The refuge would 

conduct a cultural resource survey of 

remaining uplands. The law 

enforcement presence on the refuge 

would be increased as the public use 

program expanded. 

Under this alternative, the refuge 

would evaluate the potential for an 

entrance fee program. The refuge would 

create a refuge brochure with map. 

Regular information would be provided 

to the public, with updates on refuge 

activities and wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities. 

A compatibility determination for 

hunting would be carried out, and 

hunting could be authorized under this 

alternative if adequate opportunities 

and resources are determined to be 

available. The refuge would also 

develop trophy warm-water fishing 

opportunities through the use of slot 

and bag limits. 

For wildlife viewing and photography 

opportunities, the refuge would develop 

a bird list and provide programs that 

help the public develop wildlife 

viewing and photography skills. In 

addition, marked boat trail(s) would be 

established in the deeper water 

channels of the lake to provide access to 

fishing and wildlife viewing areas. The 

refuge would also evaluate a new canoe 

trail. 

To expand environmental education 

and interpretation, the refuge would 

establish a formal program with local 

schools and Grand Bay Environmental 

Center to facilitate these programs on 

the refuge. It would also add 

infrastructure to assist in these efforts. 

Other recreational opportunities 

would be the same as under Alternative 

A. In addition to Alternative A, the 

refuge would encourage commercial 

visitor services appropriate with the 

priority public uses as defined in the 

Improvement Act. 

The refuge would also develop a 

friends group. It would expand 

Alternative A by developing an active 

local volunteer group. 

Under Alternative B, the following 

permanent, full-time staff would be 

assigned to the refuge: Refuge 

Operations Specialist, Wildlife 

Biologist, Maintenance worker, and Park 

Ranger. In addition, a shared Fisheries 

Biologist would work at the refuge on a 

part-time basis. With regard to 

infrastructure, the refuge would add an 

office and workspace in the visitor 

contact area to accommodate any staff 

permanently assigned to the refuge. It 

would work with State and local 

authorities to place refuge information 

signs on Interstate 75. 

Intergovernmental coordination and 

partnerships would remain the same as 

under Alternative A. 

Alternative C—Cooperative 

Administration With State Natural 

Resource Agencies 

Under this alternative, management of 

woodstorks and bald eagles would 

include obtaining population trend data. 

Additionally, nesting platforms would 

be constructed to increase breeding 

opportunities on the refuge, with the 

added benefit of increasing photography 

and observation opportunities if these 

efforts were successful. For alligators, 

the refuge would work with the State to 

determine population trends. In 

addition, educational programs would 

be developed to help minimize alligatorhuman conflicts. Management of roundtailed muskrats and State-listed plants 

would be the same as under Alternative 

B. Management of migratory birds 

would be similar to that under 

Alternative B, with the exception that 

photo blinds would be constructed to 

provide more birding opportunities. 

Management of native fishes would be 

increased by working with the State to 

develop a stocking program, as 

warranted. For herpetological and 

nonnative species, habitats, water 

resources, and climate change 

management would be the same as 

under Alternative B. 

Management of the refuge boundary 

and cultural resources would be the 

same as under Alternative B. The refuge 

would support land acquisition by 

partners to develop public State lands 

adjacent to the refuge. It would also 

develop a long-term management 

agreement with State natural resource 

agencies to manage current refuge 

access and the concession area. Under 

this alternative, these State entities 

would provide additional law 

enforcement on the refuge, and the State 

lands would provide additional access 

points to the public. Law enforcement 

would be shared between the State and 

the Service. 

Under this alternative, the refuge 

would coordinate the potential for an 

entrance fee program with the State. The 

State would also be the primary 

information provider to the public. 

Hunting and fishing opportunities 

would be the same as under Alternative 

B. 

The State would be responsible for 

developing wildlife observation and 

photography opportunities on the 

refuge, including adding new trails (e.g., 

land or boat). The State would also be 

responsible for all environmental 

education and interpretation 

opportunities on the refuge. 

The State entities would develop 

nearby camping and other recreational 

opportunities on their land. Meanwhile, 

the refuge would continue to issue 

special use permits for commercial 

visitor services on refuge lands and 

waters. 

The State entities and refuge would 

seek to establish a friends group and 

volunteer program to support both 

units. 

Under this alternative, the refuge 

would establish the following 

permanent, full-time positions: Refuge 

Operations Specialist and Wildlife 

Biologist. A shared Fisheries Biologist 

would work part-time on the refuge. 

Any other positions would be provided 

26886 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 106 / Thursday, June 4, 2009 / Notices 

by the State. The operation and 

maintenance of the current facilities 

would become the responsibility of the 

State entities. In addition to the 

intergovernmental coordination 

required under Alternative A, a longterm management agreement with the 

State natural resource agencies would 

be needed for them to administer the 

current recreation area and facility. 

Partnerships would remain as under 

Alternative A. 

Next Step 

After the comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them. 

Public Availability of Comments 

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 published under 

the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, Public 

Law 105–57. 

Dated: April 21, 2009. 

Jacquelyn B. Parrish, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–13036 Filed 6–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R9–FHC–2009–N113]; [94300–1122– 

0000–Z2] 

Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory 

Committee; Announcement of Public 

Meeting 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), will host a 

Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory 

Committee (Committee) meeting June 30 

through July 2, 2009. The meeting is 

open to the public. The meeting agenda 

will include reports from the Legal, 

Science Tools & Procedures, and 

Synthesis Subcommittees, and 

discussion of the current draft 

Recommendations to the Secretary. 

DATES: The meeting is scheduled for 

June 30 through July 2, 2009. The 

sessions will be 8 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. June 

30, 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. July 1, and 8 a.m. 

to 3:30 p.m. July 2. 

ADDRESSES: Austin Convention Center, 

500 E. Cesar Chavez, Austin, TX 78701. 

For more information, see ‘‘Meeting 

Location Information.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel London, Division of Habitat and 

Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Department of the 

Interior, (703) 358–2161. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 13, 2007, the Department of 

the Interior published a notice of 

establishment of the Committee and call 

for nominations in the Federal Register 

(72 FR 11373). The Committee’s 

purpose is to provide advice and 

recommendations to the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) on developing 

effective measures to avoid or minimize 

impacts to wildlife and their habitats 

related to land-based wind energy 

facilities. The Committee is expected to 

exist for 2 years and meet approximately 

four times per year, and its continuation 

is subject to biennial renewal. All 

Committee members serve without 

compensation. In accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 

U.S.C. App.), a copy of the Committee’s 

charter has been filed with the 

Committee Management Secretariat, 

General Services Administration; 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, U.S. Senate; Committee on 

Natural Resources, U.S. House of 

Representatives; and the Library of 

Congress. The Secretary appointed 22 

individuals to the Committee on 

October 24, 2007, representing the 

varied interests associated with wind 

energy development and its potential 

impacts to wildlife species and their 

habitats. The Service held five 

Committee meetings in 2008, and has 

held four meetings in 2009. All 

Committee meetings are open to the 

public. The public has an opportunity to 

comment at all Committee meetings. 

Meeting Location Information 

Please note that the meeting location 

is accessible to wheelchair users. If you 

require additional accommodations, 

please notify us at least 2 weeks in 

advance of the meeting. 

Persons planning to attend the 

meeting must register at http:// 

www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/ 

windpower/ 

wind_turbine_advisory_committee.html, 

by June 23, 2009. Seating is limited due 

to room capacity. We will give 

preference to registrants based on date 

and time of registration. Limited 

standing room will be available if all 

seats are filled. 

Dated: May 29, 2009. 

David J. Stout, 

Designated Federal Officer, Wind Turbine 

Guidelines Advisory Committee. 

[FR Doc. E9–13012 Filed 6–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLCAD06000, L14300000.0000; CACA 

50611] 

Public Land Order No. 7732; Partial 

Revocation of Power Site Reserve No. 

530; California 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Public land order. 

SUMMARY: This order partially revokes a 

withdrawal created by an Executive 

Order insofar as it affects approximately 

11 acres of public land withdrawn for 

Power Site Reserve No. 530. This order 

also opens the land to exchange. 

DATES: Effective Date: June 4, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Duane Marti, Realty Specialist, at (916) 

978–4675 or via e-mail at 

Duane_Marti@ca.blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Executive Order withdrew those 

portions of the public lands lying within 

50 feet of the centerline of a proposed 

right-of-way shown on a map included 

in the 1914 application filed by the 

Coachella Valley Ice and Electric 

Company. The transmission line was 

taken out of service and removed in 

1939. The Bureau of Land Management 

has determined that the withdrawal is 

no longer needed for that purpose and 

the partial revocation is needed to 

facilitate a pending land exchange. 

Order 

By virtue of the authority vested in 

the Secretary of the Interior by Section 

204 of the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 

1714 (2000), it is ordered as follows: 

1. The Executive Order dated May 25, 

1916, which established Power Site 

Reserve No. 530, is hereby revoked 

insofar as it affects the following 

described land: 

San Bernardino Meridian 

All portions of the following described 

lands lying within 50 feet of the center line 

of the right of way granted to Coachella 

Valley Ice and Electric Company: 

T. 3 S., R. 5 E.,